Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ingolf" data-source="post: 4250206" data-attributes="member: 1783">Because otherwise he wouldn't have started the thread?I agree that, at first glance, it looks like a potential issue. But we don't know the full details yet, and once we do I expect the "problem" will evaporate, because like Hong I do not think it was overlooked.For one thing, there are more modifiers to attack rolls than just stat bonus and half level. Weapons give proficiency bonuses, Dwarves can take "Dwarven Weapon Training" (and I am sure we will see other, comparable feats as well) Wizards can use +2 wands, etc. But suppose that a skill vs defense roll is still much more likely to succeed than an attack. It may well be the case that the game is designed such that you are expected to succeed in such a contest more often that not. Take the 4 success/2 failure skill challenge as an example - if your chance of success is 50% on any given skill roll, you are going to almost certainly fail that skill challenge every time. In fact you will fail it a quarter of the time in the first two rolls. Of course, the possibility of failure has to be present or the challenge is meaningless, but I would expect that, more often than not, you'd want to design it in such a way that the PCs would anticipate success rather than failure.</blockquote>