Again and I want to make this super clear so we don't stray into the argument about "what role-playing is"... This applies as long as you accept that role-playing is the free-form interaction between players and GM's. Aka, it's a creative conversation that is not based on mechanics.
Of course, if you define D&D's philosophy as the definition of "best", then yes, naturally, D&D does it the best. It's not a very productive position or attitude in a discussion, especially if someone doesn't actually mean improv when they reference roleplay, but it certainly makes it easy to argue that D&D has the epitome of approaches.
Yeah that really isn't what I meant. I was talking specifically about doing things that are not directly in combat where it might be appropriate to roll to see if or how well you succeed. You can very much have a system that supports free form role play while providing SOME framework for being 'skilled at cooking' just like you can have a system that allows people a small chance to succeed at something would be very difficult for them without putting everyone on almost the same footing or allowing them a chance to succeed at almost anything.
As for the AI stuff, I believe that a lot of the fresh AI worries are from the Interview John Height did with gamesindustry DOT biz, where there is an entire section called "The AI Future" where John enthusiastically talks about applying it to certain projects.
In context, he's mostly talking about using it for video games (oh, and it's Hight, not Height), and what he's saying is quite generic. There's a definite difference between using AI as a tool and churning out AI slop, and his interview comments are definitely on the side of tool. Now, in reality it's certainly possible that we'll see AI slop, but I wouldn't take his comments as evidence one way or the other about that happening.
When it comes to things like cooking, you can get really complicated and part of the reason i am glad it is not codified is because often tables will come up with solutions that are simple but rather broad.
Making a meal that is visually impressive and has lots of flavor with panache? Performence check and proficiency with cooks utensils.
Making a meal that is hearty and nourishing for a grueling journey? Survival check and proficiency with cooks utensils.
Making a meal from your childhood to impress your mother/father in law? History check and proficiency with cooks utensils.
Now with something as broad and situational as particualr cooking styles, even the simplified version can get clunky after a while, but that can be tailored to the table. If there were rules for each thing that could be as complicated and nuanced, the rulebook will be the size of the codex gigas.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player. The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call To rise up in triumph should we all unite The spark for change is yours to ignite." Kalandra - The State of the World
Let me put it this way, if you had a percentile based system vs D&Ds d20 based system, a step of 5 in the percentile system isn't "better" than a step of 1 because they both represent a 5% increase on the dice roll. That's what I'm getting at. Yes, 3.5 had bigger bonuses, but it also had higher DCs to compensate, washing out to the same overall steps in probability.
Except the math absolutely does NOT wash out. If you have larger stat numbers, and larger skill numbers but still use a 20 sided die and higher DCs there is less variance in how much you succeed or fail by. That is exactly what I am criticizing. I want there to be variability and a chance to say fail on something you are fairly good at. But if you are 'skilled in athletics' then when you do something athletic related I think you should have significantly more likelyhood of pulling it off vs. someone not skilled in athletics. And that really isn't the case with the current D&D system. Even at mid level where you are clearly a hero who is routinely doing and surviving things average people cannot being specifically skilled in athletics and naturally dexterous compared to others might give you a +8 to the roll. So under conditions where you need to make a roll you only have about 40% more chance of doing the thing than the untrained, undexterous person. If you doubled that to a +16 and used a higher DC, you would have an 80% better chance of doing the thing than someone unskilled which IMO is much more realistic, and in an epic fantasy game if anything you would want to go the OTHER direction where people who are highly skilled at things and basically gods among men in combat would also be able to pull off equally impressive feats off the battlefield. Look at someone who goes to the rock gym regularly vs. someone who is meh physical fitness wise and doesn't rock climb. There will be a TON of things the rock climber can easily reliably climb even in adverse circumstances that the meh person would have zero shot at climbing. I want to see stuff like that in the game where my character can routinely pull off stuff based on their talent and skill that others untrained untalented people have no chance of doing. The same numbers also provide much better support for someone being in between. A casual climber who regularly does better than the non-climber but also can't keep up with the regular climber. In combat there are a ton of on/off abilities (I am not a fan of that method of doing things but they do exist) like being able to use the special properties of a weapon that make it so a character who is 'trained at and good with a sword' plays very differently than one who is not and can pull of things the other cannot. Even in combat they have largely simplified things with the limited number of weapon groupings and such but there is still a lot more that the skilled character can do that the unskilled one cannot and that feeling of having the outcome reflect what you are supposedly great at is something that IMO in missing from the out of combat play.
When it comes to things like cooking, you can get really complicated and part of the reason i am glad it is not codified is because often tables will come up with solutions that are simple but rather broad.
Making a meal that is visually impressive and has lots of flavor with panache? Performence check and proficiency with cooks utensils.
Making a meal that is hearty and nourishing for a grueling journey? Survival check and proficiency with cooks utensils.
