Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7949873" data-attributes="member: 6778044">So, I'm tweaking my house rules, and really going back to what I wanted to do in the first place which is leverage the streamlined rules of 5e but on an AD&amp;D framework. To that end, I decided to look at the Proficiency/Expertise of 5e compared to the to-hit tables for AD&amp;D (which I think was largely consistent through 3.5e, but I haven't double-checked), and found some very interesting things.A lot of folks, me included, often feel like 5e is a lot easier than older editions when it comes to the chance of success.In general, I haven't liked Expertise since a +12 sounds quite high to me (well, us). Part of this is because I like the concept of a system that has non-proficient/proficient/expert divisions. We'd also like that to be consistent across all types of proficiencies - skills, combat, and saves. We don't have armor proficiency, so it doesn't have to apply there.Anyway, too see how that would scale, I started with combat.What would happen if we allowed expertise in combat for a +12 bonus? Whoa, that sounds huge, doesn't it?Except in AD&amp;D at 17th level a Cleric had a +10, a Rogue was +8, a Wizard +5, and a Fighter a whopping +16! By 20th level that cleric is +12, the rogue +9, the wizard +6, and the fighter a +19.Of course, this is only part of the equation, since the AC/DC of a check may be different in 5e than earlier editions, which is something else to investigate. But I certainly didn't remember the to-hit bonuses to be this high (and also forgot how much better at combat a cleric was than a rogue).Seems like 5e may not be as &quot;over-powered&quot; as I initially thought...Anyway, I thought others might find that interesting.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ilbranteloth, post: 7949873, member: 6778044"] So, I'm tweaking my house rules, and really going back to what I wanted to do in the first place which is leverage the streamlined rules of 5e but on an AD&D framework. To that end, I decided to look at the Proficiency/Expertise of 5e compared to the to-hit tables for AD&D (which I think was largely consistent through 3.5e, but I haven't double-checked), and found some very interesting things. A lot of folks, me included, often feel like 5e is a lot easier than older editions when it comes to the chance of success. In general, I haven't liked Expertise since a +12 sounds quite high to me (well, us). Part of this is because I like the concept of a system that has non-proficient/proficient/expert divisions. We'd also like that to be consistent across all types of proficiencies - skills, combat, and saves. We don't have armor proficiency, so it doesn't have to apply there. Anyway, too see how that would scale, I started with combat. What would happen if we allowed expertise in combat for a +12 bonus? Whoa, that sounds huge, doesn't it? Except in AD&D at 17th level a Cleric had a +10, a Rogue was +8, a Wizard +5, and a Fighter a whopping +16! By 20th level that cleric is +12, the rogue +9, the wizard +6, and the fighter a +19. Of course, this is only part of the equation, since the AC/DC of a check may be different in 5e than earlier editions, which is something else to investigate. But I certainly didn't remember the to-hit bonuses to be this high (and also forgot how much better at combat a cleric was than a rogue). Seems like 5e may not be as "over-powered" as I initially thought... Anyway, I thought others might find that interesting. [/QUOTE]

Verification