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
*Dungeons & Dragons
good things, bad things and things you would change about 5e
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="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7016125" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>Oh, your numbers seemed just fine, you were just describing less 'swing' (variance), not more. A system with a resolution on a curve like Traveler (2d6) or Hero (3d6) gives you the on-average expected results more consistently. It also tails off more slowly. Exactly. So if you're a just a little better, you still have a noticeable advantage, if your significantly better it's all but assured. But, those returns diminish rapidly. On 3d6, if you need an 11, that's prettymuch 50/50 (the average being 10.5). A mere +3 takes you into 90% territory, but those last 10% require a +4. Systems like that lend themselves to low bonuses because of the diminishing returns on higher bonuses, while linear systems, like d20, lend themselves to high bonuses, because every +1 counts (and, relative to the chance of failure, counts for more as you get really good).</p><p></p><p>I'm afraid I have a very strong opinion on that. Fewer skills are generally better. More importantly, a fixed skill list is better than an open-ended one. The way I see it, adding a skill 'creates incompetence.' That is, before you add the skill, everyone's good at what they're good at out of the universe of possibly things to be good at, and bad at the rest. Add a skill, and they're /all/ bad at one more thing, so, relatively less competent, overall. If you split the new skill off from an existing one, you don't technically hurt anyone who didn't have it, but those who did, similarly, become less competent.</p><p></p><p>Ideally, a game should have few, relatively broad skills, that evenly divide amongst themselves the universe of tasks required of PCs in the genre in question. 'Evenly' of course, might be nuanced and weighted, since some tasks come up more often, and some are higher-impact or more spotlight-grabbing.</p><p></p><p>But, ultimately, if you hit the right balance between PCs being able to acquire and master skills, and tasks being required of them, it doesn't matter much (mainly a matter of bookkeeping/complexity) of you list is large or small. As long as it doesn't get larger in play.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7016125, member: 996"] Oh, your numbers seemed just fine, you were just describing less 'swing' (variance), not more. A system with a resolution on a curve like Traveler (2d6) or Hero (3d6) gives you the on-average expected results more consistently. It also tails off more slowly. Exactly. So if you're a just a little better, you still have a noticeable advantage, if your significantly better it's all but assured. But, those returns diminish rapidly. On 3d6, if you need an 11, that's prettymuch 50/50 (the average being 10.5). A mere +3 takes you into 90% territory, but those last 10% require a +4. Systems like that lend themselves to low bonuses because of the diminishing returns on higher bonuses, while linear systems, like d20, lend themselves to high bonuses, because every +1 counts (and, relative to the chance of failure, counts for more as you get really good). I'm afraid I have a very strong opinion on that. Fewer skills are generally better. More importantly, a fixed skill list is better than an open-ended one. The way I see it, adding a skill 'creates incompetence.' That is, before you add the skill, everyone's good at what they're good at out of the universe of possibly things to be good at, and bad at the rest. Add a skill, and they're /all/ bad at one more thing, so, relatively less competent, overall. If you split the new skill off from an existing one, you don't technically hurt anyone who didn't have it, but those who did, similarly, become less competent. Ideally, a game should have few, relatively broad skills, that evenly divide amongst themselves the universe of tasks required of PCs in the genre in question. 'Evenly' of course, might be nuanced and weighted, since some tasks come up more often, and some are higher-impact or more spotlight-grabbing. But, ultimately, if you hit the right balance between PCs being able to acquire and master skills, and tasks being required of them, it doesn't matter much (mainly a matter of bookkeeping/complexity) of you list is large or small. As long as it doesn't get larger in play. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
good things, bad things and things you would change about 5e
Top