Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7508511" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Sorry for the long delay and multiple responses. Been a busy weekend. And at level 10 which we were talking about that is a +9, on athletics unless talking a dex based fighter.Let's look at Investigation (finding traps, clues, ect), neither rouge nor Fighter use Intelligence as their prime, so let's say they both have a +2 which may be rather high for both of them.Prof, expertise and reliable talent means the Rogue has a +10 and a minimum result of 20Prof means the fighter has a +6Party enter the room with the secret passage. Who investigates? Techinically they both do, because they use the help action, but the roll? The roll goes to the Rogue because he has a +4 over the fighter and a guaranteed minimum die result.Sure, the fighter can contribute, but they aren't going to roll the dice unless the Rogue isn't there. Because there isn't a reason to have them roll.And, as for not being a system issue. I've never said "This breaks the game", I've said "This sucks the fun out of the game for my group sometimes."Sure, I can change DC's, I can create skill challenges that require multiple different rolls, I can challenge players in different arenas, I can literally just make stuff up. But the issue of the player saying "I rolled a 28" almost every roll in a system where that is supposed to be rare until high levels... that isn't a "You don't know how to DM" that is the system breaking its own assumptions.Because players mitigate risk by working together. Heck, I encourage players to work as a group instead of a band of individuals because I have problems with players not having fun because everyone is playing the stoic loner.And it is a compounding problem. Someone says "The Rogue getting a 28 on stealth and sleight of hand isn't an issue, because you can challenge them with other things or increase the DC to 35" ignores the fact that the Rogue can get boosted and the bard being in the party can cover an entire other set of challenges and then you start running out of non-combat challenges that use skills and dice.Sure, I love RP challenges but the players invested in abilities to use them.A fair point I suppose. Seems like avoiding saying the ability is a problem though, just that is breaks a limitation of a the system... which seems like a problemAgree to disagree thenDamage is only meaningless if you can take that long rest though, and that may not always happen.Also, since the Teleport roll is a d100, there are far fewer abilities which can reduce that failure chance. I'm honestly not sure of any die abilities that can, so you are left with reducing it via observing the area you wish to teleport to in order to become more familiar with it, and that may or may not be possible or utilize resources you can easily afford.I didn't say it wasn't normal or that it was a bad thing. But, it is "talking about the mechanics of the game" and falls into the purview of meta-game discussions.But, it does lead to a potential imbalance if the same character ends up always being the best choice for skill challenges, and they are the character who cannot fail a skill challenge. It makes it less likely for other characters to get a chance to participate and shine outside of combat. [sarcasm] Please be more condescending, oh-great mountain sage, I cherish your wisdom [/sarcasm]Since I seem to be on the other side of your opinion on this thread, I'm going to be blunt and say that not only does this feel like an attack, but it feels undeserved. I don't see how getting edged into a corner by the mechanics is a strength of the system, or how you expect "working with" strengths is meant to mean anything in the context we are discussing. I try very hard to adhere to a game that does not overly compensate for the characters. At the table I don't analyze a players average roll to determine if I should adjust the DC of something, and after I set a DC I normally don't alter it if the player rolls one way or the other. So, if the lord buys his locks locally then the DCs are 15 and if the guards are just average they have a +2 to perception checks. The fact that our mid-level thief literally cannot fail to infiltrate, get past every door, steal the McGuffin from the safe, and leave with it does not help me as a DM. Either they do it, and therefore it can't be an important part of the plot, because this is a team game and everyone needs a chance to shine, or I have to come up with some reason that isn't going to work, which means I'm trying to work against what they should be good at to increase tension, which is not something I want to do. I guess if you think that "working with it" means that instead of worrying about 'this player can find anything I hide' I should say 'this player will find this thing and that will be a clue for the group'... I ask you what the difference is between me letting them find it or me just telling the group myself? I've played in games where players need to find specific clues and they aren't fun if you don't recognize a clue, and if I'm putting clues in my game, I'm going to make sure players see them or find alternate ways to the same answers, but... look maybe this will make my point clearer. One of the most tense and memorable moments from my last campaign included breaking into a super-vault where the ancient elven empire stored their magical nuke. The Rogue picking this lock did not have expertise (he was a swashbuckling pirate and went for other expertise skills) and it was a skill challenge of 25 with three successes in a row being needed to open the door without setting off the security. They didn't know they needed a 25, but they passed just barely, utilizing Luck, magical items, and even some guidance rolls. After I told them the DC and they realized how close they had come to failing it really shook them and made them feel how dangerous and heavily sealed this place was. Leading to them not touching a single thing (they found the thing by accident) and resealing it behind them. IF the rogue had had expertise in that skill, since they were level 18 or higher, then they would have likely barely struggled with that vault. It wouldn't have been impactful to hear that they had beaten the DC by 7 or more every time like it was to hear they barely eeked past every single check. Sure, I suspect the guy I call to get my keys out of my car can get them out. I don't suspect that same guy could break into the Fallout Shelter underneath the Whitehouse. Sure, if he had enough time and the right tools he might be able to get in, but I also think that something designed to keep the best of the best out... should give some trouble to the best of the best. Right... how do you "roleplay" stealth? Have them describe their every move as I mention the guard starts to turn? Roleplay lockpicking by having them describe the tumblers moving? Look I'm all for people describing what they are doing. I often ask players to elaborate on what they want to say or do in a social encounter or how they want to attempt to do a thing, but there is a limit here to what Role-playing can accomplish unless you want to go full old school and have "well no one said they were looking behind the tapestry" shenanigans. Which I don't think my group would be terribly interested in dealing with. And all of that is available to the Rogue or Bard too. Even barbarian strength could be bested if they get a belt of storm giant strength. This is why I try to focus on clas abilities, though I will admit the Barbarian athletics abilities are pretty cool and I like them the problem is that they only work for a single skill while the Rogue and Bard are getting a lot of different skills to work with, and frankly, I've never had a fighter or barbarian get to those levels anyways.</blockquote>

Verification