Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Flights of Fancy" data-source="post: 9677865" data-attributes="member: 7037975">I think part of this is also what constitutues truly "low" ability.For one thing, I don't think the range of 3-20 (or 1-20) should encompass all levels of ability. I think it should be made clear it only represents what PCs have. If you think about the DCs in 5E, in the 5-pt increments, it follows that a 5-pt difference in ability (alone!) is necesssary to equate a Medium task becoming Hard, or an Easy task becoming Very Easy.So, how "smart" would a PC with INT 20 have to be to justify making that Hard task (for someone with INT 10) into Medium task for them? I don't think the maximum INT represents that really. In my opinion, "maximum" INT would make a Hard task into Easy or even Very Easy.Think about a group of PCs moving quickly across a plank over a pit with poison spikes (bad example, but whateves) while fleeing a pack of ogres or something. The DM thinks this is Easy DC 10 and calls for a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check since falling during the pursuit (not to mention the poisoned spikes!) poses a significant cost of failure. Three PCs are making the roll:DEX 18, DEX 10, and DEX 3; so +4, +0, and -4 to the checks.Odds of making it ok are 75%, 55%, and 35%, respectively (assuming no proficiency in Acrobatics).Honestly, does that sound right? DEX 18, virtually as good as you can get normally, could fail to make progress, maybe fall even, 25% of the time?And DEX 3 (as low as you can roll) might make it 35%? I mean, a DEX 3 (-4) is clumsy, sure, but when you consider this scenario, does it seem that it is almost "as un-dextrous as someone can be"??? It seems to me like a person "as un-dextrous as someone can be" would be failing more than 65% of the time.I know people don't want the treadmill effect of 3E again, but there are times when I feel like the range of the d20 almost necessitates modifiers and proficiency numbers potentially double what they currently are. shrugTake that same scene and double the modifiers to +8, +0, and -8. Now your odds are 95% (fail on 1 only), 55%, and 15% (make it on 18,19,20 only). Even just talking about ability only, that seems more like it to me personally. shrug again</blockquote>

Verification