Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7601229" data-attributes="member: 6919838">So, you again tend to describe "what it does" a lot more that "what it was needed to do". But it seems like some of the multiple changes work against the goals of others? Huh?Did your group in play find at levels 17-20 too many cases where the differences in play between +6 proficiency with say +5 ability score was key? Where another +3 was needed?How did the feats the give you proficiency and expertise play into it for those races?So, was the goal to produce from even low tier 1 *more* cases of excessive skill totals while giving characters more narrowly defined skill scopes? Cuz that seems what you are creating? Are the "base" DCs for tasks (the few defined by RAW on monsters, tasks at least but also the basic scores for easy-medium-hard) going to change to reflect the new norm or stay as is? Already in the game there us a strong push to focus on "only the best tries". This is created by the gaps between ability+prof for those with both as part of their build and those with neither as their focus.Now, this seems like it will drive most everyone to go for at least one doubled skill in an area that they find key. Most strength fighters can find greater use by doubled athletics from day 1.Most anyone can benefit from doubled perception. Especially if the base scores got NPCs are not changed, this seems to raise passive perception to much stronger levels for PCs than enemy scores will have much chance to overcome.One of the strengths of the core system is that the degree to which most characters can benefit from more and more over-stacking is limited - especially at lower levels. That leaves a wider scope of builds more useful. This seems to push towards a much more favorable concentrate ftom the beginning push and it's not readily Right now, most any character build can have between 4-6 skills for everyone but practically speaking only a couple of those at most  key to skills with high ability scores as well. Seems obvious that double up will be the key so everybody is doubled up - for PCs.Also, did you have a problem with tools being too good? It's a lot harder, or rather more restrictive, to get yo two tools than it is to get to two skills. Most classes offer no tool proficiencies. Most races off no tools. So, did you want tools reduced compared to skills? Was your goal to really promote custom backgrounds with 2 skills and two tools allowing doubled up tools - driving out the language options?These are the kinds of questions one gets when you have presentations like "here are a bunch of changes, see what they do" instead of "we want to do this thing here, fo these change get that without doing a lot more stuff wrapped up in it too."If a goal was "remove the out of reach npc vs stealth expertise" problems we have seen in play" that brings in a narrow set of changes. That would say also "dont do changes that expand it.", right? Additionally, the lack of thinking beyond the plus in these issues seems a missing key component?For example, the DMG rules for auto-success - are they in play? One of the bigger ones is the auto-succeed on DC 10 or less for proficient checks without disadvantage. That creates even at low levels a significant edge for proficiencies and a factor that makes having more proficiencies matter, not just higher numbers.Just like we see with reliable talent, the rules that allow you to avoid making checks seem big.But to me I have one serious problem at a play level that steps outside of the "what are the goals and fo we meet them and only thrm with these changes"...Any change that just hands default advantage automatically for a class of checks removes the IMO major gain from advantage - it requires some degree of in-scene engagement by requiring actions and choices and plans that *create* advantage by interacting in the scene. The more "expertise" is available and granting auto-advsntsge, the less that becomes a drive for interaction, planning and engaging the scene and the more it becomes a matter of build.</blockquote>

Verification