Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8847580" data-attributes="member: 6987520">Well, I feel my position is putting the appropriate amount of value on skill compared to the die size of d20.AD&D didn't really have "contested rolls" IIRC, but it has been a while... In many respects, it handled things very differently than the d20 system.I never said a "newbie", I said someone with base proficiency and no INT mod, so a total of +2. That is someone who has some dedicated training and practices regularly. A "newbie" would be someone without proficiency who is just learning the game, etc.No, taking a skill doesn't make you perfect, and it does make you better. What should help you approach perfect is two things: experience and dedication. Experience is modelled by level and dedication (perhaps?) by expertise... But only with feats can you have expertise unless you are a Bard or Rogue (another huge flaw in the game). Yes, most people play with feats, but they remain optional. And before anyone harps on 5.5 I don't care about it--it isn't out and I am not playing it.Assuming equal ability scores, +2 proficiency vs. +6 has a 30% chance of winning. So, 17+ levels of experience doesn't do much compared to having proficiency alone. Sort of pathetic IMO. Ok, let's add expertise and bump it to +12. Now the +2 proficiency still has over an 11% of winning. The maximum amount of skill and dedication is going to lose more than 1 in 10 times to someone who has only basic proficiency. Very pathetic IMO.So, let's look at the ability (skill) check system in 5E and chances of success:[ATTACH=full]268617[/ATTACH]I've highlighted a couple examples:+5 bonus vs. DC 10 "easy" task. Should someone with either vast experience or training and natural talent granting +5 bonus really have a 20% chance to fail at an "easy" task??? IMO that should a resounding "NO!!!!" It isn't even a "medium" task, it is EASY for crying out loud.+11 bonus vs. DC 15 "medium" task. Someone whose bonus represents the maximum ability 20 and 17th level (tier 4!) experience has a 15% chance to fail at a medium task??? Ridiculous.Here are the numbers if we examined a 3d6 alternative to the d20:[ATTACH=full]268618[/ATTACH]Same bonuses and tasks. Now, the first example has only a 1.9% chance of failing. Much more to my liking for an easy task by someone with experience and/or training and talent. In the second example, such an experience and skilled person would only fail about 1 in 200 times while attempting what is only medium difficulty. Failure in such a case would be a total fluke!Such a system would support why the Variant for Automatic Success is offered in the DMG. Yet I would rather have a system that makes it happen without having to enforce additional rules about proficiency, bonus, and/or level vs. DC.Great! I am honestly glad that works for you, but it really doesn't sit well with me. I find it ridiculous when it happens.Because it can happen. You might as well ask the millions and millions of people world-wide why they bother playing the lottery? I never have, but I know a lot of people who do regularly.... <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" /></blockquote>

Verification