Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5782789" data-attributes="member: 54877">The issue with basic character compentency is all about mods and the range of the d20. I disagree that it is "as bad as it has ever been", though it has never been perfect by any means. There is a push by some 4E fans to turn "able to contribute in every situation" into a bit too much of "able to shine in every way in each situation"--not completely but a bit of that tendency. That some people have gone too far does not negate the original problem. The whole idea behind 4E 1/2 level skill adjustment (and 3E BAB for that matter, in another context) is not that the wizard be able to climb the cliffs of insanity, but rather that if the 10th level party has to make a few short climbs up a cliff in the middle of an action scene, the wizard (and everyone else) that aren't particularly athletic can at least try it (and be tempted to try it, but that's another issue), if they don't have some magic handy. They'll probably still need some help to have a good shot, but they aren't totally helpless alone. It's the exact same difference between a "bad" saving throw that leaves you dominated on, say, an 14- instead of the 8- of the guy with the good throw, versus having extremes of 18 and 2. Of course, trying to keep up the whole pretense that any system handles this organically, is part of what leads to the problem in the first place. Better to just ask the group what kind of range they want, and then let you set it there. Then have a baseline, single scale for all adventurers. You class/skill adjustments can come as a modifier to that baseline instead of a set number. For example, maybe default untrained skill is -4 from the level-based adventurer baseline. Trained is +4, for an explicit range of 8. If someone wants it closer for a more 4E style, they just change either or both mods be less. If someone wants it closer to 3E, they change either or both mods to be more. If someone wants upper end scaling to remain the default, but wants "untrained" to hurt, they increase just that mod. But putting all this stuff into a chart with other considerations, or embedding it into the 3E monster guidelines, as if it was anything but scaling numbers, is just misdirection.  Of course, given the above, you can get both the 3E and 4E stuff back explicitly in supplements. For example, 3E style monster guidelines, where you replace those canned mods with set mods to the level-based scale based on equipment, monster features, etc.</blockquote>

Verification