Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9197859" data-attributes="member: 6801228">That isn't what the vast majority of people mean when they say &quot;cosmic&quot;. Which, per the definition, is: relating to the universe or cosmos, especially as distinct from the earth.Mountains and rivers and nature is not distinct from earth.And with that score (12+expertise) they will fail at standard parts of their job 55% of the time. I don't understand how people don't see something bizarre with this. You have held a job, right? You had to do things of medium difficulty in that job, correct? Was the expectation that you would fail HALF THE TIME!So, you would say that they should have a better chance that the mechanics you have laid out would give them? 12+expertise isn't getting you to that level. They would fail make cloths half the time they attempt it. That is not extremely skilled.How often does your mother fail at sewing? When she decides to make something, how often does she fail at that task and not make anything? I'm not assuming the task is easy. I'm assuming the people doing the task aren't bumbling around and basically flipping a coin on whether or not they succeed at the project they have undertaken. Remember, proficiency in a tool is good enough to be hired as a skilled laborer. They are good enough to do the job, professionally, for money. For a lot of money. And per the rules, they fail at that job half the time at least? That doesn't make sense. So, clearly, what it means to be successful and competent isn't playing out here. And so, I propose, that since the DCs seem correct, and we aren't going to be altering proficiency, that the only lever we really have left to pull is the ability scores. And therefore... your average [blank] isn't working with a 10 or even a 12.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 9197859, member: 6801228"] That isn't what the vast majority of people mean when they say "cosmic". Which, per the definition, is: [I]relating to the universe or cosmos, [/I][B][U][I]especially as distinct from the earth[/I][/U][/B]. Mountains and rivers and nature is not distinct from earth. And with that score (12+expertise) they will fail at standard parts of their job 55% of the time. I don't understand how people don't see something bizarre with this. You have held a job, right? You had to do things of medium difficulty in that job, correct? Was the expectation that you would fail HALF THE TIME! So, you would say that they should have a better chance that the mechanics you have laid out would give them? 12+expertise isn't getting you to that level. They would fail make cloths half the time they attempt it. That is not extremely skilled. How often does your mother fail at sewing? When she decides to make something, how often does she fail at that task and not make anything? I'm not assuming the task is easy. I'm assuming the people doing the task aren't bumbling around and basically flipping a coin on whether or not they succeed at the project they have undertaken. Remember, proficiency in a tool is good enough to be hired as a skilled laborer. They are good enough to do the job, professionally, for money. For a lot of money. And per the rules, they fail at that job half the time at least? That doesn't make sense. So, clearly, what it means to be successful and competent isn't playing out here. And so, I propose, that since the DCs seem correct, and we aren't going to be altering proficiency, that the only lever we really have left to pull is the ability scores. And therefore... your average [blank] isn't working with a 10 or even a 12. [/QUOTE]

Verification