Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6625366" data-attributes="member: 42582">This relates to something that someone (maybe  [MENTION=6787650]emdw45[/MENTION]?) posted upthread: if every PC is guaranteed to have a decent primary stat, that goes some way towards evening out mechanical effectiveness.A player who trades off primary stats for secondary stats is making a deliberate choice for breadth rather than depth. That's a completely reasonable decision, but I don't think it correlates to roll disparities where (for instance) the good roller has depth and breadth, while the poor roller has less of both.Better than that.If the typical success range is 12 in 20 (ie 9+ on d20 - with +2 prof and +2 stat we're positing a 13 AC/DC), and the +2 increases it to 14 in 20 (ie 7+ on d20), then the increase in effectiveness is plus one-sixthIf we're looking at damage rolls, then there's also the possibility of an increase in damage rolls, say from an average of 6.5 per hit to 8.5 per hit, which is 17/13. Combined with 7/6, that's 119/78 or about one-third more effective (against some 1 HD creatures the bonus damage will be overkill, but the increased damage floor of 5 rather than 3 hp damage guarantees more one-shot kills).If one character has an 18 and two 16s, and another has (say) a 17 and two 14s, I think that difference will be noticeable in play. The stronger character will be rolling with a systematic +1 bonus. The system doesn't regard a +1 sword or ring as negligible, nor a +1 increase in proficiency. Even a 10% increase if effectiveness will make itself felt over the course of play, I think.I think a character tree set-up would absolutely change this, yes. Likewise an assumption of high turnover in PCs, where your "regression to the mean" becomes a factor.In that sort of game, there is no assumption that a particular determinate PC will be the player's main vehicle for having an impact on the fiction over the course of the game.</blockquote>

Verification