The Rogues Skill Mastery is unbalanced until around level 10 or so where the rest of the group catches up getting a +10 or the equivalent to their various specialties.
The Rogue automatically gets a 13-16 on any skill they know. This means that they can just about auto-succeed on anything that is in the super human level of difficulty.
If you take a look at the adventure there isn't a single diplomacy check below 16 which means the pre-gen Rogue that has Diplomacy can take a 1 and still get 16 on their checks and succeed on the checks.
I personally think this is unbalanced.
You wouldn't give the fighter the ability to take a 10 on their attack die roll if they rolled less than 10 would you? (that's if they roll a natural 6 they would up that to 10 then add their bonuses on top of the 10)
You wouldn't make the Wizard and Cleric spell targets when they make saving throws take a 10 if they got higher than 10 on the die roll would you?
I didn't think so. WotC really needs to come up with a different mechanic for skill mastery. Personally just the ability to take +3 instead of your ability modifier sounds like a huge boost to me.
Alternatively just allow them to reroll once if they get less than 10. This would not be advantage. It would be a separate mechanic and stack with advantage/disadvantage. So there would be no way to take it away.
What do you think?
The Rogues Skill Mastery is unbalanced until around level 10 or so where the rest of the group catches up getting a +10 or the equivalent to their various specialties.The Rogue automatically gets a 13-16 on any skill they know. This means that they c
I'm sure that this will be addressed in future playtest material, as it has been a bone of contention since it was released. I can't swear that they'll fix it, but hey...here's hoping.
I'm sure that this will be addressed in future playtest material, as it has been a bone of contention since it was released. I can't swear that they'll fix it, but hey...here's hoping.
I'm sure that this will be addressed in future playtest material, as it has been a bone of contention since it was released. I can't swear that they'll fix it, but hey...here's hoping.
Yes, the whole "soon" fallacy.
I'd rather point it out, and be told flat out its staying in, than not point it out and find out that they missed the problem and left it in...
Yes, the whole "soon" fallacy. I'd rather point it out, and be told flat out its staying in, than not point it out and find out that they missed the problem and left it in...
As I said in the other thread, while I think that some of the features still need some work (because they could be more fun to use rather than anything else), it is important to note that a spot of localized imbalance doesn't equate to overall imbalance. So, once again, I don't agree with you.
Specifically, yes, the rogue is more effective at using skills than any other class. He is supposed to be. That is the rogue’s area of localized imbalance. Using skills is where the rogue shines. He pays for it be being less effective than the other classes in other areas: He doesn't have the wizard's versatility or AoE capabilities, in most situations he has a lower DPR than the fighter (as its hard to get advantage more often than once every other round, the rogue often forgoes an attack in order to gain advantage, and the rogue deals less damage than a fighter without advantage), he is less survivable than the fighter, and lacks the cleric's healing and buffing capabilities. What he has is more potent capabilities when it comes to using his skills (and more trained skills in general). That is not imbalanced, overall.
So yes, the rogue is better at using skills. He is, however, supposed to be. And, the rogue is not overpowered overall, and is fairly balanced overall.
That being said, I think CarlT’s suggestions (from another thread), when it comes to rules relating to skill use, would be more fun.
As I said in the other thread, while I think that some of the features still need some work (because they could be more fun to use rather than anything else), it is important to note that a spot of localized imbalance doesn't equate to overall imbala
I think it's less unbalanced than it is less fun - automatic success isn't particularly active or engaging. The Rogue should still be the best at at skills, but they shouldn't be such a gimme that using anyone else would be a waste of time.
Here's how I'd fix the Rogue's abilities:
Skill Mastery:
Benefit: When you determine the bonus for each of your skills, you use your associated ability modifier or +3, whichever is higher.
Additionally, when you make a check using any of your skills, you automatically have Advantage.
Knack:
Benefit: Twice per day, when you make a check using any of your skills, you can take 10 or the result of the die roll, then add any modifier.
This way, the Rogue is still really good at skills, with a starting +6 even for skills that they have a low ability modifier in, and Advantage gives them a good chance at success and a way to hopefully avoid that natural 1, but they still have to roll and there's a possibility that they might fail.
At the same time, for those situations in which a Rogue absolutely needs to succeed, they've got a get-out-jail-free card (sometimes literally) with an auto-16, but they still have to ration their Knack resources.
I think it's less unbalanced than it is less fun - automatic success isn't particularly active or engaging. The Rogue should still be the best at at skills, but they shouldn't be such a gimme that using anyone else would be a waste of time.Here's how
As I said in the other thread, while I think that some of the features still need some work (because they could be more fun to use rather than anything else), it is important to note that a spot of localized imbalance doesn't equate to overall imbalance. So, once again, I don't agree with you.
Specifically, yes, the rogue is more effective at using skills than any other class. He is supposed to be. That is the rogue’s area of localized imbalance. Using skills is where the rogue shines. He pays for it be being less effective than the other classes in other areas: He doesn't have the wizard's versatility or AoE capabilities, in most situations he has a lower DPR than the fighter (as its hard to get advantage more often than once every other round, the rogue often forgoes an attack in order to gain advantage, and the rogue deals less damage than a fighter without advantage), he is less survivable than the fighter, and lacks the cleric's healing and buffing capabilities. What he has is more potent capabilities when it comes to using his skills (and more trained skills in general). That is not imbalanced, overall.
So yes, the rogue is better at using skills. He is, however, supposed to be. And, the rogue is not overpowered overall, and is fairly balanced overall.
That being said, I think CarlT’s suggestions (from another thread), when it comes to rules relating to skill use, would be more fun.
I agree totally. One of the best things about the rogue in D&DNext is that players who play the rogue are not frightened to do rogue-like things because they have the safety net of high scores and the "take 10" fall-back. The rogue in my games will now scout ahead. He'll try to spy. He'll duck out of view to try to sneak attack. If he was not as proficient, and did not have superior skills (or mechanisms to nearly guarantee success), he wouldn't waste his time doing some of these things. These proficiencies are his specialty, and in my games his abilty to succeed has not overshadowed other PCs in the party.
I know the "take 10" is not for everyone, but I kind of like it. I do however add one small change to make the rogue player sweat just a little. In situations where the rogue would auto succeed on a check (for example DC 16 lock or trap...for a Rogue with training and Dex bonus of +3), I will make the player roll a d20. If he rolls a natural "1", a throw in a complication!!! Even though the chance of rolling a "1" is small, it still makes the rogue player sweat a little, but it does not stop him from attempting interesting actions.
Another benefit to the auto success is that it speeds up the game. Even when I ask the player to roll the d20 it is fast because all we look for is if the die roll is a "1".
I agree totally. One of the best things about the rogue in D&DNext is that players who play the rogue are not frightened to do rogue-like things because they have the safety net of high scores and the "take 10" fall-back. The rogue in my games wil
Why not just give the Rogue Advantage with all trained skills and be done with it?
The problem with Skill Mastery isn't balance, it's boredom. It obviates the need to roll at all , which robs us of fun. I felt the same way about the original Slayer versus kobolds in the 1st packet... hit or miss, same effect. Boring.
Why not just give the Rogue Advantage with all trained skills and be done with it? The problem with Skill Mastery isn't balance, it's boredom. It obviates the need to roll at all , which robs us of fun. I felt the same way about the original Slaye
Why not just give the Rogue Advantage with all trained skills and be done with it?
The problem with Skill Mastery isn't balance, it's boredom. It obviates the need to roll at all , which robs us of fun. I felt the same way about the original Slayer versus kobolds in the 1st packet... hit or miss, same effect. Boring.
The problem with giving them advantage automatically is that there is no way to reward them for a clever idea. Advantage does not stack. But, a rule that a natural roll of a 1 still counts as a roll of a 1 instead of a 10 might help. Its only a 5% chance that the rogue will fail on a skill check of less than 16, but it will keep the roll important, and it will keep the rogue sweating. Also, I think the automatic stat bonus should be +2 instead of +3 (meaning that the minimum roll is 15 instead of 16). I think that would keep the mechanic more fun without nerfing it too much. As others have said, the faith that a rogue has in his skill use is what keeps the rogue's playstyle viable.
In combat, however, I think CarlT's idea would work best. That is to say, I think rogue's should only be able to take that automatic 10 outside of combat. In combat, a rogue may use one action to perform two skill checks (instead of only one skill check). So, a rogue could tumble and hide, hide and search for traps, balance over a thin beam silently, or whatever other combination of two skill checks simultaneously.
The problem with giving them advantage automatically is that there is no way to reward them for a clever idea. Advantage does not stack. But, a rule that a natural roll of a 1 still counts as a roll of a 1 instead of a 10 might help. Its only a 5% ch
I hate Skill Mastery as it is, myself, and think it's not just overpowered, but boring, too. Rogues are the skill guys, so they're rewarded by...never needing to roll any skills. They make skill checks lessexciting for the class dedicated to skill use. Lame.
Personally, I think Skill Mastery should just give the Rogue Advantage on all checks. Or better yet (so that they can get Advantage as well), give them the ability to reroll once if they don't like the result.
I hate Skill Mastery as it is, myself, and think it's not just overpowered, but boring, too. Rogues are the skill guys, so they're rewarded by...never needing to roll any skills. They make skill checks less exciting for the class dedicated to skill
I kind of like the idea of not having to roll for things that you're easily capable of doing. If you have a Rogue with a 20 dex, training in acrobatics (when it comes out), etc. Why should you have to bother rolling to swing with a rope and jump off? At that point doing some thing like that should be child's play. How often to trapeze artists fall? If some one is trained in acrobatics and is at the mortal peak of dexterity they certainly should be able to do trapeze artist stuff reliably. Any thing less than that why give them the chance of failure and thus the chance that the player will decide not to do that awesome thing?
So how about this solution? When you make a check with a skill you're trained in if you would succeed on a result of 5 or higher you automatically succeed. The number would go up with levels as it currently does. Is that a fair middle ground?
I kind of like the idea of not having to roll for things that you're easily capable of doing. If you have a Rogue with a 20 dex, training in acrobatics (when it comes out), etc. Why should you have to bother rolling to swing with a rope and jump off?
I have decided if sm allows the rogue to resist the spell casters invisibility and other encroaching spells .... its all good. (we dont know what those will look like do we?)
In other words we dont have enough to know what the full balance/imbalance or swing factor of this game is.
One of the problems of the 1e thief was it was incredibly lame at doing what it did better to be safe than lame.
I might agree SM isnt very interesting or exciting.
I have decided if sm allows the rogue to resist the spell casters invisibility and other encroaching spells .... its all good. (we dont know what those will look like do we?)In other words we dont have enough to know what the full balance/imbalance o
The problem with giving them advantage automatically is that there is no way to reward them for a clever idea. Advantage does not stack. But, a rule that a natural roll of a 1 still counts as a roll of a 1 instead of a 10 might help. Its only a 5% chance that the rogue will fail on a skill check of less than 16, but it will keep the roll important, and it will keep the rogue sweating. Also, I think the automatic stat bonus should be +2 instead of +3 (meaning that the minimum roll is 15 instead of 16). I think that would keep the mechanic more fun without nerfing it too much. As others have said, the faith that a rogue has in his skill use is what keeps the rogue's playstyle viable.
In combat, however, I think CarlT's idea would work best. That is to say, I think rogue's should only be able to take that automatic 10 outside of combat. In combat, a rogue may use one action to perform two skill checks (instead of only one skill check). So, a rogue could tumble and hide, hide and search for traps, balance over a thin beam silently, or whatever other combination of two skill checks simultaneously.
Then let Advantage stack (once) in this particular case?
I would change the "fake stat bonus" effect to a simple "ignore negative modifiers for skills" effect. The Rogue's ability choices should matter, even for their skills.
Increase the Rogue's Training bonus to +5 instead of +3, but cap the sum skill mod for everyone at +10 (including training bonus, ability modifiers, item bonuses, circumstance bonues, and so on).
Then let Advantage stack (once) in this particular case? I would change the "fake stat bonus" effect to a simple "ignore negative modifiers for skills" effect. The Rogue's ability choices should matter, even for their skills. Increase the Rogue's
I don't think it's overpowered, but I do find skills in DDN exceedingly boring, and Rogues are currently the only class in the game that seems even remotely better at using them compared to your average commoner.
I don't think it's overpowered, but I do find skills in DDN exceedingly boring, and Rogues are currently the only class in the game that seems even remotely better at using them compared to your average commoner.
Making it a reroll instead of calling it advantage would work. But, the rest seems overly complicated Ryan.
Like an avenger getting guidance from the divine... it isnt advantage against their enemies it would be a re-roll. I was wondering if an Avenger should have Advantage against there favored enemy but making it combine with advantage makes advantage still valuable (well somewhat).
Like an avenger getting guidance from the divine... it isnt advantage against their enemies it would be a re-roll. I was wondering if an Avenger should have Advantage against there favored enemy but making it combine with advantage makes advantage st
I play a rogue in the playtest and I really like it, it allows me to scout ahead and not slow the game down with a bunch of rolls. In previous games the rogue was always afraid to get too far ahead of the party for fear of the dice. This makes a rogue be able to fulfill a roll, otherwise hard to do with the wonkiness of a 20 sided dice.
I play a rogue in the playtest and I really like it, it allows me to scout ahead and not slow the game down with a bunch of rolls. In previous games the rogue was always afraid to get too far ahead of the party for fear of the dice. This makes a ro
But, a rule that a natural roll of a 1 still counts as a roll of a 1 instead of a 10 might help. Its only a 5% chance that the rogue will fail on a skill check of less than 16, but it will keep the roll important, and it will keep the rogue sweating.
