Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Justin Bacon" data-source="post: 3104543" data-attributes="member: 3795">You're the first person to mention realism in this entire thread, so I'm not really sure who you're arguing with here.The actual argument is one of character skill: A character with exceptional skills should not have those skills automatically nerfed by another character with significantly inferior skills. If I'm as skilled at trying to hit you as you are at dodging me, then the result should be a 50-50 chance. If I'm 20 times more skilled at hitting you than you are at dodging me, it becoes even more absurd for you to be able to avoid me every time.But this is not just a matter of fairness, either. It's also a matter of robust design: Probably the most significant design flaw remaining in D&D today is the problem of absolute abilities. (Particularly when you've got one absolute ability which a designer decided to trump with a different absolute ability. And then you've got a trump for the trump and it's just a messy power escalation.)This is something Sean K. Reynolds has talked about with a great deal of authority: <a href="http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/variantfewerabsolutes1.html" target="_blank">http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/variantfewerabsolutes1.html</a>It should be noted that most of the variants being proposed here are not attempting to completely nerf the Tumbler-focused character. In a straight up BAB vs. Tumble comparison, the guy who's focused on tumbling as much as a fighter focuses on attacking is going to have a consistent +3 advantage. If it's really their primary schtick, then they'll have burned a feat or two on it (given them a +6 or +8 advanage). Those are not insignificant advantages.</blockquote>

Verification