Making a meal from your childhood to impress your mother/father in law? History check and proficiency with cooks utensils.
Now with something as broad and situational as particualr cooking styles, even the simplified version can get clunky after a while, but that can be tailored to the table. If there were rules for each thing that could be as complicated and nuanced, the rulebook will be the size of the codex gigas.
I do appreciate a system having built in flexibility. For example I love the clear indication D&D gives that you can combine a skill with a different stat if it makes sense narratively like a strength intimidation check to rip a chain in half and scare someone. I wouldn't want specifically spelled out inflexible rules for every variation on everything. But I also don't like things being left too open to doing whatever. I don't see how being good at performing creates a meal with flavor and panache, but I can see allowing a player with survival to roll a check using survival to prepare a hearty meal. I have seen some other systems handle that with a variety of cross skill check methods. D&D already often gives guidance of 'an X or Y check of DC Z'. But if you have a good framework for numerical modifiers to DCs the system can also say make a survival check at 5 points more difficult to cook a tasty camp meal, or whatever the using the edge of one skill to substitute for another skill is. Of course I also personally don't really like the proficiency in x tools as a substitute for having an x skill. It does have the positive effect of forcing you to take a non-combat thing when you get such a proficiency but IMO it breaks up what are fundamentally things most humans label as a 'skill' like cooking or blacksmithing into a tool proficiency in a way that IMO is harder for new players to grasp. IMO just having different skill groupings is a better way to go but I admit that is mostly about style.
As for the AI stuff, I believe that a lot of the fresh AI worries are from the Interview John Height did with gamesindustry DOT biz, where there is an entire section called "The AI Future" where John enthusiastically talks about applying it to certain projects.
In context, he's mostly talking about using it for video games (oh, and it's Hight, not Height), and what he's saying is quite generic. There's a definite difference between using AI as a tool and churning out AI slop, and his interview comments are definitely on the side of tool. Now, in reality it's certainly possible that we'll see AI slop, but I wouldn't take his comments as evidence one way or the other about that happening.
It does indeed really come down to specific implementation. Like if the D&D authors use gramerly to fix their sentence structure that is very different than using AI to lay out the plot line of an adventure. It would still be significantly better in so many ways if they used a human who is good at proof reading, but it wouldn't be AS bad. I am much more willing to pay for content checked by the human proof reader than the AI one and I absolutely do NOT want to pay for AI generated plot lines even if they were indistinguishable from human ones which they very much do not tend to be.
In video games algorithms and machine learning of some kind are unavoidable and it comes down to specific implementation and the extent of AI involvement as far as some aspects of the game go. But in general story line you can still avoid using any AI.
There is zero functional difference between saying "my character is good at cooking" with no mechanical representation of that and "my character is good at cooking" represented through some mechanical flag that affords no actual benefit.
What I am looking for is a mechanic that DOES have an actual benefit. Even in current D&D you can have 'proficiency with cooking tools' and that has a numerical benefit if you need to make a roll to cook something. At first level you have a 10% better chance of cooking the thing, a 10% better chance of doing a fantastic job, etc.
Now I understand that to some degree I am not playing the game as intended because I do much more out of combat stuff where you might end up in a cooking competition and need to make that check, but that is one of the reasons I am saying the current edition is primarily a rule set for epic combat and doesn't provide much support for other actions your character might want to do.
There is zero functional difference between saying "my character is good at cooking" with no mechanical representation of that and "my character is good at cooking" represented through some mechanical flag that affords no actual benefit.
What I am looking for is a mechanic that DOES have an actual benefit. Even in current D&D you can have 'proficiency with cooking tools' and that has a numerical benefit if you need to make a roll to cook something. At first level you have a 10% better chance of cooking the thing, a 10% better chance of doing a fantastic job, etc.
Now I understand that to some degree I am not playing the game as intended because I do much more out of combat stuff where you might end up in a cooking competition and need to make that check, but that is one of the reasons I am saying the current edition is primarily a rule set for epic combat and doesn't provide much support for other actions your character might want to do.
there are some third party modules out there for free that have cooking rules that do stuff like provide Temp HP at the start of the day, or help clear levels of exhaustion, and even advantage on a limited number of athletics checks because your body is properly fed.
If i may ask, what mechanical benefits would you like to see come from cooking?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player. The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call To rise up in triumph should we all unite The spark for change is yours to ignite." Kalandra - The State of the World
Again and I want to make this super clear so we don't stray into the argument about "what role-playing is"... This applies as long as you accept that role-playing is the free-form interaction between players and GM's. Aka, it's a creative conversation that is not based on mechanics.
Of course, if you define D&D's philosophy as the definition of "best", then yes, naturally, D&D does it the best. It's not a very productive position or attitude in a discussion, especially if someone doesn't actually mean improv when they reference roleplay, but it certainly makes it easy to argue that D&D has the epitome of approaches.
