Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Justice and Rule" data-source="post: 8417503" data-attributes="member: 6778210">That second sentence feels like it's what people fall too often into. If a castle wall is just DC25, let it be DC25 even if you're at 20th level; your Barbarian might well just leap over it, but the others have to figure something out (which they likely will given their level). Becoming good at something doesn't always mean you have to find similarly-tough tasks, but rather that you open up new options in your repertoire. If you are good enough to scale sheer surfaces, that doesn't mean the GM suddenly has to start pouring cooking oil on all of them to make it more challenging, but instead allow you to use that skill to do more.You mean basically go the Detecting/Disarming Traps route? I did that in 5E with Trained/Untrained and it's certainly a route to go. Personally I like where it's at and simply think that if you make a task that is specialized like that, you better plan on what your other players can do or make it so that most of them failing is part of the story (failing the check forces some of the players to navigate a lava tube using Acrobatics, Survival, etc).But the problem is you aren't incompetent in them. You're competent at 99% of the tasks you could possibly do by the end. The whole point of my post was that, at higher levels, judging yourself against at-level tasks isn't a good indicator for what you can do because those tasks should become exponentially rarer, while you're useful stuff will likely be below your level. As time goes on, higher level skill checks represent more and more specialized tasks, while general checks competence is easily achieved by being trained.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Justice and Rule, post: 8417503, member: 6778210"] That second sentence feels like it's what people fall too often into. If a castle wall is just DC25, let it be DC25 even if you're at 20th level; your Barbarian might well just leap over it, but the others have to figure something out (which they likely will given their level). Becoming good at something doesn't always mean you have to find similarly-tough tasks, but rather that you open up new options in your repertoire. If you are good enough to scale sheer surfaces, that doesn't mean the GM suddenly has to start pouring cooking oil on all of them to make it more challenging, but instead allow you to use that skill to do more. You mean basically go the Detecting/Disarming Traps route? I did that in 5E with Trained/Untrained and it's certainly a route to go. Personally I like where it's at and simply think that if you make a task that is specialized like that, you better plan on what your other players can do or make it so that most of them failing is part of the story (failing the check forces some of the players to navigate a lava tube using Acrobatics, Survival, etc). But the problem is you [I]aren't [/I]incompetent in them. You're competent at 99% of the tasks you could possibly do by the end. The whole point of my post was that, at higher levels, judging yourself against at-level tasks isn't a good indicator for what you can do because those tasks should become exponentially rarer, while you're useful stuff will likely be below your level. As time goes on, higher level skill checks represent more and more specialized tasks, while general checks competence is easily achieved by being trained. [/QUOTE]

Verification