I'm not a fan of how tied everything has been to the d20 since 3rd ed.
Hear me out:
Firstly, there was a time when saving throws and skill checks were rolled against fixed numbers determined by one's class and level. Need to make a save against something? Roll over #. Want to try to do something? Roll under the relevant stat. Or # in 6 or the provided percentage.
Now, each of these is rolled using a d20 and success or failure is determined arbitrarily:
"You couldn't do what you wanted to do because a number I decided upon just now says you couldn't."
I'm sorry. But it almost seems pointless rolling the dice and would make just as much sense if the DM just told you whether you could do what you wanted to do.
It allows a DM to impede a character's attempt to do something so the DM can railroad things. It removes what might be even just the remotest possibility of doing something and leaves it to the whims of the DM. The DM has the final word in the game. But that's too arbitrary and likely to be abused by even the least cruel or DMs.
Secondly, with almost everything revolving around the d20, beyond character creation and maybe some house rules here and there, most players only ever need to roll a d20 and maybe one, two, or three dice for damage. Where's the fun in that?
I get the love for the streamlining of everything. The simplification of the game. But I love tables. In case that wasn't obvious from my username.
While I enjoy tables, I enjoy playing D&D more. Endless charts of prior editions both slow down gameplay, meaning you are spending more time looking at charts than playing, and turn people away from the game, meaning you are less likely to get a group together.
The benefit - getting a more complex system you quickly wish was more streamlined so you could go back to playing D&D - hardly seems worth it.
As for your specific concerns? Those seem like concerns that arise from bad DMing, not from the system itself. Seems unfair to blame an icosahedron for those issues.
I'm also gonna chalk this up to a bad DM experience. Your issue with DCs seems weird since DCs are off a table. The table gives the range of DCs based on how difficult a task should be to attempt. The DM considers the task, refers to the table, and assigns the DC. You then roll to attempt the task. This is a common staple and every, single TTRPG system I have ever played employs something similar.
The system is fine. Your issue seems like it was with a DM ignoring the RAW or possibly your misunderstanding of how DCs are decided.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
While I enjoy tables, I enjoy playing D&D more. Endless charts of prior editions both slow down gameplay, meaning you are spending more time looking at charts than playing, and turn people away from the game, meaning you are less likely to get a group together.
The benefit - getting a more complex system you quickly wish was more streamlined so you could go back to playing D&D - hardly seems worth it.
As for your specific concerns? Those seem like concerns that arise from bad DMing, not from the system itself. Seems unfair to blame an icosahedron for those issues.
How does it slow down gameplay when a player makes note on his or her character sheet of what is to to be found in such tables? You only need to do this each time you go up a level. Yours is a concern that is more about players being too lazy to put pen to paper.
And I'm not blaming THE DIE. I'm blaming THE SYSTEM. One that is just making a roll and adding or subtracting any bonuses or penalties and this being rolled against an ARBITRARY target number.
It's all a matter of preference. I just prefer a game in which the player knows what his or her chances are of doing something. Something as arbitrary as the current system makes the game feel almost like a diceless role-playing game.
I'm also gonna chalk this up to a bad DM experience. Your issue with DCs seems weird since DCs are off a table. The table gives the range of DCs based on how difficult a task should be to attempt. The DM considers the task, refers to the table, and assigns the DC. You then roll to attempt the task. This is a common staple and every, single TTRPG system I have ever played employs something similar.
The system is fine. Your issue seems like it was with a DM ignoring the RAW or possibly your misunderstanding of how DCs are decided.
I'm assuming you mean the table that just says what the DC should be for something easy or difficult and everything in between. Not sure how many DMs consult this instead of just arbitrarily deciding success or failure. Either way I prefer fixed numbers for saves and checks. And the use of more dice than just a d20 to resolve everything.
