Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tardigrade" data-source="post: 7111129" data-attributes="member: 6874311">While that was a slightly tongue in cheek answer (hence the smiley), honestly I'd say 'balance' is a pretty accurate description of exactly what this does; you gain something, you lose something. You might think it's not a fair trade, but that's a personal opinion; when I'm playing I'd actively prefer my character's abilities to be more reliable, even if it reduced the upper bounds of my ability.As it is, when there's a genuinely serious consequence of failure the groups I'm in will generally (given a choice) look for another option, even if the task is one that a character should theoretically be excellent at. Since (I'd say) combat is one of the most reliable resolution systems in the game, this means we end up using it as a solution more often than I'd like. A highly skilled character screwing up a basic roll happens at least once per session in most of my groups and is actually the thing that most regularly strikes me as silly.And obviously, any DM with a reasonable understanding of probability can adjust DCs based on how likely they think success should be - that's what we do anyway, right? If you were going to change the system to 2d10 or 3d6 you could also produce some quick reference tables indicating how likely success is for a given level of expertise at a given DC.I'd say the main problem with adopting this change would be that Reliable Talent would become a lot less valuable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tardigrade, post: 7111129, member: 6874311"] While that was a slightly tongue in cheek answer (hence the smiley), honestly I'd say 'balance' is a pretty accurate description of exactly what this does; you gain something, you lose something. You might think it's not a fair trade, but that's a personal opinion; when I'm playing I'd actively prefer my character's abilities to be more reliable, even if it reduced the upper bounds of my ability. As it is, when there's a genuinely serious consequence of failure the groups I'm in will generally (given a choice) look for another option, even if the task is one that a character should theoretically be excellent at. Since (I'd say) combat is one of the most reliable resolution systems in the game, this means we end up using it as a solution more often than I'd like. A highly skilled character screwing up a basic roll happens at least once per session in most of my groups and is actually the thing that most regularly strikes me as silly. And obviously, any DM with a reasonable understanding of probability can adjust DCs based on how likely they think success should be - that's what we do anyway, right? If you were going to change the system to 2d10 or 3d6 you could also produce some quick reference tables indicating how likely success is for a given level of expertise at a given DC. I'd say the main problem with adopting this change would be that Reliable Talent would become a lot less valuable. [/QUOTE]

Verification