Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8847011" data-attributes="member: 6987520">The threat of those dangers is part of what made the game exciting. When you faced a creature or spell with SoD effect or level draining, you knew it was a serious threat and had to act/plan accordingly.Too much in 5E I see players just blithely running into the fray because there are no such threats anymore and most encounters are not dangerous enough to really pose much of a threat. Now, I know the DM can make things as hard as they want, etc. but I am talking about the design parameters of the game, not individual tables.I am not just talking about "better players vs. worse players". I am talking about the BEST you can possibly be against someone who just knows the rules and how to play (basic proficiency without any ability modifier). There is a big difference.I know I can always do more rolls, etc. but that isn't the way 5E is designed. I would prefer the bonuses and die sizes be sufficient to resolve realistically in a single roll. Others have even commented in other threads about trying to simplify combat to this level because for their game combat is not the "funner" part of the game.Ok, back to it! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />It isn't a feature, it is a bug. IF both PCs have proficiency, the assumption is the 17th level has been using/practicing that skill while adventuring, increasing their bonus from +2 to +6. It has nothing to do with class, it is about proficiency and ability scores.Anyway, FWIW, I have no problem with both succeeding at the same task, I take issue with it when the higher bonus fails but the lower succeeds, particularly when the bonuses are so extremely different. With 5E this is because the d20 is so much larger than the bonuses. I've actually worked on a d12 or 2d6 system (which I mentioned upthread IIRC) to keep the bonuses within range of the dice. I certainly am not a big fan of bonuses really outstripping the die size, but at least roughly equal would be better IMO.A level 1 PC with DEX 20 has a +7, which is better than a level 17 PC with DEX 10 at +6. Even without proficiency the DEX 20's +5 is nearly as good as the level 17's +6. I am not fond of this because IMO experience should definitely trump ability score (which represents potential training, natural talent, etc. in 5E). Instead of capping at +5 and +6 for ability / proficiency, I would prefer +4 and +8 respectively; this way experience is potentially up to twice as valuable as ability alone.So, using your examples, wizard training has nothing to do with juggling or balancing (in fact, neither sleight of hand? nor acrobatics are wizard skills, so a wizard PC would get those from race or background or a feat maybe).A level 17 wizard (don't know why you are singling out wizards... <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging    :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /> ) has nothing to do with hiding either (as stealth is also not a wizard skill), and being level 17 doesn't mean a thing for it unless the PC somehow has proficiency.If either of those were true, as you suggest, I would agree it would be bollocks. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification