Was it Monte Cook who was talking about a system of "If you have a high ability score, you can just do this thing without rolling"? That would go a long way towards making a difference of two or three in a score appear more dramatic than an extra 5% or 10% chance of success. But I really haven't seen that design show up in the playtest.
I can't think of a single common-sense scenario where an ability check is required but where you'd expect someone quite bad at the thing to beat someone fairly good at the thing one in three times, excepting circumstances that are very heavily luck-based to begin with. If the rule is essentially never applicable, shouldn't it be changed?
I casn't think of a scenario where a player would be required to make 3 straight opposed ability checks on the trot in 5e. The bounded accuracy thing is is there to prevent players feeling totally left out of the loop because of their skill and ability choices. That's a good thing. Keeping skill DCs and opposed tests in line with common sense may not be. Let's see how it feels in play.
Players should also recognize that a +1 bonus is too small on its own for anyone to even notice, unless it's behind just a massive number of checks. In real life, someone with a ten and someone with a twelve in a score appear essentially identical in that attribute.
That's completely untrue; on both counts. It's also an example of the type of conditioning I was talking about.
If the DC is 12, the character with a +1 has a 50% chance of succeeding as opposed to his "essentially identical" twin that has a 45% chance. For a starting character, that's a respectable increase and clearly better than not having the bonus at all.
Also, you seemed to have missed the main point of my suggestion; having characters start out modest allows for growth. As they advance in level, they increase their ability scores and therefore become better at what they do. If you start them out already 'roided-out, the game is going to get boring really fast...unless you crank the DCs up past 20 and beyond — which is not what they want to do with Next.
In other words, I'm all for keeping the numbers small and manageable...and that means keeping DCs below 20 and ability scores (and therefore, modifiers) modest at lower levels.
I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.
Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.
This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).
The Basic boxed set contains:
Quick Start Rules A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms. Player's Handbook (Softcover, 125 pages) Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level. Dungeon Master's Guide (Softcover, 125 pages) Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.
Monster Manual (Softcover, 100 pages) Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D.
Introductory Adventure (Keep on the Borderlands) An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.
Also includes:
Character Sheets Reference Sheets Set of Dice
ExpertSet
A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:
Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.) Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.) Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)
Expansions
These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.)
Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book) Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book) Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book) The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)
A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on DamageShow
A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points
In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...
What are hit points? The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.
So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then? It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.
But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target? Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.
Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact? Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.
If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent? Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.
Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack? It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.
What about poison and other types of non-combat damage? Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.
If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages? Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.
What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points? If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.
Why are monsters killed immediately and not players? Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.
What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage? If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).
Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded? See below.
Damage and Dying
Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.
Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly.
Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.
If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.
Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.
Unharmed: 1 hp or more Wounded: 0 hp or less Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level) Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)
Wounded When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.
Incapacitated Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).
If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.
If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.
Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.
Dead Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.
They may be able to accomplish their goal of having magic items not effect the game too much math-wise. We don't know either way as we are so early in the playtest and just got shown a few magic items.
However, regardless if stat increasing items do or do not affect the math, you as a DM will still have the ability to limit it as you see fit. You could ban all stat increasing items period, or make them only work for one encounter. You could make them work only a certain number of times a day.
If I think stat increases are abusable in my games I will limit them to a certain cumulative total you can never go past. As the game stands now, I would leave starting stats, racial modifiers and level up stats only increase your base and base goes to 20. All else, magic items, wishes, spells, et al, have an absolute maximum number in effect for all stats combined. Let's say I chose 10. This means if I have a 10 strength and I put on a belt of storm giant strength, I've got a 20 strength. Someone with a 19 or 20 would have theirs at 29. This also would make sure ability scores don't get crazy out of hand.
Assuming a strength based human fighter with the default starting array in the packet of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. We would start with something like:
Str 18 Dex 14 Con 15 Int 9 Wis 13 Cha 11
Assuming the ability boost to two scores happens at every level divisible by 4, we could end up with something like:
Str 20 Dex 16 Con 20 Int 10 Wis 13 Cha 11
That's not too absurd for a level 20 character IMO. Now, we only have 10 points to spare. Through a wish for more strength and a belt of storm giant strength, now my character has these stats and is completely ineligible to have stats increased in any way, including by spells:
Str 30 Dex 16 Con 20 Int 10 Wis 13 Cha 11
I do not think this is too absurd considering the character is building his entire career around strength and is level 20, a heroic and amazing specimen indeed as well as likely a lucky and destined soul. Then again, I can only speak as far as my games are concerned as some would feel this is too high and others that this is too low.
I think the game designers will end up giving us something that DMs can make what is best for their games and players. I think we've only scratched the surface of this, and have much to see before judging anything too harshly.
Do you have an opinion on what campaign settings should be printed in D&D Next? If so, please cast your votes in this poll!
If the DC is 12, the character with a +1 has a 50% chance of succeeding as opposed to his "essentially identical" twin that has a 45% chance. For a starting character, that's a respectable increase and clearly better than not having the bonus at all.
A +5% chance might seem like it matters, especially if it's hard to get, but in terms of actual gameplay it is not going to make a noticeable difference.
If your bonus is +3 rather than +4, how often would you have succeeded with the larger bonus, but you actually fail because you have the smaller bonus? One in twenty times, right? For something like charisma checks, especially if the party already has someone playing the face, it's entirely possible that you could go an entire campaign without that +5% bonus ever actually making a difference. If we use my suggestion, and turn that flat +1 ability modifier into a +10% or +15% bonus on a real ability score check, then that doubles or triples the likelihood that the more charismatic player will get to really see that difference manifest.
The only place where +5% really matters is on something where you are making dozens of checks with it, which means attack rolls.
It seems to me like a lot of people want a system where they describe something, roll a d20, and then they win or lose based on how high that roll was, and maybe how the DM felt about their description, and all other modifiers are looked at like the devil.
To me, it sounds like a very different game from D&D. I mean what's the point of even having a character sheet if none of what's on the sheet actually matters (as some have suggested here)?
If the DC is 12, the character with a +1 has a 50% chance of succeeding as opposed to his "essentially identical" twin that has a 45% chance. For a starting character, that's a respectable increase and clearly better than not having the bonus at all.
A +5% chance might seem like it matters, especially if it's hard to get, but in terms of actual gameplay it is not going to make a noticeable difference.
That +5% does indeed matter at 1st level; as the character advances levels, it's going to increase as such (if the player puts points in that ability):
Level
1
4
8
12
16
20
Ability
12 (+1)
13 (+1)
14 (+2)
15 (+2)
16 (+3)
17 (+3)
Ability
13 (+1)
14 (+2)
15 (+2)
16 (+3)
17 (+3)
18 (+4)
Ability
14 (+2)
15 (+2)
16 (+3)
17 (+3)
18 (+4)
19 (+4)
Ability
15 (+2)
16 (+3)
17 (+3)
18 (+4)
19 (+4)
20 (+5)
Ability
16 (+3)
17 (+3)
18 (+4)
19 (+4)
20 (+5)
20 (+5)
Ability
17 (+3)
18 (+4)
19 (+4)
20 (+5)
20 (+5)
20 (+5)
Ability
18 (+4)
19 (+4)
20 (+5)
20 (+5)
20 (+5)
20 (+5)
These are just the ability modifiers....it's not even taking into account all the skill and magic, etc. that's involved.
I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.
Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.
This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).
The Basic boxed set contains:
Quick Start Rules A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms. Player's Handbook (Softcover, 125 pages) Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level. Dungeon Master's Guide (Softcover, 125 pages) Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.
Monster Manual (Softcover, 100 pages) Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D.
Introductory Adventure (Keep on the Borderlands) An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.
Also includes:
Character Sheets Reference Sheets Set of Dice
ExpertSet
A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:
Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.) Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.) Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)
Expansions
These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.)
Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book) Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book) Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book) The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)
A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on DamageShow
A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points
In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...
What are hit points? The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.
So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then? It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.
But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target? Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.
Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact? Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.
If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent? Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.
Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack? It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.
What about poison and other types of non-combat damage? Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.
If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages? Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.
What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points? If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.
Why are monsters killed immediately and not players? Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.
What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage? If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).
Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded? See below.
Damage and Dying
Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.
Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly.
Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.
If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.
Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.
Unharmed: 1 hp or more Wounded: 0 hp or less Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level) Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)
Wounded When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.
Incapacitated Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).
If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.
If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.
Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.
Dead Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.
That +5% does indeed matter at 1st level; as the character advances levels, it's going to increase as such (if the player puts points in that ability) [...] These are just the ability modifiers....it's not even taking into account all the skill and magic, etc. that's involved.
That is kind of what I was hoping to address. A +3 starts to feel significant, compared to a +0, but you are comparing the whole collective of ability and skill bonus and magic and etc - a sum much closer to the +10 range. If ability modifier is only one component, next to training and gear, etc, then of course doubling the weight of ability scores would be unecessary - a specialist would be so far out and above a normal person that there would be no point in the non-specialist even trying.
If my option were actually implemented, I would expect it to go along with an overhaul in the skill training system away from giving a flat bonus. I imagine it would just give direct advantage on skill checks in which you're trained, but the important part is that the only consistent modifier to skill checks would be the ability score. That way, you get to the same point of difference between a specialist and a non-specialist, but you don't have to focus so intensely on stacking different sources of benefits; just having a high stat is you already specializing.
For a point of comparison, when I run a game, I never include magical weapons of less than +3 enhancement (in AD&D or 3.x), and I never include miscellaneous magical items that otherwise function mainly as a source of attack bonus. A +1 sword does not have a large enough impact upon the game to really matter, but does become quite potent if you were to stack two or three items together - I cut to the chase, with far fewer factors involved, and each of those being much more significant. That's my style.
since when was D&D ever about the realm of human experience? It's a high fantasy game where fighters are these inhuman weapon-gods and mages are these impossibly powerful and far more intelligent than mere mortals. Leaders are chiseled, perfect and never slip a word... that's not human experience at all.
Well... actually... D&D was about the relative realm of human experience with heroes of human obtainable levels since... before it was even called D&D. When it was called Chainmail. Back then there were such things as traps and attacks that were "save or die" regardless of level. Where only the most extreme high level characters even got a second attack.
When it first became D&D, thieves were the only ones that could climb walls, hear sounds, find or detect or use traps or open locks. Having one in your party was essential despite them being otherwise utterly useless.
It is really the ability creep that began in the end of 2nd edition and continued through 3rd and into 4th that turned what a PC was expected to be playing into a demi-god from level 1. It is one reason so many rejected 4E even thematically-- including those new races whose most basic members would be significantly superhuman.
It just goes to show how different people's experiences of the game can be. I never played D&D in the context that the people were normal. I started in the late 80's with a Basic box set that my parents had bought some years before but never could figure out so it languished unitl I found it. Even under those rules we were doing things that just aren't normal.
Nobody here has managed to adequately explain why tasks shouldn't become trivial for higher level characters. I sorta get that the DM should make a call and that's cool but that doesn't sit well with everyone and it'd be nice if the DM's call was an exception rather than the rule.
Why shoudn't a lvl 20 rogue autosucceed on a basic lock? Why should a lvl 1 rogue have a chance to succeed on a complex and partially magical lock?
The most compelling argument I've read so far says "they shouldn't, but the mechanics shouldn't reflect that," which makes no sense to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