Yeah that really isn't what I meant. I was talking specifically about doing things that are not directly in combat where it might be appropriate to roll to see if or how well you succeed. You can very much have a system that supports free form role play while providing SOME framework for being 'skilled at cooking' just like you can have a system that allows people a small chance to succeed at something would be very difficult for them without putting everyone on almost the same footing or allowing them a chance to succeed at almost anything.
You keep bringing up cooking as an example… the rules literally have a cooking proficiency built in. Proficiency in Cook’s Utensils allows you to say you are a talented chef with skill beyond the average person, and provides you a significant mechanical benefit (advantage on the check) if you are in a situation where the technical quality of the dish matters.
There literally is a framework for the very example you are using within the rules.
If i may ask, what mechanical benefits would you like to see come from cooking?
It isn't about the mechanical effects of cooking at all. My complaint is more: Lack of useful skills outside combat in general Lack of differing levels of skill (You are either proficient with cooking utensils or not, no I am a kinda good chef and made a little investment in that skill vs. I am a super good chef and it is a major thing I chose for my character at the exclusion of others) Skills (and stats) don't have a significant enough impact on the outcome of skill attempts. So two people one a mid level trained cook and one not roll to whip up an amazing meal to impress someone and the trained cook has maybe a 15-20% better chance of succeeding. Lack of guidelines for modifiers. Like oh you are trying to cook without proper supplies that is a -1 to -5 on the roll depending kind of guidance. The existing advantage/disadvantage system is IMO too binary and you can't stack disadvantages or advantages which I find limiting.
I don't need a system for every effect of everything. Loose guidelines for several different levels of 'crafting' any item would work. Like making a simple meal is x DC and an unusual or particularly good one is y DC and a world class one is z DC. Which the current edition already has. So I can say a DC 25 skill check makes an extravagant and impressive meal and play out the effects of that on the NPC they are trying to impress.
I just see very poor support for anything outside combat actions. Wither it is knowledges, athletics, crafting, influencing people, there is some support but it is poor quality and doesn't work nearly as well as the combat system does IMO. It feels like a bit of an afterthought.
ETA: What I mean by it does have an effect is that mechanically one character can cook a super impressive fancy meal, that impresses the noble or gets them a good income, or whatever and another cannot. That doesn't come up the way some people play but my play style is that it does. Combat is very clear how it affects the game as you either live or die.
If i may ask, what mechanical benefits would you like to see come from cooking?
It isn't about the mechanical effects of cooking at all. My complaint is more: Lack of useful skills outside combat in general Lack of differing levels of skill (You are either proficient with cooking utensils or not, no I am a kinda good chef and made a little investment in that skill vs. I am a super good chef and it is a major thing I chose for my character at the exclusion of others) Skills (and stats) don't have a significant enough impact on the outcome of skill attempts. So two people one a mid level trained cook and one not roll to whip up an amazing meal to impress someone and the trained cook has maybe a 15-20% better chance of succeeding. Lack of guidelines for modifiers. Like oh you are trying to cook without proper supplies that is a -1 to -5 on the roll depending kind of guidance. The existing advantage/disadvantage system is IMO too binary and you can't stack disadvantages or advantages which I find limiting.
I don't need a system for every effect of everything. Loose guidelines for several different levels of 'crafting' any item would work. Like making a simple meal is x DC and an unusual or particularly good one is y DC and a world class one is z DC. Which the current edition already has. So I can say a DC 25 skill check makes an extravagant and impressive meal and play out the effects of that on the NPC they are trying to impress.
I just see very poor support for anything outside combat actions. Wither it is knowledges, athletics, crafting, influencing people, there is some support but it is poor quality and doesn't work nearly as well as the combat system does IMO. It feels like a bit of an afterthought.
ETA: What I mean by it does have an effect is that mechanically one character can cook a super impressive fancy meal, that impresses the noble or gets them a good income, or whatever and another cannot. That doesn't come up the way some people play but my play style is that it does. Combat is very clear how it affects the game as you either live or die.
You said that there's a lack of skills that are useful outside of combat, which is verifiably false. When was the last time you used Performance, or Nature, or History, or Insight, or Deception, or Sleight of Hand in the middle of combat?
As to your repeated complaints that the d20 matters more than proficiency, I gave you the solution: USE. A. D10.
Also, if you want to add skills, you can add custom skills to the DDB character sheet (by clicking 'Additional Skills' at the bottom of the skills column) and add a skill for anything you want. You can name it what you like and then set it as proficient, half-proficient, expertise, etc. and you can base it on a particular stat or give it a completely separate bonus not tied to any stat.
Honestly, if you don't like the system and it doesn't work for the type of game you want to play, then try another system. There are lots of other great games out there.
There is nothing wrong with not liking D&D, it isn't perfect. No game is. You just have to look around to find what works best for you.
Edit: I recommend a game like Traveller if you want a system where skills matter more than combat.
