Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Falling Icicle" data-source="post: 5955453" data-attributes="member: 17077">I realize that, I was just pointing out how it doesn't really fit with what they're describing it to be. In 3.x, a trivial DC was 0 or 5 (&quot;very easy&quot; and &quot;easy,&quot; respectively). 10 was &quot;average,&quot; which to me is a much better fit, statistically. 10 being the average DC makes sense for other reasons, too. It's also the AC of an average person who is not wearing armor, for example.Characters in 5e are going to have even smaller bonuses to their rolls than in 3.x, so I don't see why they feel the need to bump up the DCs or to be so terrified of skill bonuses that they're actually considering having skills replace one's ability modifiers rather than add to them.This has been the case since at least 3.0. Of course, one had to invest in cross class skills in order to do this, while in 5e, one only needs a high ability score.And it isn't just clerics and trapfinding, either. Clerics can also easily be better at tracking than Rangers, Fighters can easily be better climbers than rogues, etc. Even if you shift perception to Intelligence, you instead have wizards that are better at finding traps than rogues. The only way I see to fix this is to make skill training more meaningful. If skills granted a +5 bonus, then ability scores could never offer a higher bonus than being trained in a skill does, since ability scores cap at 20 (+5). It still fits well with their flatter math, as a +10 total bonus is not really that high. Statistically, a trained person is succeeding 25% more often than one who is not trained and has the same ability score.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Falling Icicle, post: 5955453, member: 17077"] I realize that, I was just pointing out how it doesn't really fit with what they're describing it to be. In 3.x, a trivial DC was 0 or 5 ("very easy" and "easy," respectively). 10 was "average," which to me is a much better fit, statistically. 10 being the average DC makes sense for other reasons, too. It's also the AC of an average person who is not wearing armor, for example. Characters in 5e are going to have even smaller bonuses to their rolls than in 3.x, so I don't see why they feel the need to bump up the DCs or to be so terrified of skill bonuses that they're actually considering having skills replace one's ability modifiers rather than add to them. This has been the case since at least 3.0. Of course, one had to invest in cross class skills in order to do this, while in 5e, one only needs a high ability score. And it isn't just clerics and trapfinding, either. Clerics can also easily be better at tracking than Rangers, Fighters can easily be better climbers than rogues, etc. Even if you shift perception to Intelligence, you instead have wizards that are better at finding traps than rogues. The only way I see to fix this is to make skill training more meaningful. If skills granted a +5 bonus, then ability scores could never offer a higher bonus than being trained in a skill does, since ability scores cap at 20 (+5). It still fits well with their flatter math, as a +10 total bonus is not really that high. Statistically, a trained person is succeeding 25% more often than one who is not trained and has the same ability score. [/QUOTE]

Verification