Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Joshua Randall" data-source="post: 2993661" data-attributes="member: 7737">Ah, okay. Now I get it.Again, okay. I somehow lost track of the argument and thought that 10th level was the sweet spot. Now I understand -- it's the cap, like the equivalent of 20th level now.I would debate that D&D is designed in any way to achieve verisimilitude (although don't we love to bandy that word about); I think it is designed to achieve the illusion of verisimilitude by being just barely plausible enough to conform to real-world constraints. Therefor, I don't see how high level play is any more broken than low level play, in regards to verisimilitude.As with many such issues in the game, the problem is magic. All non-rogue skills (and eventually, even the rogue skills) can be totally superseded by magic.Need to stabilize a dying PC? Don't bother with that DC 15 Heal check, just cast cure minor wounds. Need to get the scoop on a mysterious enemy? Don't bother with the DC whatever Gather Information check, just cast commune or contact other plane or legend lore. Need to Use Rope? Don't bother with the skill, just cast animate rope or rope trick or levitate as needed.So I think that unless you totally eliminate magic from the game -- in which case I don't think it's recognizably D&D any more -- then skills will always be overshadowed by magic.Can you explain what you mean by "scale realistically"? Also, I think that realistically/satisfactorily are two separate (possibly mutally exclusive) goals.The question is, how much randomness is enough or too much? If the PCs always have a 50% chance of success, then some players might think that is too much randomness. So where do you draw the line?</blockquote>

Verification