Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 4283983" data-attributes="member: 5889">I certainly started a firestorm with my other post<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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />The OP's post is valid that I didn't talk about utility powers in the other thread. Let me show you some numbers now to once again validate my point.Let's use stick with the scenario I used before. Let's take that average party, but now the rogue will get the reroll his bluff check utility power. Also, let's give him a +2 skill item, afterall he's the skill guy!Let's look at a complexity 5 challenge. Normally the rogue would only get his power once in this encounter, but to make the math easy and see just how strong that utility power could be theoretically I'm going to give him the benefit on every roll.Normally that complexity 5 would have a 7% win rate. Now? It has a 18.42%.I should caution people that I'm fudging the rolls on this one for convenience, I am averaging the rogue's skill roll into the party average. Because the way equations work, my answer is actually slightly higher than the actual result, probably by about 2%-4%.How about a complexity 1? Normally we have a 18.75% win rate for this one. With our new skilled rogue, its 28.39%.So the utility powers do help, there's no question...but they certainly don't fix the system. However, keep in mind that if they did, that would be the most horrible thing in the world!!! Basically the system would say that your party is doomed to failure unless you take concerted effort to bump your skills and get utility powers that help them. The system must be able to handle both parties with and without a lot of skill assistance.However, I do thank the OP for his comments. In designing my skill system I wasn't taking a hard look at some of the higher level utility powers, and I will consider them more in the future.</blockquote>

Verification