Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 5325734" data-attributes="member: 20323"><p>Given that this *is* a D&amp;D site that goes without saying for pretty much all our posts <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I'd argue that you leave out the vastly larger group of players, those who aren't playing redbox and who aren't up to date with errata(or even care about online errata). A 10% change in success rate may not seem like much, but it's just as&nbsp; significant as the lowering of elite/solo defenses or having perpetual combat advantage. And moderate/hard DCs at paragon/epic exceed 10% loss in success rate compared to the original DCs in core books. As an example, our new virgin DM is using original skill DCs without any errata; he's of the wait and see philosophy. We have an uber athlete PC and a &quot;face&quot; PC. Because the athlete relies on simulationist skills he has a better chance of success&nbsp; than the face who relies on skills governed by the old DCs. So during char creation our face ends up spending more resources than athlete to get the kind of odds she wants. It's not a big deal but it does affect the game. Now I'm also a DM and I've grown a bit...uncertain... of WotC's game math around skills; it's entirely reasonable for me to ask for a better explanation of the new DCs than what that meager article offered. And some explanation for the ping-ponging skill DCs would be enlightening, but I'm not holding my breath.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 5325734, member: 20323"] Given that this *is* a D&D site that goes without saying for pretty much all our posts ;) I'd argue that you leave out the vastly larger group of players, those who aren't playing redbox and who aren't up to date with errata(or even care about online errata). A 10% change in success rate may not seem like much, but it's just as significant as the lowering of elite/solo defenses or having perpetual combat advantage. And moderate/hard DCs at paragon/epic exceed 10% loss in success rate compared to the original DCs in core books. As an example, our new virgin DM is using original skill DCs without any errata; he's of the wait and see philosophy. We have an uber athlete PC and a "face" PC. Because the athlete relies on simulationist skills he has a better chance of success than the face who relies on skills governed by the old DCs. So during char creation our face ends up spending more resources than athlete to get the kind of odds she wants. It's not a big deal but it does affect the game. Now I'm also a DM and I've grown a bit...uncertain... of WotC's game math around skills; it's entirely reasonable for me to ask for a better explanation of the new DCs than what that meager article offered. And some explanation for the ping-ponging skill DCs would be enlightening, but I'm not holding my breath. [/QUOTE]

Verification