Eh..only issue I really see with this is that it means a Rogue will either completely fail horribly at something, or pass it with flying colors with no middle ground.
Eh..only issue I really see with this is that it means a Rogue will either completely fail horribly at something, or pass it with flying colors with no middle ground.
But, a rule that a natural roll of a 1 still counts as a roll of a 1 instead of a 10 might help. Its only a 5% chance that the rogue will fail on a skill check of less than 16, but it will keep the roll important, and it will keep the rogue sweating.
Eh..only issue I really see with this is that it means a Rogue will either completely fail horribly at something, or pass it with flying colors with no middle ground.
Which is a problem with the whole skill system: No real middle ground. It's all binary success or failure, with minor modifiers to make it seem like one character is vaguely better.
Eh..only issue I really see with this is that it means a Rogue will either completely fail horribly at something, or pass it with flying colors with no middle ground.[/quote]Which is a problem with the whole skill system: No real middle ground. It's
Humerously, at PAX, my Kobolds where routinely detecting the two rogues in my party by my rolling high on my group check (I was only rolling once for the groups of 8 Kobolds they kept running into in the worm writhings, I rolled 19 (20-1), 18 (19-1) and 17 (18-1). It was humerous and ridiculous all at the same time. Imagine if I'd rolled 8 separate checks, one is almost sure to succeed.
Humerously, at PAX, my Kobolds where routinely detecting the two rogues in my party by my rolling high on my group check (I was only rolling once for the groups of 8 Kobolds they kept running into in the worm writhings, I rolled 19 (20-1), 18 (19-1)
I play a rogue in the playtest and I really like it, it allows me to scout ahead and not slow the game down with a bunch of rolls. In previous games the rogue was always afraid to get too far ahead of the party for fear of the dice. This makes a rogue be able to fulfill a roll, otherwise hard to do with the wonkiness of a 20 sided dice.
Exactly.
At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll.
Exactly.At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll.
I play a rogue in the playtest and I really like it, it allows me to scout ahead and not slow the game down with a bunch of rolls. In previous games the rogue was always afraid to get too far ahead of the party for fear of the dice. This makes a rogue be able to fulfill a roll, otherwise hard to do with the wonkiness of a 20 sided dice.
Exactly.
At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll.
Would having one reroll on anything under a 10 make it a funner experience? They get to roll dice and they have a chance to succeed greater or still fail. If they have advantage they can roll it with both rolls so it multiplies the effectiveness of the roll...
Exactly.At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll. [/quote]Would having one reroll on anything under a 10 make it a funner experience? They get to roll dice a
I play a rogue in the playtest and I really like it, it allows me to scout ahead and not slow the game down with a bunch of rolls. In previous games the rogue was always afraid to get too far ahead of the party for fear of the dice. This makes a rogue be able to fulfill a roll, otherwise hard to do with the wonkiness of a 20 sided dice.
Exactly.
At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll.
Would having one reroll on anything under a 10 make it a funner experience? They get to roll dice and they have a chance to succeed greater or still fail. If they have advantage they can roll it with both rolls so it multiplies the effectiveness of the roll...
It would certainly take more time. Don't know if it would be more fun.
Exactly.At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll. [/quote]Would having one reroll on anything under a 10 make it a funner experience? They get to roll dice a
I play a rogue in the playtest and I really like it, it allows me to scout ahead and not slow the game down with a bunch of rolls. In previous games the rogue was always afraid to get too far ahead of the party for fear of the dice. This makes a rogue be able to fulfill a roll, otherwise hard to do with the wonkiness of a 20 sided dice.
Exactly.
At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll.
Would having one reroll on anything under a 10 make it a funner experience? They get to roll dice and they have a chance to succeed greater or still fail. If they have advantage they can roll it with both rolls so it multiplies the effectiveness of the roll...
It would certainly take more time. Don't know if it would be more fun.
If this mechanic is so great why not let the fighter take 10 on their attack rolls if they roll under 10? Because that's exactly what this mechanic is doing for Rogues. It lets them totally dominate the exploration pillar and if they pick the right background the social pillar. heck it allows them to just about auto-succeed at stealth checks. Then to add insult to injury they can reroll 2 'checks' at level 2. So even if they don't have social skills they can reroll them...
Exactly.At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll. [/quote]Would having one reroll on anything under a 10 make it a funner experience? They get to roll dice a
I play a rogue in the playtest and I really like it, it allows me to scout ahead and not slow the game down with a bunch of rolls. In previous games the rogue was always afraid to get too far ahead of the party for fear of the dice. This makes a rogue be able to fulfill a roll, otherwise hard to do with the wonkiness of a 20 sided dice.
Exactly.
At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll.
Would having one reroll on anything under a 10 make it a funner experience? They get to roll dice and they have a chance to succeed greater or still fail. If they have advantage they can roll it with both rolls so it multiplies the effectiveness of the roll...
It would certainly take more time. Don't know if it would be more fun.
If this mechanic is so great why not let the fighter take 10 on their attack rolls if they roll under 10? Because that's exactly what this mechanic is doing for Rogues. It lets them totally dominate the exploration pillar and if they pick the right background the social pillar. heck it allows them to just about auto-succeed at stealth checks. Then to add insult to injury they can reroll 2 'checks' at level 2. So even if they don't have social skills they can reroll them...
It's impossible to "auto-succeed" at stealth checks, since it's basically a contest, not a straight up skill check.
Same thing with the social sphere. Social is mostly contests.
The truth is, that the minimum of 10 in skill mastery fits nicely with the rules to the DM regarding how and when to make checks and social interactions in the first place.
The leeway given to the DM for checks and social interactions is explicitly removed when it comes to combat.
Exactly.At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll. [/quote]Would having one reroll on anything under a 10 make it a funner experience? They get to roll dice a
I play a rogue in the playtest and I really like it, it allows me to scout ahead and not slow the game down with a bunch of rolls. In previous games the rogue was always afraid to get too far ahead of the party for fear of the dice. This makes a rogue be able to fulfill a roll, otherwise hard to do with the wonkiness of a 20 sided dice.
Exactly.
At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll.
Would having one reroll on anything under a 10 make it a funner experience? They get to roll dice and they have a chance to succeed greater or still fail. If they have advantage they can roll it with both rolls so it multiplies the effectiveness of the roll...
It would certainly take more time. Don't know if it would be more fun.
If this mechanic is so great why not let the fighter take 10 on their attack rolls if they roll under 10? Because that's exactly what this mechanic is doing for Rogues. It lets them totally dominate the exploration pillar and if they pick the right background the social pillar. heck it allows them to just about auto-succeed at stealth checks. Then to add insult to injury they can reroll 2 'checks' at level 2. So even if they don't have social skills they can reroll them...
It's impossible to "auto-succeed" at stealth checks, since it's basically a contest, not a straight up skill check.
Same thing with the social sphere. Social is mostly contests.
The truth is, that the minimum of 10 in skill mastery fits nicely with the rules to the DM regarding how and when to make checks and social interactions in the first place.
The leeway given to the DM for checks and social interactions is explicitly removed when it comes to combat.
Leeway? Yeah, the skill section also talks about not being rigid with attack rolls, so guess what? it applies equally there...
"As a DM, you could memorize these guidelines, apply them flawlessly, and still miss out on the point of D&D. Unlike other games, D&D is a flexible set of guidelines, not a rigid set of laws. When you ask a player to make a check, an attack, or a saving throw, you first should focus on engaging the players’ imaginations."
Yes rarely in the social pillar the DM will roll a 17-20 and beat the 1st level rogues skill mastery roll of 10. That happens what 20% of the time. So the Rogue beats 80% of checks that are easy to super human in difficulty. That's not counting the chance for the Rogue to roll above 10, that makes it even worse. For checks that aren't opposed the suggestion is to set the DC to easy medium or hard. The Rogue will always succeed on those three (10, 13, 16). It even says you could run the whole game like that. So for the whole game the Rogue can just take '1' and succeed at every trained check they have and for the rare untrained check they can use their 'Knack' feature at level 2.
Exactly.At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll. [/quote]Would having one reroll on anything under a 10 make it a funner experience? They get to roll dice a
If this mechanic is so great why not let the fighter take 10 on their attack rolls if they roll under 10? Because that's exactly what this mechanic is doing for Rogues. It lets them totally dominate the exploration pillar and if they pick the right background the social pillar. heck it allows them to just about auto-succeed at stealth checks. Then to add insult to injury they can reroll 2 'checks' at level 2. So even if they don't have social skills they can reroll them...
The consequences of missing with an attack are not nearly as important as failing a skill check. The fighter can always retry the next round. If a rogue fails a pathetically low stealth check, he doesn't get to try again.
I do however agree that the rogue is a bit too good at what he does compared to the others. I personally blame this on the skill training mechanics and not on the skill mastery system.
This is how I would personally change things:
1) Skill Training: you use either a +3 modifier or your ability modifier +1. You automatically succeed any skill check with a DC of 10+modifier or lower. The big problem with the current skill training is that the bonus to skill checks is too high. Failing an easy check is boring and it makes a terrible story. Rolling for each and every skill check is just a waste of time too; it doesn't bring anything to the story.
2) Skill Mastery: the rogue can take 10 on all skill checks. The rogue uses either a +2 modifier or his ability modifier to skill checks on untrained checks. The rogue gains a +1 bonus to all trained skills. This makes the rogue better than the other classes with his trained skills and not as good as the others with his untrained skills. This leaves room for other characters in the group to shine at what they're supposed to be good at. A rogue trained in a skill always will be better and always should be better than a non rogue trained in that skill. This is what the class is all about (and not the overwhelming number of interesting tactical choices in combat...).
3) Knack: I would just change this to reroll a skill check you're not happy with. I would also limit this to trained skills. When a skill check really matters, you get a second chance. Because of the flatter bonuses from skill training, this isn't even close to an automatic success on harder checks.
4) Bonus skill training. I get it, in AD&D, you don't have skills. But come on, this was one of the worst parts of AD&D. Making this optional just makes the rogue class design a lot more complicated. The rogue should get a few bonus skills. He should also get extra points as he gains levels to increase his existing skill modifiers.
5) We need skill tricks! We need to be able to do things others can't! If you're playing a social dude, you want to be able to manipulate people like Patrick James in the Mentalist! With special training, you should be able to do things that others can't. And while we're at it, we should also get rid of the silly restriction that skill tricks should always be mundane. What kind of idiot would refuse to learn a little bit of magic if it can help him in his craft? If something doesn't make sense (like hide in plain sight), then it should be some kind of magical trick. And every class should get these, not just rogues. The rogues would only have better ones for their level. Instead of getting a boring +1 to skill checks, character should be able to purchase these. Skill tricks could be as simple as a circumstancial bonus to checks, something like a "Courtesan" trick that gives you a +2 bonus to Diplomacy checks with nobles and the other upper class dudes.
The consequences of missing with an attack are not nearly as important as failing a skill check. The fighter can always retry the next round. If a rogue fails a pathetically low stealth check, he doesn't get to try again. I do however agree that the
I play a rogue in the playtest and I really like it, it allows me to scout ahead and not slow the game down with a bunch of rolls. In previous games the rogue was always afraid to get too far ahead of the party for fear of the dice. This makes a rogue be able to fulfill a roll, otherwise hard to do with the wonkiness of a 20 sided dice.
Exactly.
At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll.
Would having one reroll on anything under a 10 make it a funner experience? They get to roll dice and they have a chance to succeed greater or still fail. If they have advantage they can roll it with both rolls so it multiplies the effectiveness of the roll...
It would certainly take more time. Don't know if it would be more fun.
If this mechanic is so great why not let the fighter take 10 on their attack rolls if they roll under 10? Because that's exactly what this mechanic is doing for Rogues. It lets them totally dominate the exploration pillar and if they pick the right background the social pillar. heck it allows them to just about auto-succeed at stealth checks. Then to add insult to injury they can reroll 2 'checks' at level 2. So even if they don't have social skills they can reroll them...
It's impossible to "auto-succeed" at stealth checks, since it's basically a contest, not a straight up skill check.
Same thing with the social sphere. Social is mostly contests.
The truth is, that the minimum of 10 in skill mastery fits nicely with the rules to the DM regarding how and when to make checks and social interactions in the first place.
The leeway given to the DM for checks and social interactions is explicitly removed when it comes to combat.
Leeway? Yeah, the skill section also talks about not being rigid with attack rolls, so guess what? it applies equally there...
"As a DM, you could memorize these guidelines, apply them flawlessly, and still miss out on the point of D&D. Unlike other games, D&D is a flexible set of guidelines, not a rigid set of laws. When you ask a player to make a check, an attack, or a saving throw, you first should focus on engaging the players’ imaginations."
Yes rarely in the social pillar the DM will roll a 17-20 and beat the 1st level rogues skill mastery roll of 10. That happens what 20% of the time. So the Rogue beats 80% of checks that are easy to super human in difficulty. That's not counting the chance for the Rogue to roll above 10, that makes it even worse. For checks that aren't opposed the suggestion is to set the DC to easy medium or hard. The Rogue will always succeed on those three (10, 13, 16). It even says you could run the whole game like that. So for the whole game the Rogue can just take '1' and succeed at every trained check they have and for the rare untrained check they can use their 'Knack' feature at level 2.
You seem to have this habbit of not reading up on terms that are defined.
" engaging the players’ imaginations.""
