Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8124177" data-attributes="member: 16814">You can't extend odds the way you did.  You've figured the odds for a 4 roll trial, you can't just use that as a multiple for a larger trial set.  You have to consider the larger trial independently.    If you consider an adventuring day as 10 combat rounds, that's 40 attacks, plus 8 more for two action surges.  If you then expect that a level twenty fighter will go on, say, 6 adventuring days before the campaign wraps up, that's 288 attacks.  This gives a chance of mishap of 76.4%, and a chance of disaster of 13.4%.  This is not trivial -- it means that there's a reasonable chance for a rather boring sword and board fighter to do something truly incompetent.  You're focusing on the fact that it doesn't happen every or even most rounds, but it does happen, and when it does, it's going to result in the GM narrating the PC as being incompetent to a huge degree.  And, quite often, it will result in the GM narrating the PC being incompetent to a lesser degree with the high chance of at least 1 mishap.And, this will go alongside the PC missing normally, and the enemy doing bad things to the PC, and the player making a poor choice and suffering the consequence.  There's not a lack of failure for a 20th level PC, but you're adding a high chance of incompetence to the mix (mishap chance is pretty good, here).  Again, if you like this kind of farce, that's great -- it will definitely generate humorous moments of bumbling if that's what you're after.  I'm not sure I understand why you'd limit this as you have if that's a desirable goal, but, hey, I quite often don't understand the reasons you come at your houserules.  You seem to quite often contradict your stated design goals.</blockquote>

Verification