Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Minigiant" data-source="post: 5847756" data-attributes="member: 63508">My issue is not that the chance is identical, it is that the chance of the talented, the skilled, and the untrained are practically identical. Then making the chances not match the fluff.Over many threads here and over places, I've seen many people suggest that an untrained has a +0 and the trained at a little +2; granting a mere 10% increase of chances.Part of this is because people think Zero when they think untrained. But when when these same people are asked what trained is and you offer a +5 they go &quot;TOO HIGH!&quot; and opt for the +1 or +2 option.Then you ask for the DC they come up with high values of 15 and up. And we get druids who cant build themselves a shelter to wait out a rainstorm or a fighter with a ~60% chance of missing the orc.&nbsp; And that's why I hate low level. You can't do jack reliably unless you powergame because all the bonuses are +0 and +1 but the DCs are much higher.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Minigiant, post: 5847756, member: 63508"] My issue is not that the chance is identical, it is that the chance of the talented, the skilled, and the untrained are practically identical. Then making the chances not match the fluff. Over many threads here and over places, I've seen many people suggest that an untrained has a +0 and the trained at a little +2; granting a mere 10% increase of chances. Part of this is because people think Zero when they think untrained. But when when these same people are asked what trained is and you offer a +5 they go "TOO HIGH!" and opt for the +1 or +2 option. Then you ask for the DC they come up with high values of 15 and up. And we get druids who cant build themselves a shelter to wait out a rainstorm or a fighter with a ~60% chance of missing the orc. And that's why I hate low level. You can't do jack reliably unless you powergame because all the bonuses are +0 and +1 but the DCs are much higher. [/QUOTE]

Verification