This then leads to the section entitled: Engaging the Players:
Under "attacks and Saving throws it says" "
Attacks and Saving Throws: A colorful description is nice for attacks and saving throws, but should rarely be the avenue to gaining a concrete game benefit, since it is too easy to abuse such an approach. You might have players endlessly describing how they resist a mind flayer’s mind blast or trying to narrate every detail of a
sword blow. In most cases, spells and special abilities serve to grant characters advantage on their attacks and saving throws. That said, if you feel the situation warrants it, use advantage to grant a character a well-earned edge. Disadvantage: Not every idea is a good one. A character might try to win the prince’s favor by bragging about all the bandits he slew, not realizing that the prince is an avowed pacifist. If an idea backfires on a player, apply disadvantage to the check or attack.
Exactly.At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll. [/quote]Would having one reroll on anything under a 10 make it a funner experience? They get to roll dice a
If something doesn't make sense (like hide in plain sight), then it should be some kind of magical trick. And every class should get these, not just rogues. T
The Lie to Me folks getting lie detection as a modern example.
In early legend and myth there were magics associated with any craft or field of endeavor. A Blacksmith had blacksmith magic it was deemed deep lore "arcane" and Yup - Warriors had warrior Magic, Kings had Kings Magic (call it Warlords magic if you like), so basically your Rogue being able to hide in plain sight is matched by the Warrior picking up an attack which sunders the earth opening a pit beneath enemies another that lets their shout be heard across the valley another which lets them gather their enemies power (head hunting anyone) or consume the flesh of a magical beast and absorb elements of its nature. The Kings Magic might include forging oaths and listening to the voices of their ancesters (a very blood-line based magic).
The Lie to Me folks getting lie detection as a modern example.In early legend and myth there were magics associated with any craft or field of endeavor. A Blacksmith had blacksmith magic it was deemed deep lore "arcane" and Yup - Warriors had warrior
If this mechanic is so great why not let the fighter take 10 on their attack rolls if they roll under 10? Because that's exactly what this mechanic is doing for Rogues. It lets them totally dominate the exploration pillar and if they pick the right background the social pillar. heck it allows them to just about auto-succeed at stealth checks. Then to add insult to injury they can reroll 2 'checks' at level 2. So even if they don't have social skills they can reroll them...
Combat and skill use are not analogous (despite both using a d20). Using a skill is a far less mechanically robust activity. Combat is more mechanically robust overall, and as a result takes longer/requires more rolls. That means that shining in combat must be slightly more subtle (by, say, having a better DPR, or a slightly better attack bonus, or the ability to inflict more conditions, or so on and so forth), as otherwise it will feel like the person who shines in combat is shining that much brighter for that much longer (over the course of a larger number of dice rolled). In contrast, because using a skill is such a quick mechanical operation, the ability to shine at that operation needs to be more obvious (or else players are not likely to feel like they are shining, as skill tasks require fewer rolls than combat, and the wonkiness of the d20 die is more likely to eat up the mechanical benefits/mechanical elements of localized imbalance provided to the skill user).
Combat and skill use are not analogous (despite both using a d20). Using a skill is a far less mechanically robust activity. Combat is more mechanically robust overall, and as a result takes longer/requires more rolls. That means that shining in comb
The Lie to Me folks getting lie detection as a modern example.
In early legend and myth there were magics associated with any craft or field of endeavor. A Blacksmith had blacksmith magic it was deemed deep lore "arcane" and Yup - Warriors had warrior Magic, Kings had Kings Magic (call it Warlords magic if you like), so basically your Rogue being able to hide in plain sight is matched by the Warrior picking up an attack which sunders the earth opening a pit beneath enemies another that lets their shout be heard across the valley another which lets them gather their enemies power (head hunting anyone) or consume the flesh of a magical beast and absorb elements of its nature. The Kings Magic might include forging oaths and listening to the voices of their ancesters (a very blood-line based magic).
My main issue with skill mastery being the "rogue" schtick is that it completely destroys the concepts of the arcane/divine sage. Yes, you can take Sage background, bully for you. But what about concepts that AREN'T a rogue, but ARE a skill monkey (ie lots of skills)? So is the only recourse is to use the specialty slot in some way? I know each class needs a place, but skill mastery should not be class-specific.
My main issue with skill mastery being the "rogue" schtick is that it completely destroys the concepts of the arcane/divine sage. Yes, you can take Sage background, bully for you. But what about concepts that AREN'T a rogue, but ARE a skill monkey (i
Each class should have skill mastery for skills related to their classes. And then rogues would have more than others, but not all. A rogue with skill mastery in Arcane Lore but Wizard and warlocks not having it makes little sense.
Each class should have skill mastery for skills related to their classes. And then rogues would have more than others, but not all. A rogue with skill mastery in Arcane Lore but Wizard and warlocks not having it makes little sense.
In a class based game, every class cannot have everything. If other classes should gain skill mastery, then rogues should get wizard spells and combat superiority dice. But nobody would be ok with that. For the very same reason, I am not ok with other classes getting skill mastery. Other classes can use skills, but it is rogues who shine when it comes to skill use. Other classes get to shine at other things. Anything else leaves rogues in the cold, and does imbalance the game (leaving rogues as one of the least useful classes).
In a class based game, every class cannot have everything. If other classes should gain skill mastery, then rogues should get wizard spells and combat superiority dice. But nobody would be ok with that. For the very same reason, I am not ok with othe
I think a rogue should have a set of "rogue" skills where his mastery applies but it should not apply to every skill in the book.
Which skills do you think are so obviously not rogue skills that the skill shouldn't apply?
Cause I bet you I can describe a rogue focusing on those abilities to define their "rogueness"
Which skills do you think are so obviously not rogue skills that the skill shouldn't apply?Cause I bet you I can describe a rogue focusing on those abilities to define their "rogueness"
In a class based game, every class cannot have everything. If other classes should gain skill mastery, then rogues should get wizard spells and combat superiority dice. But nobody would be ok with that. For the very same reason, I am not ok with other classes getting skill mastery. Other classes can use skills, but it is rogues who shine when it comes to skill use. Other classes get to shine at other things. Anything else leaves rogues in the cold, and does imbalance the game (leaving rogues as one of the least useful classes).
I agree that "every class cannot have everything", but skill "mastery" isn't the rogue's schtick. They should be more akin to the "jack of all trades" concept where they are functionally adept in all pillars, if not top tier in any. They should have something like the fighter's CS dice, where they can do more than just stabby-stab their way through their enemies, but be able to use those expertise dice in all three pillars, not just combat.
If you are insisting that skill mastery stay rogue-only, is the arcane/divine skill monkey not a valid concept for 5e? Or is it just that every character that knows lots of skills must also know how to inflict lethal wounds on their foes?
I agree that "every class cannot have everything", but skill "mastery" isn't the rogue's schtick. They should be more akin to the "jack of all trades" concept where they are functionally adept in all pillars, if not top tier in any. They should have
In a class based game, every class cannot have everything. If other classes should gain skill mastery, then rogues should get wizard spells and combat superiority dice. But nobody would be ok with that. For the very same reason, I am not ok with other classes getting skill mastery. Other classes can use skills, but it is rogues who shine when it comes to skill use. Other classes get to shine at other things. Anything else leaves rogues in the cold, and does imbalance the game (leaving rogues as one of the least useful classes).
I agree that "every class cannot have everything", but skill "mastery" isn't the rogue's schtick. They should be more akin to the "jack of all trades" concept where they are functionally adept in all pillars, if not top tier in any. They should have something like the fighter's CS dice, where they can do more than just stabby-stab their way through their enemies, but be able to use those expertise dice in all three pillars, not just combat.
If you are insisting that skill mastery stay rogue-only, is the arcane/divine skill monkey not a valid concept for 5e? Or is it just that every character that knows lots of skills must also know how to inflict lethal wounds on their foes?
The arcane/divine skill monkey casts spells, and doesn't do skill checks. You don't roll your stealth, the enemy rolls a saving throw against invisiblity. You don't roll for lockpicking, you cast "knock"
I agree that "every class cannot have everything", but skill "mastery" isn't the rogue's schtick. They should be more akin to the "jack of all trades" concept where they are functionally adept in all pillars, if not top tier in any. They should have
In a class based game, every class cannot have everything. If other classes should gain skill mastery, then rogues should get wizard spells and combat superiority dice. But nobody would be ok with that. For the very same reason, I am not ok with other classes getting skill mastery. Other classes can use skills, but it is rogues who shine when it comes to skill use. Other classes get to shine at other things. Anything else leaves rogues in the cold, and does imbalance the game (leaving rogues as one of the least useful classes).
It doesn't have to be black or white. Shining doesn't mean that everybody else must suck. Skills should be enjoyable for everyone, especially for rogues. Having all other classes automatically succeeding at skill checks of 13 or lower is certainly no big deal. It just means that you can't fail trivial tasks.
This should never happen to Bob the fighter:
DM: "There's a 10' chasm." Bob: "I jump over it." DM: "That's a DC 10 jump check." Bob (rolls a d20 and gets a 1): "Failed..." DM: "Sucks to be you. Roll a new character."
It doesn't have to be black or white. Shining doesn't mean that everybody else must suck. Skills should be enjoyable for everyone, especially for rogues. Having all other classes automatically succeeding at skill checks of 13 or lower is certainly no
In a class based game, every class cannot have everything. If other classes should gain skill mastery, then rogues should get wizard spells and combat superiority dice. But nobody would be ok with that. For the very same reason, I am not ok with other classes getting skill mastery. Other classes can use skills, but it is rogues who shine when it comes to skill use. Other classes get to shine at other things. Anything else leaves rogues in the cold, and does imbalance the game (leaving rogues as one of the least useful classes).
It doesn't have to be black or white. Shining doesn't mean that everybody else must suck. Skills should be enjoyable for everyone, especially for rogues. Having all other classes automatically succeeding at skill checks of 13 or lower is certainly no big deal. It just means that you can't fail trivial tasks.
This should never happen to Bob the fighter:
DM: "There's a 10' chasm." Bob: "I jump over it." DM: "That's a DC 10 jump check." Bob (rolls a d20 and gets a 1): "Failed..." DM: "Sucks to be you. Roll a new character."
Correct, what should happen is:
DM: "There's a 10' chasm." Bob: "I jump over it." DM: "That's a DC 10 jump check." Bob (rolls a d20 and gets a 1): "Failed..." DM: "Ouch! You run for your jump and realize you don't have the momentum to make it, you slip and grab onto the edge of the cliff."
It doesn't have to be black or white. Shining doesn't mean that everybody else must suck. Skills should be enjoyable for everyone, especially for rogues. Having all other classes automatically succeeding at skill checks of 13 or lower is certainly no
Why not have the minimum change to the result, not the roll. Up it a little, too. So if your result is less than... 13, say, it's always at least a 13. That's the edge of Moderate DCs, right? And as the rogue levels, this minimum would increase (perhaps once every two or three levels). I could see a rogue being able to do hard skill checks without even trying by level 10.
Why not have the minimum change to the result, not the roll. Up it a little, too. So if your result is less than... 13, say, it's always at least a 13. That's the edge of Moderate DCs, right? And as the rogue levels, this minimum would increase (perh
I think a rogue should have a set of "rogue" skills where his mastery applies but it should not apply to every skill in the book.
Which skills do you think are so obviously not rogue skills that the skill shouldn't apply?
Cause I bet you I can describe a rogue focusing on those abilities to define their "rogueness"
Well just because you have some skills that are rogue oriented doesn't mean he doesn't have the others. But I would think things like stealth, thievery, etc.... I'd guess that athletics or diplomacy aren't. I'm using 4e skills not 5e as I don't have it in front of me.
Another idea might be to allow some backgrounds to give you skill mastery in something.
Which skills do you think are so obviously not rogue skills that the skill shouldn't apply?Cause I bet you I can describe a rogue focusing on those abilities to define their "rogueness" [/quote]Well just because you have some skills that are rogue or
I think a rogue should have a set of "rogue" skills where his mastery applies but it should not apply to every skill in the book.
Which skills do you think are so obviously not rogue skills that the skill shouldn't apply?
Cause I bet you I can describe a rogue focusing on those abilities to define their "rogueness"
Well just because you have some skills that are rogue oriented doesn't mean he doesn't have the others. But I would think things like stealth, thievery, etc.... I'd guess that athletics or diplomacy aren't. I'm using 4e skills not 5e as I don't have it in front of me.
Another idea might be to allow some backgrounds to give you skill mastery in something.
Athletics = Thief that climbs buildings and roof tops Diplomacy = The Spy that Shagged me.
Which skills do you think are so obviously not rogue skills that the skill shouldn't apply?Cause I bet you I can describe a rogue focusing on those abilities to define their "rogueness" [/quote]Well just because you have some skills that are rogue or
My issue with this is the way it limits adventure design. That is, if I have a rogue in my party and want to use a trap, it has to be at the 'very hard' level to even have a chance of going undetected and actually mattering. At level 1 it seems like I should be able to use a 'moderate' or maybe 'hard' to detect trap. In my world it may not make sense for a band of kobolds to be expert trap-makers, but I still want them to use traps. If there is no rogue in my party, go for it. If there is a rogue, why bother? Locking a door? Only if you have masterwork locks, or no rogue in the party.
I think there needs to be a better solution. Maybe it is as simple as using 5 instead of 10. Make that number increase a little faster than it does currently. Maybe every other level (at least up to level 10) would work. A level 1 rogue auto-succeeding on an easy task (5(minimum) + 6(training + 3) = 11) ? Sounds good. By level 5 maybe he can auto succeed on a moderate task (7 + 6 = 13), by level 10 on a difficult task (assuming either an ability score bump or 1 additional skill point in the skill) (9 + 7 = 16).