This is exactly why I bounced off of Pathfinder, every time I wanted to add some minor thing to a character that served little purpose other than flavour it became a case of having to actually put points in that skill (at the expense of things that were vital) rather than just being able to create a more rounded backstory. That’s not supporting role play, that quashing role play
That is an interesting perspective. I very much gravitate toward there being some numerical support for how I describe my character but that can create mechanical disadvantages depending upon how specifically it is implemented.
That's not roleplaying. Roleplaying is what you do when you're not rolling dice.
Which is valid if you want to be the most bestest at a table at a thing.
The problem with that is that it pigeonholes PCs into being the only one who can do a thing, & increased chances of failure simply aren't compatible with the DND scene these days.
That is an interesting perspective. I very much gravitate toward there being some numerical support for how I describe my character but that can create mechanical disadvantages depending upon how specifically it is implemented.
That's not roleplaying. Roleplaying is what you do when you're not rolling dice.
That's not so. Roleplaying is everything you do to play the role of a character. If you use a trident in combat because your character grew up fishing with one, that's roleplaying. It's roleplaying even if you do it because your character just likes tridents. If your combat decisions are based only on tactical superiority, and you use tridents because that's what gets you the best DPR, it's not roleplaying. Maybe.
Now, most of what we talk about as "roleplaying" tends to be the out-of-combat stuff, because it's much easier to reveal and develop your character through non-combat actions. Combat is a crude tool for the matter, and tactical considerations tend to get in the way, but it's not a RP-free zone.
Now, D&D has relatively few and simple mechanics for out-of-combat, and particularly social, situations, but that doesn't make it better for roleplay. Roleplay is always going to happen because we make characters as characters. They have personalities. They want things.
D&D's lack of mechanical support means there's a long tradition of mostly-freeform roleplay, but that is not necessary for roleplay, nor is it any way superior. It is mostly a matter of taste. There are plenty of games out there with real mechanical support for non-combat stuff. Heck, there are games out there with no combat rules whatsoever. Putting mechanics on a thing doesn't make it not good for roleplay, it just provides more guidance, and tends to affect the kinds of stories the game can tell.
This is exactly why I bounced off of Pathfinder, every time I wanted to add some minor thing to a character that served little purpose other than flavour it became a case of having to actually put points in that skill (at the expense of things that were vital) rather than just being able to create a more rounded backstory. That’s not supporting role play, that quashing role play
That is an interesting perspective. I very much gravitate toward there being some numerical support for how I describe my character but that can create mechanical disadvantages depending upon how specifically it is implemented.
That's not roleplaying. Roleplaying is what you do when you're not rolling dice.
Roleplaying is what you're doing whenever you acting in such a way that comports with your character, their motivations and goals, the game world, and the shared fiction. It doesn't matter if you're rolling dice or not, if you're playing a role, you're roleplaying:
Describing how your character screams their battle cry as you make your attack roll? Roleplaying
Deciding your character would, given the choice, use survival over nature for an ability check even though nature has the better modifier because your character is a survivalist, not an academic? Roleplaying
Making up an elvish curse as you fail a dexterity saving throw against an adult red dragons breath weapon? Roleplaying
If you're doing anything that engages with D&D as a narrative experience rather than just a game, you're roleplaying, dice or no.
I don't know if that makes sense but basically, you want to have as few mechanical obstructions that are not relevant to the core gameplay of the RPG in question. What qualifies as a mechanical obstruction depends a lot on what the game is trying to be, what the core gameplay is of that game.
Basically by using D&D for the style of game I like to play there is some degree to which I am using a screwdriver as a hammer.
Yeah, pretty much. I mean there are other games out there, even ones based on 5e that will do exactly what you're looking for. Pathfinder 2e is definitely such a game. It has all the same combat-focused mechanics, but it also casts a wide net for other mechanics.
To use the same example. If you wanted to be a Master Chef in Pathfinder 2e (and have that mechanically represented on the character sheet). You have the following available to you.
- Crafting Skill - aka, cooking skill - Cook Background - Actual cooking mechanics (there is a complete breakdown for quality, ingredients etc.. including how to roll and how to figure out results of cooking checks) - Specialty Crafting (food and drink) Feat - Gives you advantages towards cooking checks - Forger Feat - For collecting unique ingredients for cooking (forging again is its own mechanic) - There are various dedications that can enhance cooking in various ways supported (Alchemist Dedication (give cooking magical properties), the Celebrity Dedication (Become a renowned chef), Guildmaster/Merchant (covers rules for running a tavern or restaurant) - Downtime & Crafting rules
PF2e has mechanical support for just about anything you can think of under the sun.
That said, I don't think it makes it a better game. D&D's simple approach and flexible modular mechanics make it possible for the community to create content for it very easily. As someone already pointed out, you have the concept of General Feats that cover a lot of ground, but the point of them is to act as an example of how to build your own.
