Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bluenose" data-source="post: 6030058" data-attributes="member: 49017">Specialisation and hyper-specialisation are cheap in D&amp;D; and to a certain extent, they have been essential for some classes.If your character has a skill bonus of +5 at 1st level, that might be adequate when they're facing tasks with a difficulty of 15-20. It is statistically insignificant when the difficulty of tasks exceeds 25, however, as the only thing that matters is the die roll. In theory, bounded accuracy means that it will no longer be as necessary to raise that skill bonus to the levels it could reach in 3e and 4e. Specialisation is less essential in that case. What's also significant is that specialisation had no Point of Diminishing Returns. Going from +1 to +2 was as easy or difficult as going from +19 to +20. Learning the deepest secrets of a craft was as easy as learning the basics. There's nothing to discourage doing so, even when you could instead be learning something to give more breadth to a character. If +5 to +10 was a reasonably cheap investment, +11 to +15 was something you would get eventually just from experience, +16 to +20 required as much training/effort as it would take to raise two or three skills form +5 to +10, and the last +21 to +25 was even harder; then you'd give people a reason to go for breadth rather than depth.Also, the numbers I'm suggesting are for two reasons. +10 at 1st level for someone competent in a skill allows space &quot;beneath&quot; that for people who are less skilled but have some abilityand/or training, including the famous Farm-Boy on his &quot;Zero to Hero&quot; progression. And making the maximum ability you could achieve no more than thrice what you'd have as a competent professional at 1st level would also make extremely high bonuses less significant to a system where bounded accuracy made them less essential.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bluenose, post: 6030058, member: 49017"] Specialisation and hyper-specialisation are cheap in D&D; and to a certain extent, they have been essential for some classes. If your character has a skill bonus of +5 at 1st level, that might be adequate when they're facing tasks with a difficulty of 15-20. It is statistically insignificant when the difficulty of tasks exceeds 25, however, as the only thing that matters is the die roll. In theory, bounded accuracy means that it will no longer be as necessary to raise that skill bonus to the levels it could reach in 3e and 4e. Specialisation is less essential in that case. What's also significant is that specialisation had no [I]Point of Diminishing Returns[/I]. Going from +1 to +2 was as easy or difficult as going from +19 to +20. Learning the deepest secrets of a craft was as easy as learning the basics. There's nothing to discourage doing so, even when you could instead be learning something to give more breadth to a character. If +5 to +10 was a reasonably cheap investment, +11 to +15 was something you would get eventually just from experience, +16 to +20 required as much training/effort as it would take to raise two or three skills form +5 to +10, and the last +21 to +25 was even harder; then you'd give people a reason to go for breadth rather than depth. Also, the numbers I'm suggesting are for two reasons. +10 at 1st level for someone competent in a skill allows space "beneath" that for people who are less skilled but have some abilityand/or training, including the famous Farm-Boy on his "Zero to Hero" progression. And making the maximum ability you could achieve no more than thrice what you'd have as a competent professional at 1st level would also make extremely high bonuses less significant to a system where bounded accuracy made them less essential. [/QUOTE]

Verification