Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6650945" data-attributes="member: 996">I see, so melee-combat-useful spells, mainly.&nbsp; No reason you couldn't adjust the EK's list or create a few new spells (or bring back a few from prior eds).&nbsp;It can probably be made to do that particular style.&nbsp;1/8th level Kobolds have proficiency bonuses with their weapons - based on reverse-engineering from their stats, that is, so, yeah, if we want to go the rules-as-laws-of-physics rout, it would appear that ordinary folk would have proficiency bonuses - in things they've learned to do. Nothing forces a DM to abide by that reverse-engineered mechanical consistency, of course.&nbsp;30 would be 'nearly impossible,' which would presumably be too easy for lifting a mountain, since it's impossible.&nbsp; This is where the DM simply doesn't call for a roll.&nbsp; &quot;No, you can't lift mountains.&quot;&nbsp; (Or, &quot;you lift the mountain, you're taking 55 (10d10) damage per round from the strain, what do you do next?&quot;)The thing is, the DM can always do that.&nbsp; The peasant sees the hero juggle boulders and tries, he doesn't succeed on a natural 20 (even if that would hit the same DC as the hero did), he just fails without rolling.&nbsp;Sure.&nbsp; Bounded Accuracy is meant to keep the lower echelons (whether lower level, or lesser ability within a pillar or with a specific skill or ability or whatever) relevant longer.&nbsp; It does that.&nbsp; It may mean that checks can't model some of the more extreme things you might find in genre, but checks are something the DM can call for, or not.&nbsp; So if you run your story off the Bounded Accuracy cliff, you can just make it fly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6650945, member: 996"] I see, so melee-combat-useful spells, mainly. No reason you couldn't adjust the EK's list or create a few new spells (or bring back a few from prior eds). It can probably be made to do that particular style. 1/8th level Kobolds have proficiency bonuses with their weapons - based on reverse-engineering from their stats, that is, so, yeah, if we want to go the rules-as-laws-of-physics rout, it would appear that ordinary folk would have proficiency bonuses - in things they've learned to do. Nothing forces a DM to abide by that reverse-engineered mechanical consistency, of course. 30 would be 'nearly impossible,' which would presumably be too easy for lifting a mountain, since it's impossible. This is where the DM simply doesn't call for a roll. "No, you can't lift mountains." (Or, "you lift the mountain, you're taking 55 (10d10) damage per round from the strain, what do you do next?") The thing is, the DM can always do that. The peasant sees the hero juggle boulders and tries, he doesn't succeed on a natural 20 (even if that would hit the same DC as the hero did), he just fails without rolling. Sure. Bounded Accuracy is meant to keep the lower echelons (whether lower level, or lesser ability within a pillar or with a specific skill or ability or whatever) relevant longer. It does that. It may mean that checks can't model some of the more extreme things you might find in genre, but checks are something the DM can call for, [i]or not[/i]. So if you run your story off the Bounded Accuracy cliff, you can just make it fly. [/QUOTE]

Verification