Notably, there is a "Chef" general feat in the 2024 rulebook that covers the example we are using for cooking but even if it didn't, general feats, fighting style feats, Origin Feats, Epic Boon Feats, Backgrounds and proficiencies are all flexible sub-systems designed so that if something doesn't exist, you have a clear design space in which to create them.
More than that you have an entire site dedicated to the creative energy of the community (DM Guild) that I promise you has multiple publications that cover any topic you can imagine.
So if you really like 5e and you want to find a solution to a mechanical gadget you want in your game, 5e is an incredibly robust and easy to use design space.
I do agree that D&D 5e doesn't cover every style of play, sometimes if a playstyle is too far detached from the core gameplay it might be time to seek out an alternative game, but 5e covers a lot of ground as long as your ok with heavy abstraction and the power fantasy that D&D 5e is.
There are as many plastyles are there are role-players out there, but I think in terms of being the most universal and simplest, 5e casts about as wide a net as any RPG out there.
I don't know if that makes sense but basically, you want to have as few mechanical obstructions that are not relevant to the core gameplay of the RPG in question. What qualifies as a mechanical obstruction depends a lot on what the game is trying to be, what the core gameplay is of that game.
Basically by using D&D for the style of game I like to play there is some degree to which I am using a screwdriver as a hammer.
Yeah, pretty much. I mean there are other games out there, even ones based on 5e that will do exactly what you're looking for. Pathfinder 2e is definitely such a game. It has all the same combat-focused mechanics, but it also casts a wide net for other mechanics.
To use the same example. If you wanted to be a Master Chef in Pathfinder 2e (and have that mechanically represented on the character sheet). You have the following available to you.
- Crafting Skill - aka, cooking skill - Cook Background - Actual cooking mechanics (there is a complete breakdown for quality, ingredients etc.. including how to roll and how to figure out results of cooking checks) - Specialty Crafting (food and drink) Feat - Gives you advantages towards cooking checks - Forger Feat - For collecting unique ingredients for cooking (forging again is its own mechanic) - There are various dedications that can enhance cooking in various ways supported (Alchemist Dedication (give cooking magical properties), the Celebrity Dedication (Become a renowned chef), Guildmaster/Merchant (covers rules for running a tavern or restaurant) - Downtime & Crafting rules
PF2e has mechanical support for just about anything you can think of under the sun.
That said, I don't think it makes it a better game. D&D's simple approach and flexible modular mechanics make it possible for the community to create content for it very easily. As someone already pointed out, you have the concept of General Feats that cover a lot of ground, but the point of them is to act as an example of how to build your own.
Notably, there is a "Chef" general feat in the 2024 rulebook that covers the example we are using for cooking but even if it didn't, general feats, fighting style feats, Origin Feats, Epic Boon Feats, Backgrounds and proficiencies are all flexible sub-systems designed so that if something doesn't exist, you have a clear design space in which to create them.
More than that you have an entire site dedicated to the creative energy of the community (DM Guild) that I promise you has multiple publications that cover any topic you can imagine.
So if you really like 5e and you want to find a solution to a mechanical gadget you want in your game, 5e is an incredibly robust and easy to use design space.
I do agree that D&D 5e doesn't cover every style of play, sometimes if a playstyle is too far detached from the core gameplay it might be time to seek out an alternative game, but 5e covers a lot of ground as long as your ok with heavy abstraction and the power fantasy that D&D 5e is.
There are as many plastyles are there are role-players out there, but I think in terms of being the most universal and simplest, 5e casts about as wide a net as any RPG out there.
Well said. I do think in terms of an epic fantasy game my style of play and general preferences are more toward Pathfinder, but unfortunately D&D very much has the brand and the support so I am playing that right now because various circumstances. DM Guild is a wonderful resource, and I do appreciate flexible template feats and proficiencies etc. I just still run into friction with the base system design choices like binary skills or tinary with expertise, and binary advantage/disadvantage system. If you really want cooking to be a big part of your character there are definitely ways to do that. But there really is only loose role playing description to cover 'a bit of an amature cook' kind of things. You either have cooking skill at your full bonus or don't have it at all. Which I find limiting.
Which is valid if you want to be the most bestest at a table at a thing.
The problem with that is that it pigeonholes PCs into being the only one who can do a thing, & increased chances of failure simply aren't compatible with the DND scene these days.
I am not sure I would describe it as anti-bounded accuracy but yes I do think if one character is super good at climbing they very much should be able to do a significant amount of climbing things that others simply have no chance at. That is very much a play style choice but it also IMO reflects reality, and the epic fantasy feel. We certainly see it extensively used within the combat rules where there are a ton of abilities and feats etc. that give you the chance to do something that others cannot even attempt. So it absolutely is also in keeping with how the D&D rules work in combat to have things outside of combat then end up mechanically being impossible or virtually impossible for some characters to do.
