I think all the known casters need a way to swap their known list between levels. once a level has problems in that some tables might level up every session. Another table it might take 10 sessions to level up. I mean crap many can change out their entire list every day, the wizard can swap one in every minute. Let known casters swap one out a day, or at least give them a ritual spell with a cost to swap one. And I don't think the known casters have that much of a power edge over the daily prepare people. Heck in many cases I'd say they are weaker classes than the daily prepare people even if they could daily prepare as well.
I do like the different feel of it, if all casting classes prepare the same you lose uniqueness. But I think you can maintain that while easing up a bit on the known casters fixed lists.
I use a house rule allowing to use the training (don't remember the manual) for leveling up (which I don't use for that purpose) to make as if you leveled up, so you could change a known spell, your fighting style, etc. paying with time and money related to the cost of practicing. Anything you can change at level up, so with this new you could change too one Metamagic and etc.
May be WoTC use this opportunity to make a true 5.5 edition instead of 5.01. I might be wrong but my fundamental understanding of 5th edition was that it was supposed to simplify the rules to make game play more fluid and put a focus on storytelling and participation. The action economy would limit the monsters and the characters so that feature creep would not cause absurd things like "BEWARE MY +100 ARTIFACT LEVEL SWORD with 300 spells to choose from every day that can be used at will".
So far all I see is an erosion of the action economy in all classes and feature creep. Feats are now being up powered, backgrounds are getting mechanical game important powers. The only change I actually like is that species are no longer being called races and they are fairly generic. In 5th edition Feats are supposed to be up to the DM to include or not. Now they are an essential feature.
My ideas are:
1. Keep species generic - this was a good idea.
2. Return Backgrounds to bonuses to money, equipment, flavor, and in game things like membership in various groups where goods and services can be obtained. An example: A noble could go to another nobles estate and find food, shelter, and the nobles household cleric for healing etc. Thieves could go to local guilds for similar things.
3. Separate IAS from Feats and instead of a background or species giving you your first ability score bonus, your class would do that. Every class at first level would give 4 points for the character to spend on any ability they want. (Equivalent to 2 IAS). IAS progression would normally follow.
4. If The DM agrees to allow feats, each feat should do one very cool thing. It should be good enough for someone to take the feat and it should add flavor to your character or allow them to go beyond class and sub-class limits but not be completely over powered. Some feats could be broken into several feats that could be later combined. Like Shield Mastery1 would alow you to shove an opponent 10 feet or knock them prone. Shield Mastery 2 would give you the dexterity save bonus. You could add a Shield Mastery 3 which would give you a bonus to your AC when you have your shield equipped, and finally a Shield Mastery 4 which would give you a bonus attack with your chosen weapon or unarmed strike if you have your shield equipped. Things along those lines.
5.find better ways to modify the action economy. Giving the Sorcerer more ways to get points is a bad idea, so is giving the Battle Master sub-class a per turn free use of their tricks. May be lean into what the Psi-Warrior Sub-class does and allow a single free use per short rest and if you want more, you have to spend dice or points.
6. This one is personal pet peeve. Make clear and player biased rules for Rogue tactics. May be get rid of STeady aim and replace it with a Sneak Attack Tactics skill. The RAW could read if a rogue successfully completes a stealth skill check against an active perception check, they get advantage on their next attack. this could work for melee or ranged based rogues. No arcane hiding rules or arguments about if a monster can turn their head to see a character or not. RAW, did you win your check? if so you get advantage and the use of your Sneak Attack damage. If you failed your check, better luck next time or try something different.
May be WoTC use this opportunity to make a true 5.5 edition instead of 5.01. I might be wrong but my fundamental understanding of 5th edition was that it was supposed to simplify the rules to make game play more fluid and put a focus on storytelling and participation. The action economy would limit the monsters and the characters so that feature creep would not cause absurd things like "BEWARE MY +100 ARTIFACT LEVEL SWORD with 300 spells to choose from every day that can be used at will".
So far all I see is an erosion of the action economy in all classes and feature creep. Feats are now being up powered, backgrounds are getting mechanical game important powers. The only change I actually like is that species are no longer being called races and they are fairly generic. In 5th edition Feats are supposed to be up to the DM to include or not. Now they are an essential feature.
My ideas are:
1. Keep species generic - this was a good idea.
2. Return Backgrounds to bonuses to money, equipment, flavor, and in game things like membership in various groups where goods and services can be obtained. An example: A noble could go to another nobles estate and find food, shelter, and the nobles household cleric for healing etc. Thieves could go to local guilds for similar things.
3. Separate IAS from Feats and instead of a background or species giving you your first ability score bonus, your class would do that. Every class at first level would give 4 points for the character to spend on any ability they want. (Equivalent to 2 IAS). IAS progression would normally follow.
4. If The DM agrees to allow feats, each feat should do one very cool thing. It should be good enough for someone to take the feat and it should add flavor to your character or allow them to go beyond class and sub-class limits but not be completely over powered. Some feats could be broken into several feats that could be later combined. Like Shield Mastery1 would alow you to shove an opponent 10 feet or knock them prone. Shield Mastery 2 would give you the dexterity save bonus. You could add a Shield Mastery 3 which would give you a bonus to your AC when you have your shield equipped, and finally a Shield Mastery 4 which would give you a bonus attack with your chosen weapon or unarmed strike if you have your shield equipped. Things along those lines.
5.find better ways to modify the action economy. Giving the Sorcerer more ways to get points is a bad idea, so is giving the Battle Master sub-class a per turn free use of their tricks. May be lean into what the Psi-Warrior Sub-class does and allow a single free use per short rest and if you want more, you have to spend dice or points.
6. This one is personal pet peeve. Make clear and player biased rules for Rogue tactics. May be get rid of STeady aim and replace it with a Sneak Attack Tactics skill. The RAW could read if a rogue successfully completes a stealth skill check against an active perception check, they get advantage on their next attack. this could work for melee or ranged based rogues. No arcane hiding rules or arguments about if a monster can turn their head to see a character or not. RAW, did you win your check? if so you get advantage and the use of your Sneak Attack damage. If you failed your check, better luck next time or try something different.
I'd give feats, and get rid of ASI's completely (except the +1/+2 you get at the start).
The feats are generally far less powerful than ASI's and most are more like "quality of life" benefits, including the spell dips as such that really are about letting you snag a quick spell or two without the class dip.