My issue with this is the way it limits adventure design. That is, if I have a rogue in my party and want to use a trap, it has to be at the 'very hard' level to even have a chance of going undetected and actually mattering. At level 1 it seems like
My issue with this is the way it limits adventure design. That is, if I have a rogue in my party and want to use a trap, it has to be at the 'very hard' level to even have a chance of going undetected and actually mattering. At level 1 it seems like I should be able to use a 'moderate' or maybe 'hard' to detect trap. In my world it may not make sense for a band of kobolds to be expert trap-makers, but I still want them to use traps. If there is no rogue in my party, go for it. If there is a rogue, why bother? Locking a door? Only if you have masterwork locks, or no rogue in the party. I think there needs to be a better solution. Maybe it is as simple as using 5 instead of 10. Make that number increase a little faster than it does currently. Maybe every other level (at least up to level 10) would work. A level 1 rogue auto-succeeding on an easy task (5(minimum) + 6(training + 3) = 11) ? Sounds good. By level 5 maybe he can auto succeed on a moderate task (7 + 6 = 13), by level 10 on a difficult task (assuming either an ability score bump or 1 additional skill point in the skill) (9 + 7 = 16).
Actually if I'm a rogue I want to feel useful, if I'm good at finding and disarming traps, I want traps for me to disarm. Not just disarm I actually like to rewire traps to hurt the enemy. For instance in the orc lair of the playtest I altered the net trap to fall in a different square and placed the trigger in a different square. It was alot of fun for me and the party, also it didn't take alot of time. I asked the gm if I could do this, or what options I would have for changing the trap up, asked if I needed to make a check and used Knack on the harder roll, it was quick and fun. Just because a trained rogue can find and disarm traps doesn't make them any less fun. I would not propose making it a 5 instead of a 10. But I wouldn't mind if it was a 5 and you also got advantage and a reroll or something. I don't mind it changed, but I don't want it nerfed (made weaker).
I also like that it isn't limited to a set of skills that people think are rogue skills. I also feel that any skill could be a rogue skill. I also wouldn't mind if other classes had some access to this, either by multiclassing or specialty possibly a feat to make one skill mastered.
Actually if I'm a rogue I want to feel useful, if I'm good at finding and disarming traps, I want traps for me to disarm. Not just disarm I actually like to rewire traps to hurt the enemy. For instance in the orc lair of the playtest I altered the
I'm sure that this will be addressed in future playtest material, as it has been a bone of contention since it was released. I can't swear that they'll fix it, but hey...here's hoping.
Yes, the whole "soon" fallacy.
I'd rather point it out, and be told flat out its staying in, than not point it out and find out that they missed the problem and left it in...
They'll get it a whole lot more if you actually fill out their questionaire when it come out and tell them there. I certainly plan on it.
Yes, the whole "soon" fallacy. I'd rather point it out, and be told flat out its staying in, than not point it out and find out that they missed the problem and left it in...[/quote]They'll get it a whole lot more if you actually fill out their quest
Making it a reroll instead of calling it advantage would work. But, the rest seems overly complicated Ryan.
Complicated? It's not complicated at all.
SKILL MASTERY A Rogue has Advantage on Trained Skills.
A Rogue's Trained skills provide a +5 bonus, instead of +3.
A Rogue ignores negative modifiers on Skill checks.
NEW UNIVERSAL SKILL RULES All Skill modifiers (the sum total, including ability modifiers) max out at +10.
If the character has maxed out a Skill, they may begin Training in a new Skill.
So, the first packet's Rogue would have:
+5 and Advantage on all Find Traps checks, despite the 8 Wisdom. This is better than the Cleric of Pelor's +4 without Advantage.
+8 and Advantage on all Open Locks/Stealth checks.
Nothing too complicated about that, is there?
Complicated? It's not complicated at all.SKILL MASTERYA Rogue has Advantage on Trained Skills.A Rogue's Trained skills provide a +5 bonus, instead of +3.A Rogue ignores negative modifiers on Skill checks.NEW UNIVERSAL SKILL RULESAll Skill modifiers
My issue with this is the way it limits adventure design. That is, if I have a rogue in my party and want to use a trap, it has to be at the 'very hard' level to even have a chance of going undetected and actually mattering. At level 1 it seems like I should be able to use a 'moderate' or maybe 'hard' to detect trap. In my world it may not make sense for a band of kobolds to be expert trap-makers, but I still want them to use traps. If there is no rogue in my party, go for it. If there is a rogue, why bother? Locking a door? Only if you have masterwork locks, or no rogue in the party. I think there needs to be a better solution. Maybe it is as simple as using 5 instead of 10. Make that number increase a little faster than it does currently. Maybe every other level (at least up to level 10) would work. A level 1 rogue auto-succeeding on an easy task (5(minimum) + 6(training + 3) = 11) ? Sounds good. By level 5 maybe he can auto succeed on a moderate task (7 + 6 = 13), by level 10 on a difficult task (assuming either an ability score bump or 1 additional skill point in the skill) (9 + 7 = 16).
Well, for starters, don't make things automatic. The rogue has to say, "I search for traps around the statue," or "I search for traps in this section of hallway." If he doesn't attempt to look for things, he doesn't find them. When he does attempt it, he either finds it automatically or it is a really intense challenge. For less intense challenges, give him intense ways of modifying said challenge so that he can do something more than autosucceeding (but has to roll to do so). For example, maybe he rewires the trap the way Philip suggested.
Well, for starters, don't make things automatic. The rogue has to say, "I search for traps around the statue," or "I search for traps in this section of hallway." If he doesn't attempt to look for things, he doesn't find them. When he does attempt it
I play a rogue in the playtest and I really like it, it allows me to scout ahead and not slow the game down with a bunch of rolls. In previous games the rogue was always afraid to get too far ahead of the party for fear of the dice. This makes a rogue be able to fulfill a roll, otherwise hard to do with the wonkiness of a 20 sided dice.
Exactly.
At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll.
Would having one reroll on anything under a 10 make it a funner experience? They get to roll dice and they have a chance to succeed greater or still fail. If they have advantage they can roll it with both rolls so it multiplies the effectiveness of the roll...
It would certainly take more time. Don't know if it would be more fun.
If this mechanic is so great why not let the fighter take 10 on their attack rolls if they roll under 10? Because that's exactly what this mechanic is doing for Rogues. It lets them totally dominate the exploration pillar and if they pick the right background the social pillar. heck it allows them to just about auto-succeed at stealth checks. Then to add insult to injury they can reroll 2 'checks' at level 2. So even if they don't have social skills they can reroll them...
It's impossible to "auto-succeed" at stealth checks, since it's basically a contest, not a straight up skill check.
Same thing with the social sphere. Social is mostly contests.
The truth is, that the minimum of 10 in skill mastery fits nicely with the rules to the DM regarding how and when to make checks and social interactions in the first place.
The leeway given to the DM for checks and social interactions is explicitly removed when it comes to combat.
Leeway? Yeah, the skill section also talks about not being rigid with attack rolls, so guess what? it applies equally there...
"As a DM, you could memorize these guidelines, apply them flawlessly, and still miss out on the point of D&D. Unlike other games, D&D is a flexible set of guidelines, not a rigid set of laws. When you ask a player to make a check, an attack, or a saving throw, you first should focus on engaging the players’ imaginations."
Yes rarely in the social pillar the DM will roll a 17-20 and beat the 1st level rogues skill mastery roll of 10. That happens what 20% of the time. So the Rogue beats 80% of checks that are easy to super human in difficulty. That's not counting the chance for the Rogue to roll above 10, that makes it even worse. For checks that aren't opposed the suggestion is to set the DC to easy medium or hard. The Rogue will always succeed on those three (10, 13, 16). It even says you could run the whole game like that. So for the whole game the Rogue can just take '1' and succeed at every trained check they have and for the rare untrained check they can use their 'Knack' feature at level 2.
You seem to have this habit of not reading up on terms that are defined.
" engaging the players’ imaginations.""
This then leads to the section entitled: Engaging the Players:
Under "attacks and Saving throws it says"
"Attacks and Saving Throws: A colorful description is nice for attacks and saving throws, but should rarely be the avenue to gaining a concrete game benefit, since it is too easy to abuse such an approach. You might have players endlessly describing how they resist a mind flayer’s mind blast or trying to narrate every detail of a sword blow. In most cases, spells and special abilities serve to grant characters advantage on their attacks and saving throws. That said, if you feel the situation warrants it, use advantage to grant a character a well-earned edge. Disadvantage: Not every idea is a good one. A character might try to win the prince’s favor by bragging about all the bandits he slew, not realizing that the prince is an avowed pacifist. If an idea backfires on a player, apply disadvantage to the check or attack.
In other words treat them all equally. Grant advantage or disadvantage based on fancy or clever descriptions of what their characters do. Yeah, still not seeing this leeway you are talking about...
Exactly.At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll. [/quote]Would having one reroll on anything under a 10 make it a funner experience? They get to roll dice a
I think one of the major disconnects is people don't really know what a Rogue is. The Rogue is not the skill master, that's only a side effect of how WotC has modeled the Rogue.
A Rogue covers many categories: Thief, Vagabond, Bandit, Scoundrel, Thug, etc...etc...
The main theme that goes with all of those is they use deception to get what they want. I think that should be the idea behind what Rogues do, rather than 'skill monkey'.
If we do this we can pick specific skills that Rogues might be able to reroll automatically if they get 10 or less.
My suggested list would be pick 3 or get 3 from a scheme: Bluff (tricking people), Insight (being able to tell if your trickery is working), Sleight of Hand (tricking people), Stealth (fooling people into thinking your not there), Streetwise (knowing who tricks other people and gathering information), Professional Lore (trap making, Politics, etc...etc...), Find and Remove Traps (because sneaking in is a form of deception), Open Locks (Getting in to steal stuff from people), and possibly diplomacy (since it includes subtlety).
Then not allow them to get mastery over anything else unless they gain it as a feat or a class feature later on (like pick one skill you know that is not one of your mastered skills and gain mastery over that skill)...
They would not be able to master any skill they can know and they wouldn't automatically succeed at checks, they would just be really really good at a small subset of skills.
I can also imagine giving them skill tricks, which would be special things they can do that no other class can do with skills.
So someone else might get Find and Remove traps with a background, but only the Rogue would be able to pass the trap (and allow the party to pass it) without setting it off or alter how the trap works. The background would allow Finding and then setting off the trap, but they wouldn't be able to recover the trap or change how it works.
A background with Bluff might be able to trick people into believing lies that are spoken, but the skill trick a Rogue would get would allow them to trick people into believing lies whether they are spoken or not like doing a feint to gain advantage on their next attack...
I think one of the major disconnects is people don't really know what a Rogue is. The Rogue is not the skill master, that's only a side effect of how WotC has modeled the Rogue.A Rogue covers many categories: Thief, Vagabond, Bandit, Scoundrel, Thug,
Lots of good ideas in this thread on how to improve the rogue. But the larger pass/fail problem with skill checks remains: they are boring! We need a more robust system for resolving skill checks, something that uses skills to create interesting advantages and disadvantages for players within the context of the adventure.
Lots of good ideas in this thread on how to improve the rogue. But the larger pass/fail problem with skill checks remains: they are boring! We need a more robust system for resolving skill checks, something that uses skills to create interesting adva
I play a rogue in the playtest and I really like it, it allows me to scout ahead and not slow the game down with a bunch of rolls. In previous games the rogue was always afraid to get too far ahead of the party for fear of the dice. This makes a rogue be able to fulfill a roll, otherwise hard to do with the wonkiness of a 20 sided dice.
Exactly.
At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll.
Would having one reroll on anything under a 10 make it a funner experience? They get to roll dice and they have a chance to succeed greater or still fail. If they have advantage they can roll it with both rolls so it multiplies the effectiveness of the roll...
It would certainly take more time. Don't know if it would be more fun.
If this mechanic is so great why not let the fighter take 10 on their attack rolls if they roll under 10? Because that's exactly what this mechanic is doing for Rogues. It lets them totally dominate the exploration pillar and if they pick the right background the social pillar. heck it allows them to just about auto-succeed at stealth checks. Then to add insult to injury they can reroll 2 'checks' at level 2. So even if they don't have social skills they can reroll them...
It's impossible to "auto-succeed" at stealth checks, since it's basically a contest, not a straight up skill check.
Same thing with the social sphere. Social is mostly contests.
The truth is, that the minimum of 10 in skill mastery fits nicely with the rules to the DM regarding how and when to make checks and social interactions in the first place.
The leeway given to the DM for checks and social interactions is explicitly removed when it comes to combat.
Leeway? Yeah, the skill section also talks about not being rigid with attack rolls, so guess what? it applies equally there...
"As a DM, you could memorize these guidelines, apply them flawlessly, and still miss out on the point of D&D. Unlike other games, D&D is a flexible set of guidelines, not a rigid set of laws. When you ask a player to make a check, an attack, or a saving throw, you first should focus on engaging the players’ imaginations."
Yes rarely in the social pillar the DM will roll a 17-20 and beat the 1st level rogues skill mastery roll of 10. That happens what 20% of the time. So the Rogue beats 80% of checks that are easy to super human in difficulty. That's not counting the chance for the Rogue to roll above 10, that makes it even worse. For checks that aren't opposed the suggestion is to set the DC to easy medium or hard. The Rogue will always succeed on those three (10, 13, 16). It even says you could run the whole game like that. So for the whole game the Rogue can just take '1' and succeed at every trained check they have and for the rare untrained check they can use their 'Knack' feature at level 2.
You seem to have this habit of not reading up on terms that are defined.
" engaging the players’ imaginations.""