I'm also gonna chalk this up to a bad DM experience. Your issue with DCs seems weird since DCs are off a table. The table gives the range of DCs based on how difficult a task should be to attempt. The DM considers the task, refers to the table, and assigns the DC. You then roll to attempt the task. This is a common staple and every, single TTRPG system I have ever played employs something similar.
The system is fine. Your issue seems like it was with a DM ignoring the RAW or possibly your misunderstanding of how DCs are decided.
To what tables are you referring?
Where in the rules does it provide tables with specified DCs for every given possible save or check?
Checks are done as DC challenges or contested rolls, combat is basically sub category of this where the DC is AC.
Yes it's the DM's role to determine, or as you say adjudicate in all caps for some reason, a tasks difficulty. Just like in the days of percentile tables assigned to particularly class features, a DM could modify that percentage based on environmental or other circumstantial factors.
Bringing almost everything except damage and effects in line with the d20 is part of the streamlining that makes 5e popular. The d20 test isn't go anywhere based on the playtest material being circulated.
I'm also gonna chalk this up to a bad DM experience. Your issue with DCs seems weird since DCs are off a table. The table gives the range of DCs based on how difficult a task should be to attempt. The DM considers the task, refers to the table, and assigns the DC. You then roll to attempt the task. This is a common staple and every, single TTRPG system I have ever played employs something similar.
The system is fine. Your issue seems like it was with a DM ignoring the RAW or possibly your misunderstanding of how DCs are decided.
To what tables are you referring to?
Where in the rules does it provide tables with specified DCs for every given possible save or check?
No TTRPG in all of existence will ever have a table reflecting "every given possible save or check", there's too many scenarios. D&D 5th and most others simplify this with "easy, hard, near impossible" etc, and leave it to basic logic and reason to determine which one fits the task best. This is preferred by so many systems for streamlining play and allowing greater improvisation for scenarios the books cannot account. It introduces randomness and when done by a good DM makes it all feel so much more realistic.
For instance, somebody wants to bash in a basic wooden door. That's a Moderate level (15), but lets say the workmanship was substandard, we can lower it to 13. And its aged decades with damp and a little rot, so we can make that Easy, a 10. For the wizard with a Strength of 8, that's a basic d20-1 roll. They need 11 or higher, so they have a 45% chance of success. But the fighter who has a 20 Strength only needs a 5 or higher, which is 75% chance of success.
Now say somebody wants to do a backflip onto a narrow ledge? Probs Acrobatics. This isn't an easy thing to do, in fact it's Hard, almost Very Hard so we can easily put that as say 22. That 5th level fighter with a 10 in Dex and no Acrobatics prof literally cannot achieve this. But the 5th level Rogue with Expertise (double prof, that's a 6) and 20 Dex probs can needing only an 11 or higher, 45% chance to succeed at this.
The system is designed to be easily improvised for any scenario you face, the d20 represents the natural variance in success and your mods, proficiencies, features and more help you control that randomness further in your favour, reducing the "effective" dc of your roll.
Yes, a DM can abuse this and assign any DC they want. But they can also ignore DCs and just state "you cannot succeed" and that was true in EVERY edition of D&D. A good DM will also be able to say "nah, with your abilities and experience there's no way you'd fail, so you just succeed". A DM should only set DCs for things they believe you have a reasonable chance to fail.
There is a section in DMG right after what I linked on the optional "Automatic Success" rule.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I think the OP is bemoaning the the loss of knowing ahead of time what the roll needed will be.
Back in the day your save vs poison or spells or whatever didn't change regardless of where it came from. If you needed a 12+ to save vs poison it was always a 12+
I really like that now (using the same example) a weak expired poison will only need like an 8+ and poison from an ancient slash lizard might need a 16+
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
It's all a matter of preference. I just prefer a game in which the player knows what his or her chances are of doing something. Something as arbitrary as the current system makes the game feel almost like a diceless role-playing game.
You can always ask the DM what the target number is; there's a fair chance of either a numeric answer or a verbal answer that's equivalent. Sometimes the answer is "you're not sure", but that's not arbitrary, that's because you're missing information that would tell you the difficulty.
