Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Even the Sword of Truth isn't really Grimdark, it's more Fifty Shades of Tolkein.
Well you pegged that one.
Even the Sword of Truth isn't really Grimdark, it's more Fifty Shades of Tolkein.
Thanks! I made that up on the fly just now and was particularly pleased with it.Well you pegged that one.
I know the point. Do you get why raising that point is rude and uncalled for? In case you missed it. It's because I and many others find fixing things fun.
I am not saying we can't have different opinions on system mechanics. I mean we are hear to post about it so that seems kind of the point.
Which get's back to the whole, why do you think I don't enjoy 5e. I can think something is the best thing since sliced bread and still want to make it better. That's me. That's not everyone. But to come to a thread I started and then tell me don't bother. Stop doing what you enjoy because no one cares. That's crapping on my thread. That's being rude.
Ironic that you and him are trying to fix me
5E is a very good system. While not perfect, it is at a point where most (if not all) of the effort I see to 'improve', 'fix', 'adjust', etc... it are inefficient uses of time. If that time were instead spent playing the game, planning sessions, or doing something unrelated to D&D, it would likely be time that generated more benefit than arguing over whether a wizard should inherently be better at Medicine after years of adventuring.
Maybe it would help to abstract this out a little more. How much worse should a bad character be at something than a good character? Should the bonus difference be a 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 or 100?
That's not wrong. Its just the same as taking a -5, 0, or +5, instead of a 0, +5, or +10. I simply prefer a default of 0 being no skill and the base at which they start. Then your good or your and expert. I get the idea of being truly bad at something but at the same time a bad swordsman might still be better than a untrained person who is not a swords man. In this case -- t0 me -- a bad swordsman is still a trained proficient swordsman who simply has bad habits but would still beat and untrained swordsman picking up sword for the first time... (unless your name is Rai apparently). So to answer you question of scale, Untrained 0 , in training is >0 (proficient) and a good character would be double that (expertise) that's not stating the game it just a statement of thought which closely aligns with the game. If the scale was 0, 1, 2 or 0, 2, 4or 0, 6, 10 or even 0, 50, 100 I would be fine with it. The interesting thing is that for the most part parties compare their skill and growth in a skill vs other part member. As a result the comparison of untrained, bad, and good is not normally relevant out side player characters. Most NPCs for example don't actually have any skills with the exception of perception and stealth. If the GM wants an enemy to have a skill, they simply do and at the level the GM wants them to have it. Players have to grow it. So an NPC is weaker or stronger in a skill arbitrarily for story reason. If you want to -5, 0, +5 instead of 0, +5, +10 I don't see that it really matters as long as all players scale within the same frame and the scales the game to the strongest player in a skills so that players stat is capable of mattering.
@ClaytonCross
This is what was said....
It's flat out rude to tell someone they are wasting their time doing something they enjoy. How you are defending that, I don't think I'll ever understand.
The 100 was a joke since it is so much higher than a d20.
Assuming your resolution mechanic is a d20 roll, which of those feels right to you? I think 0, 5, 10 fells too high. I'd like 0, 3, 6 I think.
I am not sure it matters as long as the Bonus and DC adjust to the scale. That's all I am saying. Even if we use your joke 100 skill +1d20, but then we make the DC 115 its really no different than 10skill +1d20 with DC 25. That's the whole point of bounded accuracy philosophy behind 5th edition. So what really that means is how much do you want to hand out bonuses? if you do it at on the 0-10 scale you are increasing the bonus and DC every 2 levels. If you increase is 0-6 you increase the skill and DC about every 3 levels. The only impact is to unskilled checks on a DC change of +6 vs +10 but I am saying I mostly don't care about that because generally when you need a door unlocked, the guy who picks locks does the test, so the other players skills only mattered as far as they are lower than his so they are not doing it. If he was gone and the second best was going to try it I can have effect but at the same time they might not have anyone else who picks locks and instead they get the strongest player to break down the door.
To me, if the party doesn't have a top tear player able to try and open the door with 15% or 50% less chance than the expert and more than the untrained. It doesn't effect the over play of the game because the same players will still try and do the same actions. Then scale becomes a personal preference. Larger scale is like playing on hard mode and smaller scale on easy. Nether are wrong or will be the sole factor of a good time or bad. This means you can do ether as you like with little or no consequence but the work your willing to put in to find and make the adjustments. : )
Gene Wolf's Black company