Considering that the bonuses range from -5 to +17, I really don’t see the “excessive randomness” between a PC who is particularly bad at something and on who is particularly good at something. The bonus spread alone is bigger than the 1-20 spel read on the die. 🤷♂️
True. But at low levels, you will probably be only getting around a +6 to a check, which is isn't massive.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Considering that the bonuses range from -5 to +17, I really don’t see the “excessive randomness” between a PC who is particularly bad at something and on who is particularly good at something. The bonus spread alone is bigger than the 1-20 spel read on the die. 🤷♂️
True. But at low levels, you will probably be only getting around a +6 to a check, which is isn't massive.
True. But at low levels, nobody is supposed to represent anywhere near the pinnacle of their crafts.
Considering that the bonuses range from -5 to +17, I really don’t see the “excessive randomness” between a PC who is particularly bad at something and on who is particularly good at something. The bonus spread alone is bigger than the 1-20 spel read on the die. 🤷♂️
At lower levels your maximum is +5. At level 20 your maximum is +11 without magic items (or 13 if you're a barbarian).
That means even at level 20, two thirds of your result are random and one third is actual player agency. And it gets even worse if you're rolling a pure ability score check, without skill or proficiency.
That *is* objectively a huge amount of variation for (subjectively) very little gain.
Considering that the bonuses range from -5 to +17, I really don’t see the “excessive randomness” between a PC who is particularly bad at something and on who is particularly good at something. The bonus spread alone is bigger than the 1-20 spel read on the die. 🤷♂️
At lower levels your maximum is +5. At level 20 your maximum is +11 without magic items (or 13 if you're a barbarian).
That means even at level 20, two thirds of your result are random and one third is actual player agency. And it gets even worse if you're rolling a pure ability score check, without skill or proficiency.
That *is* objectively a huge amount of variation for (subjectively) very little gain.
You forget the existence of Expertise which brings that maximum up to a +17, and it happens as early as 17th level.
And while there is a fairly large degree of variation, I still don’t really see the problem. After all, if the PC doesn’t have proficiency in a skill, they shouldn’t be allowed to roll it.
And for straight ability checks, I do see that as a potential issue, but that’s when the DM hands out Advantage/Disadvantage as it fits the scenario.
I know this is a bit controversial, but I would like the way races/species work to be changed in the next edition. Here are my proposed changes. Feel free to comment on any or all components of the recommended changes:
Change the name of Race to either Species or Ancestry (possibly both, with race being Species and subrace being Ancestry).
Get rid of racial ability score bonuses altogether. This change is already coming as an optional rule in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, but the next edition could automatically have something like this. Maybe they could attach it to your Background or Class, or just let the player choose a +2 bonus to any ability score and a +1 to any other, or +1 to any 3 of the player's choice. DMs could overrule this and create the racial dependent ability score increases that races have in 5e, which would make everyone be able to play either version. Or, maybe both versions are printed in the PHB and the DM chooses which one they want to use.
Don't have any alignment or default culture attached to the description of the races. These would be in the setting books, not the core racial descriptions. To have a default setting, it could have a small section in the DMG explaining the next edition's main setting.
Each race gets an extra hit dice depending on what race they are at level 1, most getting a d8. Halflings, Goblins, Kobolds, and Gnomes get an extra d6, Humans, Genasi, Aasimar, Tieflings, Elves, Hobgoblins, Half-Elves, and most other standard races get a d8. Dwarves, Half-Orcs, Firbolg, Leonin, Centaurs, and other bulkier races get a d10, while the largest races, like Orcs, Goliaths, Bugbears, and so on get an extra 1d12. This would increase survivability at lower levels a bit, make some of the species/races more distinct in physical terms to make up for their loss of difference in mental terms, and make your race mean a bit more to your character mechanics-wise.
Those are the few changes I would like to races in the next edition. None of them are super crazy or outrageous, but I'm sure people will feel strongly about certain parts of them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Yeah, I think that for most skills a rule that if you don't have proficiency, you can't roll would work. This wouldn't make sense for some skills, like perception or acrobatics, since you are often forced to use those. This rule would decrease the "throw all the dice at it and hope someone rolls high" strat that I have seen many times.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I know this is a bit controversial, but I would like the way races/species work to be changed in the next edition. Here are my proposed changes. Feel free to comment on any or all components of the recommended changes:
Change the name of Race to either Species or Ancestry (possibly both, with race being Species and subrace being Ancestry).
Get rid of racial ability score bonuses altogether. This change is already coming as an optional rule in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, but the next edition could automatically have something like this. Maybe they could attach it to your Background or Class, or just let the player choose a +2 bonus to any ability score and a +1 to any other, or +1 to any 3 of the player's choice. DMs could overrule this and create the racial dependent ability score increases that races have in 5e, which would make everyone be able to play either version. Or, maybe both versions are printed in the PHB and the DM chooses which one they want to use.
Don't have any alignment or default culture attached to the description of the races. These would be in the setting books, not the core racial descriptions. To have a default setting, it could have a small section in the DMG explaining the next edition's main setting.
Each race gets an extra hit dice depending on what race they are at level 1, most getting a d8. Halflings, Goblins, Kobolds, and Gnomes get an extra d6, Humans, Genasi, Aasimar, Tieflings, Elves, Hobgoblins, Half-Elves, and most other standard races get a d8. Dwarves, Half-Orcs, Firbolg, Leonin, Centaurs, and other bulkier races get a d10, while the largest races, like Orcs, Goliaths, Bugbears, and so on get an extra 1d12. This would increase survivability at lower levels a bit, make some of the species/races more distinct in physical terms to make up for their loss of difference in mental terms, and make your race mean a bit more to your character mechanics-wise.
Those are the few changes I would like to races in the next edition. None of them are super crazy or outrageous, but I'm sure people will feel strongly about certain parts of them.
I agree with this. I like the intention behind the Tasha's changes, but they do make species a bit bland. I would love to see asi's added to backgrounds, with more innate traits for species. Innate traits could really make a dragonborn feel different than a half-ork.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
You forget the existence of Expertise which brings that maximum up to a +17, and it happens as early as 17th level.
And while there is a fairly large degree of variation, I still don’t really see the problem. After all, if the PC doesn’t have proficiency in a skill, they shouldn’t be allowed to roll it.
And for straight ability checks, I do see that as a potential issue, but that’s when the DM hands out Advantage/Disadvantage as it fits the scenario.
After all, there is always luck.
How many people have access to Expertise currently? Right now it is only Bards, Rogues, and those few races that can take the Prodigy feat. The majority of PCs don't have access to it, making the average bonus for a maximized character a +5 at Tier 1, and +11 at Tier 4. Compare the odds of a barbarian who dumps Intelligence to an 8 using Standard Array/Point Buy to the odds of a Wizard who is proficient in Arcana that has a +5 bonus. At this level, the Wizard, who may have spent years of their life studying arcane lore, only 30% more likely to succeed at an Arcana check than the barbarian.
There should be variation, but IMO, not as much as there currently is for skills. I agree with the second point, but 5.5e/6e should have a rule to make that clear.
So, in order to make the Wizard who studied arcane lore for a years of their life actually good at identifying arcane lore, the DM has to give them advantage? Isn't the fact that the DM has to fix this a problem?
I don't know what I did to anger the Dice Gods, but ever since I started DMing I cannot roll above a 15 more than twice in a session. Tyche clearly doesn't favor me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
If you are rolling a DC 15 ability check with a +10 bonus, then you succeed on a roll of 6 - 20, so you're looking at a 75% chance of success.
