Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ezo" data-source="post: 9461246" data-attributes="member: 7037866">Ahh... fair enough. I'll admit the brevity of your replies surprised me a bit.But if you plan to use them, your character will be built to make them effective. Just like if you plan to be ranged, you want to build your character to be effective at that.Well, I would argue a Strength-based PC will still likely want a good CON and WIS and decent DEX. INT and CHA are not as useful unless you want your character to be decent in those checks.Again, those classes trade their abilities to fall behind fighters (and barbarian) in weapon combat--which is where they excel.It goes back to my question: what more do you want them to be able to do?With Athletics they are good at exploration, choose a single social skill and give them CHA 12 or better (easy enough IMO) and they are good at social. They don't have to be great, and certainly NOT the best, since that isn't what those classes are meant to be great at. Within combat, they fight, and fight well...Well, I disagree. Look at most published adventures and creatures, the vast majority of DCs are under 15, with many around 12 or 13. A Fighter with CHA 12 and Indimidation will have a +3 at 1st level, making most checks 50% of the time or so.Well, a +2 (whether from proficiency or ability) is not meant to be very good against higher DCs. In a game where you are +5 or so at 1st level in the things you are good at, +2 is relatively low. And if you are at higher levels and facing those higher 15+ DCs then you will find them challenging if all you have is +2; which they should be.Perhaps not automatically, but very likely certainly. And remember, in 5E failing to hit the DC doesn't necessarily mean failure---it could be success at a price or simply lack of progress and you can try again. As the book says, the vast majority of DCs range from 10-20. Few games bother rolling at DC 5.Also, in terms of competence, a +2 "proficiency" represents the baseline IMO. If you think of tools, for example, a blacksmith would be +5 or better, not just +2. An apprentice might be +2 or 3, a journeyman 4 or 5, a master 6 or 7, etc.Considering most games run to level 10, a PC will likely be +3 proficiency, maybe +4, and also +4 or so in ability, giving a conservative total of +7 maybe. Against DC 20, which is very high and not likely encountered, you still have a 40% to outright succeed on a check. I would hardly call that foolhardy...Now, consider the PC at that point who just has the lowly +2. Sure, now you would need an 18 against DC 20, so just 15%. Not likely at all, but then that isn't something your PC was designed to be good at.If you say so... I am not concerned with 2024 really.My point is simple: unless you have a strong Rogue with expertise in Athletics, a Fighter with a high STR and proficiency will be as good or better at exploration tasks like climbing and swimming, etc. But just because another PC might have a +1 or 2 higher bonus because they were outright designed to excel in those things, Fighters and Barbarians can do most things well enough to "not suck" as you say.</blockquote>

Verification