I can ask a more specific question, sure. "My epic fighter has +11 Athletics, and is being beaten by the village idiot with +5 Athletics, why am I not awesome at anything that does not involve killing?" Which is rather more mean to the system, and less interesting to me.
If you think the question is prone to opinions, then mark it as such. If you think the question is "too broad" then mark it as such. If that's your problem with it, use the proper mechanisms. But a question is not "unclear" just because you don't like what its asking. Vote it down and then delete...
@waxeagle Not quite. I'm quite content believing high-level 5e characters are great at killing things. But that's a third of the game. I'm asking about non-combat skill interactions.
@BrianBallsun-Stanton FYI: When a question is closed, anyone writing an answer still has about four hours to post it, under the right conditions. (Source)
actually, no, assume they get half prof and have a 20 in dex
@Magician right, explicitly exclude them as exceptional
"Can an Evil Mage find a L20 fighter?"
Essentially, the L20 fighter has a stealth of 8, and the CR1 Evil mage has a perception of +1...if my calculations are correct, the Evil Mage finds the fighter about 13% of the time
If a 3e L20 fighter didn't put skill points into Stealth, they'd suck at it and would be found by L1 enemies, which does not diminish their shining demigod-ness.
The reason I chose Athletics for the example was exactly because the fighter is meant to be the best at it, so we're comparing competence with competence.
@WesleyObenshain Which, to me, would have far-reaching consequences in dealing with 5e and it would definitely be useful to be able to have this point of view ratified by the community and available for future reference.
Perhaps if you summarized your statement with the question: Do the flat-math mechanics mean that max-level characters are no longer demigods compared to starting chraacters?
@DuckTapeAl It seems like this is asking for a deeper understanding of the system than the question in its current form. Given how hesitant the site is atm to field such questions, I'm not sure that's the best bet.
We're not going to have a site full of "questions" that are really protests about whatever 5e changes someone doesn't like. Pretending to pose it as a question doesn't change that.
@mxyzplk I think you're missing the point of the question (and I'm really not sure how). The difference in power level implies a thematic difference that is not in any way clarified at the moment (by the rules).
@mxyzplk are edition comparison questions suddenly invalid? Because we've got a lot of closing to do if they are
and that should go through meta, not fiat
user61230
2:30 AM
@dampes8n Just letting you know, I think you've unintentionally exposed quite a number of documents that aren't necessarily damaging, but probably shouldn't be out there.
user61230
I'd double-check the permissions on your web server if it isn't intentional.
@WesleyObenshain Back in my 3.5 days I had a player who felt it was impossible to critically hit something more than five levels higher than yourself, and impossible to critically miss against something more than five levels below.
@BESW I actually implemented a 'fix' to the critical hit system that basically had that effect.
Instead of the normal critical hit rules, you crit if you get a hit that is 20 points higher than your opponents AC, and you crit fail if you get a number 20 points lower than your opponents AC.
@Magician I don't recall exactly (it was eight years ago). Something about extreme level disparity representing trivial threat levels which the potential for lucky crits undermined.
They felt the David-and-Goliath scenario was inaccurate to the system's level-equals-power ethos?
So, there are two things that should be pointed out in the bounded accuracy question
One, damage scales very high even though accuracy does not.
Two, because of advantage being a bonus, there are things which it's possible for a level 20 char to do, which is impossible for a level 1 char to do. Mainly things with a DC higher than 30
And even for high level characters, they're not going to have a reasonable chance of success for DC 30+ stuff. It's basically impossible to get a check value above 11.
"Whenever a target makes an attack roll or a saving throw before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to the attack roll or saving throw."
I understand what you mean, I just don't think it's super relevant to the question. The question is referring to the fact that a level 20 character in 3e can beat a level 1 character every time, pretty much without fail, and in 5e that isn't the case. You're correct, I just don't think it's terribly relevant.
"Once before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to one ability check of its choice."
Looks like Guidance does the trick.
And is a cantrip, so if you have it, any non-combat roll is going to have +1d4.