However, I agree with your thesis that the randomness in D&D can be a real downer. Someone brought up the check to knock down a door, and that a barbarian can roll badly and the wizard can roll a nat 20. That kinda hits me about the same way; it just doesn't feel right in the moment. As a matter of fact it illustrates the difference in having 3 party members and 6 party members. If the DM lets each party member roll to knock down the door, well that has more impact on success than the character modifier. Of course they are supposed to be using a single roll with advantage if they are getting help, but that's not the point.
If we use the d20 we have 5% per side to roll a specific number. But in many of the multiple die proposals you still have about the same chance. Consider 1d20 that needs to roll a DC 15 check, there is a 25% chance unmodified that you can hit that number. If you used 2d10 then you still have 15% chance of rolling higher than a 15 unmodified. The broader chances are in the middle of the range, not at the extremes. To have a meaningful modifier you might have to come up with a system like reroll 1s if you don't have proficiency, reroll 1s and 2s if you have proficiency, and reroll 1s, 2s and 3s if you have expertise. That would really change the chances of your character rolling well on an ability check. But the system is likely to get very involved quickly. The appearance to me that the rules have been streamlined is a favorable change from before so I shy away from systems that improve realism but make it cumbersome to implement.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
You forget the existence of Expertise which brings that maximum up to a +17, and it happens as early as 17th level.
And while there is a fairly large degree of variation, I still don’t really see the problem. After all, if the PC doesn’t have proficiency in a skill, they shouldn’t be allowed to roll it.
And for straight ability checks, I do see that as a potential issue, but that’s when the DM hands out Advantage/Disadvantage as it fits the scenario.
After all, there is always luck.
How many people have access to Expertise currently? Right now it is only Bards, Rogues, and those few races that can take the Prodigy feat. The majority of PCs don't have access to it, making the average bonus for a maximized character a +5 at Tier 1, and +11 at Tier 4. Compare the odds of a barbarian who dumps Intelligence to an 8 using Standard Array/Point Buy to the odds of a Wizard who is proficient in Arcana that has a +5 bonus. At this level, the Wizard, who may have spent years of their life studying arcane lore, only 30% more likely to succeed at an Arcana check than the barbarian.
There should be variation, but IMO, not as much as there currently is for skills. I agree with the second point, but 5.5e/6e should have a rule to make that clear.
So, in order to make the Wizard who studied arcane lore for a years of their life actually good at identifying arcane lore, the DM has to give them advantage? Isn't the fact that the DM has to fix this a problem?
I don't know what I did to anger the Dice Gods, but ever since I started DMing I cannot roll above a 15 more than twice in a session. Tyche clearly doesn't favor me.
And the UA feat that grants expertise and Variant Rangers get Expertise.... And frankly, as far as I’m concerned, if all it takes to get Expertise is a feat or a multiclass, then 100% of all characters have access to it.
This edition already has a rule to make that clear. In 5e, if they do not have proficiency in a Skill, they cannot make a check for things involving that skill.
No dingbat. Read what I wrote. If it’s a Wizard making an Arcana check, then they are making an [Ability], ([Skill]) Check which by default means it isn’t “a straight ability check.” So the DM doesn’t have to fix it, which means it isn’t a problem.
You forget the existence of Expertise which brings that maximum up to a +17, and it happens as early as 17th level.
And while there is a fairly large degree of variation, I still don’t really see the problem. After all, if the PC doesn’t have proficiency in a skill, they shouldn’t be allowed to roll it.
And for straight ability checks, I do see that as a potential issue, but that’s when the DM hands out Advantage/Disadvantage as it fits the scenario.
After all, there is always luck.
How many people have access to Expertise currently? Right now it is only Bards, Rogues, and those few races that can take the Prodigy feat. The majority of PCs don't have access to it, making the average bonus for a maximized character a +5 at Tier 1, and +11 at Tier 4. Compare the odds of a barbarian who dumps Intelligence to an 8 using Standard Array/Point Buy to the odds of a Wizard who is proficient in Arcana that has a +5 bonus. At this level, the Wizard, who may have spent years of their life studying arcane lore, only 30% more likely to succeed at an Arcana check than the barbarian.