I'm also gonna chalk this up to a bad DM experience. Your issue with DCs seems weird since DCs are off a table. The table gives the range of DCs based on how difficult a task should be to attempt. The DM considers the task, refers to the table, and assigns the DC. You then roll to attempt the task. This is a common staple and every, single TTRPG system I have ever played employs something similar.
The system is fine. Your issue seems like it was with a DM ignoring the RAW or possibly your misunderstanding of how DCs are decided.
To what tables are you referring to?
Where in the rules does it provide tables with specified DCs for every given possible save or check?
No TTRPG in all of existence will ever have a table reflecting "every given possible save or check", there's too many scenarios. D&D 5th and most others simplify this with "easy, hard, near impossible" etc, and leave it to basic logic and reason to determine which one fits the task best. This is preferred by so many systems for streamlining play and allowing greater improvisation for scenarios the books cannot account. It introduces randomness and when done by a good DM makes it all feel so much more realistic.
For instance, somebody wants to bash in a basic wooden door. That's a Moderate level (15), but lets say the workmanship was substandard, we can lower it to 13. And its aged decades with damp and a little rot, so we can make that Easy, a 10. For the wizard with a Strength of 8, that's a basic d20-1 roll. They need 11 or higher, so they have a 45% chance of success. But the fighter who has a 20 Strength only needs a 5 or higher, which is 75% chance of success.
Now say somebody wants to do a backflip onto a narrow ledge? Probs Acrobatics. This isn't an easy thing to do, in fact it's Hard, almost Very Hard so we can easily put that as say 22. That 5th level fighter with a 10 in Dex and no Acrobatics prof literally cannot achieve this. But the 5th level Rogue with Expertise (double prof, that's a 6) and 20 Dex probs can needing only an 11 or higher, 45% chance to succeed at this.
The system is designed to be easily improvised for any scenario you face, the d20 represents the natural variance in success and your mods, proficiencies, features and more help you control that randomness further in your favour, reducing the "effective" dc of your roll.
Yes, a DM can abuse this and assign any DC they want. But they can also ignore DCs and just state "you cannot succeed" and that was true in EVERY edition of D&D. A good DM will also be able to say "nah, with your abilities and experience there's no way you'd fail, so you just succeed". A DM should only set DCs for things they believe you have a reasonable chance to fail.
There is a section in DMG right after what I linked on the optional "Automatic Success" rule.
Many table-top role-playing games provide characters with fixed numbers that reflect how good or not-so-good they are at something. Many use, for example, roll-under or percentile-based skill systems. This wasn't just unique to D&D before 3rd ed. introduced the concept of DCs and, in my view, made the game too dependent on one die. Or one system rather.
But thank you for the clarification. I edited that post as it occurred to me you were talking about the generic DC table.
My grievances here are more about the more abstract nature of DCs and how I suspect many a DM rules something a success or failure to railroad things and how I much prefer it when a player simply knows how good or not-so-good their character is at doing something and about the game's general reliance on the d20.
If you want a bunch of tables... I mean, 3.5 hasn't gone anywhere. Or hell, Rolemaster or GURPS. But 5e definitely isn't that, unless of course you want to build a pile of tables yourself.
If you want a bunch of tables... I mean, 3.5 hasn't gone anywhere. Or hell, Rolemaster or GURPS. But 5e definitely isn't that, unless of course you want to build a pile of tables yourself.
My complaint is with the d20 system that has become the backbone of the game since 3rd ed. It's not about tables as much as it is about prefering sub-systems that make clear a character's chance of success or failure when trying to do something over one that reduces everything to a roll on a d20 against a target number chosen by the DM.
