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="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 9791748" data-attributes="member: 7025508">But the half level bonus overwhelms training rather fast. It means that at already at tenth level untrained person is is good at a thing than a level one trained person, and twentieth level one is way better, not to talk about thirtieth level one. It is like an Olympic athlete (high level) being way better at maths than a university maths student (low level.)Is that easy? I don't think it is easy at all. In fact, I am not sure how you even imagine getting that. (Are there magic items that grants bonuses to skills? I guess there could be...)Yes, I know it is not a rule. And yes, there are things that break the bounded accuracy. I said it before (perhaps in this thread, who knows.) that how they implemented is not perfect. Though the issue really is not the basic skill scaling, it is that you can pile too much extra crap (guidance, bardic inspiration etc) on top of things.But 4e did not cap at level 20. The range of the game is stretched over 30 levels, and that is what we need to consider. Level 20 5e character is not comparable to level 20 4e character, it is comparable to level 30 one.And if the game truly had committed to this, then that might have been fine. Except it didn't, so it had to kludge minion and elite versions of basically the same monsters so that you actually could fight them at different levels. It is just confused and counterproductive design.But you are making this an edition war thing. The fact is that we don't need to think that 4e design was bad and 5 design is good or vice versa. Personally I think both have strengths and weaknesses, and I think we can learn from both. 4e had issues, and in many ways 5e fixed them but in doing so they sometimes ran too far, and refused to use something that already worked in 4e or at least would need just tweaking.Regarding maths, like I said before, the bounded accuracy should be a bit more limited on the PC side (limit various extras that can be piled on top of it) and too bounded on enemy side (their defences rarely scale enough.)But also the core issue of course here is save or suck spells, and the most powerful ones tend to target wis in particular. I don't think enemies having bad strength or even dex saves is often an issue. Like hold person/monster has been discussed quite a bit and it is a good example of this. It is rather wild that a second level spell can simply shut down a powerful foe completely, and even multiple when upcast, and let the PCs just beat them to death without breaking the spell. I am not a sure that this simply is a thing that a second level spell should be able to do.</blockquote>

Verification