There should be variation, but IMO, not as much as there currently is for skills. I agree with the second point, but 5.5e/6e should have a rule to make that clear.
So, in order to make the Wizard who studied arcane lore for a years of their life actually good at identifying arcane lore, the DM has to give them advantage? Isn't the fact that the DM has to fix this a problem?
I don't know what I did to anger the Dice Gods, but ever since I started DMing I cannot roll above a 15 more than twice in a session. Tyche clearly doesn't favor me.
And the UA feat that grants expertise and Variant Rangers get Expertise.... And frankly, as far as I’m concerned, if all it takes to get Expertise is a feat or a multiclass, then 100% of all characters have access to it.
This edition already has a rule to make that clear. In 5e, if they do not have proficiency in a Skill, they cannot make a check for things involving that skill.
No dingbat. Read what I wrote. If it’s a Wizard making an Arcana check, then they are making an [Ability], ([Skill]) Check which by default means it isn’t “a straight ability check.” So the DM doesn’t have to fix it, which means it isn’t a problem.
Can’t help you there.
I purposefully left out UA, because it's not official and we don't know if those specific parts will be official. Currently, the only official feat that gives it is race-restricted, and multiclassing to a Rogue or Bard to get Expertise in Arcana or Survival seems like a poor use of multiclassing.
Where is that a rule? If they don't have proficiency in a skill, they can still make a check involving that skill but without proficiency.
Sorry, I misread you. No need for the name calling, though. It was an honest mistake. I've had some misread my posts, and don't automatically leap to insults. Why do you feel that Advantage/Disadvantage is a problem? I almost never give it out as a DM unless the rules say so or it makes sense in that scenario.
Rules that allow you to succeed at a skill that your character is supposed to be good at most of the time could help those of us that are cursed by the Dice Gods.
Yeah, I think that for most skills a rule that if you don't have proficiency, you can't roll would work. This wouldn't make sense for some skills, like perception or acrobatics, since you are often forced to use those. This rule would decrease the "throw all the dice at it and hope someone rolls high" strat that I have seen many times.
It's funny because it was so obvious in the "common sense" to me that I haven't even considered that it may not be an official rule.
Maybe too much Critical Role when oftentimes Matt doesn't allow for a knowledge roll if the player is not proficient with it, simulating the fact that physical skills are something everyone is capable of (hence you roll for perception, athletics, acrobatics etc. every time) but in the case of knowledge, you either studied the matter or not. A tribe barbarian who has never been around an arcane book will not be rolling for Arcana most of the time.
So, in order to make the Wizard who studied arcane lore for a years of their life actually good at identifying arcane lore, the DM has to give them advantage? Isn't the fact that the DM has to fix this a problem?
Well the DM per RAW is within their rights to give advantage/disadvantage on a roll. If my player who plays a wizard is particularly interested in time magic and studied that particular area more than the others I might be inclined to give him advantage on Arcana when he tries to discern what a Time Gate is.
I miss the rules for Taking 10 or Taking 20 depending on the situation. I still use them in my games.
The only times you actually have roll for skill checks is if you are under time pressure or there is negative consequence for failing the check. Essentially all skills have a "passive" mode and if you have the time to fool around with it and can keep trying until you get it right, you automatically get the highest number you could achieve by rolling. Opening a lock before the Dread Gazebo catches you and eats you? Roll the dice. Failing to open the lock on the first try triggers a trap? Roll the dice. Otherwise you can Take 10 and see if you open the lock, or spend extra time fiddling around with it because sooner or later that lock is either going to open, or you never had a chance at it anyway. You are never forced to Take 10. It's an option. If you feel you have the favor of the Dice Gods and want to roll your check instead you can go right ahead.