@GMNoob That's not the focus of the conversation, I think. Yes, higher level characters have upper bounds which lower level creatures can't possibly attain--but the floor of their capacity hasn't raised all that much, and that's what's being focused on.
Except that he pretty clearly defines what he means by "demigods" in the question, and it's not that.
In 3e, a level 1 character who is pretty good at what they do has a bonus around 7. If they push themselves, they can have an 11. At level 20, they can easily have a 32 without much effort, and can probably get into the 50s if they try.
A level 1 character cannot beat a level 20 character in a straight skill check ever in 3e. In 5e, that's no longer the case.
And that's basically what the question is about.
All of the stuff that you've said is basically correct, but isn't what the question is asking about.
For the record: I have no reason to think bounded accuracy doesn't work for combat - I have not run any statistical analysis but hope authors have. Levels grant not just increase in attack bonus but hp, extra attacks, etc which all add up. While an epic PC can fight a goblin and a goblin might scratch them, there's no risk of an epic PC losing to a goblin. The disconnect of an epic PC losing to a goblin in a contest of skill is due to the habitual misapplication of goblin dice by the system.
@Magician You're basically correct there. There is no real way that a level 20 fighter is going to lose to a level 1 goblin, bounded accuracy or not. The biggest problem with trying to run a statistical analysis of anything in 5e is that stats generally won't show you how the game will actually run.
In 4e, that would work, since you're in the combat-as-sport kind of game.
In the 5e combat-as-war paradigm, it's less useful.
I've been playing 5e for a couple months now, and it seems like the big thing you get from leveling is more HP, more damage, and more versatility.
@DuckTapeAl Right. Thing is, in 4e you didn't get the phenomenal cosmic power either, at least not mechanically. While your numbers grew, that was a fairly abstract growth. However, the ethos of the system still suggested that you became a demigod, and thus flavor was independent of mechanics.
Which is an easy way for the system to go "yup, math doesn't work in these edge cases, but it doesn't need to, don't let epic characters fight goblins."
I'm not passing judgment here, I don't actually think one is better than another, I'm trying to figure out if the ethos of goblins having a chance against PCs in contests of skill is the intended outcome.
If it is, there's suddenly a very... uneasy fact that epic PCs are exceptionally good at one thing and one thing only: killing.
Which is fine in 4e as it's a combat system, but troubling in a game claiming to be about more than that.
And it's not just about being able to pass the one skill check, it's about being able to pass the other ancillary skill checks that you can use to gain advantage or impose disadvantage on the important roll.
If you're just looking at a single number vs. a single number in a vaccuum, it looks weird. In play, it really doesn't work like that.
@DuckTapeAl So what you're saying is, an epic character needs to put a lot of groundwork into winning against a 1st level character? Because that's a valid interpretation of the system and, again, I'm not saying it's wrong in any way, just different from my understanding of what high level meant in previous editions.
@GMNoob Not talking about attacks, skill checks. Ogres had skills, I think? Can't recall.
@GMNoob 77% chance of winning without groundwork. With advantage that improves, but I don't know if it's fair to say the low-level contestant won't ever get an advantage themselves.
You're basically right, @Magician. The game is much flatter than earlier editions. However, it's a lot wider, and it means that you can have interesting encounters with characters that aren't the same level as you.
It certainly is in 4e with its combat-as-sport ethos. But 5e with its return to the combat-as-war ethos emphasizes the possibility of overcoming monsters via guile. If you can talk your way past an ogre, awesome. If you can bargain with the hobgoblins, sweet. If you can sneak up onto the orcs, go you.
It certainly doesn't help that cause to label some monsters as "social" while others as "combat".
Overall, I'm just confused as to why nothics get skills while no one else does, what's so special about nothics?
"Combat-as-sport" is a sad thing in a way... What's the point of sneaking and clever cunning plans if the characters are essentially the best at killing them in direct combat?
A sound description of character classes in 5e: "At level 20 a Cleric can call on direct divine intervention without error, a Rogue can have amazing luck, automatically getting a 37 on an ability check, Fighters can jump further than is otherwise possible, and wizards have access to amazing spells."
