Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 8794414" data-attributes="member: 6799660">Thank you. It's not a great week for me (work-wise) to try to keep up on all the One D&amp;D threads along with other lots-of-text threads like this one, so you likely saved me from having to abandon the endeavor. I guess it's all personal preference, but I also don't find adding 3d6 at the table that burdensome, and would dislike needing a binder of updated modifiers and target numbers. Regardless, we're back to it not making that much difference -- there are two ways to alter the game which would have similar effects (cue gasps).Interesting. If FomerlyHemlock is who I think they are, I'm sure they've done their homework. Personally, I'm not overly convinced that simply changing around chances of success is all that interesting until the difference is big enough to routinely change behavior&nbsp; -- ex: PCs will not leap across fatal-distance-drop gaps unless the chance of failure is very low, so changing fail chances from 7% to 3% is actually interesting. Chance of ties--now that is definitely a big deal (and yes, is tangential to OP) ! If you start messing around with the chance of ties, suddenly what happens on a tie gets a lot more important (does one or the other side win? Does it re-test? If so, does it delay a round? etc.).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Willie the Duck, post: 8794414, member: 6799660"] Thank you. It's not a great week for me (work-wise) to try to keep up on all the One D&D threads along with other lots-of-text threads like this one, so you likely saved me from having to abandon the endeavor. I guess it's all personal preference, but I also don't find adding 3d6 at the table that burdensome, and would dislike needing a binder of updated modifiers and target numbers. Regardless, we're back to it not making that much difference -- there are two ways to alter the game which would have similar effects (cue gasps). Interesting. If FomerlyHemlock is who I think they are, I'm sure they've done their homework. Personally, I'm not overly convinced that simply changing around chances of success is all that interesting until the difference is big enough to routinely change behavior -- ex: PCs will not leap across fatal-distance-drop gaps unless the chance of failure is very low, so changing fail chances from 7% to 3% is actually interesting. Chance of ties--now that is definitely a big deal (and yes, is tangential to OP) ! If you start messing around with the chance of ties, suddenly what happens on a tie gets a lot more important (does one or the other side win? Does it re-test? If so, does it delay a round? etc.). [/QUOTE]

Verification