Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7599133" data-attributes="member: 996">Weeelll… what's trivially easy for an 18 stat/Expertise character might be impossible for an 8/non-proficient, and call for a check from anyone in between. (Or not, it's all the DMs judgement, there).&nbsp; That is, the DM can choose to consider the character when judging the declared action.&nbsp; (Some of the disagreement here might over whether he should or shouldn't?)It's not like it isn't spelled out in a simple step-by-step-by-step (there are only three steps, how hard is that?) basis, on page 3 of the basic PDF, right?But, OTOH, in a lot of cases, D&amp;D /is/ that 'other game' they played in the past.&nbsp; A lot.&nbsp; So viewing and treating D&amp;D like D&amp;D seems perfectly reasonable, and, if that's (5e)D&amp;D and (B/X/1e/2eA)D&amp;D, you don't even go far wrong - at least so long as you stay on the DM side of the screen.&nbsp; The Blacksmith Paradox, OTOH, is a problem you see when that other D&amp;D is 3.x/PF.&nbsp; ;PHey, it's as bad as you're allowed to be (y'can't all be Denis Rodman), and, under BA, a small numeric difference has to cover a lot, conceptually.Proficiency, at 1st level, is +2, that's probably 'bout &quot;average&quot; - a competent, mediocre practitioner.&nbsp; Really, the 5e way is to make up for that lack of numeric differentiation by calling for checks less often, the more invested a character is in the ability*.&nbsp; The blacksmith (per another thread), who works metal all day may only have a +6 roll, while an adventurer might have a +4, but the former can take a lot of blacksmithing 'actions' with no check, while the adventurer, perhaps trying to impersonate a blacksmith, might have to make a blacksmithing (excuse me, tool-use) check or two now and then to keep from screwing up in any too obvious a way.* ironically, that'll make a certain player type feel like said investment was 'wasted.'&nbsp; So it's one of those cases where you might want to make it clear he's getting to succeed automatically /because/ he's got such a high check.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7599133, member: 996"] Weeelll… what's trivially easy for an 18 stat/Expertise character might be impossible for an 8/non-proficient, and call for a check from anyone in between. (Or not, it's all the DMs judgement, there). That is, the DM can choose to consider the character when judging the declared action. (Some of the disagreement here might over whether he should or shouldn't?) It's not like it isn't spelled out in a simple step-by-step-by-step (there are only three steps, how hard is that?) basis, on page 3 of the basic PDF, right? But, OTOH, in a lot of cases, D&D /is/ that 'other game' they played in the past. A lot. So viewing and treating D&D like D&D seems perfectly reasonable, and, if that's (5e)D&D and (B/X/1e/2eA)D&D, you don't even go far wrong - at least so long as you stay on the DM side of the screen. The Blacksmith Paradox, OTOH, is a problem you see when that other D&D is 3.x/PF. ;P Hey, it's as bad as you're allowed to be (y'can't all be Denis Rodman), and, under BA, a small numeric difference has to cover a lot, conceptually. Proficiency, at 1st level, is +2, that's probably 'bout "average" - a competent, mediocre practitioner. Really, the 5e way is to make up for that lack of numeric differentiation by calling for checks less often, the more invested a character is in the ability*. The blacksmith (per another thread), who works metal all day may only have a +6 roll, while an adventurer might have a +4, but the former can take a lot of blacksmithing 'actions' with no check, while the adventurer, perhaps trying to impersonate a blacksmith, might have to make a blacksmithing (excuse me, tool-use) check or two now and then to keep from screwing up in any too obvious a way. * ironically, that'll make a certain player type feel like said investment was 'wasted.' So it's one of those cases where you might want to make it clear he's getting to succeed automatically /because/ he's got such a high check. [/QUOTE]

Verification