This then leads to the section entitled: Engaging the Players:
Under "attacks and Saving throws it says"
"Attacks and Saving Throws: A colorful description is nice for attacks and saving throws, but should rarely be the avenue to gaining a concrete game benefit, since it is too easy to abuse such an approach. You might have players endlessly describing how they resist a mind flayer’s mind blast or trying to narrate every detail of a sword blow. In most cases, spells and special abilities serve to grant characters advantage on their attacks and saving throws. That said, if you feel the situation warrants it, use advantage to grant a character a well-earned edge. Disadvantage: Not every idea is a good one. A character might try to win the prince’s favor by bragging about all the bandits he slew, not realizing that the prince is an avowed pacifist. If an idea backfires on a player, apply disadvantage to the check or attack.
In other words treat them all equally. Grant advantage or disadvantage based on fancy or clever descriptions of what their characters do. Yeah, still not seeing this leeway you are talking about...
You could have the decency to go read the section. The other parts for engaging the player talks about removing dice rolls completely. For combat, it says that isn't an option, but you can maybe use advantage if you really need to.
Exactly.At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll. [/quote]Would having one reroll on anything under a 10 make it a funner experience? They get to roll dice a
Lots of good ideas in this thread on how to improve the rogue. But the larger pass/fail problem with skill checks remains: they are boring! We need a more robust system for resolving skill checks, something that uses skills to create interesting advantages and disadvantages for players within the context of the adventure.
Well they tried skill challenges and it failed horribly (enough people didn't like them that they aren't putting them back in 5E).
We need a way to make the dice rolling of skills as flexible and fun as combat. Things that happen in combat:
Players roll an average of 4-5 attack rolls (with the exception of the Wizard, who makes others roll saves).
Players move to gain advantage.
Players move to assist allies.
Anything else?
We need to model this in a cohesive way for those that use skill rolls instead of play acting...er role playing everything.
So to overcome any challenge each player should have to roll 4-5 skill checks or force others to roll 4-5 skill checks. The players should be able to maneuver in the challenge to gain advantage or to keep allies from failing.
I propose that each challenge be broken down into sections that need to be overcome separately kind of like combat has 4-5 enemies. A challenge made up of skills should have 4-5 separate individual things that have to be overcome.
So lets say the challenge is to convince a King to allow the party to travel through a closed gate to the underdark.
So what 4-5 things can we give the party to overcome? Maybe the king wants to know how competent the party is, maybe he needs assurances of the parties intentions, maybe he needs proof that the party is who they say they are, maybe the king needs a reason to give to his advisers, maybe the King needs to show his power to his people in some way.
So what we have here is five challenges to overcome. Now we need a way that each character can make a check to start to help accomplish each of these problems. Each of these problems should have several rolls to overcome. This would be like the hit points of monsters. So lets set some hit points. Lets say the king is stressed and under pressure so they will all be low (this is a 1st level challenge). Now the DCs of the skill checks are like the AC of monsters they will vary a little bit but be relatively low.
So what we have so far:
Challenge Hit Points DC Prove competency 3 12 Intentions 5 13 Proof of reputation 3 11 Reasons for advisers 6 9 Show people his power 4 10
So the only thing really missing is what skills to use on which one. I guess failures would have to add up in some form to simulate the monsters attacking. They could be the average of all skill bonuses. So the pre-gen Cleric would have 4 skill hit points. So the Cleric can fail 4 checks before they are out of the challenge. This could be fluffed as being flustered or the King views everything they say with suspicion. This will work out well because the average number of checks needed to be rolled by each character is around 5. You could track this just like hit points. So if they enter 2-3 challenges without taking a rest they can get very low.
Each round (about 6 seconds or one to two sentences) a player can make one check against any of the challenges. They can do other things like assist another player, react to absorb a players failure (the equivalent of healing), use a skill trick to give everyone advantage against a challenge or give one player advantage for one round or any number of other things. This would make skill resolution fun in the same way combat is fun. Some DMs would choose to play act...er... role play out social interactions instead of using this system, just as some DMs use theater of the mind instead of tactical combat. What do you think?
Well they tried skill challenges and it failed horribly (enough people didn't like them that they aren't putting them back in 5E).We need a way to make the dice rolling of skills as flexible and fun as combat. Things that happen in combat: Players ro
I play a rogue in the playtest and I really like it, it allows me to scout ahead and not slow the game down with a bunch of rolls. In previous games the rogue was always afraid to get too far ahead of the party for fear of the dice. This makes a rogue be able to fulfill a roll, otherwise hard to do with the wonkiness of a 20 sided dice.
Exactly.
At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll.
Would having one reroll on anything under a 10 make it a funner experience? They get to roll dice and they have a chance to succeed greater or still fail. If they have advantage they can roll it with both rolls so it multiplies the effectiveness of the roll...
It would certainly take more time. Don't know if it would be more fun.
If this mechanic is so great why not let the fighter take 10 on their attack rolls if they roll under 10? Because that's exactly what this mechanic is doing for Rogues. It lets them totally dominate the exploration pillar and if they pick the right background the social pillar. heck it allows them to just about auto-succeed at stealth checks. Then to add insult to injury they can reroll 2 'checks' at level 2. So even if they don't have social skills they can reroll them...
It's impossible to "auto-succeed" at stealth checks, since it's basically a contest, not a straight up skill check.
Same thing with the social sphere. Social is mostly contests.
The truth is, that the minimum of 10 in skill mastery fits nicely with the rules to the DM regarding how and when to make checks and social interactions in the first place.
The leeway given to the DM for checks and social interactions is explicitly removed when it comes to combat.
Leeway? Yeah, the skill section also talks about not being rigid with attack rolls, so guess what? it applies equally there...
"As a DM, you could memorize these guidelines, apply them flawlessly, and still miss out on the point of D&D. Unlike other games, D&D is a flexible set of guidelines, not a rigid set of laws. When you ask a player to make a check, an attack, or a saving throw, you first should focus on engaging the players’ imaginations."
Yes rarely in the social pillar the DM will roll a 17-20 and beat the 1st level rogues skill mastery roll of 10. That happens what 20% of the time. So the Rogue beats 80% of checks that are easy to super human in difficulty. That's not counting the chance for the Rogue to roll above 10, that makes it even worse. For checks that aren't opposed the suggestion is to set the DC to easy medium or hard. The Rogue will always succeed on those three (10, 13, 16). It even says you could run the whole game like that. So for the whole game the Rogue can just take '1' and succeed at every trained check they have and for the rare untrained check they can use their 'Knack' feature at level 2.
You seem to have this habit of not reading up on terms that are defined.
" engaging the players’ imaginations.""
This then leads to the section entitled: Engaging the Players:
Under "attacks and Saving throws it says"
"Attacks and Saving Throws: A colorful description is nice for attacks and saving throws, but should rarely be the avenue to gaining a concrete game benefit, since it is too easy to abuse such an approach. You might have players endlessly describing how they resist a mind flayer’s mind blast or trying to narrate every detail of a sword blow. In most cases, spells and special abilities serve to grant characters advantage on their attacks and saving throws. That said, if you feel the situation warrants it, use advantage to grant a character a well-earned edge. Disadvantage: Not every idea is a good one. A character might try to win the prince’s favor by bragging about all the bandits he slew, not realizing that the prince is an avowed pacifist. If an idea backfires on a player, apply disadvantage to the check or attack.
In other words treat them all equally. Grant advantage or disadvantage based on fancy or clever descriptions of what their characters do. Yeah, still not seeing this leeway you are talking about...
You could have the decency to go read the section. The other parts for engaging the player talks about removing dice rolls completely. For combat, it says that isn't an option, but you can maybe use advantage if you really need to.
I've read the entire packet and the only thing it says is that when there is no chance of failure or no chance of success to simply not roll. If there is any ambiguity you are supposed to roll. This is the same in combat. The DM doesn't have to make the player roll if the monsters can't hit and the the only way to miss is with a 1. At that point its just a matter of describing how the party cleans up the monsters...
Exactly.At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll. [/quote]Would having one reroll on anything under a 10 make it a funner experience? They get to roll dice a
I'm impressed, that sounds exactly like skill challenges!
Totally different. In skill challenges you track the whole challenge as one list of successes and one list of failures. In this each 'challenge' to overcome is tracked separate. You also could build skill tricks that would have specific effects when used in this system. You could build in specific things that everyone can do. We could call them skill maneuvers. They could be things like using your turn to make a DC 10 skill check to grant advantage to someone else, or using your turn to make a DC 10 skill check to block one failure on one character. All kinds of stuff can be built into this system to make it as fun as combat...
Totally different. In skill challenges you track the whole challenge as one list of successes and one list of failures. In this each 'challenge' to overcome is tracked separate. You also could build skill tricks that would have specific effects when
I play a rogue in the playtest and I really like it, it allows me to scout ahead and not slow the game down with a bunch of rolls. In previous games the rogue was always afraid to get too far ahead of the party for fear of the dice. This makes a rogue be able to fulfill a roll, otherwise hard to do with the wonkiness of a 20 sided dice.
Exactly.
At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll.
Would having one reroll on anything under a 10 make it a funner experience? They get to roll dice and they have a chance to succeed greater or still fail. If they have advantage they can roll it with both rolls so it multiplies the effectiveness of the roll...
It would certainly take more time. Don't know if it would be more fun.
If this mechanic is so great why not let the fighter take 10 on their attack rolls if they roll under 10? Because that's exactly what this mechanic is doing for Rogues. It lets them totally dominate the exploration pillar and if they pick the right background the social pillar. heck it allows them to just about auto-succeed at stealth checks. Then to add insult to injury they can reroll 2 'checks' at level 2. So even if they don't have social skills they can reroll them...
It's impossible to "auto-succeed" at stealth checks, since it's basically a contest, not a straight up skill check.
Same thing with the social sphere. Social is mostly contests.
The truth is, that the minimum of 10 in skill mastery fits nicely with the rules to the DM regarding how and when to make checks and social interactions in the first place.
The leeway given to the DM for checks and social interactions is explicitly removed when it comes to combat.
Leeway? Yeah, the skill section also talks about not being rigid with attack rolls, so guess what? it applies equally there...
"As a DM, you could memorize these guidelines, apply them flawlessly, and still miss out on the point of D&D. Unlike other games, D&D is a flexible set of guidelines, not a rigid set of laws. When you ask a player to make a check, an attack, or a saving throw, you first should focus on engaging the players’ imaginations."
Yes rarely in the social pillar the DM will roll a 17-20 and beat the 1st level rogues skill mastery roll of 10. That happens what 20% of the time. So the Rogue beats 80% of checks that are easy to super human in difficulty. That's not counting the chance for the Rogue to roll above 10, that makes it even worse. For checks that aren't opposed the suggestion is to set the DC to easy medium or hard. The Rogue will always succeed on those three (10, 13, 16). It even says you could run the whole game like that. So for the whole game the Rogue can just take '1' and succeed at every trained check they have and for the rare untrained check they can use their 'Knack' feature at level 2.
You seem to have this habit of not reading up on terms that are defined.
" engaging the players’ imaginations.""
This then leads to the section entitled: Engaging the Players:
Under "attacks and Saving throws it says"
"Attacks and Saving Throws: A colorful description is nice for attacks and saving throws, but should rarely be the avenue to gaining a concrete game benefit, since it is too easy to abuse such an approach. You might have players endlessly describing how they resist a mind flayer’s mind blast or trying to narrate every detail of a sword blow. In most cases, spells and special abilities serve to grant characters advantage on their attacks and saving throws. That said, if you feel the situation warrants it, use advantage to grant a character a well-earned edge. Disadvantage: Not every idea is a good one. A character might try to win the prince’s favor by bragging about all the bandits he slew, not realizing that the prince is an avowed pacifist. If an idea backfires on a player, apply disadvantage to the check or attack.
In other words treat them all equally. Grant advantage or disadvantage based on fancy or clever descriptions of what their characters do. Yeah, still not seeing this leeway you are talking about...
You could have the decency to go read the section. The other parts for engaging the player talks about removing dice rolls completely. For combat, it says that isn't an option, but you can maybe use advantage if you really need to.
I've read the entire packet and the only thing it says is that when there is no chance of failure or no chance of success to simply not roll. If there is any ambiguity you are supposed to roll. This is the same in combat. The DM doesn't have to make the player roll if the monsters can't hit and the the only way to miss is with a 1. At that point its just a matter of describing how the party cleans up the monsters...
Apparently you need to read it again:
In the Engaging the player section:
Checks: When a player makes a check, invite him or her to describe the character’s action. If the player makes clever use of the situation in the description, consider either granting an automatic success or advantage on the check.
Contests: In a contest, an ingenious description that points to a key advantage that a character might gain could lead you to grant the character advantage on the check. (Straight out, no qualifiers, no Auto success, no mention of Disadvantage)
Attacks and Saving Throws: A colorful description is nice for attacks and saving throws, but should rarely be the avenue to gaining a concrete game benefit, since it is too easy to abuse such an approach.
Please note the differences which you seem to think don't exist.
Exactly.At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll. [/quote]Would having one reroll on anything under a 10 make it a funner experience? They get to roll dice a
I play a rogue in the playtest and I really like it, it allows me to scout ahead and not slow the game down with a bunch of rolls. In previous games the rogue was always afraid to get too far ahead of the party for fear of the dice. This makes a rogue be able to fulfill a roll, otherwise hard to do with the wonkiness of a 20 sided dice.
Exactly.
At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll.
Would having one reroll on anything under a 10 make it a funner experience? They get to roll dice and they have a chance to succeed greater or still fail. If they have advantage they can roll it with both rolls so it multiplies the effectiveness of the roll...
