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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 6112752" data-attributes="member: 5143">The reason I feel that way is exactly BECAUSE I want the dice to matter.  I want the entire reason to pick up a dice that you have no idea what the result will be.I found too often in previous editions(especially 3e), rolling the dice was a formality because your bonuses let you succeed automatically or fail without a natural 20.  Mainly because bonuses were bigger than the dice you were rolling on.If we assume that Dice+stat+class bonuses+magic=your total....then I'd like the dice to be a significant contribution to the total.  Since the average on a d20 is 10.5, I'd like the total of all the other bonuses to never exceed 15.  Anything more than that and the average on the dice drops below a 40 percent contribution.  I like a 60/40 split between skill and luck.That being the case, 5 points from just your stat modifier means that a 3rd of your skill comes entirely from natural talent.  At 1st level your still counts for almost nothing.  If you aren't strong, you are a BAD fighter.  I'd like something closer to a 90/10 or 80/20 split between learned skill and natural talent...with maybe closer to 50/50 at first level.  That would mean stats giving you no higher bonus than 3.  Preferably 2.With a max bonus of 2 from stats, a 8th level fighter with a 10 strength would have made up for the disadvantage his strength gave him and can fight comparatively with someone who is extremely strong and 1st level.  Even that seems like it takes WAY too much skill to equal a stat.Ideally, I'd like to see no accuracy given by stats at all.  But even if that was the case, I'd like to see skill make up for a lack of talent.  If skill adds an average of 3 or 4 to a roll, then stats shouldn't give you more than that.</blockquote>

Verification