That does create *some* pigeon holing where only someone who has invested a bit in athletic ability can climb the outside of the tower, and other characters have to find another way. But I think that limitation aids in the realism and fun of the game rather than distracts from it. Of course again that is MY play style. But IMO it also tracks with the combat design.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah that really isn't what I meant. I was talking specifically about doing things that are not directly in combat where it might be appropriate to roll to see if or how well you succeed. You can very much have a system that supports free form role play while providing SOME framework for being 'skilled at cooking' just like you can have a system that allows people a small chance to succeed at something would be very difficult for them without putting everyone on almost the same footing or allowing them a chance to succeed at almost anything.
In context, he's mostly talking about using it for video games (oh, and it's Hight, not Height), and what he's saying is quite generic. There's a definite difference between using AI as a tool and churning out AI slop, and his interview comments are definitely on the side of tool. Now, in reality it's certainly possible that we'll see AI slop, but I wouldn't take his comments as evidence one way or the other about that happening.
When it comes to things like cooking, you can get really complicated and part of the reason i am glad it is not codified is because often tables will come up with solutions that are simple but rather broad.
Making a meal that is visually impressive and has lots of flavor with panache? Performence check and proficiency with cooks utensils.
Making a meal that is hearty and nourishing for a grueling journey? Survival check and proficiency with cooks utensils.
Making a meal from your childhood to impress your mother/father in law? History check and proficiency with cooks utensils.
Now with something as broad and situational as particualr cooking styles, even the simplified version can get clunky after a while, but that can be tailored to the table. If there were rules for each thing that could be as complicated and nuanced, the rulebook will be the size of the codex gigas.
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
Except the math absolutely does NOT wash out. If you have larger stat numbers, and larger skill numbers but still use a 20 sided die and higher DCs there is less variance in how much you succeed or fail by. That is exactly what I am criticizing. I want there to be variability and a chance to say fail on something you are fairly good at. But if you are 'skilled in athletics' then when you do something athletic related I think you should have significantly more likelyhood of pulling it off vs. someone not skilled in athletics. And that really isn't the case with the current D&D system. Even at mid level where you are clearly a hero who is routinely doing and surviving things average people cannot being specifically skilled in athletics and naturally dexterous compared to others might give you a +8 to the roll. So under conditions where you need to make a roll you only have about 40% more chance of doing the thing than the untrained, undexterous person.
If you doubled that to a +16 and used a higher DC, you would have an 80% better chance of doing the thing than someone unskilled which IMO is much more realistic, and in an epic fantasy game if anything you would want to go the OTHER direction where people who are highly skilled at things and basically gods among men in combat would also be able to pull off equally impressive feats off the battlefield.
Look at someone who goes to the rock gym regularly vs. someone who is meh physical fitness wise and doesn't rock climb. There will be a TON of things the rock climber can easily reliably climb even in adverse circumstances that the meh person would have zero shot at climbing. I want to see stuff like that in the game where my character can routinely pull off stuff based on their talent and skill that others untrained untalented people have no chance of doing. The same numbers also provide much better support for someone being in between. A casual climber who regularly does better than the non-climber but also can't keep up with the regular climber.
In combat there are a ton of on/off abilities (I am not a fan of that method of doing things but they do exist) like being able to use the special properties of a weapon that make it so a character who is 'trained at and good with a sword' plays very differently than one who is not and can pull of things the other cannot. Even in combat they have largely simplified things with the limited number of weapon groupings and such but there is still a lot more that the skilled character can do that the unskilled one cannot and that feeling of having the outcome reflect what you are supposedly great at is something that IMO in missing from the out of combat play.
I do appreciate a system having built in flexibility. For example I love the clear indication D&D gives that you can combine a skill with a different stat if it makes sense narratively like a strength intimidation check to rip a chain in half and scare someone. I wouldn't want specifically spelled out inflexible rules for every variation on everything. But I also don't like things being left too open to doing whatever. I don't see how being good at performing creates a meal with flavor and panache, but I can see allowing a player with survival to roll a check using survival to prepare a hearty meal. I have seen some other systems handle that with a variety of cross skill check methods. D&D already often gives guidance of 'an X or Y check of DC Z'. But if you have a good framework for numerical modifiers to DCs the system can also say make a survival check at 5 points more difficult to cook a tasty camp meal, or whatever the using the edge of one skill to substitute for another skill is.
Of course I also personally don't really like the proficiency in x tools as a substitute for having an x skill. It does have the positive effect of forcing you to take a non-combat thing when you get such a proficiency but IMO it breaks up what are fundamentally things most humans label as a 'skill' like cooking or blacksmithing into a tool proficiency in a way that IMO is harder for new players to grasp. IMO just having different skill groupings is a better way to go but I admit that is mostly about style.
