Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 6880973" data-attributes="member: 32740">My very first reaction is that it's seriously unnecessary complication - unless there's more than binary results based on the roll.&nbsp; In other words, if you normally need to roll... a 13 to hit and if you roll 12 or less you don't hit that means 8 out of 20 results will succeed and 12 will fail to hit.&nbsp; All well and good; easy to work with, easy to understand.&nbsp; If you take that range of 8 successes and put it in the middle of the possible d20 rolls - say, 1-6 misses, 7-14 hits, 15 to 20 misses - then you're looking at a MUCH more complicated system.&nbsp; How would bonuses apply to that range?&nbsp; Would some adjust the roll up and some adjust the minimum of the RANGE downward?&nbsp; What in the world would that actually GET you mechanics-wise?&nbsp; Even if you're introducing a sliding scale of successful results based on where your attack roll actually falls in the range for success it's just got to be easier to work with the numbers if you keep success at one end of a linear scale and failure at the other.As noted upthread there's a POSSIBILITY that some odd scheme like that might work (or make sense at all...) but it most certainly isn't a shift in mechanics that would be useful in and of itself without a LOT more mechanical reasoning behind it.&nbsp; It would be even whackier for the chances for success to be separated in multiple groups across the 20 normal die possibilities.&nbsp; What would be the GAIN?&nbsp; Without some additional idea actually driving the change the change doesn't make a bit of sense.That's my initial reaction.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Man in the Funny Hat, post: 6880973, member: 32740"] My very first reaction is that it's seriously unnecessary complication - unless there's more than binary results based on the roll. In other words, if you normally need to roll... a 13 to hit and if you roll 12 or less you don't hit that means 8 out of 20 results will succeed and 12 will fail to hit. All well and good; easy to work with, easy to understand. If you take that range of 8 successes and put it in the middle of the possible d20 rolls - say, 1-6 misses, 7-14 hits, 15 to 20 misses - then you're looking at a MUCH more complicated system. How would bonuses apply to that range? Would some adjust the roll up and some adjust the minimum of the RANGE downward? What in the world would that actually GET you mechanics-wise? Even if you're introducing a sliding scale of successful results based on where your attack roll actually falls in the range for success it's just got to be easier to work with the numbers if you keep success at one end of a linear scale and failure at the other. As noted upthread there's a POSSIBILITY that some odd scheme like that might work (or make sense at all...) but it most certainly isn't a shift in mechanics that would be useful in and of itself without a LOT more mechanical reasoning behind it. It would be even whackier for the chances for success to be separated in multiple groups across the 20 normal die possibilities. What would be the GAIN? Without some additional idea actually driving the change the change doesn't make a bit of sense. That's my initial reaction. [/QUOTE]

Verification