Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 6277110" data-attributes="member: 54710">Skills in D&amp;DN are based on the assumption that a substantial chance of failure or success is desired anytime you roll the die.&nbsp; That works if you want any character to be able to succeed at any reasonable skill check, but is a lousy way to simulate reality.&nbsp; If you want a realistic view of skills, the DM has to decide whether the particular character at issue automatically succeeds, automatically fails or gets to roll a check.&nbsp; A door might have a DC of 13 to break down, but the hulking barbarian auto-succeeds, the fighting cleric gets to roll and the weakling wizard auto-fails based on the DM's sense of how the world works.&nbsp; If you take the view that any given task has a fixed DC that any person can attempt with their rules-derived modifier, you quickly end up with total nonsense where an idiot shepherd (modifier -2) can outwit a skilled archmage (modifier +11).-KS</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KidSnide, post: 6277110, member: 54710"] Skills in D&DN are based on the assumption that a substantial chance of failure or success is desired anytime you roll the die. That works if you want any character to be able to succeed at any reasonable skill check, but is a lousy way to simulate reality. If you want a realistic view of skills, the DM has to decide whether the particular character at issue automatically succeeds, automatically fails or gets to roll a check. A door might have a DC of 13 to break down, but the hulking barbarian auto-succeeds, the fighting cleric gets to roll and the weakling wizard auto-fails based on the DM's sense of how the world works. If you take the view that any given task has a fixed DC that any person can attempt with their rules-derived modifier, you quickly end up with total nonsense where an idiot shepherd (modifier -2) can outwit a skilled archmage (modifier +11). -KS [/QUOTE]

Verification