Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 2892711" data-attributes="member: 1465">The problem is that, while you are not counting on good luck, you should not expect to utterly eliminate luck by being careful. It could be argued that you might expect to eliminate bad luck but not good luck!Think of Indy with the bag of sand: perhaps it was very difficult to get it right (DC 25) even if he's good (+10). How is it possible that with all his carefulness he cannot succeed (Take10 -> result 20), but he can succeed when in a rush (if he rolls 15+)???-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------WARNING: House RuleI don't know how, but it just came to me RIGHT NOW, I've never thought about this before, but it seems pretty a good idea to me!  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> When taking 10 (normal conditions apply), instead of simply assuming you rolled 10, you roll a 1d10+10.This would mean that when you are not in a rush, comfortable and concentrating etc... you roll 1d10+10 which means minimum 11 and maximum 20. When in a rush you roll the normal d20.What do you think? This way there is no advantage in being reckless. No problem in taking10 and then finding out you shoud have rolled d20.</blockquote>