Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8847688" data-attributes="member: 29398">...nothing.&nbsp; IMO there should always be a chance of failure if failure is possible, even as there should always be a chance of success if success is possible.&nbsp; That the d20 isn't always granular enough is another issue entirely....In most instances I'd see that as a feature rather than a bug - it's a nice flat power curve where the great can still fail and the lowly can still succeed.Well, not ridiculous if one looks a bit sideways at their word choice.&quot;Easy&quot; should be the type of thing that doesn't need a roll at all unless you're truly hopeless, thus should replace &quot;Very Easy&quot; above as the DC 5 descriptor.&nbsp; &quot;Medium&quot; should drop to the DC 10 point, with something like &quot;Tricky&quot; as the DC 15 descriptor and the rest left as is.Put another way, what they're describing as &quot;easy&quot; often isn't.&nbsp; Further, unless the intent is that the game become something of a supers affair at very high level, there always has to be a chance for even high-level characters to fail.The way I'd have it, and do have it for my 1e Thieving skills, is that the chance of success would never fully reach 100% - a roll of '00' would always have something funky happen even if your chance of success was a base 113%, which can happen.I'd also want to smooth out the other end a bit, and turn some of those flat zeroes into a small but not-zero number.&nbsp; In fact, I'd want to smooth out the whole thing because when using a bell-curve (unless you assign uneven DCs e.g. DC 13 or DC 8) there's just too big a jump between one step and the next in the step that crosses 50% in that 3d6 table.&nbsp; Percentile dice for the win! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8847688, member: 29398"] ...nothing. IMO there should always be a chance of failure if failure is possible, even as there should always be a chance of success if success is possible. That the d20 isn't always granular enough is another issue entirely.... In most instances I'd see that as a feature rather than a bug - it's a nice flat power curve where the great can still fail and the lowly can still succeed. Well, not ridiculous if one looks a bit sideways at their word choice. "Easy" should be the type of thing that doesn't need a roll at all unless you're truly hopeless, thus should replace "Very Easy" above as the DC 5 descriptor. "Medium" should drop to the DC 10 point, with something like "Tricky" as the DC 15 descriptor and the rest left as is. Put another way, what they're describing as "easy" often isn't. Further, unless the intent is that the game become something of a supers affair at very high level, there always has to be a chance for even high-level characters to fail. The way I'd have it, and do have it for my 1e Thieving skills, is that the chance of success would never fully reach 100% - a roll of '00' would always have something funky happen even if your chance of success was a base 113%, which can happen. I'd also want to smooth out the other end a bit, and turn some of those flat zeroes into a small but not-zero number. In fact, I'd want to smooth out the whole thing because when using a bell-curve (unless you assign uneven DCs e.g. DC 13 or DC 8) there's just too big a jump between one step and the next in the step that crosses 50% in that 3d6 table. Percentile dice for the win! :) [/QUOTE]

Verification