Cybermind may have already included this in a their pretty comprehensive review of the task resolution system; but it's really not hard to take the DCs and a PCs chances of succeeding at varying DCs and producing a % for each DC. I mean this thread to me basically reads like "I created this account three days ago, here's my huge problem with the core resolution system that's been in place for almost ten years, and has proven popular enough to be the engine for a number of other games besides D&D 5e." I mean you present as a long time player, so almost ten years into the system's life cycle and this is burning (I assume there's some burn based on your recourse to capitalization) you? Have you brought this up on other forums? What sort of feed back did you get then?
Cybermind may have already included this in a their pretty comprehensive; but it's really not hard to take the DCs and a PCs chances of succeeding at varying DCs and producing a % for each DC. I mean this thread to me basically reads like "I created this account three days ago, here's my huge problem with the core resolution system that's been in place for almost ten years, and has proven popular enough to be the engine for a number of other games besides D&D 5e." I mean almost ten years into the system's life cycle and this is burning (I assume there's some burn based on your recourse to capitalization) you? Have you brought this up on other forums? What sort of feed back did you get then?
Your point about calculating percentages misses the whole point of my complaint about the d20 system. A character having a # in # chance of doing something is fixed. The moment the DM gets to decide a DC for any given task we are no longer talking about how good or not-so-good a character is at doing something. We are talking about how difficult or even impossible the DM wants to make the task. Now I'm a rulings not rules type of guy. But that gives much to much power to the DM in any moment, is too arbitrary, and is likely to be used to railroad things.
Does it matter how long I've been here? That the d20 system has been around for twenty-two years of the game's almost fifty year existence?
I don't like the d20 system in which one die is used to resolve everything but damage. I think it leaves more than necessary up to the DM's discretion and it renders half a set of dice dead weight.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
The d20 system has been D&D core for like 30 years now.
If you still don't like it, maybe D&D is not for you? There are other games.
There are also versions of D&D that don't use it. There's no need to abandon D&D altogether when my complaints are nothing an earlier edition or a house rule here or there can't fix.
Was just sharing my thoughts on what I dislike about having pretty much everything but damage revolving around one die.
Either I don't understand your concern, or you don't understand pre-3rd edition D&D. The d20 has always been the center of every core function of the game. Attack rolls, saving throws, skills checks, everything. Whether you're playing 5e, or whether you're looking on your Thac0 chart, you're rolling a d20 to hit. In 5e, if someone aims a Wand of Fireballs at you, you roll a d20 to make a Dexterity saving throw. In 1e or 2e, you'd be rolling on the "Rods, Staves, Wands" chart, but you'd still be rolling a d20.
Regardless of how the Difficulty Class is calculated, regardless of which chart you're looking at, you're still rolling a d20 in every edition of the game. If you're saying that your DM is unfairly assigning unfairly high DCs to your skill checks, then just say that. That's something you and your DM need to sit down and talk about. But that's got nothing to do with the d20 rolls.
Seriously. Talk to your DM. If you have a problem with someone - anyone - talk to them directly. None of us know your DM.
I think the OP is bemoaning the the loss of knowing ahead of time what the roll needed will be.
Back in the day your save vs poison or spells or whatever didn't change regardless of where it came from. If you needed a 12+ to save vs poison it was always a 12+
I really like that now (using the same example) a weak expired poison will only need like an 8+ and poison from an ancient slash lizard might need a 16+
That's incorrect. The rules from.1981 allow for your examples with poisons of different potency because a player would be asked to add or subtract from their roll to reflect such conditions.
The difference is the player had a fixed number to roll against for success or failure. Now it is just either a bonus or penalty determined by the associated ability with the target number arbitrarily determined by the DM.
Either I don't understand your concern, or you don't understand pre-3rd edition D&D. The d20 has always been the center of every core function of the game. Attack rolls, saving throws, skills checks, everything. Whether you're playing 5e, or whether you're looking on your Thac0 chart, you're rolling a d20 to hit. In 5e, if someone aims a Wand of Fireballs at you, you roll a d20 to make a Dexterity saving throw. In 1e or 2e, you'd be rolling on the "Rods, Staves, Wands" chart, but you'd still be rolling a d20.
