NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Joe Liker" data-source="post: 6442336" data-attributes="member: 6777505">Sidestepping the knowledge argument for the moment, I think there are a lot of ideas and house rules here that go against the whole point of the 5e skill system.In 5e, DCs are fixed; they do not scale up. That's the whole point of bounded accuracy. The DM should absolutely never consider the character level, attribute score, or proficiency of the character when setting the DC. The only question the DM should ask himself is, "Is this task easy, medium, hard, or even harder?"You are not asking if it's easy or hard for a person of a certain level of expertise. Just easy or hard in general, for the average person.Giving advantage/disadvantage for environmental considerations is fine, but simply having proficiency or a certain ability score should never grant advantage.Attributes and proficiency take care of themselves. They do exactly what they are intended to do -- they make tasks easier for people with greater natural ability and/or training. In other words, they are already figured into the equation, and proficiency already scales up with level.In a contested check, it's true that the results can be a little close. At level 1, the trained Str 16 character beats the untrained Str 8 character exactly 66 percent of the time. The Str 8 person wins 30 percent of the time, and they tie 4 percent of the time.Those odds don't actually seem that bad to me. The stronger person still wins more than twice as often. I think it would be boring if the weaker person had no chance at all, or a chance that so small it's not worth rolling. You may not think it's entirely realistic, but this is a game, not a simulation.</blockquote>

Verification