Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 8704273" data-attributes="member: 5889">I feel like the issue though stems back to the OP. When you proposed this change, you implied that ability check DCs in 5e were in general too high.I mean if you think it's an improvement in your game than of course you should do it, but then there isn't really any reason for the thread. Instead, the thread was to propose the notion that the design of the game has a flaw (albeit a minor one) and that the game in general would be improved with this change.And several of us are countering your experiences with our own, that we have found the DCs to be fine or even not high enough. Now I would argue that in most of these kinds of threads it should be &quot;designers are right until proven wrong&quot;. Ie we should assume the game is doing things correctly for most people until someone makes a good case that there is a problem. You have attempted to say the design could use adjusted, several of us have countered. At this point I don't think you are able to prove your general case, and you certainly don't need our permission or blessing to make changes within your own game. So what is left to discuss?One thing I do want to go back to is the &quot;pointlessness&quot; of a 10% chance. I have DMed over 20 years, and something I've noticed. As your players get really seasoned and have a dozen campaigns under their belt... the 10%s are the things people remember. People remember the crazy moments when PC A saved PC B with an incredible roll. The time the paladin could only flub his persuasion on a 1....and got that 1. Beating the monster by the absolute skin of their teeth. Those are the stories my players still tell over and over.... no one remember the series of standards roll they made in campaign X.Sure 9 out of 10 times the player will fail.... and that failure will be forgotten in a few weeks. But those times they do succeed.....they will remember that for years to come.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Stalker0, post: 8704273, member: 5889"] I feel like the issue though stems back to the OP. When you proposed this change, you implied that ability check DCs in 5e were [B]in general[/B] too high. I mean if you think it's an improvement in your game than of course you should do it, but then there isn't really any reason for the thread. Instead, the thread was to propose the notion that the design of the game has a flaw (albeit a minor one) and that the game in general would be improved with this change. And several of us are countering your experiences with our own, that we have found the DCs to be fine or even not high enough. Now I would argue that in most of these kinds of threads it should be "designers are right until proven wrong". Ie we should assume the game is doing things correctly for most people until someone makes a good case that there is a problem. You have attempted to say the design could use adjusted, several of us have countered. At this point I don't think you are able to prove your general case, and you certainly don't need our permission or blessing to make changes within your own game. So what is left to discuss? One thing I do want to go back to is the "pointlessness" of a 10% chance. I have DMed over 20 years, and something I've noticed. As your players get really seasoned and have a dozen campaigns under their belt... the 10%s are the things people remember. People remember the crazy moments when PC A saved PC B with an incredible roll. The time the paladin could only flub his persuasion on a 1....and got that 1. Beating the monster by the absolute skin of their teeth. Those are the stories my players still tell over and over.... no one remember the series of standards roll they made in campaign X. Sure 9 out of 10 times the player will fail.... and that failure will be forgotten in a few weeks. But those times they do succeed.....they will remember that for years to come. [/QUOTE]

Verification