Regardless of how the Difficulty Class is calculated, regardless of which chart you're looking at, you're still rolling a d20 in every edition of the game. If you're saying that your DM is unfairly assigning unfairly high DCs to your skill checks, then just say that. That's something you and your DM need to sit down and talk about. But that's got nothing to do with the d20 rolls.
Seriously. Talk to your DM. If you have a problem with someone - anyone - talk to them directly. None of us know your DM.
Attack rolls and saving throws, yes. Skill checks, no.
It was a # in 6 or a percentile roll that used to determine success or failure when it came to skill checks.
Everything from thief skills to perception-based skills. These used a # in 6 or a percentile roll.
2d6 used to be rolled to determine success or failure when a cleric was trying to turn undead.
How often does the average player now roll a d100? Or a d6 to determine anything but damage?
The d6 skill checks was a dragon mag element that ultimately influenced JRPG. It was not broadly used because…
in 2nd Edition, it was a d20 for proficiencies.
d6 is used by players for their hit points.
You have moved the goal posts three times in the thread, lol.
Also, is there anything about 5e that you like in a positive way?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm not a fan of how tied everything has been to the d20 since 3rd ed.
Hear me out:
Firstly, there was a time when saving throws and skill checks were rolled against fixed numbers determined by one's class and level. Need to make a save against something? Roll over #. Want to try to do something? Roll under the relevant stat. Or # in 6 or the provided percentage.
Now, each of these is rolled using a d20 and success or failure is determined arbitrarily:
"You couldn't do what you wanted to do because a number I decided upon just now says you couldn't."
I'm sorry. But it almost seems pointless rolling the dice and would make just as much sense if the DM just told you whether you could do what you wanted to do.
It allows a DM to impede a character's attempt to do something so the DM can railroad things. It removes what might be even just the remotest possibility of doing something and leaves it to the whims of the DM. The DM has the final word in the game. But that's too arbitrary and likely to be abused by even the least cruel or DMs.
Secondly, with almost everything revolving around the d20, beyond character creation and maybe some house rules here and there, most players only ever need to roll a d20 and maybe one, two, or three dice for damage. Where's the fun in that?
I get the love for the streamlining of everything. The simplification of the game. But I love tables. In case that wasn't obvious from my username.
While I enjoy tables, I enjoy playing D&D more. Endless charts of prior editions both slow down gameplay, meaning you are spending more time looking at charts than playing, and turn people away from the game, meaning you are less likely to get a group together.
The benefit - getting a more complex system you quickly wish was more streamlined so you could go back to playing D&D - hardly seems worth it.
As for your specific concerns? Those seem like concerns that arise from bad DMing, not from the system itself. Seems unfair to blame an icosahedron for those issues.
I'm also gonna chalk this up to a bad DM experience. Your issue with DCs seems weird since DCs are off a table. The table gives the range of DCs based on how difficult a task should be to attempt. The DM considers the task, refers to the table, and assigns the DC. You then roll to attempt the task. This is a common staple and every, single TTRPG system I have ever played employs something similar.
The system is fine. Your issue seems like it was with a DM ignoring the RAW or possibly your misunderstanding of how DCs are decided.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
How does it slow down gameplay when a player makes note on his or her character sheet of what is to to be found in such tables? You only need to do this each time you go up a level. Yours is a concern that is more about players being too lazy to put pen to paper.
And I'm not blaming THE DIE. I'm blaming THE SYSTEM. One that is just making a roll and adding or subtracting any bonuses or penalties and this being rolled against an ARBITRARY target number.
It's all a matter of preference. I just prefer a game in which the player knows what his or her chances are of doing something. Something as arbitrary as the current system makes the game feel almost like a diceless role-playing game.