It does indeed really come down to specific implementation. Like if the D&D authors use gramerly to fix their sentence structure that is very different than using AI to lay out the plot line of an adventure. It would still be significantly better in so many ways if they used a human who is good at proof reading, but it wouldn't be AS bad.
I am much more willing to pay for content checked by the human proof reader than the AI one and I absolutely do NOT want to pay for AI generated plot lines even if they were indistinguishable from human ones which they very much do not tend to be.
In video games algorithms and machine learning of some kind are unavoidable and it comes down to specific implementation and the extent of AI involvement as far as some aspects of the game go. But in general story line you can still avoid using any AI.
What I am looking for is a mechanic that DOES have an actual benefit. Even in current D&D you can have 'proficiency with cooking tools' and that has a numerical benefit if you need to make a roll to cook something. At first level you have a 10% better chance of cooking the thing, a 10% better chance of doing a fantastic job, etc.
Now I understand that to some degree I am not playing the game as intended because I do much more out of combat stuff where you might end up in a cooking competition and need to make that check, but that is one of the reasons I am saying the current edition is primarily a rule set for epic combat and doesn't provide much support for other actions your character might want to do.
there are some third party modules out there for free that have cooking rules that do stuff like provide Temp HP at the start of the day, or help clear levels of exhaustion, and even advantage on a limited number of athletics checks because your body is properly fed.
If i may ask, what mechanical benefits would you like to see come from cooking?
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
You keep bringing up cooking as an example… the rules literally have a cooking proficiency built in. Proficiency in Cook’s Utensils allows you to say you are a talented chef with skill beyond the average person, and provides you a significant mechanical benefit (advantage on the check) if you are in a situation where the technical quality of the dish matters.
There literally is a framework for the very example you are using within the rules.
It isn't about the mechanical effects of cooking at all. My complaint is more:
Lack of useful skills outside combat in general
Lack of differing levels of skill (You are either proficient with cooking utensils or not, no I am a kinda good chef and made a little investment in that skill vs. I am a super good chef and it is a major thing I chose for my character at the exclusion of others)
Skills (and stats) don't have a significant enough impact on the outcome of skill attempts. So two people one a mid level trained cook and one not roll to whip up an amazing meal to impress someone and the trained cook has maybe a 15-20% better chance of succeeding.
Lack of guidelines for modifiers. Like oh you are trying to cook without proper supplies that is a -1 to -5 on the roll depending kind of guidance. The existing advantage/disadvantage system is IMO too binary and you can't stack disadvantages or advantages which I find limiting.
I don't need a system for every effect of everything. Loose guidelines for several different levels of 'crafting' any item would work. Like making a simple meal is x DC and an unusual or particularly good one is y DC and a world class one is z DC. Which the current edition already has. So I can say a DC 25 skill check makes an extravagant and impressive meal and play out the effects of that on the NPC they are trying to impress.
I just see very poor support for anything outside combat actions. Wither it is knowledges, athletics, crafting, influencing people, there is some support but it is poor quality and doesn't work nearly as well as the combat system does IMO. It feels like a bit of an afterthought.
ETA: What I mean by it does have an effect is that mechanically one character can cook a super impressive fancy meal, that impresses the noble or gets them a good income, or whatever and another cannot. That doesn't come up the way some people play but my play style is that it does. Combat is very clear how it affects the game as you either live or die.
You said that there's a lack of skills that are useful outside of combat, which is verifiably false. When was the last time you used Performance, or Nature, or History, or Insight, or Deception, or Sleight of Hand in the middle of combat?
As to your repeated complaints that the d20 matters more than proficiency, I gave you the solution: USE. A. D10.
Also, if you want to add skills, you can add custom skills to the DDB character sheet (by clicking 'Additional Skills' at the bottom of the skills column) and add a skill for anything you want. You can name it what you like and then set it as proficient, half-proficient, expertise, etc. and you can base it on a particular stat or give it a completely separate bonus not tied to any stat.
As for the guidelines around crafting you mention, you could just use the guidelines in the DMG for difficulty class.
Honestly, if you don't like the system and it doesn't work for the type of game you want to play, then try another system. There are lots of other great games out there.
There is nothing wrong with not liking D&D, it isn't perfect. No game is. You just have to look around to find what works best for you.
Edit: I recommend a game like Traveller if you want a system where skills matter more than combat.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
That's not roleplaying. Roleplaying is what you do when you're not rolling dice.
Methinks OP is anti-bounded accuracy.
Which is valid if you want to be the most bestest at a table at a thing.
The problem with that is that it pigeonholes PCs into being the only one who can do a thing, & increased chances of failure simply aren't compatible with the DND scene these days.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
That's not so. Roleplaying is everything you do to play the role of a character. If you use a trident in combat because your character grew up fishing with one, that's roleplaying. It's roleplaying even if you do it because your character just likes tridents. If your combat decisions are based only on tactical superiority, and you use tridents because that's what gets you the best DPR, it's not roleplaying. Maybe.
