Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7228023" data-attributes="member: 6778044">Yeah, I think that's part of it too. And often too easy (although I did bump up DCs by 5 across the board, so I'll have to reconsider that now.Initially, it was just some recent posts that are closely related to optimized characters, and the fact that folks that are really into optimization can't seem to conceive that there are other "valid" options. As you know, the value of a high ability score has increased over the different editions of the game.I also have a bit of an issue with 20th level cap and how it relates. That is, nobody can theoretically be better at something than 20th level, except for a 1st level character with Expertise. That seems a bit absurd. Of course that can't touch a 20th level character with expertise, but the spread there seems a bit much to me.It also ties into how I handle ability checks for non-proficient skills. Normally, most ability (skill) checks in my campaign are passive. I consider both the passive score (things below that are automatic) and their capability (20 + their skill modifier). In most circumstances that's all I need to come up with a reasonable description as to what happens. In the times when I need to have them roll for a skill, failure is different. I wouldn't have them roll if it's outside their capability, so any time they're rolling is almost always related to how long it will take to succeed. Of course, if there are specific risks to failure, they come into play as well.On the other hand, somebody who is not proficient generally gets to roll once. And that's a reflection on the fact that they aren't trained in that skill. They can keep trying, but most of the time, they just aren't going to get it.I just thought of a middle ground where proficiency is your proficiency bonus or your ability modifier, whichever is higher. This becomes more important when you consider you have to have proficiency in something before you can gain expertise (either the bard/rogue ability or my variation).But it also came about as I started thinking about combat. Despite WotC official stance, an attack roll is an ability (skill) check. The mechanic is identical - d20 + ability modifier + proficiency bonus if proficient. What it lacks is the possibility of expertise. But overall I think expertise would be too high.So if I move to proficiency bonus or ability modifier for combat too, it has a very large effect. If I go with "whichever is higher" then it has less of an impact on combat, but it does reign things in a bit. But it also opens the door for adding expertise to combat, since it only brings the math back to the RAW. I like this a lot, since it allows something akin to the old weapon specialization. Although I'd probably tie it to the Fighting Styles (which are also feats in my campaign). So you can be non-skilled, but have a better chance at success due to raw talent, but really only one chance in most cases:Unskilled = d20 + ability modifier (or a range of -5 to +5)You can be skilled, and in some cases a little more skilled than others:Proficient = d20 + proficiency bonus or ability modifier, whichever is higher (a range of +2 to +6)or an expert, and better than most others:Expert = d20 + proficiency bonus and ability modifier. (a range of +2 to +11)With the standard array/point buy limiting folks to a 17 on their best ability at 1st level, for those that optimize it means that you could only be better at 1st level than a person with proficiency if that skill was not related to their best ability. Otherwise, a person with proficiency would always be equal to or a little better than the other characters.With randomly rolled characters, if you allow up to a 20 with racial modifiers, there will be a few that are better than proficient characters. And really, if we're lamenting that these ranges are too low, that is, the math won't work without the two added together, we can always increase the proficiency bonus to compensate. If proficiency started at +3 instead of +2, with the same progression, then it would further differentiate skilled from non-skilled, but be within the existing math.</blockquote>

Verification