Yeah, I think that for most skills a rule that if you don't have proficiency, you can't roll would work. This wouldn't make sense for some skills, like perception or acrobatics, since you are often forced to use those. This rule would decrease the "throw all the dice at it and hope someone rolls high" strat that I have seen many times.
It's funny because it was so obvious in the "common sense" to me that I haven't even considered that it may not be an official rule.
Maybe too much Critical Role when oftentimes Matt doesn't allow for a knowledge roll if the player is not proficient with it, simulating the fact that physical skills are something everyone is capable of (hence you roll for perception, athletics, acrobatics etc. every time) but in the case of knowledge, you either studied the matter or not. A tribe barbarian who has never been around an arcane book will not be rolling for Arcana most of the time.
So, in order to make the Wizard who studied arcane lore for a years of their life actually good at identifying arcane lore, the DM has to give them advantage? Isn't the fact that the DM has to fix this a problem?
Well the DM per RAW is within their rights to give advantage/disadvantage on a roll. If my player who plays a wizard is particularly interested in time magic and studied that particular area more than the others I might be inclined to give him advantage on Arcana when he tries to discern what a Time Gate is.
I'm one of the rare few people who has not seen Critical Roll, so I wasn't aware that this house rule was a thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I know this is a bit controversial, but I would like the way races/species work to be changed in the next edition. Here are my proposed changes. Feel free to comment on any or all components of the recommended changes:
Change the name of Race to either Species or Ancestry (possibly both, with race being Species and subrace being Ancestry).
Get rid of racial ability score bonuses altogether. This change is already coming as an optional rule in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, but the next edition could automatically have something like this. Maybe they could attach it to your Background or Class, or just let the player choose a +2 bonus to any ability score and a +1 to any other, or +1 to any 3 of the player's choice. DMs could overrule this and create the racial dependent ability score increases that races have in 5e, which would make everyone be able to play either version. Or, maybe both versions are printed in the PHB and the DM chooses which one they want to use.
Don't have any alignment or default culture attached to the description of the races. These would be in the setting books, not the core racial descriptions. To have a default setting, it could have a small section in the DMG explaining the next edition's main setting.
Each race gets an extra hit dice depending on what race they are at level 1, most getting a d8. Halflings, Goblins, Kobolds, and Gnomes get an extra d6, Humans, Genasi, Aasimar, Tieflings, Elves, Hobgoblins, Half-Elves, and most other standard races get a d8. Dwarves, Half-Orcs, Firbolg, Leonin, Centaurs, and other bulkier races get a d10, while the largest races, like Orcs, Goliaths, Bugbears, and so on get an extra 1d12. This would increase survivability at lower levels a bit, make some of the species/races more distinct in physical terms to make up for their loss of difference in mental terms, and make your race mean a bit more to your character mechanics-wise.
Those are the few changes I would like to races in the next edition. None of them are super crazy or outrageous, but I'm sure people will feel strongly about certain parts of them.
I agree with this. I like the intention behind the Tasha's changes, but they do make species a bit bland. I would love to see asi's added to backgrounds, with more innate traits for species. Innate traits could really make a dragonborn feel different than a half-ork.
Thanks! I like the changes in Tasha's, but still want the species choice to matter. I would like more genetic-based species traits and feats specific to the species.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I agree with you Third. From what I am hearing I could make a bard and be just as effective with any race, Half-Elf to Half-Orc. That sort of washes all the color out of the game. And if they give everyone three +1 ASI bonus at character creation but Dwarves get an extra d10 for HP, then why not play a dwarf instead of an Elf?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I agree with you Third. From what I am hearing I could make a bard and be just as effective with any race, Half-Elf to Half-Orc. That sort of washes all the color out of the game. And if they give everyone three +1 ASI bonus at character creation but Dwarves get an extra d10 for HP, then why not play a dwarf instead of an Elf?
