Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9262077" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Okay. So it's 55% with a +3 and proficiency. That means the second-most talented possible character you can start with, apart from cheesy Custom Lineage stuff + Expertise, is going to fail an allegedly &quot;Medium&quot; difficulty check almost half the time. Even if you're a Rogue with a cheesy Custom Lineage to start at 18 with Expertise, so literally THE best a person can possibly be, you still have at most +8, meaning that you still fail that &quot;Medium&quot; DC 15 almost a third of the time (6/20 = 30%). A character that isn't anywhere near such specialty has no chance with an allegedly &quot;Medium&quot; check—but that's where 5e typically puts checks for its adventures, from everything I have seen and been told.The problem really is that the game tells folks &quot;Medium&quot; is 15, which most characters will be garbage at. Since most skills don't have Proficiency for most characters, and most skills won't be using your 14+ stats, meaning you fail &quot;Medium&quot; checks around two thirds of the time. If all you have is +1 to the roll, you fail a DC 15 check 65% of the time. I don't call &quot;most characters would fail this check 2/3 of the time&quot; a &quot;Medium&quot; difficulty check.But because it is &quot;Medium,&quot; it's where everyone starts. You wouldn't throw an easy check at the player, would you? That would be pointless! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes&nbsp; &nbsp; :rolleyes:"&nbsp; data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" />Add in that most characters never reach double digit levels, so the biggest proficiency bonus you'll see is +4...The irony for me is, although I wish the similarity were stronger, the actual descriptions of skills and the general slate thereof more resembles 4e than 3e. It's one of the very few areas where you can actually see real 4e-like design if you squint, rather than merely <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/how-is-5e-like-4e.681629/post-8354225" target="_blank">things that have a thin candy coating of 4e-likeness while being actually completely differenr underneath</a>.And you'll note, I raised the exact same problem back then, too! Skills should, emphasis on should, be more like 4e than 3e in how they are used and run. They are not, and I truly cannot explain why. Nobody seems to like them being so narrow and anemic. But they keep getting run that way at so many tables.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9262077, member: 6790260"] Okay. So it's 55% with a +3 and proficiency. That means the second-most talented possible character you can start with, apart from cheesy Custom Lineage stuff + Expertise, is going to fail an allegedly "Medium" difficulty check [I]almost[/I] half the time. Even if you're a Rogue with a cheesy Custom Lineage to start at 18 with Expertise, so literally THE best a person can possibly be, you still have at most +8, meaning that you still fail that "Medium" DC 15 almost a third of the time (6/20 = 30%). A character that isn't anywhere near such specialty has no chance with an allegedly "Medium" check—but that's where 5e typically puts checks for its adventures, from everything I have seen and been told. The problem really is that the game tells folks "Medium" is 15, which most characters will be garbage at. Since most skills don't have Proficiency for most characters, and most skills won't be using your 14+ stats, meaning you fail "Medium" checks around two thirds of the time. If all you have is +1 to the roll, you fail a DC 15 check 65% of the time. I don't call "most characters would fail this check 2/3 of the time" a "Medium" difficulty check. But because it is "Medium," it's where everyone starts. You wouldn't throw an [I]easy[/I] check at the player, would you? That would be pointless! :rolleyes: Add in that most characters never reach double digit levels, so the biggest proficiency bonus you'll see is +4... The irony for me is, although I wish the similarity were stronger, the actual descriptions of skills and the general slate thereof more resembles 4e than 3e. It's one of the very few areas where you can actually see real 4e-like design if you squint, rather than merely [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/how-is-5e-like-4e.681629/post-8354225']things that have a thin candy coating of 4e-likeness while being actually completely differenr underneath[/URL]. And you'll note, I raised the exact same problem back then, too! Skills should, emphasis on [I]should,[/I] be more like 4e than 3e in how they are used and run. They are not, and I truly cannot explain why. Nobody seems to [I]like[/I] them being so narrow and anemic. But they keep getting run that way at so many tables. [/QUOTE]

Verification