Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8847780" data-attributes="member: 6987520">Notice I said &quot;approach&quot; perfection, not reach it. But depending on the task, the degree of failure should simply be the minimal roll. In the case of 1 in 20, 5% is ridiculous IMO for something that is routine and very easy. At least with 3d6, the minimal roll is just about 0.5%, which is better from my point of view.As I said, you like flat-power curves than I'm glad d20 is the roll for you. I don't, obviously. <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=":)" />Oh, I agree, their word choice is silly. If something is &quot;very easy&quot; why should it even be in doubt unless there are other circumstances.I would drop them all by 5, but all of them. You can keep &quot;very easy&quot; at 0, so failure is only possible if you have a low ability score or some other penalty. Then, a PC with +5 (standard for your &quot;good thing&quot; at level 1 even) would succeed on a 20. But a 5% chance for &quot;nearly impossible&quot; is too high for me. Using 3d6 would still be impossible unless you allowed a nat 18 to work, but you could also use 2d10, so &quot;nearly impossible&quot; would be 1% for that PC.Well, you certainly can, as I said, make a minimal roll always fail and a maximum always succeed. But the 5% of the d20 is just too high for me, so 3d6 (or even 2d10) is better and my personal preference.Another option IIRC someone mentioned upthread which I have tried in the past but also really liked is 3d20 take middle. This makes a minimum or maximum roll just 1 in 138 (roughly), very rare certainly but quite possible! It also continues to use d20's and makes it so you don't have to do any math.Using it produces these numbers:[ATTACH=full]268665[/ATTACH]And of course, you can always replace those 0's and 100's with 0.725% and 99.275% respectively.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 8847780, member: 6987520"] Notice I said "approach" perfection, not reach it. But depending on the task, the degree of failure should simply be the minimal roll. In the case of 1 in 20, 5% is ridiculous IMO for something that is routine and very easy. At least with 3d6, the minimal roll is just about 0.5%, which is better from my point of view. As I said, you like flat-power curves than I'm glad d20 is the roll for you. I don't, obviously. :) Oh, I agree, their word choice is silly. If something is "very easy" why should it even be in doubt unless there are other circumstances. I would drop them all by 5, but [I]all[/I] of them. You can keep "very easy" at 0, so failure is only possible if you have a low ability score or some other penalty. Then, a PC with +5 (standard for your "good thing" at level 1 even) would succeed on a 20. But a 5% chance for "nearly impossible" is too high for me. Using 3d6 would still be impossible unless you allowed a nat 18 to work, but you could also use 2d10, so "nearly impossible" would be 1% for that PC. Well, you certainly can, as I said, make a minimal roll always fail and a maximum always succeed. But the 5% of the d20 is just too high for me, so 3d6 (or even 2d10) is better and my personal preference. Another option IIRC someone mentioned upthread which I have tried in the past but also really liked is 3d20 take middle. This makes a minimum or maximum roll just 1 in 138 (roughly), very rare certainly but quite possible! It also continues to use d20's and makes it so you don't have to do any math. Using it produces these numbers: [ATTACH type="full" width="507px"]268665[/ATTACH] And of course, you can always replace those 0's and 100's with 0.725% and 99.275% respectively. [/QUOTE]

Verification