Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9806899" data-attributes="member: 29398">Agreed, that's too flat.That said, and this is where lack of granularity rears its ugly head, I prefer there always be a tiny chance of success or failure no matter what.  Here, that rube should have a 1% or even just 0.1% chance of bluffing Asmodeus - but the system as written doesn't allow that, it's either 5% or zero.  Flip side, no matter how good you are at something there's no such thing as perfection, reflected as a chance of mechanical failure again smaller than the non-granular d20 will allow.Bell curves are better when they have long tails.Completely agree.  It's the same issue as 3e had with the d20 - trying way too hard to shoehorn everything into a unified mechanic rather than using bespoke mechanics in situations where they just work better.This I don't mind so much.  The opposite is 3e, where a given creature would only be a viable opponent for a window of about 2 character levels, before which the PCs wouldn't have a chance against it and after which the PCs wouldn't even work up a sweat.I'd rather that "viable opponent" window be considerably wider, which requires some combination of a) flattening the power curve and b) making combats swingier so as to increase the chance of upsets (either way).</blockquote>