It would certainly take more time. Don't know if it would be more fun.
If this mechanic is so great why not let the fighter take 10 on their attack rolls if they roll under 10? Because that's exactly what this mechanic is doing for Rogues. It lets them totally dominate the exploration pillar and if they pick the right background the social pillar. heck it allows them to just about auto-succeed at stealth checks. Then to add insult to injury they can reroll 2 'checks' at level 2. So even if they don't have social skills they can reroll them...
It's impossible to "auto-succeed" at stealth checks, since it's basically a contest, not a straight up skill check.
Same thing with the social sphere. Social is mostly contests.
The truth is, that the minimum of 10 in skill mastery fits nicely with the rules to the DM regarding how and when to make checks and social interactions in the first place.
The leeway given to the DM for checks and social interactions is explicitly removed when it comes to combat.
Leeway? Yeah, the skill section also talks about not being rigid with attack rolls, so guess what? it applies equally there...
"As a DM, you could memorize these guidelines, apply them flawlessly, and still miss out on the point of D&D. Unlike other games, D&D is a flexible set of guidelines, not a rigid set of laws. When you ask a player to make a check, an attack, or a saving throw, you first should focus on engaging the players’ imaginations."
Yes rarely in the social pillar the DM will roll a 17-20 and beat the 1st level rogues skill mastery roll of 10. That happens what 20% of the time. So the Rogue beats 80% of checks that are easy to super human in difficulty. That's not counting the chance for the Rogue to roll above 10, that makes it even worse. For checks that aren't opposed the suggestion is to set the DC to easy medium or hard. The Rogue will always succeed on those three (10, 13, 16). It even says you could run the whole game like that. So for the whole game the Rogue can just take '1' and succeed at every trained check they have and for the rare untrained check they can use their 'Knack' feature at level 2.
You seem to have this habit of not reading up on terms that are defined.
" engaging the players’ imaginations.""
This then leads to the section entitled: Engaging the Players:
Under "attacks and Saving throws it says"
"Attacks and Saving Throws: A colorful description is nice for attacks and saving throws, but should rarely be the avenue to gaining a concrete game benefit, since it is too easy to abuse such an approach. You might have players endlessly describing how they resist a mind flayer’s mind blast or trying to narrate every detail of a sword blow. In most cases, spells and special abilities serve to grant characters advantage on their attacks and saving throws. That said, if you feel the situation warrants it, use advantage to grant a character a well-earned edge. Disadvantage: Not every idea is a good one. A character might try to win the prince’s favor by bragging about all the bandits he slew, not realizing that the prince is an avowed pacifist. If an idea backfires on a player, apply disadvantage to the check or attack.
In other words treat them all equally. Grant advantage or disadvantage based on fancy or clever descriptions of what their characters do. Yeah, still not seeing this leeway you are talking about...
You could have the decency to go read the section. The other parts for engaging the player talks about removing dice rolls completely. For combat, it says that isn't an option, but you can maybe use advantage if you really need to.
I've read the entire packet and the only thing it says is that when there is no chance of failure or no chance of success to simply not roll. If there is any ambiguity you are supposed to roll. This is the same in combat. The DM doesn't have to make the player roll if the monsters can't hit and the the only way to miss is with a 1. At that point its just a matter of describing how the party cleans up the monsters...
Apparently you need to read it again:
In the Engaging the player section:
Checks: When a player makes a check, invite him or her to describe the character’s action. If the player makes clever use of the situation in the description, consider either granting an automatic success or advantage on the check.
Contests: In a contest, an ingenious description that points to a key advantage that a character might gain could lead you to grant the character advantage on the check. (Straight out, no qualifiers, no Auto success, no mention of Disadvantage)
Attacks and Saving Throws: A colorful description is nice for attacks and saving throws, but should rarely be the avenue to gaining a concrete game benefit, since it is too easy to abuse such an approach.
Please note the differences which you seem to think don't exist.
So you are telling me that you wouldn't grant a fighter an automatic hit if they pushed a vat of molten metal onto a group of goblins? That's the same thing...
Exactly.At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll. [/quote]Would having one reroll on anything under a 10 make it a funner experience? They get to roll dice a
I'm impressed, that sounds exactly like skill challenges!
Totally different. In skill challenges you track the whole challenge as one list of successes and one list of failures. In this each 'challenge' to overcome is tracked separate. You also could build skill tricks that would have specific effects when used in this system. You could build in specific things that everyone can do. We could call them skill maneuvers. They could be things like using your turn to make a DC 10 skill check to grant advantage to someone else, or using your turn to make a DC 10 skill check to block one failure on one character. All kinds of stuff can be built into this system to make it as fun as combat...
What you have described is the difficult skill challenge. Your "manevuers" are what was called "aid another" in the skill challenges.
What you describe is how we always did skill challenges in our 4e game.
Totally different. In skill challenges you track the whole challenge as one list of successes and one list of failures. In this each 'challenge' to overcome is tracked separate. You also could build skill tricks that would have specific effects when
I play a rogue in the playtest and I really like it, it allows me to scout ahead and not slow the game down with a bunch of rolls. In previous games the rogue was always afraid to get too far ahead of the party for fear of the dice. This makes a rogue be able to fulfill a roll, otherwise hard to do with the wonkiness of a 20 sided dice.
Exactly.
At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll.
Would having one reroll on anything under a 10 make it a funner experience? They get to roll dice and they have a chance to succeed greater or still fail. If they have advantage they can roll it with both rolls so it multiplies the effectiveness of the roll...
It would certainly take more time. Don't know if it would be more fun.
If this mechanic is so great why not let the fighter take 10 on their attack rolls if they roll under 10? Because that's exactly what this mechanic is doing for Rogues. It lets them totally dominate the exploration pillar and if they pick the right background the social pillar. heck it allows them to just about auto-succeed at stealth checks. Then to add insult to injury they can reroll 2 'checks' at level 2. So even if they don't have social skills they can reroll them...
It's impossible to "auto-succeed" at stealth checks, since it's basically a contest, not a straight up skill check.
Same thing with the social sphere. Social is mostly contests.
The truth is, that the minimum of 10 in skill mastery fits nicely with the rules to the DM regarding how and when to make checks and social interactions in the first place.
The leeway given to the DM for checks and social interactions is explicitly removed when it comes to combat.
Leeway? Yeah, the skill section also talks about not being rigid with attack rolls, so guess what? it applies equally there...
"As a DM, you could memorize these guidelines, apply them flawlessly, and still miss out on the point of D&D. Unlike other games, D&D is a flexible set of guidelines, not a rigid set of laws. When you ask a player to make a check, an attack, or a saving throw, you first should focus on engaging the players’ imaginations."
Yes rarely in the social pillar the DM will roll a 17-20 and beat the 1st level rogues skill mastery roll of 10. That happens what 20% of the time. So the Rogue beats 80% of checks that are easy to super human in difficulty. That's not counting the chance for the Rogue to roll above 10, that makes it even worse. For checks that aren't opposed the suggestion is to set the DC to easy medium or hard. The Rogue will always succeed on those three (10, 13, 16). It even says you could run the whole game like that. So for the whole game the Rogue can just take '1' and succeed at every trained check they have and for the rare untrained check they can use their 'Knack' feature at level 2.
You seem to have this habit of not reading up on terms that are defined.
" engaging the players’ imaginations.""
This then leads to the section entitled: Engaging the Players:
Under "attacks and Saving throws it says"
"Attacks and Saving Throws: A colorful description is nice for attacks and saving throws, but should rarely be the avenue to gaining a concrete game benefit, since it is too easy to abuse such an approach. You might have players endlessly describing how they resist a mind flayer’s mind blast or trying to narrate every detail of a sword blow. In most cases, spells and special abilities serve to grant characters advantage on their attacks and saving throws. That said, if you feel the situation warrants it, use advantage to grant a character a well-earned edge. Disadvantage: Not every idea is a good one. A character might try to win the prince’s favor by bragging about all the bandits he slew, not realizing that the prince is an avowed pacifist. If an idea backfires on a player, apply disadvantage to the check or attack.
In other words treat them all equally. Grant advantage or disadvantage based on fancy or clever descriptions of what their characters do. Yeah, still not seeing this leeway you are talking about...
You could have the decency to go read the section. The other parts for engaging the player talks about removing dice rolls completely. For combat, it says that isn't an option, but you can maybe use advantage if you really need to.
I've read the entire packet and the only thing it says is that when there is no chance of failure or no chance of success to simply not roll. If there is any ambiguity you are supposed to roll. This is the same in combat. The DM doesn't have to make the player roll if the monsters can't hit and the the only way to miss is with a 1. At that point its just a matter of describing how the party cleans up the monsters...
Apparently you need to read it again:
In the Engaging the player section:
Checks: When a player makes a check, invite him or her to describe the character’s action. If the player makes clever use of the situation in the description, consider either granting an automatic success or advantage on the check.
Contests: In a contest, an ingenious description that points to a key advantage that a character might gain could lead you to grant the character advantage on the check. (Straight out, no qualifiers, no Auto success, no mention of Disadvantage)
Attacks and Saving Throws: A colorful description is nice for attacks and saving throws, but should rarely be the avenue to gaining a concrete game benefit, since it is too easy to abuse such an approach.
Please note the differences which you seem to think don't exist.
So you are telling me that you wouldn't grant a fighter an automatic hit if they pushed a vat of molten metal onto a group of goblins? That's the same thing...
No, each goblin would make a dex saving throw
Exactly.At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll. [/quote]Would having one reroll on anything under a 10 make it a funner experience? They get to roll dice a
I'm impressed, that sounds exactly like skill challenges!
Totally different. In skill challenges you track the whole challenge as one list of successes and one list of failures. In this each 'challenge' to overcome is tracked separate. You also could build skill tricks that would have specific effects when used in this system. You could build in specific things that everyone can do. We could call them skill maneuvers. They could be things like using your turn to make a DC 10 skill check to grant advantage to someone else, or using your turn to make a DC 10 skill check to block one failure on one character. All kinds of stuff can be built into this system to make it as fun as combat...
What you have described is the difficult skill challenge. Your "manevuers" are what was called "aid another" in the skill challenges.
What you describe is how we always did skill challenges in our 4e game.
Well then you were house ruling because in a 4E skill challenge you don't block a failure you grant a +2 to someone elses check, you don't grant advantage (which is roll 2d20 and take the higher roll) you grant a +2. You don't mitigate a failure you grant a +2. Not only that but you only have one 'challenge' that you overcome, not a bunch of smaller challenges that you can overcome. Also in my suggestion single players can drop out by failing and the whole party can still overcome the challenge, where in 4E if the party has a total number of failures that is too high they fail the challenge...
Yeah, totally like a 4E skill challenge...
Totally different. In skill challenges you track the whole challenge as one list of successes and one list of failures. In this each 'challenge' to overcome is tracked separate. You also could build skill tricks that would have specific effects when
Yeah, but they would take half damage anyway as its an area attack and probably take damage each round they stay in the area, so its an autohit just like most Wizard spells...
Yeah, but they would take half damage anyway as its an area attack and probably take damage each round they stay in the area, so its an autohit just like most Wizard spells...
We need to model this in a cohesive way for those that use skill rolls instead of play acting...er role playing everything.
That is pretty much the opposite of what I want.
Frankly, I think adding Thief skills (way way back) was one of the worst things that every happened to D&D, and I'd be perfectly satisfied if skills got even less focus than they do now. Skill challenges are tedious and boring, as is the system you proposed. I don't want to make 4-5 checks to convince the king. I want to actually talk to the king. And maybe, I guess, if my actual words suck or whatever, then I'll roll--once.
Rolling in combat is exciting because it makes us an active participant in the fight, something we otherwise couldn't do at the table. We can talk at the table, so rolling gets in the way. And while we can't mountain climb at the table either, climbing a mountain is not especially exciting or interesting to begin with, as nobody but a professional (or extreme hobbyist) mountain climber would be able to describe it in real detail nor would anyone but that sort of person find that description interesting. So, we roll once to basically move past the boring part.
So, yes, ultimately, I'd love it if there was no Rogue--just fold Backstabbing into a Fighting style for the Fighter as far as I'm concerned--but since that won't happen, they need to be something other than the skill monkey because only being good at skills is boring and should be boring.
Oh, and since I saw Skill Tricks get mentioned, let me just say that the best skill tricks system I've ever seen came from the Rogue in a homemade alteration of pathfinder I saw once, called "Kirthfinder." Look it up--it's impressive.
That is pretty much the opposite of what I want. Frankly, I think adding Thief skills (way way back) was one of the worst things that every happened to D&D, and I'd be perfectly satisfied if skills got even less focus than they do now. Skill challe
I personally like skill mastery. It's kind of nice as a skill based character that you've got it set up where you can't botch, because that's really what being a skill character should be all about, is actually mastering your skills. If you're a skilled acrobat, you don't tottally screw it up 5% of the time.
Giving a character a decent level of reliability isn't bad, especially for stealthing. The fact that you're always decently stealthy means you feel more confident going around. If indeed they want to stick with the rogue as the "skill master" character, then this sort of ability is pretty essential to giving that kind of feel.
The other option is X amount of rerolls per day on skill checks, so you can counter some bad luck.
I personally like skill mastery. It's kind of nice as a skill based character that you've got it set up where you can't botch, because that's really what being a skill character should be all about, is actually mastering your skills. If you're a skil
We need to model this in a cohesive way for those that use skill rolls instead of play acting...er role playing everything.
That is pretty much the opposite of what I want.
