Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4068939" data-attributes="member: 4937">Regardless of how the game scales, a +2 bonus is still just 1/10th the size of the range of the fortune mechanic.&nbsp; It's the difference between having a +10 and +12 bonus.&nbsp; Most of the time, the +2 bonus doesn't matter.&nbsp; It's not 'huge'.&nbsp; It's in fact, easily overcome.&nbsp; For example, if you have a spare feat to throw into 'Lightning Reflexes'.Errr... +6 is not nearly the same as &quot;any monster that attacked the party's reflex score would automatically fail versus the rogue.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; That's the difference between failing like 15% of the time and failing 45% of the time.&nbsp;&nbsp; The problem I remember at high levels in D&amp;D was that DC's scaled up so fast, that the only way to have a reasonable chance of success was to focus heavily on what you were good at.&nbsp; This resulted in differences of like +15, and that did mean that for anything that the advantaged character had a chance of failing on, the disadvantaged character had almost no chance of success.Compare to the SW:SE like skill system, where the difference between trained and untrained is +5 and the difference between untrained and skill focus is +10.&nbsp;&nbsp; If a +2 bonus is 'HUGE', wouldn't it be enough to have the difference between trained and untrained to be +2, and have skill focus grant a further +2?&nbsp; Wouldn't 'Dodge' be a really great deal?&nbsp; After all, isn't half of a 'huge' bonus still a pretty powerful advantage?&nbsp; I'm perfectly willing to quibble over the optimal size of a non-static bonus, but a +2 bonus is not 'HUGE'.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4068939, member: 4937"] Regardless of how the game scales, a +2 bonus is still just 1/10th the size of the range of the fortune mechanic. It's the difference between having a +10 and +12 bonus. Most of the time, the +2 bonus doesn't matter. It's not 'huge'. It's in fact, easily overcome. For example, if you have a spare feat to throw into 'Lightning Reflexes'. Errr... +6 is not nearly the same as "any monster that attacked the party's reflex score would automatically fail versus the rogue." That's the difference between failing like 15% of the time and failing 45% of the time. The problem I remember at high levels in D&D was that DC's scaled up so fast, that the only way to have a reasonable chance of success was to focus heavily on what you were good at. This resulted in differences of like +15, and that did mean that for anything that the advantaged character had a chance of failing on, the disadvantaged character had almost no chance of success. Compare to the SW:SE like skill system, where the difference between trained and untrained is +5 and the difference between untrained and skill focus is +10. If a +2 bonus is 'HUGE', wouldn't it be enough to have the difference between trained and untrained to be +2, and have skill focus grant a further +2? Wouldn't 'Dodge' be a really great deal? After all, isn't half of a 'huge' bonus still a pretty powerful advantage? I'm perfectly willing to quibble over the optimal size of a non-static bonus, but a +2 bonus is not 'HUGE'. [/QUOTE]

Verification