Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Complete Disagreement With Mike on Monsters (see post #205)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 3725019" data-attributes="member: 710"><p>Is it really optimizing? It might be from a purely number crunching point of view, but what does this optimization really mean in game? Outside of the encounters with the NPC, most things are entirely up to the DM and the adventure plot. I doubt that there are any adventures whose outcome or direction are based on the "off-screen" roll of a NPC (which was only decided one way because of the extra 5 skill points). During the encounter, only very few skills are ever needed, you don't take 10 or 20 on these skills, and roll so seldom that most of the outcome is based on the general competency (not precise skill modifier) and the die result. So in essence, the optimization was for little effect.</p><p></p><p>If there are options, they should be meaningful. A +2 bonus to a specific skill is not meaningful. The decision whether my NPC is at all good at a skill, or if he can power attack, cast a specific spell, that's what is meaningful. It affects his personality, if affects his role in the adventure, it affects its abilities in combat. </p><p></p><p>It might be a bit different for a PC. Mostly because a PC actually uses a skill fairly often, has a lot of chance to take 10 or 20, and there are no "Off-Screen" rolls for a PC. A PC is always on screen. He might actually care about all the bonuses he can get, because he will have a considerable effect on the character performance. </p><p>But on the other hand, does he really need to? If the system does give him only, say 4 general competence levels* for a skill (based on his level), is that so bad? Sure, it might take out the fun of the optimizing (provided that it's easy to advance these 4 "general competence levels"), but would gameplay be hurt by it? Note also that this means that while the character has only "4" options for a individual skill, this also means he doesn't have to spend more than 4 of his total option points (measured in # of feat, skill ranks, class or race options) "spendable" for this specific skill. He can spend the rest to get other options. Which reduces the risk of a character being only good at one thing and in the cases where this one thing isn't applicable, he will be less enjoyable to play.</p><p></p><p>*)[Spoiler]In the Starwars Saga edition, there are basically 4 options to select from: Untrained, Trained, Skill Focus and Trained, Reroll Ability with skill.[/Spoiler]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mustrum_Ridcully, post: 3725019, member: 710"] Is it really optimizing? It might be from a purely number crunching point of view, but what does this optimization really mean in game? Outside of the encounters with the NPC, most things are entirely up to the DM and the adventure plot. I doubt that there are any adventures whose outcome or direction are based on the "off-screen" roll of a NPC (which was only decided one way because of the extra 5 skill points). During the encounter, only very few skills are ever needed, you don't take 10 or 20 on these skills, and roll so seldom that most of the outcome is based on the general competency (not precise skill modifier) and the die result. So in essence, the optimization was for little effect. If there are options, they should be meaningful. A +2 bonus to a specific skill is not meaningful. The decision whether my NPC is at all good at a skill, or if he can power attack, cast a specific spell, that's what is meaningful. It affects his personality, if affects his role in the adventure, it affects its abilities in combat. It might be a bit different for a PC. Mostly because a PC actually uses a skill fairly often, has a lot of chance to take 10 or 20, and there are no "Off-Screen" rolls for a PC. A PC is always on screen. He might actually care about all the bonuses he can get, because he will have a considerable effect on the character performance. But on the other hand, does he really need to? If the system does give him only, say 4 general competence levels* for a skill (based on his level), is that so bad? Sure, it might take out the fun of the optimizing (provided that it's easy to advance these 4 "general competence levels"), but would gameplay be hurt by it? Note also that this means that while the character has only "4" options for a individual skill, this also means he doesn't have to spend more than 4 of his total option points (measured in # of feat, skill ranks, class or race options) "spendable" for this specific skill. He can spend the rest to get other options. Which reduces the risk of a character being only good at one thing and in the cases where this one thing isn't applicable, he will be less enjoyable to play. *)[Spoiler]In the Starwars Saga edition, there are basically 4 options to select from: Untrained, Trained, Skill Focus and Trained, Reroll Ability with skill.[/Spoiler] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Complete Disagreement With Mike on Monsters (see post #205)
Top