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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7540731" data-attributes="member: 6919838">"There is truth to that, though I see it as less swingy in that extreme results happen less frequently. "Well let's look at 4F vs d20 5e.In d20 5e you only roll if there is a 5% or more chance of success AND  a 5% or more chance of failure - a 1 can fail and a 20 can succeed.In 4F that's only covering the range of possible from "needs a 2- or better to succeed" and "needs a 3+ or worse to fail". Those are each in the %of around 5%ish each, maybe more like 3% to 7% but close enough. So the so-called less frequent extremes of 4F  are actually auto-successes and auto-fails  in 5e for most check types (skills and saves) and only 5% for attack rolls.Everything in-between depends on the DC set by the GM.If one wants to use degrees of success for d20, the DMG provides one example that uses iirc 5 point swings, leaving the d20 roll capable of producing a four-five degree swing - fail, 1S, 2S at 6, 3s at 11, 4s at 16.One can use an escalating scale if one wants the higher ends less likely.4F produces a quality range of what - 4- to 4+? A bigger set of adjustments from the dice.What usually gets folks misperception of 3 and 4 die pools is the idea that if they take the same DC values then the mid-range clusters make moderate outcomes more likely. But that comes down to the same thing as the GM in d20 saying "these locks are eastpy, not moderate" and assigning the right DC.F course, maybe the FATE system is so precision a system with so precise descriptions that it needs to differentiate between a 1 in 1296 chance of failure and a no-roll success... but 5e does not really strive for that level of precision and is comfortable with "if it's not gonna fail at least 5 %, no roll needed"</blockquote>

Verification