Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GSHamster" data-source="post: 5651926" data-attributes="member: 20187">Thanks for the feedback!The increasing DCs is essentially to keep up with increasing ability scores. A Master person probably also has a high natural ability. If they have a +4 or +5 and the DC stayed the same at 10 or so, the check would become roll 5 or higher. Master challenges are tasks which should still challenge a player at that level. After ability scores, the roll should go back to 10-12 and up is a success.This is a good point, but the issue I had is that you get Untrained people having a small chance of doing things they should not be able to do.One other thing I considered is to add an extra category between Trained and Excellent (Good). If you did that, then I think the two steps away would be more reasonable. The table would look like:Untrained - default - DC 11Trained - costs 1 point - DC 12Good - costs 2 more points - DC 13Excellent - costs 3 more points - DC 14Master - costs 4 more points - DC 15It's similar to the previous table (10 points total to get Master) and a being able to attempt tasks 2 steps away seems more reasonable. Untrained could attempt up to Good, Good could attempt Master challenges.The issue with this is that it might become harder for the DM to assign DCs. What's the difference between Good and Trained? or Good and Excellent? But maybe that's not an issue, and the increased smoothness between ranks outweighs a little more difficulty in assigning DCs.This wouldn't be a good system to add bonuses from levels.  The idea that as character levels they get better at a lot of things should be handled by the costs of each skill rank. It costs a very small amount of points to get to Trained (or Good) so a character can be decent at a lot of things very easily. Put another way, sacrificing one Master skill means that you can get 4 or 5 other skills up to Trained.</blockquote>

Verification