Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9505927" data-attributes="member: 6877472">It's not that I want to take anything away from the Rogue, but I'd prefer flatter numbers in the system that was supposed to care about flattening numbers and not pushing modifiers off the d20*, so I'm not stuck trying to figure out if a guy with a check of +5 is a village idiot compared to a guy with a check of +17 and beyond.If all bets are truly off, and numberflation is just as real as it ever was, then have rules for epic skill check results for these phenoms who can routinely hit so-called &quot;impossible&quot; DC's.Or hey, maybe we could just get rid of skills, go back to OD&amp;D where the DM can decide if a character can do something with an ability check, and give the Rogue back their bespoke &quot;super skills&quot; (ie, Thieving abilities).*At least, I think that's something someone at WotC claimed at some point. Maybe they never did and I just assumed that's what the point of this all was.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 9505927, member: 6877472"] It's not that I want to take anything away from the Rogue, but I'd prefer flatter numbers in the system that was supposed to care about flattening numbers and not pushing modifiers off the d20*, so I'm not stuck trying to figure out if a guy with a check of +5 is a village idiot compared to a guy with a check of +17 and beyond. If all bets are truly off, and numberflation is just as real as it ever was, then have rules for epic skill check results for these phenoms who can routinely hit so-called "impossible" DC's. Or hey, maybe we could just get rid of skills, go back to OD&D where the DM can decide if a character can do something with an ability check, and give the Rogue back their bespoke "super skills" (ie, Thieving abilities). *At least, I think that's something someone at WotC claimed at some point. Maybe they never did and I just assumed that's what the point of this all was. [/QUOTE]

Verification