The Fighter is using the skill in the comparison. A DC 15 check by an 8 Str Wizard untrained at 1st level means the Wizard needs to roll a 16 or 25% of the time. The 20 Strength, 20th level(+6 proficiency) Fighter has a +11 and therefore needs to roll a 4, or 85% of the time.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 4E Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
- Thread starter Morrus
- Start date
The Fighter is using the skill in the comparison. A DC 15 check by an 8 Str Wizard untrained at 1st level means the Wizard needs to roll a 16 or 25% of the time. The 20 Strength, 20th level(+6 proficiency) Fighter has a +11 and therefore needs to roll a 4, or 85% of the time.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
This is also true in 5E, though? To the extent that if it is a hard challenge rather than moderate, the Wizard has zero chance of success but the Fighter has a decent shot. Indeed, the Wizard probably still has zero chance using Athletics at Level 20, whereas the Fighter will have a high likelihood of success.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Advantage/Disadvantage can swing this around mightily, as well. And again, this is a moderate challenge, which we would expect a physically unimpressive person to have a shot at, and even an Adonis has a shot at failure.
At any rate, this is a feature, not a bug, from my point of view. This flat limited scaling is very preferable to a complex sliding scale.
Dungeonosophy
Legend
Right, but it's not D&D. I acknowledge there are some features of FATE which overlap with my Simply D&D design parameters.
https://sites.google.com/site/dndphilmont/simple-rpg
Imaro
Legend
I was expecting it to be broken down in the same way the 4e example was my bad.
Imaro
Legend
Pretty much this... that earlier explanation around 4e's DC's just reinforced my thoughts about the added overhead and for me it's just not worth it.
Can you give a real life example of a challenge that you would expect someone below average and untrained to succeed at 25% of the time that a highly trained expert in the field would ever fail at in that field?
It simply isn't realistic on any level, let alone with PCs breaking the boundaries of what is possible by being 20th level.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Shooting a three pointer in basketball.
Knocking down a door (maybe the physically impressive body-builder didn't know how enforced the door is, or slipped running up to it; maybe the physically normal guy hits a door juuuust right).
Giving a stirring speech that convinces listeners of the speakers position.
Singing a song.
Driving around town at high speeds.
Playing a game of chess (I have beaten better players with luck, chutzpah and misdirection on occasion)
Etc.
Expertise isn't infallibility: it is the ability to accomplish better things, more consistently.
Those are all examples of people trained in something being competitive with experts. Or non-experts with innate ability potentially doing badly compared to an average person. Not people with subpar innate ability and a lack of training competing against highly trained expert in a field.
Many high school players can't hit 25% of their 3 pointers in practice. To be able to hit them 25% of the time, even 5% of the time reflects some amount of skill and innate ability. You are not an 8 Int person new to chess trying to play a highly trained Chess expert. A body builder who can't push on a door correctly is not an expert in that area. Etc...
Parmandur
Book-Friend
The exact math might be fuzzy, but the potential is there for surprise in either direction. And in the context of D&D, the player characters are protagonists, big damn heroes. If there is no chance of success, no rolls allowed. If there is no chance if failure, rolls would be silly. A given DM and their table can season to taste. And all with a handful of numbers that apply at all levels. Elegant.
