Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 7876867" data-attributes="member: 53980">Thanks for clarifying your position, but why are you comparing 3e's Formidable check to 5e's Hard check? I think it would make more sense to use similar checks from both.In that case, IIRC the 3e DC is 15, making the hard check quite easy for your &quot;talented novice&quot;. In fact, assuming &quot;take 10&quot;, the &quot;talented novice&quot; can't fail to climb the wall.I'd also point out that the &quot;talented novice&quot; has a 10% chance of succeeding against that Formidable check in 3e.Heck, at the end of the day, even the 3e DM is determining the possibility of success when assigning a DC (unless it is defined in a module or such, in which case someone still assigned it at some point). Is assigning a DC 30 to a task for a character with a +9 bonus really so much better than saying, &quot;sorry dude, you fail&quot;? Sure, I realize that the 3e DM is probably looking at the task and deciding it is in line with other DC 30 tasks, but if the results are the same then the only one who can likely appreciate how the result was arrived at is perhaps the DM. The players just see that they failed despite rolling a Nat 20 (in which case I believe it's better not to even ask them to roll, since that's a massive let down).I still hold that a system of rigid DCs and bonuses cannot generate a more rational system of outcomes than one derived from human judgement and good sense.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fanaelialae, post: 7876867, member: 53980"] Thanks for clarifying your position, but why are you comparing 3e's Formidable check to 5e's Hard check? I think it would make more sense to use similar checks from both. In that case, IIRC the 3e DC is 15, making the hard check quite easy for your "talented novice". In fact, assuming "take 10", the "talented novice" can't fail to climb the wall. I'd also point out that the "talented novice" has a 10% chance of succeeding against that Formidable check in 3e. Heck, at the end of the day, even the 3e DM is determining the possibility of success when assigning a DC (unless it is defined in a module or such, in which case someone still assigned it at some point). Is assigning a DC 30 to a task for a character with a +9 bonus really so much better than saying, "sorry dude, you fail"? Sure, I realize that the 3e DM is probably looking at the task and deciding it is in line with other DC 30 tasks, but if the results are the same then the only one who can likely appreciate how the result was arrived at is perhaps the DM. The players just see that they failed despite rolling a Nat 20 (in which case I believe it's better not to even ask them to roll, since that's a massive let down). I still hold that a system of rigid DCs and bonuses cannot generate a more rational system of outcomes than one derived from human judgement and good sense. [/QUOTE]

Verification