You can also tweak feats a LOT easier than ASI's, which gives a +2 to a stat, which mean about 6-ish skills get a +1 boost.
May be WoTC use this opportunity to make a true 5.5 edition instead of 5.01. I might be wrong but my fundamental understanding of 5th edition was that it was supposed to simplify the rules to make game play more fluid and put a focus on storytelling and participation. The action economy would limit the monsters and the characters so that feature creep would not cause absurd things like "BEWARE MY +100 ARTIFACT LEVEL SWORD with 300 spells to choose from every day that can be used at will".
So far all I see is an erosion of the action economy in all classes and feature creep. Feats are now being up powered, backgrounds are getting mechanical game important powers. The only change I actually like is that species are no longer being called races and they are fairly generic. In 5th edition Feats are supposed to be up to the DM to include or not. Now they are an essential feature.
My ideas are:
1. Keep species generic - this was a good idea.
2. Return Backgrounds to bonuses to money, equipment, flavor, and in game things like membership in various groups where goods and services can be obtained. An example: A noble could go to another nobles estate and find food, shelter, and the nobles household cleric for healing etc. Thieves could go to local guilds for similar things.
3. Separate IAS from Feats and instead of a background or species giving you your first ability score bonus, your class would do that. Every class at first level would give 4 points for the character to spend on any ability they want. (Equivalent to 2 IAS). IAS progression would normally follow.
4. If The DM agrees to allow feats, each feat should do one very cool thing. It should be good enough for someone to take the feat and it should add flavor to your character or allow them to go beyond class and sub-class limits but not be completely over powered. Some feats could be broken into several feats that could be later combined. Like Shield Mastery1 would alow you to shove an opponent 10 feet or knock them prone. Shield Mastery 2 would give you the dexterity save bonus. You could add a Shield Mastery 3 which would give you a bonus to your AC when you have your shield equipped, and finally a Shield Mastery 4 which would give you a bonus attack with your chosen weapon or unarmed strike if you have your shield equipped. Things along those lines.
5.find better ways to modify the action economy. Giving the Sorcerer more ways to get points is a bad idea, so is giving the Battle Master sub-class a per turn free use of their tricks. May be lean into what the Psi-Warrior Sub-class does and allow a single free use per short rest and if you want more, you have to spend dice or points.
6. This one is personal pet peeve. Make clear and player biased rules for Rogue tactics. May be get rid of STeady aim and replace it with a Sneak Attack Tactics skill. The RAW could read if a rogue successfully completes a stealth skill check against an active perception check, they get advantage on their next attack. this could work for melee or ranged based rogues. No arcane hiding rules or arguments about if a monster can turn their head to see a character or not. RAW, did you win your check? if so you get advantage and the use of your Sneak Attack damage. If you failed your check, better luck next time or try something different.
Mm. I'm a bit concerned too about the "numbers go up" direction, as well as the added complexity and feature interactions that may push certain abilities beyond what the original 5E framework was designed to handle. Number inflation does not make for a good game. (I really don't want to eventually see big, red 9999 numbers above a dragon's head.) I keep seeing arguments about "class x needs more damage to be competitive". Competitive against what? Whatever configuration is topping the charts at the moment? I think we can see how this would simply lead to an infinite inflation spiral.
It is my impression that 5E has been so successful, not only because of the high-profile streamed game shows, but primarily because it is so readily accessible. Easy to pick up, easy to play. But RPGs seem to follow some sort of Law of Progressive Granularity, where they grow ever more intricate and complex with advancing lifespan.
I agree with you on many points you make. How making races less attribute associated was a great move to open up more concepts and avoid locking players into certain races just because they wanted that specific bonus. I did however feel that it was perfectly reasonable to have attribute bonuses on backgrounds. A scholastic sage naturally develop their intellect by challenging themselves against the great philosophers within their books. A shipyard labourer would have had to toughen up to haul all those planks of wood all day.
Worth mentioning, however, is the point that our Yurei has so eloquently made in the past - the backgrounds are merely templates, to tickle the imagination. A noble can have any modifiers, not just INT and CHA. You're a Norse-analogue chieftain's daughter? Better be strong and tough to stand up to your warriors! So every background just come with a generic +2 and +1 to put wherever you want. As with skills, tool, and language.
Your idea of providing each class a set of generic bonus attribute points (I'm going to assume you didn't actually mean first class level, but instead first character level), wouldn't that simply be the same as increasing the standard point-buy by the same amount? And shift the standard array to match? What would be the upside of allocating attribute points in this manner?
Speaking of feats (because we totally were, where my train of thought were headed, anyway! Choo-choo!), I've always felt like the best designed type of feat is the one what allows a character to do something NEW, rather than do something they already could, only better. Example, Inspiring Leader lets you pep-talk your allies into greatness (New option! Good design!) or Sentinel let you prevent enemy movement (New option! Good design!). Then we have Tough, where you get more HP (Number go up. Bad design.) Or 2014 Great Weapon Master's "power attack" trait (Number go up. Bad design.)
Thankfully, the revised feats playtest from 2022 seem to have gone in the direction of having feats giving new options, which I wholly approve of. The Origins playtest with the new level 1 feats have mooostly adopted this stance, too, but there are a whole lot of "you get more x". I'm more willing to accept these, though, as they're basically background features (I'm so witty, you guys!)
Either way, here's hoping that whatever form the next D&D takes, will be a fun framework for future adventures :D
May be WoTC use this opportunity to make a true 5.5 edition instead of 5.01. I might be wrong but my fundamental understanding of 5th edition was that it was supposed to simplify the rules to make game play more fluid and put a focus on storytelling and participation. The action economy would limit the monsters and the characters so that feature creep would not cause absurd things like "BEWARE MY +100 ARTIFACT LEVEL SWORD with 300 spells to choose from every day that can be used at will".
So far all I see is an erosion of the action economy in all classes and feature creep. Feats are now being up powered, backgrounds are getting mechanical game important powers. The only change I actually like is that species are no longer being called races and they are fairly generic. In 5th edition Feats are supposed to be up to the DM to include or not. Now they are an essential feature.
My ideas are:
1. Keep species generic - this was a good idea.
2. Return Backgrounds to bonuses to money, equipment, flavor, and in game things like membership in various groups where goods and services can be obtained. An example: A noble could go to another nobles estate and find food, shelter, and the nobles household cleric for healing etc. Thieves could go to local guilds for similar things.
3. Separate IAS from Feats and instead of a background or species giving you your first ability score bonus, your class would do that. Every class at first level would give 4 points for the character to spend on any ability they want. (Equivalent to 2 IAS). IAS progression would normally follow.
4. If The DM agrees to allow feats, each feat should do one very cool thing. It should be good enough for someone to take the feat and it should add flavor to your character or allow them to go beyond class and sub-class limits but not be completely over powered. Some feats could be broken into several feats that could be later combined. Like Shield Mastery1 would alow you to shove an opponent 10 feet or knock them prone. Shield Mastery 2 would give you the dexterity save bonus. You could add a Shield Mastery 3 which would give you a bonus to your AC when you have your shield equipped, and finally a Shield Mastery 4 which would give you a bonus attack with your chosen weapon or unarmed strike if you have your shield equipped. Things along those lines.
5.find better ways to modify the action economy. Giving the Sorcerer more ways to get points is a bad idea, so is giving the Battle Master sub-class a per turn free use of their tricks. May be lean into what the Psi-Warrior Sub-class does and allow a single free use per short rest and if you want more, you have to spend dice or points.
6. This one is personal pet peeve. Make clear and player biased rules for Rogue tactics. May be get rid of STeady aim and replace it with a Sneak Attack Tactics skill. The RAW could read if a rogue successfully completes a stealth skill check against an active perception check, they get advantage on their next attack. this could work for melee or ranged based rogues. No arcane hiding rules or arguments about if a monster can turn their head to see a character or not. RAW, did you win your check? if so you get advantage and the use of your Sneak Attack damage. If you failed your check, better luck next time or try something different.
Mm. I'm a bit concerned too about the "numbers go up" direction, as well as the added complexity and feature interactions that may push certain abilities beyond what the original 5E framework was designed to handle. Number inflation does not make for a good game. (I really don't want to eventually see big, red 9999 numbers above a dragon's head.) I keep seeing arguments about "class x needs more damage to be competitive". Competitive against what? Whatever configuration is topping the charts at the moment? I think we can see how this would simply lead to an infinite inflation spiral.
It is my impression that 5E has been so successful, not only because of the high-profile streamed game shows, but primarily because it is so readily accessible. Easy to pick up, easy to play. But RPGs seem to follow some sort of Law of Progressive Granularity, where they grow ever more intricate and complex with advancing lifespan.
I agree with you on many points you make. How making races less attribute associated was a great move to open up more concepts and avoid locking players into certain races just because they wanted that specific bonus. I did however feel that it was perfectly reasonable to have attribute bonuses on backgrounds. A scholastic sage naturally develop their intellect by challenging themselves against the great philosophers within their books. A shipyard labourer would have had to toughen up to haul all those planks of wood all day.
Worth mentioning, however, is the point that our Yurei has so eloquently made in the past - the backgrounds are merely templates, to tickle the imagination. A noble can have any modifiers, not just INT and CHA. You're a Norse-analogue chieftain's daughter? Better be strong and tough to stand up to your warriors! So every background just come with a generic +2 and +1 to put wherever you want. As with skills, tool, and language.
Your idea of providing each class a set of generic bonus attribute points (I'm going to assume you didn't actually mean first class level, but instead first character level), wouldn't that simply be the same as increasing the standard point-buy by the same amount? And shift the standard array to match? What would be the upside of allocating attribute points in this manner?
Speaking of feats (because we totally were, where my train of thought were headed, anyway! Choo-choo!), I've always felt like the best designed type of feat is the one what allows a character to do something NEW, rather than do something they already could, only better. Example, Inspiring Leader lets you pep-talk your allies into greatness (New option! Good design!) or Sentinel let you prevent enemy movement (New option! Good design!). Then we have Tough, where you get more HP (Number go up. Bad design.) Or 2014 Great Weapon Master's "power attack" trait (Number go up. Bad design.)
Thankfully, the revised feats playtest from 2022 seem to have gone in the direction of having feats giving new options, which I wholly approve of. The Origins playtest with the new level 1 feats have mooostly adopted this stance, too, but there are a whole lot of "you get more x". I'm more willing to accept these, though, as they're basically background features (I'm so witty, you guys!)
Either way, here's hoping that whatever form the next D&D takes, will be a fun framework for future adventures :D
The numbers part is pretty accurate IMO. It's actually one of the things I dislike about DnD. The further you advance in tiers, the more it becomes a math simulator regarding balance. I personally like more unpredictability. I don't like low level DnD because of the very limited customization and features, so I personally prefer 6+ levels. But very quickly after those levels, the game becomes a bit too predictable. I would personally have more dramatic and surprising incapacitations and then miraculous revivals than slowly grinding down a huge amount of HP. But that's just a preference. Levels 5-7 offer the sweet for HP/damage IMO.
To me this mathematic approach makes DnD feel like a board game that wants to be a roleplaying game but is actually becoming more and more of a video game/simulator.
Currently HP in DnD 5e increases faster and scales higher than damage. Which leads to longer and slower combat as you progress. After level 10 with a 4 person party, you almost need an entire 3 hour session just for the boss fight. So I don't mind upping the damage, as long as HP doesn't follow. Even if it creates balance issues and unpredictability. Balance schmalance, LOL. It's a co-op game, who cares who's the strongest. :D
5e isn't designed for bigger numbers but the bounded accuracy/small number system is a bit of a miss imo. It places too much value on the d20 at all levels of play. A 20th level warlock lets say is trained in arcana, int may not be a dump stat but its not a primary so they have a +6 still max prof bonus without expertise they basically have a masters degree(got to get expertise for that sweet doctorate) in arcana. A level 1 hobbyist will school them on arcana fairly regularly., All because of the d20. Small modifiers works better when the die method is something like a 3d6. On a d20 its just too swingy. They wont be dropping either so we are kind of stuck with small numbers big variable die roll.
I'm laughing to myself because a lot of this is what I've been expressing, down to the need to revise the idea of a d20 skills tree because it's too narrow a range for bounded accuracy to work, as well as striking the balance between calculator combat and role play.
I'd like to see percentage dice return to the skills. We don't need more skills, but we do need a larger range with "fail but good job!" And "you pass, but..." ranges rather than pass/fail, and the proficiencies amongst classes to be..... more consequential, but with the right mechanics, something you can invest in granularly to gain better skill. (Kinda like previous editions... >.> )
I'm laughing to myself because a lot of this is what I've been expressing, down to the need to revise the idea of a d20 skills tree because it's too narrow a range for bounded accuracy to work, as well as striking the balance between calculator combat and role play.
I'd like to see percentage dice return to the skills. We don't need more skills, but we do need a larger range with "fail but good job!" And "you pass, but..." ranges rather than pass/fail, and the proficiencies amongst classes to be..... more consequential, but with the right mechanics, something you can invest in granularly to gain better skill. (Kinda like previous editions... >.> )
Oh, now you're speaking my language, you happy little halibut you! Well, mostly.
BUT!
I'm really into the idea of tiered levels of outcome on a check, especially out-of-combat ones. D&D basically has two modes: Open tests against DC for skills, and opposed extended rolls for combat. Because of that combat outcomes are a LOT more detailed than the skill check's success/fail outcome.
That's why I love RPGs with tiers of success: Critical Failure > Failure > Success with Consequence > Success > Critical Success. This is a bit hard to adapt to a d20 model without adding Math, which is something 5E made quite the effort to avoid by dropping most modifiers in favour of the dis/advantage system. Even something as basic as determining outcome in stages of 5 above/below DC is a hurdle that people with (borderline) dyscalculia would be excluded from. That'd be like writing the core rulebook in colours that not everyone could read. No-go.
So, what to do, what to do..? Maybe accept the two "modes" of play, and make efforts to apply them to the other situations? I actually liked the idea of the 4E skill challenges, having a series of checks determine final outcome. That'd allow for stages of progress and cases of mixed outcomes.
Maybe a quick combat model when entering a combat against "bystander opponents" is resolved with a single roll, instead of an entire fight scene would become conceivable, at the other end of the spectrum? (Bracing for Princess Bride quotes)
Would this model work within the current 5E framework and game style?
EDIT: Correcting many grammatical hiccups due to crossing the streams of consciousness mid-typing.
I'm laughing to myself because a lot of this is what I've been expressing, down to the need to revise the idea of a d20 skills tree because it's too narrow a range for bounded accuracy to work, as well as striking the balance between calculator combat and role play.
I'd like to see percentage dice return to the skills. We don't need more skills, but we do need a larger range with "fail but good job!" And "you pass, but..." ranges rather than pass/fail, and the proficiencies amongst classes to be..... more consequential, but with the right mechanics, something you can invest in granularly to gain better skill. (Kinda like previous editions... >.> )
It's funny how quickly it goes from completely unreliable skill checks (maybe up to +5) to "a few levels later you have advantage, expertise, ASI and increased profi bonus for: effectively never rolls below 20" :D I would like a complete skill overhaul where skills aren't linked so heavily to certain attributes and you have more ways to make skill checks more reliable without min-maxing. I think this is crucial if you want to make a more choice-driven and skill-based adventure like investigation/mysteries.
Then again I also think that DnD is best for DnD. There are other, far better systems for investigation and survival etc.
So maybe I should just stop complaining about things like this. Maybe Wizards should also stop listening to complaints like this and just focus on making the best possible system for DnD, which is pretty much a genre of its own at this point. Then maybe later Wizards could create a new popular system separate from DnD for even more moneyz!
I'm laughing to myself because a lot of this is what I've been expressing, down to the need to revise the idea of a d20 skills tree because it's too narrow a range for bounded accuracy to work, as well as striking the balance between calculator combat and role play.
I'd like to see percentage dice return to the skills. We don't need more skills, but we do need a larger range with "fail but good job!" And "you pass, but..." ranges rather than pass/fail, and the proficiencies amongst classes to be..... more consequential, but with the right mechanics, something you can invest in granularly to gain better skill. (Kinda like previous editions... >.> )
Oh, now you're speaking my language, you happy little halibut you! Well, mostly.
BUT!
I'm really into the idea of tiered levels of outcome on a check, especially out-of-combat ones. D&D basically has two modes: Open tests against DC for skills, and opposed extended rolls for combat. Because of that combat outcomes are a LOT more detailed than the skill check's success/fail outcome.
That's why I love RPGs with tiers of success: Critical Failure > Failure > Success with Consequence > Success > Critical Success. This is a bit hard to adapt to a d20 model without adding Math, which is something 5E made quite the effort to avoid by dropping most modifiers in favour of the dis/advantage system. Even something as basic as determining outcome in stages of 5 above/below DC is a hurdle that people with (borderline) dyscalculia would be excluded from. That'd be like writing the core rulebook in colours that not everyone could read. No-go.
So, what to do, what to do..? Maybe accept the two "modes" of play, and make efforts to apply them to the other situations? I actually liked the idea of the 4E skill challenges, having a series of checks determine final outcome. That'd allow for stages of progress and cases of mixed outcomes.
Maybe a quick combat model when entering a combat against "bystander opponents" is resolved with a single roll instead of an entire fight scene could is conceivable? (Bracing for Princess Bride quotes)
Would this model work within the current 5E framework and game style?
Oh it's quite inconceivable..
I'm thinking older editions than 4.
I think you may be a bit overly worried about dyscalculia. +5/-5 aren't any more difficult than calculating damage for hp. (I'm also one of those people that argues THAC0 wasn't THAT hard).
Plus with a larger range I can tell you that if the math is just to hard.... go fudge it. :P
Seriously. Having a wider range allows more for you to get an intuitive "feel" for how much of a success or failure you should give...
Which in and of itself isn't really that different than what is suggest with perception checks in the dmg (or at least how they used to tell you to..)
As much as numbers are my work, I'm a fish who loves running on intuition and feelings. :P
The conceptual problem with bounded accuracy is that there are two incompatible problems:
Being skilled should feel special.
Being stuck at "I shouldn't even try to roll because I have no chance" isn't fun.
That said, flattening the bonus/DC curves, which had something like a 30 point swing from level 1 to max level in both 3e and 4e, was probably a good idea, but they also had a core conceptual error:
In no edition did DCs scale with the level of the party. DCs scaled with the level of the challenge. Now, that does mean a level-appropriate challenge scales with the party level, but there's no difference between "the first level party has to deal with a DC 15 lock, the fifth level party has to deal with a DC 20" and "the first level party has to deal with two thugs, the fifth level party has to deal with two veterans".
and a core implementation error:
If you want to keep bonuses and DCs constrained, you need to hard limit bonus stacking. If you want it easier than the bonus types from 3e and 4e... just limit people to one.
The conceptual problem with bounded accuracy is that there are two incompatible problems:
Being skilled should feel special.
Being stuck at "I shouldn't even try to roll because I have no chance" isn't fun.
That said, flattening the bonus/DC curves, which had something like a 30 point swing from level 1 to max level in both 3e and 4e, was probably a good idea, but they also had a core conceptual error:
In no edition did DCs scale with the level of the party. DCs scaled with the level of the challenge. Now, that does mean a level-appropriate challenge scales with the party level, but there's no difference between "the first level party has to deal with a DC 15 lock, the fifth level party has to deal with a DC 20" and "the first level party has to deal with two thugs, the fifth level party has to deal with two veterans".
and a core implementation error:
If you want to keep bonuses and DCs constrained, you need to hard limit bonus stacking. If you want it easier than the bonus types from 3e and 4e... just limit people to one.
I feel like that was the big underlying point of 5E's restrictive bonus model - that it would also come with a comparatively restrictive DC range. This allowed low-level threats to maintain a presence even outside of its regular challenge rating. A wolf in 5E is still an encounter presence since it can hit a character that hasn't focused on defences, even beyond level 10. Especially if there's a pack of them. Yes, its damage might not threaten the character, and its hit points makes it easy to deal with, but you can't just ignore it. Back in 3.x a wolf ceased to matter once you were beyond level 5. It couldn't hit you, and you couldn't miss hitting it.
The "bounded accuracy and difficulty" (as applied to all checks), would in theory allow a non-specialised character to remain helpful in tackling challenges like the locked door, since even without a huge bonus they had a reasonable chance of hitting that DC 15 anyway. The specialised ones would then feel awesome when they would seldom fail, as they shouldn't do, since they invested into this aspect!
The idea that higher level HAS to come with a higher DC makes me go "why?", and also remind me of the Single Big Monster dilemma, where 5E had to quadruple hit points and issue legendary resistances to make a critter survive the first round against a party. Instead of just raising DC higher and higher, and making Mrs Monster tougher and tougher... just... add more stuff? Instead of ONE door with DC 25; set it at 15 and add a trap, a false door, and a puzzle. Instead of ONE mega-dragon, have a big one and many whelps for the party to handle before she breathes deeply again. Spread the love, and make it a banquet instead of a punch-bowl. (pun!)
... wait, where was I going with this? I'm sure I had a plan, at some point. ... Eh :)
The conceptual problem with bounded accuracy is that there are two incompatible problems:
Being skilled should feel special.
Being stuck at "I shouldn't even try to roll because I have no chance" isn't fun.
That said, flattening the bonus/DC curves, which had something like a 30 point swing from level 1 to max level in both 3e and 4e, was probably a good idea, but they also had a core conceptual error:
In no edition did DCs scale with the level of the party. DCs scaled with the level of the challenge. Now, that does mean a level-appropriate challenge scales with the party level, but there's no difference between "the first level party has to deal with a DC 15 lock, the fifth level party has to deal with a DC 20" and "the first level party has to deal with two thugs, the fifth level party has to deal with two veterans".
and a core implementation error:
If you want to keep bonuses and DCs constrained, you need to hard limit bonus stacking. If you want it easier than the bonus types from 3e and 4e... just limit people to one.
honestly, I don't think we need all of that. I think ASI's out for points to invest in skills as you wish is just fine, (especially if you switch to a range of 100 than 20) with a common theme on skill checks being getting a critical success a small permanent plus or a critical failure a small permanent negative to your checks going forward.
I think you are just describing the reason we loved so much Rolemaster, percentile system with skill development using points with modifiers and tiers of success on any check. A game that makes you to play as full RPG instead following a predetermined “narrative” on rails directing you irremediably to the next encounter. The game which we learnt to play (well really MERP but after 1 adventure we moved to the big brother) so probably that influenced us about how to play. Maybe modern games push you to play thinking only on all that crap about “builds” (I hate that word for a RPG, really, is not a Diablo), maths, optimizing and all that and playing following the “narrative” method.
5e isn't designed for bigger numbers but the bounded accuracy/small number system is a bit of a miss imo. It places too much value on the d20 at all levels of play. A 20th level warlock lets say is trained in arcana, int may not be a dump stat but its not a primary so they have a +6 still max prof bonus without expertise they basically have a masters degree(got to get expertise for that sweet doctorate) in arcana. A level 1 hobbyist will school them on arcana fairly regularly., All because of the d20. Small modifiers works better when the die method is something like a 3d6. On a d20 its just too swingy. They wont be dropping either so we are kind of stuck with small numbers big variable die roll.
This is very much a choice of game philosophy. We've just started playing Pathfinder 2e in one of my groups b/c the DM prefers it to 5e, and there you add your level to skills you're proficient in. What this means in game play though, is that whenever there is a "thing" to be done, only the PC that is proficient in that "thing" will even attempt it. E.g. in our last session there was a magical trap we needed to disarm, the Bard had a +9 to attempt that while the Barbarian and the Fighter had a +0 and a -1 respectively. So rather than stand there taking damage each round doing nothing while the Bard attempted to accumulate the 4 successes needed to disarm it, the Fighter and Barbarian just continued on into the dungeon and left the bard there to deal with the trap. Eventually the Fighter & Barbarian ran into some enemies and shouted back to the bard to join them. Now, then did that series of events make the players feel good? The Bard did eventually get to go finish disarming the trap and sure they got to be special and the only one who could do it, but they missed out on exploring the dungeon, and two rounds of the combat encounter.
Whether you prefer for unskilled characters to feel useless and bored so that skilled characters can feel special, or prefer the whole party participating in every encounter but skilled characters to feel like their skill investment doesn't matter much. Is very much a personal preference.
I agree with you on many points you make. How making races less attribute associated was a great move to open up more concepts and avoid locking players into certain races just because they wanted that specific bonus. I did however feel that it was perfectly reasonable to have attribute bonuses on backgrounds. A scholastic sage naturally develop their intellect by challenging themselves against the great philosophers within their books. A shipyard labourer would have had to toughen up to haul all those planks of wood all day.
Worth mentioning, however, is the point that our Yurei has so eloquently made in the past - the backgrounds are merely templates, to tickle the imagination. A noble can have any modifiers, not just INT and CHA. You're a Norse-analogue chieftain's daughter? Better be strong and tough to stand up to your warriors! So every background just come with a generic +2 and +1 to put wherever you want. As with skills, tool, and language.
Your idea of providing each class a set of generic bonus attribute points (I'm going to assume you didn't actually mean first class level, but instead first character level), wouldn't that simply be the same as increasing the standard point-buy by the same amount? And shift the standard array to match? What would be the upside of allocating attribute points in this manner?
Basically my rational for having the baseline ability score improvements at the class level is because all of the rest of the IAS are there. Why not simplify the rules and just add two IAS at first level instead of putting them somewhere else? There is an IAS at 4th level, why not 2 at 1st level? Improvements to your baseline ability scores could be a reflection of how you train and in what disciplines you train in. Not how you grew up, not what organizations you associate with, or not what your species happens to be in the game.
The original rational for giving some ability score benefits at the species level was that all members of the species were basically the same. All Elves were dexterous. All Dwarfs were super healthy. Once you get rid of that rational it makes more sense to say My Elf Wizard is only average in dexterity but is super intelligent and getting smarter because they spend all of their free time reading arcane and difficult books. My Halfling Fighter is getting stronger every six months because they keep challenging themselves in the weight room and on the combat training floor.
I think it would be wrong to say All Sages are Wise and All Charlatans are charismatic. Some have suggested that the ability score improvement would be generic for all backgrounds but why???? You can't be a better Sage! You will never be a better Charlatan. You can be a better wizard or a better rogue.
Second Clarification: Background should not have feats or spells. This is an example of power creep. Backgrounds should be what they originally intended to be, equipment, background, in-game role playing advantages, languages, character back story, appropriate tools, and a skill or even two. Three if you are feeling generous.
An Example: I loved reading the Dragonlance books as a teen. The new Dragonlance backgrounds are an egregious example of power creep. The new 5.5 edition could reverse that trend if they wanted to do that.
So they cannot wait 4 successes for the specialist to finish? 4 successes!! Then when disarming a bomb all the police around are running crazy in all directions because they have to do something. What kind of players are now? Let each one does its job.
So they cannot wait 4 successes for the specialist to finish? 4 successes!! Then when disarming a bomb all the police around are running crazy in all directions because they have to do something. What kind of players are now? Let each one does its job.
I think you misunderstand...
Clerics might still be the best at perception and some part ofthe skills might do that. But let's say you make a critical success and roll a 100 on the check, well, congrats, you move the skill up a tick as well.
Or, your thieves are great at stealing and picking locks, and over time, they just get more steal-ier and lock pick-ier.
Larger ranges allow for that breathing room.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'll have you know that Gen could take its sweet time negotiating for those magics during a cross-class spell fetch venture!
But, yeah, it's fun to just re-skin existing options with some classic flair, yeah? :)
Now, how to best do the Kirath..?
I use a house rule allowing to use the training (don't remember the manual) for leveling up (which I don't use for that purpose) to make as if you leveled up, so you could change a known spell, your fighting style, etc. paying with time and money related to the cost of practicing. Anything you can change at level up, so with this new you could change too one Metamagic and etc.
May be WoTC use this opportunity to make a true 5.5 edition instead of 5.01. I might be wrong but my fundamental understanding of 5th edition was that it was supposed to simplify the rules to make game play more fluid and put a focus on storytelling and participation. The action economy would limit the monsters and the characters so that feature creep would not cause absurd things like "BEWARE MY +100 ARTIFACT LEVEL SWORD with 300 spells to choose from every day that can be used at will".
So far all I see is an erosion of the action economy in all classes and feature creep. Feats are now being up powered, backgrounds are getting mechanical game important powers. The only change I actually like is that species are no longer being called races and they are fairly generic. In 5th edition Feats are supposed to be up to the DM to include or not. Now they are an essential feature.
My ideas are:
1. Keep species generic - this was a good idea.
2. Return Backgrounds to bonuses to money, equipment, flavor, and in game things like membership in various groups where goods and services can be obtained. An example: A noble could go to another nobles estate and find food, shelter, and the nobles household cleric for healing etc. Thieves could go to local guilds for similar things.
3. Separate IAS from Feats and instead of a background or species giving you your first ability score bonus, your class would do that. Every class at first level would give 4 points for the character to spend on any ability they want. (Equivalent to 2 IAS). IAS progression would normally follow.
4. If The DM agrees to allow feats, each feat should do one very cool thing. It should be good enough for someone to take the feat and it should add flavor to your character or allow them to go beyond class and sub-class limits but not be completely over powered. Some feats could be broken into several feats that could be later combined. Like Shield Mastery1 would alow you to shove an opponent 10 feet or knock them prone. Shield Mastery 2 would give you the dexterity save bonus. You could add a Shield Mastery 3 which would give you a bonus to your AC when you have your shield equipped, and finally a Shield Mastery 4 which would give you a bonus attack with your chosen weapon or unarmed strike if you have your shield equipped. Things along those lines.
5.find better ways to modify the action economy. Giving the Sorcerer more ways to get points is a bad idea, so is giving the Battle Master sub-class a per turn free use of their tricks. May be lean into what the Psi-Warrior Sub-class does and allow a single free use per short rest and if you want more, you have to spend dice or points.
6. This one is personal pet peeve. Make clear and player biased rules for Rogue tactics. May be get rid of STeady aim and replace it with a Sneak Attack Tactics skill. The RAW could read if a rogue successfully completes a stealth skill check against an active perception check, they get advantage on their next attack. this could work for melee or ranged based rogues. No arcane hiding rules or arguments about if a monster can turn their head to see a character or not. RAW, did you win your check? if so you get advantage and the use of your Sneak Attack damage. If you failed your check, better luck next time or try something different.
I'd give feats, and get rid of ASI's completely (except the +1/+2 you get at the start).
The feats are generally far less powerful than ASI's and most are more like "quality of life" benefits, including the spell dips as such that really are about letting you snag a quick spell or two without the class dip.
You can also tweak feats a LOT easier than ASI's, which gives a +2 to a stat, which mean about 6-ish skills get a +1 boost.
The PB needs to be reined in a bit too...
Mm. I'm a bit concerned too about the "numbers go up" direction, as well as the added complexity and feature interactions that may push certain abilities beyond what the original 5E framework was designed to handle. Number inflation does not make for a good game. (I really don't want to eventually see big, red 9999 numbers above a dragon's head.) I keep seeing arguments about "class x needs more damage to be competitive". Competitive against what? Whatever configuration is topping the charts at the moment? I think we can see how this would simply lead to an infinite inflation spiral.
It is my impression that 5E has been so successful, not only because of the high-profile streamed game shows, but primarily because it is so readily accessible. Easy to pick up, easy to play. But RPGs seem to follow some sort of Law of Progressive Granularity, where they grow ever more intricate and complex with advancing lifespan.
I agree with you on many points you make. How making races less attribute associated was a great move to open up more concepts and avoid locking players into certain races just because they wanted that specific bonus. I did however feel that it was perfectly reasonable to have attribute bonuses on backgrounds. A scholastic sage naturally develop their intellect by challenging themselves against the great philosophers within their books. A shipyard labourer would have had to toughen up to haul all those planks of wood all day.
Worth mentioning, however, is the point that our Yurei has so eloquently made in the past - the backgrounds are merely templates, to tickle the imagination. A noble can have any modifiers, not just INT and CHA. You're a Norse-analogue chieftain's daughter? Better be strong and tough to stand up to your warriors! So every background just come with a generic +2 and +1 to put wherever you want. As with skills, tool, and language.
Your idea of providing each class a set of generic bonus attribute points (I'm going to assume you didn't actually mean first class level, but instead first character level), wouldn't that simply be the same as increasing the standard point-buy by the same amount? And shift the standard array to match? What would be the upside of allocating attribute points in this manner?
Speaking of feats (because we totally were, where my train of thought were headed, anyway! Choo-choo!), I've always felt like the best designed type of feat is the one what allows a character to do something NEW, rather than do something they already could, only better. Example, Inspiring Leader lets you pep-talk your allies into greatness (New option! Good design!) or Sentinel let you prevent enemy movement (New option! Good design!). Then we have Tough, where you get more HP (Number go up. Bad design.) Or 2014 Great Weapon Master's "power attack" trait (Number go up. Bad design.)
Thankfully, the revised feats playtest from 2022 seem to have gone in the direction of having feats giving new options, which I wholly approve of. The Origins playtest with the new level 1 feats have mooostly adopted this stance, too, but there are a whole lot of "you get more x". I'm more willing to accept these, though, as they're basically background features (I'm so witty, you guys!)
Either way, here's hoping that whatever form the next D&D takes, will be a fun framework for future adventures :D
The numbers part is pretty accurate IMO. It's actually one of the things I dislike about DnD. The further you advance in tiers, the more it becomes a math simulator regarding balance. I personally like more unpredictability. I don't like low level DnD because of the very limited customization and features, so I personally prefer 6+ levels. But very quickly after those levels, the game becomes a bit too predictable. I would personally have more dramatic and surprising incapacitations and then miraculous revivals than slowly grinding down a huge amount of HP. But that's just a preference. Levels 5-7 offer the sweet for HP/damage IMO.
To me this mathematic approach makes DnD feel like a board game that wants to be a roleplaying game but is actually becoming more and more of a video game/simulator.
Currently HP in DnD 5e increases faster and scales higher than damage. Which leads to longer and slower combat as you progress. After level 10 with a 4 person party, you almost need an entire 3 hour session just for the boss fight. So I don't mind upping the damage, as long as HP doesn't follow. Even if it creates balance issues and unpredictability. Balance schmalance, LOL. It's a co-op game, who cares who's the strongest. :D
Finland GMT/UTC +2
5e isn't designed for bigger numbers but the bounded accuracy/small number system is a bit of a miss imo. It places too much value on the d20 at all levels of play. A 20th level warlock lets say is trained in arcana, int may not be a dump stat but its not a primary so they have a +6 still max prof bonus without expertise they basically have a masters degree(got to get expertise for that sweet doctorate) in arcana. A level 1 hobbyist will school them on arcana fairly regularly., All because of the d20. Small modifiers works better when the die method is something like a 3d6. On a d20 its just too swingy. They wont be dropping either so we are kind of stuck with small numbers big variable die roll.
I'm laughing to myself because a lot of this is what I've been expressing, down to the need to revise the idea of a d20 skills tree because it's too narrow a range for bounded accuracy to work, as well as striking the balance between calculator combat and role play.
I'd like to see percentage dice return to the skills. We don't need more skills, but we do need a larger range with "fail but good job!" And "you pass, but..." ranges rather than pass/fail, and the proficiencies amongst classes to be..... more consequential, but with the right mechanics, something you can invest in granularly to gain better skill. (Kinda like previous editions... >.> )
Oh, now you're speaking my language, you happy little halibut you! Well, mostly.
BUT!
I'm really into the idea of tiered levels of outcome on a check, especially out-of-combat ones. D&D basically has two modes: Open tests against DC for skills, and opposed extended rolls for combat. Because of that combat outcomes are a LOT more detailed than the skill check's success/fail outcome.
That's why I love RPGs with tiers of success: Critical Failure > Failure > Success with Consequence > Success > Critical Success. This is a bit hard to adapt to a d20 model without adding Math, which is something 5E made quite the effort to avoid by dropping most modifiers in favour of the dis/advantage system. Even something as basic as determining outcome in stages of 5 above/below DC is a hurdle that people with (borderline) dyscalculia would be excluded from. That'd be like writing the core rulebook in colours that not everyone could read. No-go.
So, what to do, what to do..? Maybe accept the two "modes" of play, and make efforts to apply them to the other situations? I actually liked the idea of the 4E skill challenges, having a series of checks determine final outcome. That'd allow for stages of progress and cases of mixed outcomes.
Maybe a quick combat model when entering a combat against "bystander opponents" is resolved with a single roll, instead of an entire fight scene would become conceivable, at the other end of the spectrum? (Bracing for Princess Bride quotes)
Would this model work within the current 5E framework and game style?
EDIT: Correcting many grammatical hiccups due to crossing the streams of consciousness mid-typing.
It's funny how quickly it goes from completely unreliable skill checks (maybe up to +5) to "a few levels later you have advantage, expertise, ASI and increased profi bonus for: effectively never rolls below 20" :D I would like a complete skill overhaul where skills aren't linked so heavily to certain attributes and you have more ways to make skill checks more reliable without min-maxing. I think this is crucial if you want to make a more choice-driven and skill-based adventure like investigation/mysteries.
Then again I also think that DnD is best for DnD. There are other, far better systems for investigation and survival etc.
So maybe I should just stop complaining about things like this. Maybe Wizards should also stop listening to complaints like this and just focus on making the best possible system for DnD, which is pretty much a genre of its own at this point. Then maybe later Wizards could create a new popular system separate from DnD for even more moneyz!
Finland GMT/UTC +2
Oh it's quite inconceivable..
I'm thinking older editions than 4.
I think you may be a bit overly worried about dyscalculia. +5/-5 aren't any more difficult than calculating damage for hp. (I'm also one of those people that argues THAC0 wasn't THAT hard).
Plus with a larger range I can tell you that if the math is just to hard.... go fudge it. :P
Seriously. Having a wider range allows more for you to get an intuitive "feel" for how much of a success or failure you should give...
Which in and of itself isn't really that different than what is suggest with perception checks in the dmg (or at least how they used to tell you to..)
As much as numbers are my work, I'm a fish who loves running on intuition and feelings. :P
Well, you're also one fish of a school of 12, Bob, so you've got the numbers to back you up! (ba-dum-pish)
The conceptual problem with bounded accuracy is that there are two incompatible problems:
That said, flattening the bonus/DC curves, which had something like a 30 point swing from level 1 to max level in both 3e and 4e, was probably a good idea, but they also had a core conceptual error:
and a core implementation error:
I feel like that was the big underlying point of 5E's restrictive bonus model - that it would also come with a comparatively restrictive DC range. This allowed low-level threats to maintain a presence even outside of its regular challenge rating. A wolf in 5E is still an encounter presence since it can hit a character that hasn't focused on defences, even beyond level 10. Especially if there's a pack of them. Yes, its damage might not threaten the character, and its hit points makes it easy to deal with, but you can't just ignore it. Back in 3.x a wolf ceased to matter once you were beyond level 5. It couldn't hit you, and you couldn't miss hitting it.
The "bounded accuracy and difficulty" (as applied to all checks), would in theory allow a non-specialised character to remain helpful in tackling challenges like the locked door, since even without a huge bonus they had a reasonable chance of hitting that DC 15 anyway. The specialised ones would then feel awesome when they would seldom fail, as they shouldn't do, since they invested into this aspect!
The idea that higher level HAS to come with a higher DC makes me go "why?", and also remind me of the Single Big Monster dilemma, where 5E had to quadruple hit points and issue legendary resistances to make a critter survive the first round against a party. Instead of just raising DC higher and higher, and making Mrs Monster tougher and tougher... just... add more stuff? Instead of ONE door with DC 25; set it at 15 and add a trap, a false door, and a puzzle. Instead of ONE mega-dragon, have a big one and many whelps for the party to handle before she breathes deeply again. Spread the love, and make it a banquet instead of a punch-bowl. (pun!)
... wait, where was I going with this? I'm sure I had a plan, at some point. ... Eh :)
I'm afraid that one... just flew over my head. P
honestly, I don't think we need all of that. I think ASI's out for points to invest in skills as you wish is just fine, (especially if you switch to a range of 100 than 20) with a common theme on skill checks being getting a critical success a small permanent plus or a critical failure a small permanent negative to your checks going forward.
I think you are just describing the reason we loved so much Rolemaster, percentile system with skill development using points with modifiers and tiers of success on any check. A game that makes you to play as full RPG instead following a predetermined “narrative” on rails directing you irremediably to the next encounter. The game which we learnt to play (well really MERP but after 1 adventure we moved to the big brother) so probably that influenced us about how to play. Maybe modern games push you to play thinking only on all that crap about “builds” (I hate that word for a RPG, really, is not a Diablo), maths, optimizing and all that and playing following the “narrative” method.
This is very much a choice of game philosophy. We've just started playing Pathfinder 2e in one of my groups b/c the DM prefers it to 5e, and there you add your level to skills you're proficient in. What this means in game play though, is that whenever there is a "thing" to be done, only the PC that is proficient in that "thing" will even attempt it. E.g. in our last session there was a magical trap we needed to disarm, the Bard had a +9 to attempt that while the Barbarian and the Fighter had a +0 and a -1 respectively. So rather than stand there taking damage each round doing nothing while the Bard attempted to accumulate the 4 successes needed to disarm it, the Fighter and Barbarian just continued on into the dungeon and left the bard there to deal with the trap. Eventually the Fighter & Barbarian ran into some enemies and shouted back to the bard to join them. Now, then did that series of events make the players feel good? The Bard did eventually get to go finish disarming the trap and sure they got to be special and the only one who could do it, but they missed out on exploring the dungeon, and two rounds of the combat encounter.
Whether you prefer for unskilled characters to feel useless and bored so that skilled characters can feel special, or prefer the whole party participating in every encounter but skilled characters to feel like their skill investment doesn't matter much. Is very much a personal preference.
Basically my rational for having the baseline ability score improvements at the class level is because all of the rest of the IAS are there. Why not simplify the rules and just add two IAS at first level instead of putting them somewhere else? There is an IAS at 4th level, why not 2 at 1st level? Improvements to your baseline ability scores could be a reflection of how you train and in what disciplines you train in. Not how you grew up, not what organizations you associate with, or not what your species happens to be in the game.
The original rational for giving some ability score benefits at the species level was that all members of the species were basically the same. All Elves were dexterous. All Dwarfs were super healthy. Once you get rid of that rational it makes more sense to say My Elf Wizard is only average in dexterity but is super intelligent and getting smarter because they spend all of their free time reading arcane and difficult books. My Halfling Fighter is getting stronger every six months because they keep challenging themselves in the weight room and on the combat training floor.
I think it would be wrong to say All Sages are Wise and All Charlatans are charismatic. Some have suggested that the ability score improvement would be generic for all backgrounds but why???? You can't be a better Sage! You will never be a better Charlatan. You can be a better wizard or a better rogue.
Second Clarification: Background should not have feats or spells. This is an example of power creep. Backgrounds should be what they originally intended to be, equipment, background, in-game role playing advantages, languages, character back story, appropriate tools, and a skill or even two. Three if you are feeling generous.
An Example: I loved reading the Dragonlance books as a teen. The new Dragonlance backgrounds are an egregious example of power creep. The new 5.5 edition could reverse that trend if they wanted to do that.
So they cannot wait 4 successes for the specialist to finish? 4 successes!! Then when disarming a bomb all the police around are running crazy in all directions because they have to do something. What kind of players are now? Let each one does its job.
I think you misunderstand...
Clerics might still be the best at perception and some part ofthe skills might do that. But let's say you make a critical success and roll a 100 on the check, well, congrats, you move the skill up a tick as well.
Or, your thieves are great at stealing and picking locks, and over time, they just get more steal-ier and lock pick-ier.
Larger ranges allow for that breathing room.