Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6744252" data-attributes="member: 1465">You want to leave because the DM nerfed one of the things your PC can do? Don't leave. That's not even the most interesting feature of Bards. Just talk it out with your DM to make him understand what is the point of the JoaT feature, but even without it, your PC will be fine.The problem with skills is a lot more general, and it has to do with the fact that for simplicity's sake all skills must use the d20 system since 3e, but at the same time skills include things that are totally different from each other.There are skills which are supposed to be used all the time by everyone, like perception, stealth, insight, athletics... That's because very often everyone is forced by the game to make a check. Everyone must check for perception to avoid a surprise attack, everyone must check for stealth to avoid being discovered, everyone must check for athletics to avoid falling while climbing, etc.OTOH there are also skills/tools which represent niche specialties, like investigation, survival, knowledge, thieve's tools... Here the whole point is that one single specialist PC should take the task, and the others should just watch. It will be her little moment of spotlight.Unfortunately the 'everybody should be able to try' looks so good in theory, but it can also kill the fun. Of course everybody should be able to try a check that you are actually forced to do to avoid an unpleasant consequence (the first group of skills). In addition, the 'everybody should be able to try' concept is there for two reasons:- trying something creative not explicitly covered by the rules- letting a group without a specialist still be able to do her tasksIt's hard to say no to the first of the two. The second one is a double-edge sword, because it's true that if you don't have a lockpicker in the group and you find a locked door, either you let someone else try or the whole adventure is ruined! But is it really? Because if you don't let someone else try, maybe the group is forced to find other ways to solve the problem. And if the DM does not allow any other way to continue the quest, it's the DM's fault.Still, this case is not a big deal, if you really don't have a lockpicker or a historian or a survivalist, I say that both ways (letting the others try VS forcing the group to find other ways to solve problems) are ok. We cannot say that one of the two will make the game certainly more fun for everyone.When it becomes a big deal, it's when you do have a specialist in the group, and you still allow everyone to try. Unfortunately between the d20 swinginess (max swing is 19) and the bounded accuracy of your proficiency bonus (max swing is only 6, and even worse at 1st level the swing is only 2!) - although a difference in ability score will help here - the laws of probability here makes it almost certain that a group of 4+ PCs will succeed at all tasks. Unless you increase the DC, but then even the specialist will fail most of the time.The 5e designers were very aware of this problem, and that's why at some point they introduced Expertise to increase the gap between proficient and non-proficient PCs. Still I think the gap is too short at low levels. Some additional difference between proficient and non-proficient PCs would help, for example a DC limit on what you can accomplish if non-proficient.</blockquote>

Verification