Frankly, I think adding Thief skills (way way back) was one of the worst things that every happened to D&D, and I'd be perfectly satisfied if skills got even less focus than they do now. Skill challenges are tedious and boring, as is the system you proposed. I don't want to make 4-5 checks to convince the king. I want to actually talk to the king. And maybe, I guess, if my actual words suck or whatever, then I'll roll--once.
That's wonderful an ideal, but it's just that: an ideal. It doesn't address in any way the reality of a roleplaying game.
Rolling in combat is exciting because it makes us an active participant in the fight, something we otherwise couldn't do at the table. We can talk at the table, so rolling gets in the way. And while we can't mountain climb at the table either, climbing a mountain is not especially exciting or interesting to begin with, as nobody but a professional (or extreme hobbyist) mountain climber would be able to describe it in real detail nor would anyone but that sort of person find that description interesting. So, we roll once to basically move past the boring part.
You can talk at the table, yes. However, you cannot talk at the table in the same way your character can. Not even close for the overwhelming majority of players. Same as with combat. Even the most learned of history buffs still aren't likely to have the skills of a diplomat. You can talk, and have fun, and roleplay, yes. But when push comes to shove, all your talking and playacting is really about as convincing as your amazingly fun description of what your character does in combat...which a roll then decides the success of.
I have never understood why it is that rolling is perfectly a-ok for combat and physical skills, which a player rarely if ever comes close to being able to approximate (but can describe brilliantly, often enough), yet it is anathema or some sort of affront to give the same weight mechanically to non-physical skills. The best and brightest roleplayers are rarely going to be as intelligent, charismatic, convincing, witty, quick on their feet, or come even close to the proficiency in those social and lore skills that a character built to be a master diplomat with connections all over, or an immense, genius-level intellect engaging in games of cat and mouse, or experienced with a working knowledge of the ins and outs of court intrigue and the state of the nation(s) they are negotiating with or for is. Not even close. Generally, not even close to close.
So...can you tell me, because I'm genuinely curious: Why is it that roleplaying out combat, even when describing your actions in detail, still acceptably boils down to rolling, with good descriptions giving interesting bonuses now and then, yet roleplaying out non-combat, describing your actions and statements in detail, should not boil down to rolls, with good descriptions giving interesting bonuses now and then?
You, as a player, are likely to be about as competent regarding diplomacy as you are combat. Your character, on the other hand, is leagues beyond you, the player, in combat and/or diplomacy and/or underworld connections, etc, etc, etc. So why does it leave a bad taste in some people's mouth to simulate via mechanics what your character can do in social situations, that you the player simply can't?
That is pretty much the opposite of what I want. Frankly, I think adding Thief skills (way way back) was one of the worst things that every happened to D&D, and I'd be perfectly satisfied if skills got even less focus than they do now. Skill challe
How would people feel if Skill mastery started at 5. This gives rogues an 11 minimum to start. 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 +1 is gained on skill mastery. So you have a minimum 16 at 20 (not counting ability increases) and 11 at level 1.
How would people feel if Skill mastery started at 5. This gives rogues an 11 minimum to start. 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 +1 is gained on skill mastery. So you have a minimum 16 at 20 (not counting ability increases) and 11 at level 1.
You can talk at the table, yes. However, you cannot talk at the table in the same way your character can. Not even close for the overwhelming majority of players.
Yet, we can talk at all, and since we're playing an imagination based game, we can give the guy talking the benefit of the doubt and respond as if he spoke as well as the character would.
Having someone at the table try and talk with the king is infinitely more interesting and entertaining than having someone just state that he talked to the king and rolled X.
I have never understood why it is that rolling is perfectly a-ok for combat and physical skills, which a player rarely if ever comes close to being able to approximate (but can describe brilliantly, often enough), yet it is anathema or some sort of affront to give the same weight mechanically to non-physical skills.
Really? You don't understand why its ok to roll for something you can't do but can describe, but it's better to actually do the things you can do rather than roll? I'm not really sure what else to say.
So...can you tell me, because I'm genuinely curious: Why is it that roleplaying out combat, even when describing your actions in detail, still acceptably boils down to rolling, with good descriptions giving interesting bonuses now and then, yet roleplaying out non-combat, describing your actions and statements in detail, should not boil down to rolls, with good descriptions giving interesting bonuses now and then?
Because you don't describe your actions and statements in detail--you make your statements. It's the difference between describing a punch and throwing a punch. Your actual real punch won't be like Bruce Lee's, but it's still a punch at all and it's more interesting than describing it. In the same way, actually saying something is more interesting than describing what you say.
You, as a player, are likely to be about as competent regarding diplomacy as you are combat. Your character, on the other hand, is leagues beyond you, the player, in combat and/or diplomacy and/or underworld connections, etc, etc, etc. So why does it leave a bad taste in some people's mouth to simulate via mechanics what your character can do in social situations, that you the player simply can't?
You also have to realize that while you are not a diplomat, your GM is not a king, either, so your discussion with him can still approximate. It's like reducing both sides of an equation by the same amount--everything is lesser, but it still has the same result. And it's still significantly more interesting just rolling a d20 and saying the negotiations went well.
I really don't understand why you'd say that--I've run (and sometimes played in) roleplaying games of all sorts for 20 years that fit that ideal.Yet, we can talk at all, and since we're playing an imagination based game, we can give the guy talking t
We need to model this in a cohesive way for those that use skill rolls instead of play acting...er role playing everything.
That is pretty much the opposite of what I want.
Frankly, I think adding Thief skills (way way back) was one of the worst things that every happened to D&D, and I'd be perfectly satisfied if skills got even less focus than they do now. Skill challenges are tedious and boring, as is the system you proposed. I don't want to make 4-5 checks to convince the king. I want to actually talk to the king. And maybe, I guess, if my actual words suck or whatever, then I'll roll--once.
Yeah, you need to actually read my post on the matter. I explicitly said you could do the 'talk it out' approach without rolling any dice. What I was proposing was for the people like me that think the outcome of an action should be based on the character not on the player. Your way is perfectly fine and should get a few paragraphs dedicated to it, but it doesn't really need much explanation and no matter what the rules are people like you will do the whole play acting thing and ignore the dice mechanics anyway.
Rolling in combat is exciting because it makes us an active participant in the fight, something we otherwise couldn't do at the table. We can talk at the table, so rolling gets in the way. And while we can't mountain climb at the table either, climbing a mountain is not especially exciting or interesting to begin with, as nobody but a professional (or extreme hobbyist) mountain climber would be able to describe it in real detail nor would anyone but that sort of person find that description interesting. So, we roll once to basically move past the boring part.
So you find exploration boring and like play acting social situations. Nothing wrong with that. I'd be fine if my method was put into a module or had a sentence at the start saying "The method described below is optional, if you want to simplify it simply have a single skill check." That way we both get what we want.
So, yes, ultimately, I'd love it if there was no Rogue--just fold Backstabbing into a Fighting style for the Fighter as far as I'm concerned--but since that won't happen, they need to be something other than the skill monkey because only being good at skills is boring and should be boring.
Oh, and since I saw Skill Tricks get mentioned, let me just say that the best skill tricks system I've ever seen came from the Rogue in a homemade alteration of pathfinder I saw once, called "Kirthfinder." Look it up--it's impressive.
Care to give us a link?
That is pretty much the opposite of what I want. Frankly, I think adding Thief skills (way way back) was one of the worst things that every happened to D&D, and I'd be perfectly satisfied if skills got even less focus than they do now. Skill challe
How would people feel if Skill mastery started at 5. This gives rogues an 11 minimum to start. 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 +1 is gained on skill mastery. So you have a minimum 16 at 20 (not counting ability increases) and 11 at level 1.
It still precludes failure on easy and medium difficulty tasks and grants no real advantage. I'd rather just say re-roll one time if you get under 10 on the die roll...
It still precludes failure on easy and medium difficulty tasks and grants no real advantage. I'd rather just say re-roll one time if you get under 10 on the die roll...
How would people feel if Skill mastery started at 5. This gives rogues an 11 minimum to start. 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 +1 is gained on skill mastery. So you have a minimum 16 at 20 (not counting ability increases) and 11 at level 1.
I'd probably say 7, so rogues can succeed at moderate challenges at level 1. Multi-classed rogues, if they get skill mastery in the same way, should start at 5.
I'd probably say 7, so rogues can succeed at moderate challenges at level 1. Multi-classed rogues, if they get skill mastery in the same way, should start at 5.
How would people feel if Skill mastery started at 5. This gives rogues an 11 minimum to start. 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 +1 is gained on skill mastery. So you have a minimum 16 at 20 (not counting ability increases) and 11 at level 1.
It still precludes failure on easy and medium difficulty tasks and grants no real advantage. I'd rather just say re-roll one time if you get under 10 on the die roll...
I dont have a problem precluding failure for rogues. I do, however, feel 10 to start is too much.
It still precludes failure on easy and medium difficulty tasks and grants no real advantage. I'd rather just say re-roll one time if you get under 10 on the die roll...[/quote]I dont have a problem precluding failure for rogues. I do, however, feel 1
Having someone at the table try and talk with the king is infinitely more interesting and entertaining than having someone just state that he talked to the king and rolled X.
I think we've found the disconnect here. No one is advocating that no one be allowed to talk at the table in character.
The two sides to this conversation as I understand them are:
Those that want the ability scores and skills of their characters combined with rolls to determine the outcome.
Those that want to ignore the character's ability scores and skills altogether and use play acting to determine the outcome.
Nowhere does group 1 want to preclude talking. We simply think that the outcome should be determined by the dice and stats of the character, not the player. Here is an example:
DM "You come before the sturdy looking King on his throne of obsidian carved into the likeness of a dragon with its head looming over the room. You know that it will be no easy task to convince him to allow you to enter the Skull Gate that leads to the under dark, but you also know that it is the only way to get to the Svirfneblin city of Blingdenstone."
Player "I approach the throne and kneel on one knee while bowing my head. I say 'I humbly ask the mighty King of the Dwarven city of Thorin permission to enter the Skull Gate.'"
DM "Roll a Diplomacy or Charisma check."
Player Rolls, succeeds.
DM "The King rises from his throne clearly intrigued. He runs his fingers through his beard and says 'What do ye want in the underworld that would drive ye to seek the Skull Gate?'"
Player " 'We wish to lend aid to the Deep Gnomes of Blingdenstone, they are trying to reclaim their rightful home' "
DM "Roll a another Diplomacy/Charisma check."
Player Rolls, fails.
DM "The King scowls at you. 'You must be treasure seekers, probably willing to betray the Deep Gnomes trust for a handful of gems. What reason can you give that I should allow you to use my gate? We have held the Skull Gate against the hordes of the Underdark for centuries and you want us to open it to allow some foolish adventurers to stir up the creatures that live there. After you die or leave what happens to us? We have to fend off those creatures until they give up again.' "
DM "Roll an insight check."
Player Rolls, succeeds.
DM "You realize the King is fearful of what will happen if you fail and he is suspicious of whether you will complete the task or not."
Player " 'Oh mighty King of the Dwarves, we have slain the Goblins, Hobgoblins, and Ogres that lived in the Caves of Chaos, we are mighty warriors, clever scouts, devout holy people, and knowledgeable magicians, we will succeed where others have failed.' "
DM "Roll another check."
Player Rolls and succeeds.
DM "The King waves his hand at the guards and says 'Let the fools through the gate, mayhap they will do some good where others have failed.' "
So you see dice can be used in conjunction with play acting, its not an either/or choice...
I have never understood why it is that rolling is perfectly a-ok for combat and physical skills, which a player rarely if ever comes close to being able to approximate (but can describe brilliantly, often enough), yet it is anathema or some sort of affront to give the same weight mechanically to non-physical skills.
Really? You don't understand why its ok to roll for something you can't do but can describe, but it's better to actually do the things you can do rather than roll? I'm not really sure what else to say.
Well since you can't emulate an 18+ Charisma unless you are some kind of accomplished negotiator, movie star, or some other super charismatic person, then we don't understand how you can do that either. Since you can't emulate a high Charisma character in a social situation and you can't emulate a high Strength character in combat, that's what the dice are for...
So...can you tell me, because I'm genuinely curious: Why is it that roleplaying out combat, even when describing your actions in detail, still acceptably boils down to rolling, with good descriptions giving interesting bonuses now and then, yet roleplaying out non-combat, describing your actions and statements in detail, should not boil down to rolls, with good descriptions giving interesting bonuses now and then?
Because you don't describe your actions and statements in detail--you make your statements. It's the difference between describing a punch and throwing a punch. Your actual real punch won't be like Bruce Lee's, but it's still a punch at all and it's more interesting than describing it. In the same way, actually saying something is more interesting than describing what you say.
You, as a player, are likely to be about as competent regarding diplomacy as you are combat. Your character, on the other hand, is leagues beyond you, the player, in combat and/or diplomacy and/or underworld connections, etc, etc, etc. So why does it leave a bad taste in some people's mouth to simulate via mechanics what your character can do in social situations, that you the player simply can't?
You also have to realize that while you are not a diplomat, your GM is not a king, either, so your discussion with him can still approximate. It's like reducing both sides of an equation by the same amount--everything is lesser, but it still has the same result. And it's still significantly more interesting just rolling a d20 and saying the negotiations went well.
It won't approximate if you are an above average talker and your DM is not all that clever when it comes to social situations. That simply means you are going to succeed most of the time. The same is true if the roles are reversed. If the DM is a good talker and you are not, then you will fail most of the time. None of that reflects the characters you or the DM are trying to portray...
I think we've found the disconnect here. No one is advocating that no one be allowed to talk at the table in character.The two sides to this conversation as I understand them are: Those that want the ability scores and skills of their characters comb
Having someone at the table try and talk with the king is infinitely more interesting and entertaining than having someone just state that he talked to the king and rolled X.