I'm assuming you mean the table that just says what the DC should be for something easy or difficult and everything in between. Not sure how many DMs consult this instead of just arbitrarily deciding success or failure. Either way I prefer fixed numbers for saves and checks. And the use of more dice than just a d20 to resolve everything.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/using-ability-scores#AbilityChecks
Checks are done as DC challenges or contested rolls, combat is basically sub category of this where the DC is AC.
Yes it's the DM's role to determine, or as you say adjudicate in all caps for some reason, a tasks difficulty. Just like in the days of percentile tables assigned to particularly class features, a DM could modify that percentage based on environmental or other circumstantial factors.
Bringing almost everything except damage and effects in line with the d20 is part of the streamlining that makes 5e popular. The d20 test isn't go anywhere based on the playtest material being circulated.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
No TTRPG in all of existence will ever have a table reflecting "every given possible save or check", there's too many scenarios. D&D 5th and most others simplify this with "easy, hard, near impossible" etc, and leave it to basic logic and reason to determine which one fits the task best. This is preferred by so many systems for streamlining play and allowing greater improvisation for scenarios the books cannot account. It introduces randomness and when done by a good DM makes it all feel so much more realistic.
The table I referred to is in DMG, Chapter 8. Link: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/running-the-game#TypicalDCs
For instance, somebody wants to bash in a basic wooden door. That's a Moderate level (15), but lets say the workmanship was substandard, we can lower it to 13. And its aged decades with damp and a little rot, so we can make that Easy, a 10. For the wizard with a Strength of 8, that's a basic d20-1 roll. They need 11 or higher, so they have a 45% chance of success. But the fighter who has a 20 Strength only needs a 5 or higher, which is 75% chance of success.
Now say somebody wants to do a backflip onto a narrow ledge? Probs Acrobatics. This isn't an easy thing to do, in fact it's Hard, almost Very Hard so we can easily put that as say 22. That 5th level fighter with a 10 in Dex and no Acrobatics prof literally cannot achieve this. But the 5th level Rogue with Expertise (double prof, that's a 6) and 20 Dex probs can needing only an 11 or higher, 45% chance to succeed at this.
The system is designed to be easily improvised for any scenario you face, the d20 represents the natural variance in success and your mods, proficiencies, features and more help you control that randomness further in your favour, reducing the "effective" dc of your roll.
Yes, a DM can abuse this and assign any DC they want. But they can also ignore DCs and just state "you cannot succeed" and that was true in EVERY edition of D&D. A good DM will also be able to say "nah, with your abilities and experience there's no way you'd fail, so you just succeed". A DM should only set DCs for things they believe you have a reasonable chance to fail.
There is a section in DMG right after what I linked on the optional "Automatic Success" rule.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I think the OP is bemoaning the the loss of knowing ahead of time what the roll needed will be.
Back in the day your save vs poison or spells or whatever didn't change regardless of where it came from. If you needed a 12+ to save vs poison it was always a 12+
I really like that now (using the same example) a weak expired poison will only need like an 8+ and poison from an ancient slash lizard might need a 16+
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
You can always ask the DM what the target number is; there's a fair chance of either a numeric answer or a verbal answer that's equivalent. Sometimes the answer is "you're not sure", but that's not arbitrary, that's because you're missing information that would tell you the difficulty.
Many table-top role-playing games provide characters with fixed numbers that reflect how good or not-so-good they are at something. Many use, for example, roll-under or percentile-based skill systems. This wasn't just unique to D&D before 3rd ed. introduced the concept of DCs and, in my view, made the game too dependent on one die. Or one system rather.
But thank you for the clarification. I edited that post as it occurred to me you were talking about the generic DC table.
My grievances here are more about the more abstract nature of DCs and how I suspect many a DM rules something a success or failure to railroad things and how I much prefer it when a player simply knows how good or not-so-good their character is at doing something and about the game's general reliance on the d20.
