Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 6534552" data-attributes="member: 6787650">I was discussing general design principles, and my 4E experience is limited to three sessions (because of DM issues), so I don't have much to say about 4E. About 5E: one implication of the flat curve you mention is that 5E is also friendly to parties with heterogenous levels. You could have a 20th level Gandalf, a 14th level Aragorn, an 11th level Boromir, and a couple of 1st through 3rd level Hobbits in the party, and they'd all be able to contribute meaningfully. If proficiency bonuses were massive (+1 per level) then Gandalf would dominate the whole party in every field of endeavor from social intercourse to engineering to mountain climbing. Systems with a "god stat" that allow super-generalists like this tend not to be very fun in my opinion, unless you are explicitly going for over-the-top James Bond-ism (GURPS: Black Ops).Anyway, that's why I think it's an important feature of 5E that they consciously made the variance so high, and the d20 roll such an important component of any skill challenge. And from there it follows that even a Shadow Monk with a total bonus of -1 to Intelligence (Nature) can still look for poisonous herbs for his herbalism kit in the wilderness with some hope of success, if he thinks to do so. It may or may not be realistic, but it's definitely a distinctive feature of 5E play.</blockquote>