D&D 5E Discussion

[LeStryfe79]

Gonna play some 5ed for 10 hours in a fallout shelter in Salem, Illinois tomorrow. My character is a human thief named Zenni Dragorn.

 

[Irenaeus II]

Post his character sheet

 

[LeStryfe79]

I'm using a pregen this time since I have a history of ruining games with my bullshit. That said, I did influence his creation and name him. I'll post it and the other characters Monday, after I get back, as well as a review of the game. The other characters are both humans and include a Devotion Paladin, and a Champion Fighter.

 

[DavidBVal]

Is the skill system working well for you guys?

Isn't it a bit "simplistic" to choose 70% of your skills to be proficient, at level 1, and stay like that forever? And not to mention a +1 at level 1 is meaningless, stats are much more important, and that can make, for isntance, the cleric better at Survival than the proficient ranger.

I liked the versatility in 3.5 of choosing between being jack of all trades, or master of a few skills, plus the idea of Xclass skill ranks, or the ability to learn new skills fitting the roleplaying and story, etc.

It was sometimes overcomplicated, maybe so many points on every level was overkill, but by reading the new system, feels a bit simplistic/deterministic.

 

[LeStryfe79]

I like the 5ed skill system better, because in many ways the math in 3.X doesn't support most of the character options at higher level. In most cases, in 5ed, rogues and bards are gonna be the most skilled unless you take feats. That's exactly how it worked in 3.X as well. Honestly, you can actually make better "Jack of All trades " characters in 5ed if that's your thing. Lore Bards, and Knowledge Clerics are particularly good at this and better at fulfilling this role than any 3.X character. I will say that' it's harder to make a character that stinks in 5ed, so it requires a bit more effort if that's your bag. I don't think there's anything wrong with making a stinker either, and I'd list that as one of the few shortcomings 5ed has.

Edit: That said, I'd be a bit shocked if a more complicated skill system wasn't made available in an Unearthed Arcana book in the near future.

 

[Irenaeus II]

I think picking a background with a tough flaw or bond for a particular build and roleplaying it correctly would make a stinker, if done right. There's the challenge, imo.

 

[Keldryn]

Haven't played it yet, but the proficiency bonus at 1st level is +2, not +1.

I do agree that it is too heavily weighted towards ability score bonuses, although if you use the default array or point buy as written in the book, it is very difficult to start off with a +4 at first level.

Attaching Wisdom to skills like Survival and Perception has always had that undesirable side effect of making Clerics really good at them even if untrained. Wisdom has been extended way beyond what it was originally intended to represent.

 

[DavidBVal]

I like the 5ed skill system better, because in many ways the math in 3.X doesn't support most of the character options at higher level. In most cases, in 5ed, rogues and bards are gonna be the most skilled unless you take feats. That's exactly how it worked in 3.X as well. Honestly, you can actually make better "Jack of All trades " characters in 5ed if that's your thing. Lore Bards, and Knowledge Clerics are particularly good at this and better at fulfilling this role than any 3.X character. I will say that' it's harder to make a character that stinks in 5ed, so it requires a bit more effort if that's your bag. I don't think there's anything wrong with making a stinker either, and I'd list that as one of the few shortcomings 5ed has.

Don't get me wrong, I like the backgrounds, and I see that a simplification was needed.

My main concern is, how in 5E you make a PC/NPC that is extraordinarily perceptive, as part of the character concept. In 3.5E was, maxing skill, maybe taking +2 feat, decent stats. Here, everyone is perceptive or isn't, and the cleric still will trump everyone until mid level.

Or, your character is a level 1 rogue which for whatever reason didn't learn pick locks. Now he never will, even if in the adventure he becomes trained by the guildmaster himself.

 

[Irenaeus II]

Don't get me wrong, I like the backgrounds, and I see that a simplification was needed.

My main concern is, how in 5E you make a PC/NPC that is extraordinarily perceptive, as part of the character concept. In 3.5E was, maxing skill, maybe taking +2 feat, decent stats. Here, everyone is perceptive or isn't, and the cleric still will trump everyone until mid level.