The only reason I can think of is Elven accuracy. Which, although it is seriously broken, is a s***ty reason
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I agree with you Third. From what I am hearing I could make a bard and be just as effective with any race, Half-Elf to Half-Orc. That sort of washes all the color out of the game. And if they give everyone three +1 ASI bonus at character creation but Dwarves get an extra d10 for HP, then why not play a dwarf instead of an Elf?
I'm not the designer for the next edition, but I would build in ways to balance the races out. Like, Gnomes only get a d6 and the 3 ASI bonus points to anything they want, but they get their gnomish resistance, and other features to balance them out. That way, any race is as viable for any class, but they will have their benefits. This way, no race would push you to any class, but some would be more useful.
For example, both a Goblin and Half-Orc can get a +2 to Strength and +1 to Constitution, which would make them both effective Barbarians, but since the Half-Orc gets a higher hit dice and don't have disadvantage on attacks with Heavy Weapons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I wouldn't mind the option of each race having the core features, and then optional features you choose at creation. Kind of like how the sub-races give you different features from the base race.
So lets say you wanted to play a dragonborn. You could go with the standard Breath weapon option. Or you could choose the Dragon Fear power from the XGE as a racial feature. Or maybe a bite attack that does a little extra elemental damage based on the dragon ancestry you took. You could only choose one of these options at creation. For the next racial feature, you could choose the standard elemental resistance. Or you could take Natural armor (13+dex mod). You pick one or the other.
I feel like this would give players so many more customization options.
True. But at low levels, you will probably be only getting around a +6 to a check, which is isn't massive.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
True. But at low levels, nobody is supposed to represent anywhere near the pinnacle of their crafts.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
At lower levels your maximum is +5. At level 20 your maximum is +11 without magic items (or 13 if you're a barbarian).
That means even at level 20, two thirds of your result are random and one third is actual player agency. And it gets even worse if you're rolling a pure ability score check, without skill or proficiency.
That *is* objectively a huge amount of variation for (subjectively) very little gain.
I think that more classes should get some form of expertise, or another way to reduce variance.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
You forget the existence of Expertise which brings that maximum up to a +17, and it happens as early as 17th level.
And while there is a fairly large degree of variation, I still don’t really see the problem. After all, if the PC doesn’t have proficiency in a skill, they shouldn’t be allowed to roll it.
And for straight ability checks, I do see that as a potential issue, but that’s when the DM hands out Advantage/Disadvantage as it fits the scenario.
After all, there is always luck.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I know this is a bit controversial, but I would like the way races/species work to be changed in the next edition. Here are my proposed changes. Feel free to comment on any or all components of the recommended changes:
Those are the few changes I would like to races in the next edition. None of them are super crazy or outrageous, but I'm sure people will feel strongly about certain parts of them.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Yeah, I think that for most skills a rule that if you don't have proficiency, you can't roll would work. This wouldn't make sense for some skills, like perception or acrobatics, since you are often forced to use those. This rule would decrease the "throw all the dice at it and hope someone rolls high" strat that I have seen many times.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I agree with this. I like the intention behind the Tasha's changes, but they do make species a bit bland. I would love to see asi's added to backgrounds, with more innate traits for species. Innate traits could really make a dragonborn feel different than a half-ork.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Big Lizz,
If you are rolling a DC 15 ability check with a +10 bonus, then you succeed on a roll of 6 - 20, so you're looking at a 75% chance of success.
However, I agree with your thesis that the randomness in D&D can be a real downer. Someone brought up the check to knock down a door, and that a barbarian can roll badly and the wizard can roll a nat 20. That kinda hits me about the same way; it just doesn't feel right in the moment. As a matter of fact it illustrates the difference in having 3 party members and 6 party members. If the DM lets each party member roll to knock down the door, well that has more impact on success than the character modifier. Of course they are supposed to be using a single roll with advantage if they are getting help, but that's not the point.
