Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoutonRustique" data-source="post: 7790249" data-attributes="member: 22362">I'm not sure you're correctly applying the Captain American reference here. As you've stated, there is no power progression to what Captain American can do - as with most super heroes, he has the powers he has. He's just informing us as to what could be generally assumed possibilities (as he's a "martial"/"non-magic" based super) outside combat.This is what makes him useful - he's the yardstick you measure others against.So, if you say that wyrmlings are below Cap' level, then when your fighter's power is "wyrmling-equivalent", your out-of-combat athletics should be inferior to Caps'. If you say that fighting great wyrms is at, or above, Cap' level, and your fighter is, then you should be able to do Cap' level, and above, athletics.With overall progress of +5-6, if you look at the odds, that doesn't seem to pan out that much. However, if you feel 5e does that well - awesome, and keep on playing that way! The point isn't to get you to change how you're having fun. Or lessen that fun. Bold by me for emphasis.Just to make sure I parse this correctly : it is within the engine to auto-deny a significant chance of success, whilst simultaneously not doing so for other tasks set to the same probability. Yes?I'm not saying changing the meaning of a DC depending on the character's level is bad in any way, shape or form, I'm just asking if this is what you're advocating for here. Because the first half says "no", and then the second says "yes".</blockquote>

Verification