Or, your character is a level 1 rogue which for whatever reason didn't learn pick locks. Now he never will, even if in the adventure he becomes trained by the guildmaster himself.

Good point about Wisdom.

For even more challenging and amusing plays, I suggest the method of rolling 3d6 for every stats in order and rolling a random race and background, only then picking a class and the rest. Would make for some real fun games.

Or, your character is a level 1 rogue which for whatever reason didn't learn pick locks. Now he never will, even if in the adventure he becomes trained by the guildmaster himself.

I'm pretty sure the DMG has rules for learning skills between adventures. I'll read that part again tonight to clarify.

 

[LeStryfe79]

It's for tools and languages. Also, every rogue gets lock picks and you can play an unwise priest and still cast spells. I think 5ed offers the most flexibility unless you count the hundreds of splatbooks from 3.X. The new system is still new, but I think it's gonna make a lot of people happy for a long, long time. As a reference for my preferences, I never played original Dnd, loved Adnd, thought 3.X was decent, hated 4ed, and at this point in time think 5ed is the best overall game in the DnD history. Everyone's got their own preferences, but those are mine.

 

[Irenaeus II]

you can play an unwise priest and still cast spells.

You obviously can, but still, playing a wise cleric is the most straightforward way, even if you like twisting details and making a non standard character.That this is linked to good Perception and Survival ability even without having the skills is counter-intuitive and a flaw in the system imo.

 

[LeStryfe79]

It's a difference between talent and training. Eventually, training usurps talent, but it takes a while. How is that counter-intuitive?

 

[Irenaeus II]

It's a difference between talent and training. Eventually, training usurps talent, but it takes a while. How is that counter-intuitive?

I don't know. Every wise level-1 cleric shouldn't be very good at Survival and Perception by definition. Wisdom, Survival and Perception are three different things imo. But I digress...

 

[LeStryfe79]

Thing is you're not wrong, but I don't think the default DnD is simulationist. Fortunately, there is an easy solution if you don't like it. House ruling that not having a skill imposes a disadvantage would work very well in these cases. I'd go so far to say I might even use that bastard rule myself. Thanks Iren Jr!

 

[Irenaeus II]

That would work

 

[DavidBVal]

It's a difference between talent and training. Eventually, training usurps talent, but it takes a while. How is that counter-intuitive?

I don't think it does usurps talent ever. You need to get to level 13 to have a proficiency bonus that is higher than WIS 18, and it never gets much better, just a +6 vs a +4. I agree that maybe the previous system was worse, with a +20 entirely trumping an irrelevant stat bonus, but something like this would have been nice:

-you can get proficient/expert/master at a skill

-each proficience allows you to, if you prefer to specialize, go from proficient to expert, or expert to master

-you gain a few proficiences as you level up, maybe 1 every 3 levels.

-the current proficiency bonus stays, and then it gains a +2 if you are expert and a +3 if you are master

-high-level DCs get a little increased.

the only problem I see with this is, weapon proficiencies, which could unbalance the system. Plus every melee would take them.

 

[LeStryfe79]

Irenaeus II I think I'd make the exception for PASSIVE perception roles though. I think that's hard to train. I get a minus 3 for my passive perception roles irl. Trust me on that.


DavidBVal Idk man, I think about the word wisdom and it implies a lot. Let's take Strength instead...It don't matter how much I run, I ain't beating a Nigerian with high stats.

 

[DavidBVal]

Irenaeus II I think I'd make the exception for PASSIVE perception roles though. I think that's hard to train. I get a minus 3 for my passive perception roles irl. Trust me on that.


DavidBVal Idk man, I think about the word wisdom and it implies a lot. Let's take Strength instead...It don't matter how much I run, I ain't beating a Nigerian with high stats.

