Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6650982" data-attributes="member: 996">Nothing stops you from tweaking 5e that way, but the DCs top out at 'nearly impossible' - not sure how much room is left between that and actually impossible, for fantastical to squeeze in.&nbsp; But, if it's 35, you're talking only max-stat, proficient-with-expertise, high-level characters being able to touch it.&nbsp; No danger of anyone remotely 'normal' rolling a 35 with a +0 or +4 or whatever.&nbsp; Not too much danger of the +17 ubercharacter doing it, either, of course.But, as always, the DM needn't call for a check.&nbsp;5e doesn't &quot;retreat to DM fiat&quot; - it may not be called that, but it jumps in with the more modestly phrased &quot;How to Play&quot; on page 3 of the Basic pdf, and makes it clear, up front, that DM may call for rolls, and that it is he who decides how all actions are resolved and describes the results of that resolution.&nbsp; Adding something like B would be doable, I'm sure.&nbsp; Given the extensive rules for check difficulties in the first 20 levels of play (one DC table), it shouldn't take much.&nbsp;5e did have an objective of inclusiveness, so, yes, any fan finding their 'style' unsupported is a failure in that sense.&nbsp; 5e tried to be inclusive with a fairly large number of PC options (for a PH1, obviously, it can't compare to whole editions), some optional rules in the PH, and more than a few alternate rule 'modules' (variants) in the DMG, but it was never going to be able to please absolutely everyone.&nbsp; That it mostly failed to please 4e and Pathfinder fans is only to be expected, given that capturing the classic feel of the game was also a goal, and clearly a very important one.&nbsp;Really, it's a little overblown.&nbsp; Bounded Accuracy is just smaller numbers - just like, really, hps are just bigger numbers.&nbsp; It's not hard to adjust numbers.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6650982, member: 996"] Nothing stops you from tweaking 5e that way, but the DCs top out at 'nearly impossible' - not sure how much room is left between that and actually impossible, for fantastical to squeeze in. But, if it's 35, you're talking only max-stat, proficient-with-expertise, high-level characters being able to touch it. No danger of anyone remotely 'normal' rolling a 35 with a +0 or +4 or whatever. Not too much danger of the +17 ubercharacter doing it, either, of course. But, as always, the DM needn't call for a check. 5e doesn't "retreat to DM fiat" - it may not be called that, but it jumps in with the more modestly phrased "How to Play" on page 3 of the Basic pdf, and makes it clear, up front, that DM [i]may[/i] call for rolls, and that it is he who decides how all actions are resolved and describes the results of that resolution. Adding something like B would be doable, I'm sure. Given the extensive rules for check difficulties in the first 20 levels of play (one DC table), it shouldn't take much. 5e did have an objective of inclusiveness, so, yes, any fan finding their 'style' unsupported is a failure in that sense. 5e tried to be inclusive with a fairly large number of PC options (for a PH1, obviously, it can't compare to whole editions), some optional rules in the PH, and more than a few alternate rule 'modules' (variants) in the DMG, but it was never going to be able to please absolutely everyone. That it mostly failed to please 4e and Pathfinder fans is only to be expected, given that capturing the classic feel of the game was also a goal, and clearly a very important one. Really, it's a little overblown. Bounded Accuracy is just smaller numbers - just like, really, hps are just bigger numbers. It's not hard to adjust numbers. [/QUOTE]

Verification