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="Hussar" data-source="post: 6777153" data-attributes="member: 22779">Heh, well, I think we'Re at the point in the conversation where we agree to disagree.  I could train for the rest of my life and still never skate as well as Gretzky.  I could play Basketball with the greatest coaches in the world for the rest of my life, and I will still never be as good as Jordan.  Let's not forget, Gretzsky and others were that good right from the word go.  Natural talent makes all the difference in the world and no amount of training makes up for it.  If it did, then every runner would be exactly the same, every skater, every professional athlete would be identical.Since that's not true, I'm going to say that natural talent means a lot more.And, no, the choice is not negated.  The trained character will succeed more often than the untrained one.  Granted, he might not succeed on that specific roll, but, overall, training will give you the edge.  Any time the DC is 26 or higher.  And, let's be honest here, we're very, very rarely looking at a case where a character has no ability bonus at all to go with that proficiency.  Even just a 14 stat means that there is a 3 point difference.  And, you're talking about an extremely specialised character that has a 20 in a stat.  That is the absolute epitome of natural talent.  And he's no better than a fairly average, moderately trained individual ( +2 stat and +3 proficiency - I don'T have my books in front of me, that's what, 5th level?)A 5th level character (IIRC) with a 14 stat is as good as the absolute best natural talent.  I'd say things are pretty balanced.</blockquote>

Verification