Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mattdm" data-source="post: 4258932" data-attributes="member: 15382">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?</blockquote>