If we use the d20 we have 5% per side to roll a specific number. But in many of the multiple die proposals you still have about the same chance. Consider 1d20 that needs to roll a DC 15 check, there is a 25% chance unmodified that you can hit that number. If you used 2d10 then you still have 15% chance of rolling higher than a 15 unmodified. The broader chances are in the middle of the range, not at the extremes. To have a meaningful modifier you might have to come up with a system like reroll 1s if you don't have proficiency, reroll 1s and 2s if you have proficiency, and reroll 1s, 2s and 3s if you have expertise. That would really change the chances of your character rolling well on an ability check. But the system is likely to get very involved quickly. The appearance to me that the rules have been streamlined is a favorable change from before so I shy away from systems that improve realism but make it cumbersome to implement.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Why do you feel that Advantage/Disadvantage is a problem? I almost never give it out as a DM unless the rules say so or it makes sense in that scenario.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It's funny because it was so obvious in the "common sense" to me that I haven't even considered that it may not be an official rule.
Maybe too much Critical Role when oftentimes Matt doesn't allow for a knowledge roll if the player is not proficient with it, simulating the fact that physical skills are something everyone is capable of (hence you roll for perception, athletics, acrobatics etc. every time) but in the case of knowledge, you either studied the matter or not. A tribe barbarian who has never been around an arcane book will not be rolling for Arcana most of the time.
Well the DM per RAW is within their rights to give advantage/disadvantage on a roll. If my player who plays a wizard is particularly interested in time magic and studied that particular area more than the others I might be inclined to give him advantage on Arcana when he tries to discern what a Time Gate is.
I miss the rules for Taking 10 or Taking 20 depending on the situation. I still use them in my games.
The only times you actually have roll for skill checks is if you are under time pressure or there is negative consequence for failing the check. Essentially all skills have a "passive" mode and if you have the time to fool around with it and can keep trying until you get it right, you automatically get the highest number you could achieve by rolling. Opening a lock before the Dread Gazebo catches you and eats you? Roll the dice. Failing to open the lock on the first try triggers a trap? Roll the dice. Otherwise you can Take 10 and see if you open the lock, or spend extra time fiddling around with it because sooner or later that lock is either going to open, or you never had a chance at it anyway. You are never forced to Take 10. It's an option. If you feel you have the favor of the Dice Gods and want to roll your check instead you can go right ahead.
<Insert clever signature here>
I'm one of the rare few people who has not seen Critical Roll, so I wasn't aware that this house rule was a thing.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Thanks! I like the changes in Tasha's, but still want the species choice to matter. I would like more genetic-based species traits and feats specific to the species.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I agree with you Third. From what I am hearing I could make a bard and be just as effective with any race, Half-Elf to Half-Orc. That sort of washes all the color out of the game. And if they give everyone three +1 ASI bonus at character creation but Dwarves get an extra d10 for HP, then why not play a dwarf instead of an Elf?
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
The only reason I can think of is Elven accuracy. Which, although it is seriously broken, is a s***ty reason
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I'm not the designer for the next edition, but I would build in ways to balance the races out. Like, Gnomes only get a d6 and the 3 ASI bonus points to anything they want, but they get their gnomish resistance, and other features to balance them out. That way, any race is as viable for any class, but they will have their benefits. This way, no race would push you to any class, but some would be more useful.
For example, both a Goblin and Half-Orc can get a +2 to Strength and +1 to Constitution, which would make them both effective Barbarians, but since the Half-Orc gets a higher hit dice and don't have disadvantage on attacks with Heavy Weapons.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I wouldn't mind the option of each race having the core features, and then optional features you choose at creation. Kind of like how the sub-races give you different features from the base race.
So lets say you wanted to play a dragonborn. You could go with the standard Breath weapon option. Or you could choose the Dragon Fear power from the XGE as a racial feature. Or maybe a bite attack that does a little extra elemental damage based on the dragon ancestry you took. You could only choose one of these options at creation. For the next racial feature, you could choose the standard elemental resistance. Or you could take Natural armor (13+dex mod). You pick one or the other.
I feel like this would give players so many more customization options.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills