Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8367427" data-attributes="member: 16814">This doesn't make any sense to me.&nbsp; If I pick an easy challenge in 4e, I've done the same thing.&nbsp; I'm not sure how you think 5e's skill system works -- the guys that have +9 at first level (expertise, proficient, +3 stat) autosucceed at an easy challenge.&nbsp; They have a +17 at 20th (expertise, proficiency, +5 stat) and still autosucceed at easy challenges.&nbsp; And medium challenges.&nbsp; And only fail 10% of the time at hard challenges.&nbsp; As fits a 20th level expert at a skill.Huh?&nbsp; The DC for hard at level 30 is 42.&nbsp; Bob's check is +16.&nbsp; That's a max roll of 36, or 8 points shy.&nbsp; Even if Bob picks up proficiency (+5 more), he's 3 shy of even a chance of success.Skill Challenges are not required for 4e -- you can play successfully without them.&nbsp; Is it a lesser experience?&nbsp; In my opinion, yes, but mine is not the only opinion.&nbsp; And lots of people -- as in very many vocal people -- could not make this work.&nbsp; There's evidence of it -- it was rather nasty.&nbsp; You think it's not fair to judge 4e by this?&nbsp; Fine.&nbsp; Then you owe 5e the benefit of the doubt as well.You start with &quot;properly played&quot; and then make up a proper play for 4e that mirrors your approach and then invent a strawman bad 'proper play' for 5e that's easy to punch and claim victory.Here's a trick -- imagine I might be correct, and strive to see if you can make it work.&nbsp; This is how I actually learned how D&amp;D wasn't the only game or only approach out there.&nbsp; I see what you're doing -- it's good stuff, I highly recommend this approach to 4e.&nbsp; It's not guaranteed that everyone does this, or even most.&nbsp; It's also not the only interpretation of 4e rules.Yes, you are clearly putting how you run the game in place of the game itself.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8367427, member: 16814"] This doesn't make any sense to me. If I pick an easy challenge in 4e, I've done the same thing. I'm not sure how you think 5e's skill system works -- the guys that have +9 at first level (expertise, proficient, +3 stat) autosucceed at an easy challenge. They have a +17 at 20th (expertise, proficiency, +5 stat) and still autosucceed at easy challenges. And medium challenges. And only fail 10% of the time at hard challenges. As fits a 20th level expert at a skill. Huh? The DC for hard at level 30 is 42. Bob's check is +16. That's a max roll of 36, or 8 points shy. Even if Bob picks up proficiency (+5 more), he's 3 shy of even a chance of success. Skill Challenges are not required for 4e -- you can play successfully without them. Is it a lesser experience? In my opinion, yes, but mine is not the only opinion. And lots of people -- as in very many vocal people -- could not make this work. There's evidence of it -- it was rather nasty. You think it's not fair to judge 4e by this? Fine. Then you owe 5e the benefit of the doubt as well. You start with "properly played" and then make up a proper play for 4e that mirrors your approach and then invent a strawman bad 'proper play' for 5e that's easy to punch and claim victory. Here's a trick -- imagine I might be correct, and strive to see if you can make it work. This is how I actually learned how D&D wasn't the only game or only approach out there. I see what you're doing -- it's good stuff, I highly recommend this approach to 4e. It's not guaranteed that everyone does this, or even most. It's also not the only interpretation of 4e rules. Yes, you are clearly putting how you run the game in place of the game itself. [/QUOTE]

Verification