Upper_Krust said:
I know! I know! I'm just a stickler for perfection (as much as procrastination it would seem).
It'll be worth the wait - don't worry!
Simple mechanics.
Best Powers.
Best Spells.
Best Artifacts.
Best Monsters.
...and a whole lot more besides!
[/B]
Nice to know you're staying humble about the whole thing, UK.
----
And to hijack the thread further, and yet bring it full circle in a roundabout way...
Yes, it would be nice to see D&Dg added to the SRD (along with the non-D&D pantheons, since they belong to the whole world), and possibly the ELH as well, but my biggest problem with both of these books is that they point out exactly how badly the game breaks down at high levels.
For example, DCs over 50. Personally, I find that 50 seems to be the max DC that makes any sort of sense when you have a single d20 as your randomizer. A highly skilled (23 ranks), highly capable (+5 stat bonus) person, with the right circumstances (+2 circumstance bonus) can do it if they're extremely lucky - a 20 on the roll. With more bonuses (even better circumstances, Skill Focus, and possibly magical assistance - like a +10 on the check from a spell), a lesser person could hit the DC as well.
Beyond that, though, it starts getting dodgy. Take the DC 80s and such we saw in the ELH previews. Have less than a +60 mod to your roll? Don't even bother... and you'll want at least a +70 to have a 50/50 chance. The randomization band is too narrow for DCs of that magnitude.
Now, I know that the same situation exists at lower levels - after all, you have the exact same randomization band (1 - 20), and that for some rolls you just need a higher modifier to succeed. However, the random numbers you're dealing with fit the lower DCs much better than the higher ones. 1d20 fits a range of 5 to 50 much more than it does 65 to 110. It's also easier to picture the difference between an extremely simple task (a DC 5) and an extremely difficult task (a DC 50). The examples given in the DMG (IIRC; might be in the PHB) fit nicely. The village idiot can track a gang of hill giants across a muddy field, but it takes a ranger of great skill and familiarity with goblins to track a band of goblins who passed two weeks before and have had their tracks covered with fresh snow.
Meanwhile, what's the difference between a DC 65 and a DC 110 task? A somewhat superhuman task versus an extremely superhuman task?
"What about gods?" I hear you saying. "Surely they can't fail at common tasks." True... and that's why the more powerful ones automatically roll 20s and/or get the best possible rolls in all cases. I'm fine with that; it solves the problem wonderfully. I do think their bonuses could be cut down a bit. I'd probably max out DCs for gods' checks somewhere between 60 to 70. They should be better than humans, for sure; our extremely difficult rolls should be their easy-to-slightly-tricky check. Of course, if you want a god to just succeed all the time, then just don't stat them.
Weaker gods and epic-level human(oid)s need the chance to fail, though. They need to be reminded that half of "superhuman" is "human". Merely being "not quite superhuman enough to hit that DC 80" just doesn't feel right to me. I'd lower DCs to cap at 50, perhaps 60 for truly superhuman feats, max out skill ranks at 20, and offer an "epic" bonus, perhaps +1 for every five levels above 20. Lvls 21-25 get a +1 bonus to all skill checks, 26-30 get a +2, etc. If they need more, let them use their feats to get Skill Focus and such.
Of course, this is just my opinion. Perhaps it's not the most mathematically systematic system, extensible to infinity, but that's not what I'm after. I'm after feeling, and you can't really quantify feeling.
Of course, I fully expect UK to insist that I'm horribly wrong, illogical, and/or crazy, but what else is new?
!