I think we've found the disconnect here. No one is advocating that no one be allowed to talk at the table in character.
The two sides to this conversation as I understand them are:
Those that want the ability scores and skills of their characters combined with rolls to determine the outcome.
Those that want to ignore the character's ability scores and skills altogether and use play acting to determine the outcome.
Nowhere does group 1 want to preclude talking. We simply think that the outcome should be determined by the dice and stats of the character, not the player. Here is an example:
*example snipped*
lokiare has the right of it, precisely. I can describe in great detail some amazing combat scenes, too. I've also actually engaged in a significant amount of such combat, wearing full armor, wielding real weapons, etc (I've also been roleplaying for 32 years, and I still have no clue why the amount of time one has been roleplaying matters one iota; I've known some amazing roleplayers less than half the age I've been roleplaying, who are total newbies, and people playing longer than I have who are simply miserable at actually roleplaying anything out).
No matter how amazing the maneuvers, no matter how cinematic a description, no matter how much fun is being had by all at the table listening to the amazing back and forth some people describe in combat, it will (and should) still require a roll to see if what is being described actually succeeds. The same should apply to other situations where your character interacts.
So...can you tell me, because I'm genuinely curious: Why is it that roleplaying out combat, even when describing your actions in detail, still acceptably boils down to rolling, with good descriptions giving interesting bonuses now and then, yet roleplaying out non-combat, describing your actions and statements in detail, should not boil down to rolls, with good descriptions giving interesting bonuses now and then?
Because you don't describe your actions and statements in detail--you make your statements. It's the difference between describing a punch and throwing a punch. Your actual real punch won't be like Bruce Lee's, but it's still a punch at all and it's more interesting than describing it. In the same way, actually saying something is more interesting than describing what you say.
See above this is a false dichotomy fallacy.
Moreover, that's YOUR opinion. To YOU actually talking it out and trying to approximating diplomatic is more interesting than describing it. Yet...many, many players over the years who aren't good at speaking in such a manner do in fact roughly lay out what they'd like to say in synopse form, as oppose to actually attempting to speak it out, in an informal, semi-out-of-character manner.
YOUR way of roleplaying isn't the only way, nor in my experience is it even the norm. Is it common? Sure. Yet even amongst very experienced roleplayers with above average skill at speaking publicly, or diplomatically, with full-blown accents and mannerisms, it often happens that they'll just give a brief description of what their character will say, instead of playacting it out. Happens all the time. Somehow, we all still manage to have a ton of fun, too.
Again, lokiare is quite right, and this is a total false dichotomy, and a severe disconnect.
You, as a player, are likely to be about as competent regarding diplomacy as you are combat. Your character, on the other hand, is leagues beyond you, the player, in combat and/or diplomacy and/or underworld connections, etc, etc, etc. So why does it leave a bad taste in some people's mouth to simulate via mechanics what your character can do in social situations, that you the player simply can't?
You also have to realize that while you are not a diplomat, your GM is not a king, either, so your discussion with him can still approximate. It's like reducing both sides of an equation by the same amount--everything is lesser, but it still has the same result. And it's still significantly more interesting just rolling a d20 and saying the negotiations went well.
It won't approximate if you are an above average talker and your DM is not all that clever when it comes to social situations. That simply means you are going to succeed most of the time. The same is true if the roles are reversed. If the DM is a good talker and you are not, then you will fail most of the time. None of that reflects the characters you or the DM are trying to portray...
I must also agree with lokiare regarding this, as well. A player who is a much better speaker, much more charismatic and convincing, or just a savvy liar, ad-libber and BS artist will run roughshod over the other characters, the DM, and the campaign in general if this is the metric being used. He could play a character with no training in anything social, with terrible social skills, and yet talk his way into or out of far, far, far more than his character could ever hope to.
Once again, your example of not rolling a d20 and playing it out is significantly more interesting to YOU. Which is wonderful. Nevertheless, for a sizeable chunk of players, the rules need some significant codification so they can successfully play the character they want to play, and have reasonable expectations of how it will perform within the game world relative to the other characters in the game world. As opposed to relying on the skills of the players themselves in simulating a character they may very well be horrifically bad at actually simulating.
You can ignore the rules designed to help those players to your heart's content. However, those players will have a vastly harder time doing the reverse; trying to make rulings on the fly to see if their characters succeed in a social situation said characters are brilliant at, but the players are not.
I think we've found the disconnect here. No one is advocating that no one be allowed to talk at the table in character.The two sides to this conversation as I understand them are: Those that want the ability scores and skills of their characters comb
Yeah, you need to actually read my post on the matter. I explicitly said you could do the 'talk it out' approach without rolling any dice.
Well, I never said no dice--I said roll the dice once at the end if the outcome is in doubtful.
That's probably a better way for me to explain it--the outcome of a fight is almost always in doubt (and if I really felt like it wasn't, I would roll for that, either), but the outcome of social situations are not so doubtful.
The example I use frequently when discussing this issue in regards to other games is that of the indomitable willed mook. Let's say we're playing a modern roleplaying game. PC1 is in an argument with a mafia thug and pulls a gun on the goon. Is the thug afraid? The rules of almost every game would call for some kind of intimidation roll, possibly with a bonus for having a gun pulled. I, however, find that absurd. A gun is a gun, and people are afraid of guns. Unless he knows you're bluffing (say, you have a history of bluffing or he knows you're a pacifist or something), he's going to be scared of a gun, and it shouldn't matter how intimidating you are because you have a gun.
So, in that situation, the thug should just be scared automatically, no roll required.
On the other hand, if you had no gun and just made some kind of threat, you have to roll, because telling someone you'll murder their family with a shaky voice or something isn't going to be convincing.
That same thing can apply to all sorts of social situations--if you're trying to ask for help from someone else, for example, and you, the PC, makes a cogent and convincing point about why the NPC should help, then he ought to help automatically. If your request is only "ok," or you don't feel like coming up with a real answer or something, then you roll.
But this stuff generally doesn't apply to physical stuff--the outcome of physical challenges are more in doubt. I'm not saying it's never a sure thing, though (for example, if (again, in a modern game), you tell me you use a bump key to open a locked door, you just do it--no roll required. Little kids can work bump keys), it's just usually something riskier that needs rolls.
What I was proposing was for the people like me that think the outcome of an action should be based on the character not on the player. Your way is perfectly fine and should get a few paragraphs dedicated to it, but it doesn't really need much explanation and no matter what the rules are people like you will do the whole play acting thing and ignore the dice mechanics anyway.
Like I said above, I must not have been clear--I don't ignore dice. I just only use them if there's doubt, and I don't want focus on them, which is what would happen if every situation required 4 or 5 rolls to overcome.
Not exactly--I think traversing point A to Point B is boring. I think exploring and discovering stuff is cool, but it's the stuff you're finding that's interesting, not the dozen rolls you made to prove you could get there and find it.
and like play acting social situations. Nothing wrong with that. I'd be fine if my method was put into a module or had a sentence at the start saying "The method described below is optional, if you want to simplify it simply have a single skill check." That way we both get what we want.
Yeah, ok, that's fine. I'm not really after denying anyone else their playstyle--I just don't want my style to be ignored and relegated to "yeah, you'll do what you want anyway, so we don't need to worry about you in the rules." I want my style showcased right besides others because I want more people to try it and see for themselves how they like it.
Just go to the Rogue. The gist is that their skill tricks duplicate spell effects, but do so in mundane ways justified by good descriptions and special equipment. You can effectively Charm Person someone by being so awesome at Diplomacy, effectively Animate Rope by being so good at Sleight of Hand, or effectively Glitterdust by having the right alchemical powders, etc.
The two sides to this conversation as I understand them are:
Those that want the ability scores and skills of their characters combined with rolls to determine the outcome.
Those that want to ignore the character's ability scores and skills altogether and use play acting to determine the outcome.
No, but I see that is a very common way of your side viewing mine. I don't want to ignore ability scores and skills at all. I want the character's actions to determine the outcome. Yes, the player is talking, but they are talking as their character, so it is the character's argument. And yeah, we'll definitely rag on the guy who is making a MENSA argument with his 8 Intelligence Barbarian, but those are the perfect times for when rolls are appropriate. If the argument or whatever is wildly out of whack with what the character should be capable of, the outcome is in doubt--time for a roll. If it's not, and it's a good argument, there shouldn't be doubt.
Nowhere does group 1 want to preclude talking. We simply think that the outcome should be determined by the dice and stats of the character, not the player. Here is an example:
That looks pretty much like what my game would look like with a few differences:
1) I don't think this situation would call for a Diplomacy roll--the PC's argument was good--it should work. 2) I would be fine with the Insight check, but I would never prompt the player for one--they'd ask me if they can figure out what's making the king hesitant. 3) None of us would say "I say" or "he says," we'd just say it. We are definitely immersive.
Well since you can't emulate an 18+ Charisma unless you are some kind of accomplished negotiator, movie star, or some other super charismatic person, then we don't understand how you can do that either. Since you can't emulate a high Charisma character in a social situation and you can't emulate a high Strength character in combat, that's what the dice are for...
You're moving goalposts here. I never said you could emulate an 18 Charisma character--I said you could have a conversation at all. You can't emulate any Strength character at the table, be it 1 or 18, becaue you cannot do anything physically at the table. There is a huge difference here--I'm saying talk at all, and you're insisting that talking at all doesn't count because it's not good enough talking. I don't think the quality of the talking is as important as the existence of it, though.
Moreover, that's YOUR opinion. To YOU actually talking it out and trying to approximating diplomatic is more interesting than describing it. Yet...many, many players over the years who aren't good at speaking in such a manner do in fact roughly lay out what they'd like to say in synopse form, as oppose to actually attempting to speak it out, in an informal, semi-out-of-character manner.
To be blunt, I have no interest in roleplaying with those people. They can and should roleplay, and that's cool, just not with me because they'd just drive me nuts.
In my experience, when someone is so bad at social situations that they can't even have a conversation in character, they're going to be bad at describing social situations as well, so they'll just be a drag all around if they don't stay out of the "interaction pillar" to use the Next terminology.
But like I said, if both options get equal billing, that's cool. I just want to make sure both ways get print space, and not just your way.
YOUR way of roleplaying isn't the only way, nor in my experience is it even the norm. Is it common? Sure. Yet even amongst very experienced roleplayers with above average skill at speaking publicly, or diplomatically, with full-blown accents and mannerisms, it often happens that they'll just give a brief description of what their character will say, instead of playacting it out. Happens all the time. Somehow, we all still manage to have a ton of fun, too.
I've honestly not seen that much. I have seen it, yes, and those players bug the crap out of me, but they're so rare, it's not been a huge issue. They're fine people, don't get me wrong, but I'd rather play board, card, or video games with them than roleplaying games.
I must also agree with lokiare regarding this, as well. A player who is a much better speaker, much more charismatic and convincing, or just a savvy liar, ad-libber and BS artist will run roughshod over the other characters, the DM, and the campaign in general if this is the metric being used.
And a player who is good with math, numbers, and rules will run roughshod over the other characters, DM, and campaign in general because their characters will be more optimally made. So what? I don't have a problem with any of that at all. If you're good at a game, you'll do better at it. Do you think the rules of Poker should be rewritten to even the playing field between good bluffers and bad bluffers? Should say, Soul Caliber 3 be remade into a turn based game so that players with slower reflexes and poor hand-eye coordination can match the experts?
He could play a character with no training in anything social, with terrible social skills, and yet talk his way into or out of far, far, far more than his character could ever hope to.
No, because his words would not be believable, so if he acted wildly out of character like that, he'd have to roll. But at the same time, even the most ineloquent slob can make a logical argument.
Well, I never said no dice--I said roll the dice once at the end if the outcome is in doubtful. That's probably a better way for me to explain it--the outcome of a fight is almost always in doubt (and if I really felt like it wasn't, I would roll fo
Personally I am a fan of rolling first and then roleplaying the outcome to the best of your ability. You have an 8 charisma, no social skills and rolled a 5, roleplay that. Don't go all flowery awesome on us just because you can.
But I am not a snob about who I play with an accept people of all skill levels in social arenas.
To butcher Lokiare's example if you roll bad.
"I approach the throne, noticing the kings daughter my eyes stray toward her. Wishing her bodice was cut a bit lower, I give her a quick wink. After a quick bow to the king. I say 'I ask the King of the Dwarven city of Thorin to um give us permission to enter the Skull Gate.'"
On the other hand one of my players has some adhd issues and it might be something more like this on a good roll. "I approach the throne and say um, yeah, you should um, you know, let us go in the skull gate, we will kill things on the other side, you know. That is what we want, it would be like good for you." Add some stuttering in that sentence and you might get close to how it would sound. Without a really awesome DM in a mostly role play with slight rolling how would he fair? I'm guessing not very well, and he is still a great guy who I want to game with.
Personally I am a fan of rolling first and then roleplaying the outcome to the best of your ability. You have an 8 charisma, no social skills and rolled a 5, roleplay that. Don't go all flowery awesome on us just because you can. But I am not a sn
Yet...many, many players over the years who aren't good at speaking in such a manner do in fact roughly lay out what they'd like to say in synopse form, as oppose to actually attempting to speak it out, in an informal, semi-out-of-character manner.
Conversely my 7 year old will talk and gesture in character smooth and natural ... in ways that freak out her dad. I suspect I am going to climbing the roof when she hits teen age years.
Conversely my 7 year old will talk and gesture in character smooth and natural ... in ways that freak out her dad. I suspect I am going to climbing the roof when she hits teen age years.
