Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6560688" data-attributes="member: 1465">(I didn't read the whole thread, but I'll toss here my 2cp)There was also a mirroring of typical gaming habits of that era. Video games for example were typically just like that: when you lost the game, you started over. In the past couple of decades, the paradigm changed to just keep playing, sometimes without even any sort of penalty.In combat yes, but you are forgetting all the rest of the game.A first level PC in 5e can have a proficiency, a unique class feature, or spellcasting capabilities, that the rest of the party doesn't have. Someone non-proficient for example is going to have +0 even at 20th level, while the 1st level PC will have +2. The higher level PC might still have a higher ability score due to the boosts by level, but it may also not... Certainly the &quot;everybody can try everything&quot; mentality doesn't help in this case.But in general it's only combat where there is a problem, and then it's the HP/damage difference which really matters. If you ask me, I was in favor of the early 5e playtesting idea for HP to start much higher (IIRC in the 1st playtest packet, everyone started with HP = Constitution score), but now it's too late for that.Because they are skilled in something the rest of the party isn't.If you have no trapfinder, a 1st leve trapfinder with her +2 proficiency might be still better at trapfinding than a 20th level PC who is not proficient.Again, unfortunately the &quot;everybody can try!&quot; concept gets in the way, at least with some skills, so for 1st and 20th level PCs to coexist smoothly probably the DM has to think of some added values to proficiencies (e.g. only allow untrained checks on routine tasks). But in general in 5e it's still much better than in 4e where everybody just got better at every skill by level.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 6560688, member: 1465"] (I didn't read the whole thread, but I'll toss here my 2cp) There was also a mirroring of typical gaming habits of that era. Video games for example were typically just like that: when you lost the game, you started over. In the past couple of decades, the paradigm changed to just keep playing, sometimes without even any sort of penalty. In combat yes, but you are forgetting all the rest of the game. A first level PC in 5e can have a proficiency, a unique class feature, or spellcasting capabilities, that the rest of the party doesn't have. Someone non-proficient for example is going to have +0 even at 20th level, while the 1st level PC will have +2. The higher level PC might still have a higher ability score due to the boosts by level, but it may also not... Certainly the "everybody can try everything" mentality doesn't help in this case. But in general it's only combat where there is a problem, and then it's the HP/damage difference which really matters. If you ask me, I was in favor of the early 5e playtesting idea for HP to start much higher (IIRC in the 1st playtest packet, everyone started with HP = Constitution score), but now it's too late for that. Because they are skilled in something the rest of the party isn't. If you have no trapfinder, a 1st leve trapfinder with her +2 proficiency might be still better at trapfinding than a 20th level PC who is not proficient. Again, unfortunately the "everybody can try!" concept gets in the way, at least with some skills, so for 1st and 20th level PCs to coexist smoothly probably the DM has to think of some added values to proficiencies (e.g. only allow untrained checks on routine tasks). But in general in 5e it's still much better than in 4e where everybody just got better at every skill by level. [/QUOTE]

Verification