A nigerian with high stats that never trained, vs a normal guy that runs every day for 15 years? maybe in a sprint, but in any medium or long distance, training wins. Not to mention that's one of the most stat-favorable example. Imagine chess, programming, tennis, knowledge... training is everything.

 

[Irenaeus II]

http://5edndwiki.wikidot.com/howtoplay-abilityscores

WISDOM (WIS)
Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to your surroundings, representing general perceptiveness, intuition, insight, and other, less tangible senses. Wisdom is also important for understanding divine edicts and expectations.

Although Wisdom is important to all characters who want to be alert, Wisdom is especially important to clerics and druids, since the ability is crucial for channeling divine power from the gods and the environment.

 

[LeStryfe79]

DavidBVal I'm saying that the stats themselves elude to a certain amount of training. How does a person become athletic without exercise or wise without learning? The stats don't just represent a genetic code but a certain amount of "general education" in the various fields they give bonuses to. According to you, "Yeah, I went to the best schools that taught me how to seduce women." is better than being a good looking and likable guy. You are wrong. An 18 dex already means I've done a lot in that field. Is that hard to understand? Do you think that 18 dex person sat on his ass his whole life? Sorcerers didn't go to schools, so lets cut em off at level 2 magic!!! Hahahaha!!!1 You are a strange one!

 

[DavidBVal]

DavidBVal I'm saying that the stats themselves elude to a certain amount of training. How does a person become athletic without exercise or wise without learning? The stats don't just represent a genetic code but a certain amount of "general education" in the various fields they give bonuses to. According to you, "Yeah, I went to the best schools that taught me how to seduce women." is better than being a good looking and likable guy. You are wrong.

LeStryfe79, That reasoning goes both ways. It's almost impossible that a guy that becomes a world master at, let's say, chess, has average intelligence. Would be very strange to have a character like that, too, but could happen.

Seducing women is a natural talent that relies in innate capabilities mostly, which you can fine-tune with experience. Skills are not all the same, for instance picking a lock depends mostly on training, while swimming may be in between. If you've learned to swim properly, you'll know someone with the right technique will always swim faster that some fit guy that learned the basics by himself.

But let's leave realism aside, as there are both examples and counterexamples that support talent vs traning, and in the end it's about having fun. In my experience many players often want to specialize and stand out (often paying a price for it, losing versatility), and what I say is "oh I am proficient at survival too, like most people in my class" sounds lacking in that regard. Think of Aragorn, for instance, a master survivalist, one in a generation. That can't be implemented with 5E. The old 1-20 system was a bit crazy, no system needs that many different degrees of expertise on a skill, but replacing it with binary may be a net loss. I like, for instance, V:tm system (0-5)

PS: how do you tag someone?

 

[LeStryfe79]

Well, once again there are higher level thieves that can become exceptional at a few skills through their class abilities. Thieves automatically getting pick locks is akin to them getting sneak attack. It's a class based system. A classless system would be good to though, and I 100% agree with you about having fun. I've been prone to getting defensive about 5ed, but that's only because of how bad 4ed was. I really really believe in this version of DnD. It might bite me in the ass, but so far I like what I see. Anyway, good gaming, man.

 

[DavidBVal]

Well, once again there are higher level thieves that can become exceptional at a few skills through their class abilities. Thieves automatically getting pick locks is akin to them getting sneak attack. It's a class based system. A classless system would be good to though, and I 100% agree with you about having fun. I've been prone to getting defensive about 5ed, but that's only because of how bad 4ed was. I really really believe in this version of DnD. It might bite me in the ass, but so far I like what I see. Anyway, good gaming, man.

Yeah, 4e sucked and this is a great edition, agreed there.

 

[LeStryfe79]

I think there will be one helluva Unearthed Arcana book released eventually. A good skill system would require several pages of removing the proficiency bonus and letting players allocate points individually. A lot of people want this option, so I'm guessing it will be there. It's a big one though, so it might be a while.

 

[Irenaeus II]

DavidBVal

Use a @ before their user name. Usually auto-completes before you finish writing. Twitter works the same.