D&D 5E New Spellcasting Blocks for Monsters --- Why?!

[GMforPowergamers]

This is not how math works...
Edit: No, I am sorry. I was dumb and too fast.
In Germany we use a "," where in USA you use a "."
So i misread 1,001 as 1.001.

I still stand by my assertion that a +1 (5%) bonus is not enough to distinguish proficiency from non proficiency, and +1001 (so +5005%) is too much.
I think 3 is the right number.

okay... I admit if only added a fraction it would not matter...

 

[J.Quondam]

This is not how math works...
Edit: No, I am sorry. I was dumb and too fast.
In Germany we use a "," where in USA you use a "."
So i misread 1,001 as 1.001.

I still stand by my assertion that a +1 (5%) bonus is not enough to distinguish proficiency from non proficiency, and +1001 (so +5005%) is too much.
I think 3 is the right number.

Most people here in the US also use "," in large numbers.
The "." in the numbers are confusing to me, as well!

 

[Vaalingrade]

This is not how math works...
Edit: No, I am sorry. I was dumb and too fast.
In Germany we use a "," where in USA you use a "."
So i misread 1,001 as 1.001.

I still stand by my assertion that a +1 (5%) bonus is not enough to distinguish proficiency from non proficiency, and +1001 (so +5005%) is too much.
I think 3 is the right number.

I never understood why 3.x gave 3 ranks at first level for training until I was pulling multiple systems apart to rework the skill system and realized this.

+1 means nothing. Absolutely nothing in practical experience unless there's nowhere else to get bonuses at which point every +1 is precious even if you don't actually feel any better practically.

+2 is the ISO Standard bonus and in 3x, it's the 'good for you, you used a lock pick instead of a rusty spoon!' bonus, so you can be just as good knowing how tools work at first level as being trained.

+3 is basically the lowest a Trained character should have at level 1 to both be meaningful and better than an idiot who knows that a hammer is used to hammer nails and nothing else about carpentry.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I never understood why 3.x gave 3 ranks at first level for training until I was pulling multiple systems apart to rework the skill system and realized this.

+1 means nothing. Absolutely nothing in practical experience unless there's nowhere else to get bonuses at which point every +1 is precious even if you don't actually feel any better practically.

+2 is the ISO Standard bonus and in 3x, it's the 'good for you, you used a lock pick instead of a rusty spoon!' bonus, so you can be just as good knowing how tools work at first level as being trained.

+3 is basically the lowest a Trained character should have at level 1 to both be meaningful and better than an idiot who knows that a hammer is used to hammer nails and nothing else about carpentry.

This is why I liked the 4e approach to skills. The half-level bonus applying to everything means that yes, your "clanker" Paladin (as a rogue-favoring friend of mine says) does actually get better at sneaking, so against weak or particularly unobservant foes she actually CAN learn to sneak around. And then Training is a solid, respectable +5. Early on it's a massive difference, but not an insurmountable one (e.g. take a relevant background with a +2 and find some other feat, item, or power bonus and you'll have covered all or almost all of the gap.) Yes, it does mean the numbers grow large over time, but you need that space in order for things to really feel weighty and DO something. Proficiency early on in 5e is barely noticeable.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This is why I liked the 4e approach to skills. The half-level bonus applying to everything means that yes, your "clanker" Paladin (as a rogue-favoring friend of mine says) does actually get better at sneaking, so against weak or particularly unobservant foes she actually CAN learn to sneak around. And then Training is a solid, respectable +5. Early on it's a massive difference, but not an insurmountable one (e.g. take a relevant background with a +2 and find some other feat, item, or power bonus and you'll have covered all or almost all of the gap.) Yes, it does mean the numbers grow large over time, but you need that space in order for things to really feel weighty and DO something. Proficiency early on in 5e is barely noticeable.

I actually didn't like the 4e skill system because I like the customizability of skill points where you can be better than most people, but not a master, and also you can get trained in more things without blowing a feat on it.

 

[Maxperson]

even though we revirse on 4e/3e I find it funny we have so much in common with the 2e love

I still pull out 2e products and read through the lore in order to get inspiration(more ideas than I could ever use). It's a gold mine.

 

[Reynard]

This is why I liked the 4e approach to skills. The half-level bonus applying to everything means that yes, your "clanker" Paladin (as a rogue-favoring friend of mine says) does actually get better at sneaking, so against weak or particularly unobservant foes she actually CAN learn to sneak around. And then Training is a solid, respectable +5. Early on it's a massive difference, but not an insurmountable one (e.g. take a relevant background with a +2 and find some other feat, item, or power bonus and you'll have covered all or almost all of the gap.) Yes, it does mean the numbers grow large over time, but you need that space in order for things to really feel weighty and DO something. Proficiency early on in 5e is barely noticeable.

I'm not sure I understand why it is desirable to have characters get better at everything, even if it is not their forte.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Most people here in the US also use "," in large numbers.
The "." in the numbers are confusing to me, as well!

No. In Germany we don't use "," in large numbers. We use "." in large numbers if any. Our "," is used in decimals, where in US you usually use a "."
And when we want to seperate numbers, we use ";", where in US you usually use a ",".

 

[Minigiant]

I'm not sure I understand why it is desirable to have characters get better at everything, even if it is not their forte.

Because in 4e, the assumption was that all major checks were of your current tier or half tier. As you leveled, those DCs went up. 4e was stritkly in the "your PC is extra special. Everything well below him was beneath his worry and everything for above him was beyond his comprehension and approach"

5e, went the other way and said enough of the little stuff could get you and if you are lucky and have enough allies, you can punch above weight class a little.


Personally, I didn't like any edition's modifier and DC systems. Not one. Either the designers underestimated the impact of the dice or locked out stuff to minimize it.

I probably would have gone with 5e's +2 to +6 bounded accuracy system but would have expertise be the base of "being skilled" and had a triple proficient modifier for mastery. If DC 10 is supposed to be a easy challenge then a skilled individual should not be begging for a 6+ on the die when they have no natural talent.

 

[Reynard]

Because in 4e, the assumption was that all major checks were of your current tier or half tier. As you leveled, those DCs went up. 4e was stritkly in the "your PC is extra special. Everything well below him was beneath his worry and everything for above him was beyond his comprehension and approach"

5e, went the other way and said enough of the little stuff could get you and if you are lucky and have enough allies, you can punch above weight class a little.


Personally, I didn't like any edition's modifier and DC systems. Not one. Either the designers underestimated the impact of the dice or locked out stuff to minimize it.

I probably would have gone with 5e's +2 to +6 bounded accuracy system but would have expertise be the base of "being skilled" and had a triple proficient modifier for mastery. If DC 10 is supposed to be a easy challenge then a skilled individual should not be begging for a 6+ on the die when they have no natural talent.

I think static DCs with characters only progressing if it's in their wheelhouse is better for various reasons. But I would go back to spending skill points if I had my druthers.