Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Minigiant" data-source="post: 9791774" data-attributes="member: 63508">No I will have to slightly disagree.Really the whole rub was between the two camps:The camp where you roll for most skill checks.The camp where DM adjudicates that certain checks are completely impossible or completely trivial that you would never ever roll for them.4e went with the first camp saying some checks are really really really difficult but actually possible. This mostly came up in the middle of three when millennials started to really come into the game and come in with different touchdowns of fantasy that was much higher and more epic than what was in editions past. So the DMs were making DCS of 25, 30, 35, 40 and 50 and saying "Fine. Make that".4e and Pathfinder more or less listen to me those groups and this said well if the DC is 30 we're going to let a master get a bonus of +15.Skills are weird.Skill are really part of the dungeon crawling RPG community that really needs a modular system for every game because every group uses different mentality when it comes to it.I believe I think it was Questing Beast who did a video about how different people role play different kinds of skills: High Low, narrow wide.Unless a table is fully filled with like-minded individuals, I think D&D really does need multiple skill systems in a base game. One were most thieves are bumbling idiots and the other one where every assassin is an Olympic level athlete.</blockquote>