Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8364235" data-attributes="member: 16814">I'm questioning the experience you may have at this point, because DC 15 is still a very useful DC for a large number of situations at 20th level.  DC 10 is still useful.  You seem to be assuming that bonuses are so high across the board, but this is a design feature of 5e -- they just stopped the treadmill and kept everything centered at 0 rather that the lockstep increases of 4e.  A character with no proficiency is between -1 and +5 on an ability check at 20th level.  DC 10 and 15 are very reasonable to set.  Sure, a skilled character can be +17, but there's no problem in 4e when the skilled character automatically beats the easy and medium DCs, so I fail to see the complaint.  If you're bonus is higher than the DC I set, you can tell me you succeed without rolling.  It's cool.  I usually don't even bother trying to remember which character has what bonus -- they tell me what they do, and if I think the outcome is uncertain and has a consequence for failure, I'll call for a check and set a DC (and the stakes).  I do not need to pay attention to the PC's bonuses.  Game works just fine.I very much don't do this -- not even close.  5e would be terrible at this.You can do the same in 5e.  Was there a point to this?His high end numbers required significant investment to be good at skills.  The more normal numbers align with my understanding of what the system can do -- top skills are usually in the mid to high 30's at 30th.Those kinds of bonuses rely on some very specific assumptions, including using Dragon magazine content and specific items that might not feature in a campaign (unless a large part of play is about you getting a high arcana check).  Doing a sanity check on the build I say ended up in the mid-40's without the host of Dragon content.  Like what [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] has.  I prefer my optimization to not rely on permissions from the GM to use specific sources of essentially playtest material and/or extensive questing rewards.  YMMV.Yeah, I hear you, it's a traditional thing for D&D to do this, but it's not required.  You can see the pushback against anything that moves away from faux medieval England/France/Germany in the recent thread about the tyranny of novelty.  They're complaining about the recent adventures set in hell, the frozen north (which is still quasi-medieval England), or the Feywild.  However, not everyone is beholden to this concept, and 5e as a system isn't beholden to it either.Okay.  I'd suggest rereading the DMG sections on adventure building.  It's sufficiently there.  The problem here may also be that D&D as a genre is old hat -- it's lost it's shine? Would you consider the Underdark to be a fantastical place?</blockquote>

Verification