Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7878661" data-attributes="member: 996">OK then, 5e did a better job of modelling the kinds of lesser foes heroes routinely wade through, while keeping them relevant to gameplay via BA, than 3e &amp; the TSR era eds did with the nat 20 rule. (Though, of course, games like Feng Shui and GURPS: Cinematic had done even better with mook/popcorn rules some 20 years prior.)&nbsp;Skills are just a lot less important in 5e than spells or hps.There were really more issues with the &quot;numbers porn&quot; of 3e.&nbsp; One was that monster AC&nbsp; and many skill DCs or contested checks scaled as fast as PC bonuses did, creating the illusion of the treadmill. But there was all the times you fell off that treadmill. If you were a poor-BAB class, monsters the fighter or paladin could still miss at high level might be almost untouchable, to you. If you were cross-classing or not even putting ranks in a skill, it was worse: tasks that might be outright impossible for you might still be auto successes for the expert.&nbsp; Then there were 'static DCs' the opposite of the treadmill, like Diplomacy which let an optimized &quot;diplomancer&quot; turn any creature that would listen from hostile to helpful. And Poor saves, which fell behind the scaling of monster save DCs.4e fixed all those issues, except the illusion of the treadmill,&nbsp; which only made that illusion more pervasive.So 5e just made the numbers smaller.&nbsp;It's unintuitive that it's no longer of any value to do something to give an ally advantage to an attack if a Druid has cast Faerie Fire, but not if the Cleric has cast Bless, or that, since you already have disadvantage, being blinded isn't an issue.It's not hard to explain, and simple enough to resolve, but, no not new-player friendly, exactly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7878661, member: 996"] OK then, 5e did a better job of modelling the kinds of lesser foes heroes routinely wade through, while keeping them relevant to gameplay via BA, than 3e & the TSR era eds did with the nat 20 rule. (Though, of course, games like Feng Shui and GURPS: Cinematic had done even better with mook/popcorn rules some 20 years prior.) Skills are just a lot less important in 5e than spells or hps. There were really more issues with the "numbers porn" of 3e. One was that monster AC and many skill DCs or contested checks scaled as fast as PC bonuses did, creating the illusion of the treadmill. But there was all the times you fell off that treadmill. If you were a poor-BAB class, monsters the fighter or paladin could still miss at high level might be almost untouchable, to you. If you were cross-classing or not even putting ranks in a skill, it was worse: tasks that might be outright impossible for you might still be auto successes for the expert. Then there were 'static DCs' the opposite of the treadmill, like Diplomacy which let an optimized "diplomancer" turn any creature that would listen from hostile to helpful. And Poor saves, which [I]fell behind[/I] the scaling of monster save DCs. 4e fixed all those issues, except the illusion of the treadmill, which only made that illusion more pervasive. So 5e just made the numbers smaller. It's unintuitive that it's no longer of any value to do something to give an ally advantage to an attack if a Druid has cast Faerie Fire, but not if the Cleric has cast Bless, or that, since you already have disadvantage, being blinded isn't an issue. It's not hard to explain, and simple enough to resolve, but, no not new-player friendly, exactly. [/QUOTE]

Verification