"In the first tier (levels 1-4), characters are effectively apprentice
adventurers."
There's also the question of to whom they're apprenticed to, and the examples in character creation which make it seem like being a high up in the thieves guild and a master assassin still plonk you as a starting character. I don't think a lot of thought went into the name.
Which is definitely better, but adjusting higher DCs becomes more complex - how often does he succeed at a DC 15 (about half the time, same as before) or 20?(6%). I'm not saying it's a bad system, just that the DC adjustments if you want to maintain similar results are hard.
No, narrating success or failure is
the most successful and straightforward bit of the skill system, and it also happens to be intrinsic to all RPGs. The actual D&D specific bit where you use proficiencies and stat modifiers and a roll just ruins that elegant simplicity, while adding confusion and toil for all involved
Thematically, yes. Numerically, not at all, even slightly. Also as I pointed out, even without different weapons, strength roughly triples the damage you do in combat before you even think about changing hit rolls.
Jump distance isn't actually part of the skill system. Jumps are fixed based on your strength score.
"looking closely at things exposes their flaws". A wise sentiment.
The single biggest difference I see is what people attempt, not what they succeed at. This typically means that those best at skills
are those that fail them the most simply by virtue of nobody else even trying them. On passive skills (ie - skills I ask the players to roll), I honestly don't see a lot of difference between our high perception scout character and our leap before you look rogue.
Honestly, the game would be indistinguishable if there were no proficiencies and I just rolled 50/50 each time a character attempted something.
I actually am arguing the opposite in the other thread - that skilled characters SHOULD automatically succeed at low DCs, because this prevents the effect I see above: where the guy who is good at climbing mountains dies climbing a mountain, because he's the only person who tried it and his skill, despite being the best possible skill for his level, isn't good enough to keep him alive while performing an easy task.
Good point, but my statement stands even at 55%. If someone says that they "usually" do something, I expect it to be significantly more than 50%.
I won't include the second attempt bit - for a lot of these, one attempt is all you get, and if what the authors meant was "usually, as long as they can keep trying until they succeed", then they're being even more liberal with the meaning of language, and if you're not limiting attempts, then that's a rationale for DC 20 to be called easy.
Finally - it doesn't really matter, because regardless of the DC I pick, there is no sensible outcome for most skills. A trained blacksmith should have a 100% success rate at making horseshoes, but does that mean an uneducated layman should succeed at it 60% of the time? How does that same scenario play out with a fundamental skill that everyone should have, like perception? How does any con man ever pull off any con, when he has to test his skill against every sense motive in the room (even if they're just flat rolls, most of the time he's caught)?
