Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6349337" data-attributes="member: 996">Skill checks are a whole 'nuther thing.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />In classic D&D there weren't even skills at first, then you got some classes with 'special' abilities like tracking and hiding in shadows/moving silent &c, that were, in effect, skills.  They started out pretty low to just appallingly and became more or less dependable by mid levels.  If you didn't have the special ability, too bad.  So, if you didn't have 'move silently,' you never got stealthier, no matter how many years you spent sneaking around dungeons.In later AD&D they added 'non weapon proficiencies,' which (like everything in AD&D) used their own quixotic mechanic - this time it was rolling /under/ an associated stat on a d20.  Also not affected by level, though you could take the same proficiency repeatedly to get better at it.  The funny thing was, thieves and the like still had their starting at 20% or so 'special' abilities, but the corresponding 'roll under your DEX' checks would succeed half the time if you just had an average DEX.  That rather naturally became 'ranks' in 3e, which is probably the height of skill disparities.  There were a lot of skills and you only got so many ranks to spend each level (from 2 for the lowly fighter up to 8 for a Rogue).  If you dropped a rank in a skill every level, kept boosting the associated stat, took feats and items to be better at it, you could /automatically/ make a 35 DC well before reaching 20th level.  OTOH, if your stat was 10 and you never put a rank in the skill, you never got in better at it, even if you used it 'untrained' all the time in your adventuring career.  So you could very easily have some characters with a +0 (or even negative) skill check, even at 20th level, and others with a +40 or more.  4e reined that in a little.  Instead of ranks, everybody just added 1/2 level to skills.  Being 'trained' added a +5, and you added stats or racials - there was also the odd feat (that didn't stack with other feats) and the odd item (that didn't stack with other items and didn't add a huge bonus).  The result was that most characters had a good chance of making an 'easy' check at their level, and that moderate checks were within reach if you were trained or had a good stat.  So it was much easier to include skill use without tuning it to the hyper-specialized or hopeless members of the party. The treadmill is really just an illusion that comes from assuming you'll always face exactly same-level challenges.  When ever you 'go back' or 'skip ahead' and face something under- or over-leveled, you see just how much you've advanced and how much further you could go.  The original concept of bounded accuracy was no bonus for leveling at all (just more hps and damage).  The problem with that was that when you 'went back' to a lower-level challenge, it was just as hard to hit (whether you're talking AC or skill DCs), and you realized you hadn't really advanced.  Fortunately, they finally settled on a narrow range of advancement:  +2 to +6 over 20 levels.</blockquote>

Verification