mattdm
First Post
So, one of my player (rather convincingly, I thought) argues that the random aspect of skill checks, particularly in the case of opposed checks, overshadows the trained/ability portion by more than it should. In combat, you're making lots of attacks, and if a large percentage of them miss, big deal.
If you're sneaking along somewhere that requires three hide and three move silently checks, odds are pretty good that you'll fail relatively frequently — even if you far outclass your opponents.
I'm considering, therefore, allowing 3d6 rolls in place of d20 rolls for skill checks. I know that's heretical in a game based on d20 checks, but the overall average number is the same with a much smaller standard deviation. It's not as consistent as taking 10, but not as random as d20. Of course, the minimum roll is significantly increased from 1 to 3, but then, the top is similarly chopped.
What do you think?
If you're sneaking along somewhere that requires three hide and three move silently checks, odds are pretty good that you'll fail relatively frequently — even if you far outclass your opponents.
I'm considering, therefore, allowing 3d6 rolls in place of d20 rolls for skill checks. I know that's heretical in a game based on d20 checks, but the overall average number is the same with a much smaller standard deviation. It's not as consistent as taking 10, but not as random as d20. Of course, the minimum roll is significantly increased from 1 to 3, but then, the top is similarly chopped.
What do you think?