Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5636654" data-attributes="member: 22424">Problem is, even that's not all that true. In 1st Ed, thief skills were d%, roll low, surprise was d6 roll high. In 2nd Ed, NWPs were d20, roll low, initiative was d10, roll low. In both cases, resurrection survival was d%, roll low. I forget &quot;open doors&quot;, but it was something else again.The &quot;roll a D20, higher numbers are better, compare to a target number, roll different dice for the result,&quot; does appear in all editions, but it wasn't a &quot;universal mechanic&quot; until 3e. And even 3e didn't use just that - for rolls that had no modifiers, it used d% instead.Wouldn't that just be rejected out of hand by the people currently playing OD&amp;D, BD&amp;D, 1st Ed, 2nd Ed or 3.x? They've already got their ruleset. Why would they want some new WotC edition, even if it does work out as being functionally identical?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 5636654, member: 22424"] Problem is, even that's not all that true. In 1st Ed, thief skills were d%, roll low, surprise was d6 roll high. In 2nd Ed, NWPs were d20, roll low, initiative was d10, roll low. In both cases, resurrection survival was d%, roll low. I forget "open doors", but it was something else again. The "roll a D20, higher numbers are better, compare to a target number, roll different dice for the result," does appear in all editions, but it wasn't a "universal mechanic" until 3e. And even 3e didn't use [i]just[/i] that - for rolls that had no modifiers, it used d% instead. Wouldn't that just be rejected out of hand by the people currently playing OD&D, BD&D, 1st Ed, 2nd Ed or 3.x? They've already got their ruleset. Why would they want some new WotC edition, even if it does work out as being functionally identical? [/QUOTE]

Verification