Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ibrandul" data-source="post: 8739978" data-attributes="member: 6871736">I don't intend for it to be taken as universal. I was asked for an example of why I might set a DC at 30 for the sake of world-building; I gave the example; then I was told the new rule wouldn't make a difference in that case, when it actually more than quadruples the chance of success.I don't think this is some sort of mic-drop moment. And this thread has taught me one thing: even though I try to DM RAW, and I know that each DM's style is unique in some way, I suspect that almost no one DMs D&amp;D like I do regarding ability checks.Which is neat, I guess. And maybe it gives me some further insight into why I've had so many experienced players tell me that of all the campaigns they've ever played in, mine was the only one where the world felt real. (I'm not saying this to brag; I'm saying it to convey why I DM the way I do.)But there's no question in my mind: I will either have to change my DMing style, or refuse to adopt the new rule.On the contrary, I think the rule is good for attack rolls; good for saving throws (I think—though my thoughts aren't fully formed on this one, since I hadn't started thinking about it until the playtest document dropped on Thursday); and terrible for ability checks (which I started thinking about a long time ago).That's partly because I have never seen any encounter with a party where only one PC has an attack modifier as high as +5 facing off against an AC 25 monster—or anything remotely comparable to that.And since it sounds like very few of my fellow DMs have ever seen a DM call for an ability check with a DC higher than 20 or maybe 22, I do understand where they're coming from.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ibrandul, post: 8739978, member: 6871736"] I don't intend for it to be taken as universal. I was asked for an example of why I might set a DC at 30 for the sake of world-building; I gave the example; then I was told the new rule wouldn't make a difference in that case, when it actually more than quadruples the chance of success. I don't think this is some sort of mic-drop moment. And this thread has taught me one thing: even though I try to DM RAW, and I know that each DM's style is unique in some way, I suspect that almost no one DMs D&D like I do regarding ability checks. Which is neat, I guess. And maybe it gives me some further insight into why I've had so many experienced players tell me that of all the campaigns they've ever played in, mine was the only one where the world felt real. (I'm not saying this to brag; I'm saying it to convey [I]why[/I] I DM the way I do.) But there's no question in my mind: I will either have to change my DMing style, or refuse to adopt the new rule. On the contrary, I think the rule is good for attack rolls; good for saving throws (I think—though my thoughts aren't fully formed on this one, since I hadn't started thinking about it until the playtest document dropped on Thursday); and terrible for ability checks (which I started thinking about a long time ago). That's partly because I have never seen any encounter with a party where only one PC has an attack modifier as high as +5 facing off against an AC 25 monster—or anything remotely comparable to that. And since it sounds like very few of my fellow DMs have ever seen a DM call for an ability check with a DC higher than 20 or maybe 22, I do understand where they're coming from. [/QUOTE]

Verification