If you want a bunch of tables... I mean, 3.5 hasn't gone anywhere. Or hell, Rolemaster or GURPS. But 5e definitely isn't that, unless of course you want to build a pile of tables yourself.
My complaint is with the d20 system that has become the backbone of the game since 3rd ed. It's not about tables as much as it is about prefering sub-systems that make clear a character's chance of success or failure when trying to do something over one that reduces everything to a roll on a d20 against a target number chosen by the DM.
Cybermind may have already included this in a their pretty comprehensive review of the task resolution system; but it's really not hard to take the DCs and a PCs chances of succeeding at varying DCs and producing a % for each DC. I mean this thread to me basically reads like "I created this account three days ago, here's my huge problem with the core resolution system that's been in place for almost ten years, and has proven popular enough to be the engine for a number of other games besides D&D 5e." I mean you present as a long time player, so almost ten years into the system's life cycle and this is burning (I assume there's some burn based on your recourse to capitalization) you? Have you brought this up on other forums? What sort of feed back did you get then?
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Your point about calculating percentages misses the whole point of my complaint about the d20 system. A character having a # in # chance of doing something is fixed. The moment the DM gets to decide a DC for any given task we are no longer talking about how good or not-so-good a character is at doing something. We are talking about how difficult or even impossible the DM wants to make the task. Now I'm a rulings not rules type of guy. But that gives much to much power to the DM in any moment, is too arbitrary, and is likely to be used to railroad things.
Does it matter how long I've been here? That the d20 system has been around for twenty-two years of the game's almost fifty year existence?
I don't like the d20 system in which one die is used to resolve everything but damage. I think it leaves more than necessary up to the DM's discretion and it renders half a set of dice dead weight.
The d20 system has been D&D core for like 20+ years now.
If you still don't like it, maybe D&D is not for you? There are other games.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
There are also versions of D&D that don't use it. There's no need to abandon D&D altogether when my complaints are nothing an earlier edition or a house rule here or there can't fix.
Was just sharing my thoughts on what I dislike about having pretty much everything but damage revolving around one die.
Either I don't understand your concern, or you don't understand pre-3rd edition D&D. The d20 has always been the center of every core function of the game. Attack rolls, saving throws, skills checks, everything. Whether you're playing 5e, or whether you're looking on your Thac0 chart, you're rolling a d20 to hit. In 5e, if someone aims a Wand of Fireballs at you, you roll a d20 to make a Dexterity saving throw. In 1e or 2e, you'd be rolling on the "Rods, Staves, Wands" chart, but you'd still be rolling a d20.
Regardless of how the Difficulty Class is calculated, regardless of which chart you're looking at, you're still rolling a d20 in every edition of the game. If you're saying that your DM is unfairly assigning unfairly high DCs to your skill checks, then just say that. That's something you and your DM need to sit down and talk about. But that's got nothing to do with the d20 rolls.
Seriously. Talk to your DM. If you have a problem with someone - anyone - talk to them directly. None of us know your DM.
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Wrangler of cats.
That's incorrect. The rules from.1981 allow for your examples with poisons of different potency because a player would be asked to add or subtract from their roll to reflect such conditions.
The difference is the player had a fixed number to roll against for success or failure. Now it is just either a bonus or penalty determined by the associated ability with the target number arbitrarily determined by the DM.
Attack rolls and saving throws, yes. Skill checks, no.
It was a # in 6 or a percentile roll that used to determine success or failure when it came to skill checks.
Everything from thief skills to perception-based skills. These used a # in 6 or a percentile roll.
2d6 used to be rolled to determine success or failure when a cleric was trying to turn undead.
How often does the average player now roll a d100? Or a d6 to determine anything but damage?
The d6 skill checks was a dragon mag element that ultimately influenced JRPG. It was not broadly used because…
in 2nd Edition, it was a d20 for proficiencies.
d6 is used by players for their hit points.
You have moved the goal posts three times in the thread, lol.
Also, is there anything about 5e that you like in a positive way?
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds