Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jer" data-source="post: 7583780" data-attributes="member: 19857">Well, no.&nbsp; Not in the way the rules work at the table in D&amp;D anyway.The skill system is binary - you either do it or you don't.&nbsp; An encounter that depends on skill checks often depends on the character making a single skill check - so if you get a bad roll you've outright failed.&nbsp; Trying to pick a pocket or negotiate with a noble or whatever and roll a 1?&nbsp; Well, that's an outright failure and now you have to deal with the consequences.Individual attacks are also binary - you either hit or you don't.&nbsp; But a combat encounter is a series of rolls where if you get a bad roll it's going to be okay because you'll be making a lot of rolls and over the entire encounter it'll usually average out.&nbsp; The variation doesn't feel as bad in combat because rolling low on an attack doesn't mean that you've failed, it just means that you missed this round and you'll get another turn soon to make up for it.&nbsp; Saves are similar - as long as the &quot;save or die&quot; effects are removed from the game failing one bad save roll just means that you are going to have to make another check.The swinginess of d20 combat is a feature - I find D&amp;D combat to be more fun than, say, GURPS combat because you get that thrill of rolling a d20 and that despair of rolling a 1 and both of them show up on average 5% of the time.&nbsp; But IMO that same swinginess makes skill encounters somewhat obnoxious because so many skill checks turn into the narrative equivalent of &quot;save or die&quot; checks.&nbsp; (I've &quot;solved&quot; this problem by making more use of the skill challenge mechanic - which turns skill encounters into multiple die roll encounters to succeed/fail and so has better math - and by using &quot;succeed with consequences&quot; as an outcome for not hitting the DC on skill checks instead of just a binary succeed/fail outcome.&nbsp; Works well for my tables, but everyone's mileage varies on stuff like that.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jer, post: 7583780, member: 19857"] Well, no. Not in the way the rules work at the table in D&D anyway. The skill system is binary - you either do it or you don't. An encounter that depends on skill checks often depends on the character making a single skill check - so if you get a bad roll you've outright failed. Trying to pick a pocket or negotiate with a noble or whatever and roll a 1? Well, that's an outright failure and now you have to deal with the consequences. Individual attacks are also binary - you either hit or you don't. But a combat encounter is a series of rolls where if you get a bad roll it's going to be okay because you'll be making a lot of rolls and over the entire encounter it'll usually average out. The variation doesn't feel as bad in combat because rolling low on an attack doesn't mean that you've failed, it just means that you missed this round and you'll get another turn soon to make up for it. Saves are similar - as long as the "save or die" effects are removed from the game failing one bad save roll just means that you are going to have to make another check. The swinginess of d20 combat is a feature - I find D&D combat to be more fun than, say, GURPS combat because you get that thrill of rolling a d20 and that despair of rolling a 1 and both of them show up on average 5% of the time. But IMO that same swinginess makes skill encounters somewhat obnoxious because so many skill checks turn into the narrative equivalent of "save or die" checks. (I've "solved" this problem by making more use of the skill challenge mechanic - which turns skill encounters into multiple die roll encounters to succeed/fail and so has better math - and by using "succeed with consequences" as an outcome for not hitting the DC on skill checks instead of just a binary succeed/fail outcome. Works well for my tables, but everyone's mileage varies on stuff like that.) [/QUOTE]

Verification