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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blackbrrd" data-source="post: 6171607" data-attributes="member: 63962">I think weight lifting is a really bad example. Mostly because there is quite low variation in how much you can lift, so it's more of a "take 20" situation than a roll situation. In which case the str 14 guy beats the str 10 guy 100% of the time, just as you expect.Now, if you want a better comparison, go with Tennis. If a player has a 55% chance of winning a single ball, he has something like a 99% chance to win a match. Modifiers don't have to be huge to make a huge difference.I think that if you have +0 to +5 from stats and +0 to +5 from (skill) training you get a very big range of skillfulness from the total untalented noob to the talented expert. I think that with any bigger difference will result in situations like you have in 3e where characters that aren't trained and haven't got the stats for it have absolutely no chance. (Typically on spot checks). For me, it kinda breaks immersion. In 3e you typically have 3-4 characters that can't see a monster before it's 10' away (+0 bonus at level 20) and 1-2 characters that can see it without rolling (+25 bonus at level 20). I would rather have a party of 5 characters that had: +1, +3, +4, +7 and +10 in spot. Sure, it's one guy that is unobservant, but it's not the 75% of the party the whole time and there is actually a point in taking themes like jack-of-all-trades that give +2 bonus to all skills (that you don't have training in).If you want to simulate stuff like weight lifting with rolls, divide it into several rolls, one for letting the weights go down, one for timing it, one for pushing up and one for stabilizing at the end of a push. That way you get the expected result for characters that are supposed to be noobs and experts.</blockquote>

Verification