Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8363753" data-attributes="member: 16814">This actually shows what I'm saying.&nbsp; The 4e character that doesn't spend any effort on a skill is at the same chance to succeed at an easy take at 1st and at 30th.&nbsp; They have nearly no chance to succeed at any other tasks at 30th, but can at 1st.&nbsp; Meanwhile, the 4e character that specializes in a skill succeeds at a hard task roughly at 50/50 at 1st, and, given your best bonus above, about 50/50 at a hard task at 30th (ignoring the one character above that has check values in the 40s for a set of skills, which is apparently due to some massive outside the PC bonus, I'm guessing, it looks like non-outside pumped scores top at around 30).&nbsp; These characters are not going to be facing DCs outside their level range very often, so whatever DCs are at 1st level are meaningless at 30th, because you do not see them.And while I know you weren't making any points about 5e, the reality is that the above holds true for the unskilled player -- you're about 50/50 at 1st for an easy task and about 50/50 at 20th for an easy task.&nbsp; DCs in 5e are mostly set by approach and the challenge according to the rules of the game (published adventures ignore this, which I find maddening).&nbsp; So it holds up.&nbsp; Meanwhile a proficient character goes from a +2 to a +6, but the DC range never changes, so they actually see improvement against relevant challenges.&nbsp; The examples of 4e characters above, the invested characters that don't have large outside boosts don't really improve against expectations.&nbsp; This is a design goal of 4e, though, so it's not a problem -- the game works exceedingly well this way.&nbsp; The problem comes when people complain that 4e represents PC ability, but 5e doesn't.&nbsp; It's a flawed analysis based on a flawed premise -- you aren't actually comparing the same things, but, even so, the math still checks out as pretty damn close.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8363753, member: 16814"] This actually shows what I'm saying. The 4e character that doesn't spend any effort on a skill is at the same chance to succeed at an easy take at 1st and at 30th. They have nearly no chance to succeed at any other tasks at 30th, but can at 1st. Meanwhile, the 4e character that specializes in a skill succeeds at a hard task roughly at 50/50 at 1st, and, given your best bonus above, about 50/50 at a hard task at 30th (ignoring the one character above that has check values in the 40s for a set of skills, which is apparently due to some massive outside the PC bonus, I'm guessing, it looks like non-outside pumped scores top at around 30). These characters are not going to be facing DCs outside their level range very often, so whatever DCs are at 1st level are meaningless at 30th, because you do not see them. And while I know you weren't making any points about 5e, the reality is that the above holds true for the unskilled player -- you're about 50/50 at 1st for an easy task and about 50/50 at 20th for an easy task. DCs in 5e are mostly set by approach and the challenge according to the rules of the game (published adventures ignore this, which I find maddening). So it holds up. Meanwhile a proficient character goes from a +2 to a +6, but the DC range never changes, so they actually see improvement against relevant challenges. The examples of 4e characters above, the invested characters that don't have large outside boosts don't really improve against expectations. This is a design goal of 4e, though, so it's not a problem -- the game works exceedingly well this way. The problem comes when people complain that 4e represents PC ability, but 5e doesn't. It's a flawed analysis based on a flawed premise -- you aren't actually comparing the same things, but, even so, the math still checks out as pretty damn close. [/QUOTE]

Verification