Now, most of what we talk about as "roleplaying" tends to be the out-of-combat stuff, because it's much easier to reveal and develop your character through non-combat actions. Combat is a crude tool for the matter, and tactical considerations tend to get in the way, but it's not a RP-free zone.
Now, D&D has relatively few and simple mechanics for out-of-combat, and particularly social, situations, but that doesn't make it better for roleplay. Roleplay is always going to happen because we make characters as characters. They have personalities. They want things.
D&D's lack of mechanical support means there's a long tradition of mostly-freeform roleplay, but that is not necessary for roleplay, nor is it any way superior. It is mostly a matter of taste. There are plenty of games out there with real mechanical support for non-combat stuff. Heck, there are games out there with no combat rules whatsoever. Putting mechanics on a thing doesn't make it not good for roleplay, it just provides more guidance, and tends to affect the kinds of stories the game can tell.
Roleplaying is what you're doing whenever you acting in such a way that comports with your character, their motivations and goals, the game world, and the shared fiction. It doesn't matter if you're rolling dice or not, if you're playing a role, you're roleplaying:
If you're doing anything that engages with D&D as a narrative experience rather than just a game, you're roleplaying, dice or no.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Yeah, pretty much. I mean there are other games out there, even ones based on 5e that will do exactly what you're looking for. Pathfinder 2e is definitely such a game. It has all the same combat-focused mechanics, but it also casts a wide net for other mechanics.
To use the same example. If you wanted to be a Master Chef in Pathfinder 2e (and have that mechanically represented on the character sheet). You have the following available to you.
- Crafting Skill - aka, cooking skill
- Cook Background
- Actual cooking mechanics (there is a complete breakdown for quality, ingredients etc.. including how to roll and how to figure out results of cooking checks)
- Specialty Crafting (food and drink) Feat - Gives you advantages towards cooking checks
- Forger Feat - For collecting unique ingredients for cooking (forging again is its own mechanic)
- There are various dedications that can enhance cooking in various ways supported (Alchemist Dedication (give cooking magical properties), the Celebrity Dedication (Become a renowned chef), Guildmaster/Merchant (covers rules for running a tavern or restaurant)
- Downtime & Crafting rules
PF2e has mechanical support for just about anything you can think of under the sun.
That said, I don't think it makes it a better game. D&D's simple approach and flexible modular mechanics make it possible for the community to create content for it very easily. As someone already pointed out, you have the concept of General Feats that cover a lot of ground, but the point of them is to act as an example of how to build your own.
Notably, there is a "Chef" general feat in the 2024 rulebook that covers the example we are using for cooking but even if it didn't, general feats, fighting style feats, Origin Feats, Epic Boon Feats, Backgrounds and proficiencies are all flexible sub-systems designed so that if something doesn't exist, you have a clear design space in which to create them.
More than that you have an entire site dedicated to the creative energy of the community (DM Guild) that I promise you has multiple publications that cover any topic you can imagine.
So if you really like 5e and you want to find a solution to a mechanical gadget you want in your game, 5e is an incredibly robust and easy to use design space.
I do agree that D&D 5e doesn't cover every style of play, sometimes if a playstyle is too far detached from the core gameplay it might be time to seek out an alternative game, but 5e covers a lot of ground as long as your ok with heavy abstraction and the power fantasy that D&D 5e is.
There are as many plastyles are there are role-players out there, but I think in terms of being the most universal and simplest, 5e casts about as wide a net as any RPG out there.
Well said. I do think in terms of an epic fantasy game my style of play and general preferences are more toward Pathfinder, but unfortunately D&D very much has the brand and the support so I am playing that right now because various circumstances. DM Guild is a wonderful resource, and I do appreciate flexible template feats and proficiencies etc. I just still run into friction with the base system design choices like binary skills or tinary with expertise, and binary advantage/disadvantage system.
If you really want cooking to be a big part of your character there are definitely ways to do that. But there really is only loose role playing description to cover 'a bit of an amature cook' kind of things. You either have cooking skill at your full bonus or don't have it at all. Which I find limiting.
I am not sure I would describe it as anti-bounded accuracy but yes I do think if one character is super good at climbing they very much should be able to do a significant amount of climbing things that others simply have no chance at. That is very much a play style choice but it also IMO reflects reality, and the epic fantasy feel. We certainly see it extensively used within the combat rules where there are a ton of abilities and feats etc. that give you the chance to do something that others cannot even attempt. So it absolutely is also in keeping with how the D&D rules work in combat to have things outside of combat then end up mechanically being impossible or virtually impossible for some characters to do.
That does create *some* pigeon holing where only someone who has invested a bit in athletic ability can climb the outside of the tower, and other characters have to find another way. But I think that limitation aids in the realism and fun of the game rather than distracts from it. Of course again that is MY play style. But IMO it also tracks with the combat design.