I fully agree with it, and find it rather sad for fighters. Which is not at all new to 5e...
I printed the 38 page basic playbook on my parents' cheapo inkjet printer. Screwed up the two-sided printing, as usual. The character sheets turned out fine though, and that's the most important thing.
Still, as long as the DPR is measured in the same way for every character, and characters fall within the desired brackets of DPR as compared to average monster health at that level, it's all good.
@GMNoob I believe it's mostly ignored, yeah. There's DPR calculation, and a nova round calculation.
@GMNoob No, it worked for all levels. In practice, at higher levels DPR would be greater, as you won't use at-wills much at all, you'd have enough of encounter and daily powers to use them each fight. But the relative DPR between different characters would mostly be accurate.
So if my at-will DPR is 50, I kill a level 30 monster with average 200 hp (very approximate numbers here) in 4 rounds, which puts me in the 'average' column. Strikers take 2 rounds, defenders 8.
@GMNoob Nova is as much as you can manage and depends on each build. It assumes action point and any other buff you can get.
Hm, I wonder if I should make my characters' Apocalypse World a scorching Fallout-style desert or a snowy wasteland still enduring the aftereffects of a nuclear winter.
@GMNoob In practice, I might kill a monster of my level in 3 rounds due to encounter powers and buffs and whatnot, but the at-will DPR simply tells me I'm not too far off the desired damage output.
@kviiri Doesn't have to be any kind of nuclear thing! Though it can, of course.
Of course that'd be only the climate when the game starts. If it's the late days of nuclear winter, it will get warmer. Also players can migrate for warmer/colder climates.
I was playing in a game set in the dead of winter, we got bogged down with the GMs obsession over how many blankets we took, how we arranged travel for the old on an hourly basis.
@Mourdos Gameplay itself, not very much. If a player gets political power or followers, they'll be abstracted away into a few lieutenant NPCs who will manage the mess and backstab when appropriate.
It's a rules-light, narration-oriented system. Everything is resolved with a 2d6 + bonus roll, where "bonus" is most often a stat maxing at 3, although occasionally it's some resource spent.
I'm about to start play in a desert based game of pathfinder. All the playes have resistance to cold and fire, so we just bypassed the main survival element.
Six or less means a "miss" - that'll either fail the action or succeed with a cost attached. 7-9 is a soft hit, meaning a partial success or a success with a small cost attached. 10 or more means a total success, with no cost or only a small cost attached.
There are two systems for that. One's the "optional battle moves" that uses similar rolls for actions like "Stay the fuck down" and "Provide covering fire" etc.
On the other hand, the rules stress out that these rules are indeed optional and if the GM doesn't like them the players can stick to the normal moves like "seize by force" to resolve violent encounters.
Each weapon has a harm rating, for example 2-harm for a 9mm pistol and 4-harm for a handheld grenade launcher. All attacks deal the harm rating's worth of damage, minus the target's armor (unless the attack is armor piercing).
Players have six points of harm. The first two points heal automatically over time, the third needs medical attention to heal and beyond that the harm will need medical attention to not get worse over time.
NPC's, on the other hand, have no such luck - they typically die or get incapacitated at 2 or 3 harm, at the GM's discretion.
Oh yes, it's meant to be printed and handed out to players.
It also has some repetition because some of the most important rules for a particular character class are repeated in the class's sheet.
After DnD I find it particularly refreshing that this game doesn't even WANT me to keep track of money and ammo. There's "barter" for money - 1-barter is how much you need to live for a month if you're a miser.
I like wealth being somewhat abstract. I don't like tracking the cost of every single goblet of ale my character chugs with their millions.
The GM can just say "Ok, you've drank for a while, that's going to be about one barter's worth of ale now." or "Your gas tank is getting empty, refill it for one barter at Lou's or find some fuel yourself."
Not really - I assume living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland would skew some prizes significantly.
Since most of the people would be dead, there'd be plenty of bridges to live under. I guess the 1-barter for living costs of a month would be mostly food and water, not shelter.
Meanwhile, producing beer would require some dedicated facilities and grain that would probably ramp up its cost a bit.
