Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Libramarian" data-source="post: 6614496" data-attributes="member: 6688858">Because smaller numbers are easier to deal with. The smallest dice that gives the desired granularity should be used. To me it's definitely easier to check wandering monsters with 1 on a d6 rather than 18-20 on a d20 like in 5e. I can't think of any reason to use the same dice for everything. It seems to be an aesthetic thing.If your character somehow secured a level in the gameworld I would allow them to use it. I just don't mind that the system doesn't provide a built-in way for humans to do that.IME games that try to do everything don't do anything well. I like games that have some focus. This is just a rule of thumb on my part though. It's definitely not a priori true to me that a game should be able to handle anything a character could try to do. Limitations can produce better, tighter gameplay. I'm the sort of person who doesn't necessarily mind if you can't jump around in an FPS videogame, as you often can't anymore (to look at another example). D&D is relatively quite a very free, open-ended game regardless of whether there are a few class-specific abilities or not.I suspect it's often used improperly.I agree that would be undesirable, but that never comes up in my 1e or classic games. That seems to be more of a theoretical concern. I mean in the example with climbing across the wall, I don't think if I were "really there" that I would want to try climbing it. The result was absurd and not realistic at all. I think when the resolution system is too easy and predictable and samey (ability check for everything) you just do the first thing you think of, which can feel sort of fun and freeing sometimes, but to me is not ideal for "serious" gaming.If I were to run 3.x or Pathfinder I would actually try to use all of the rules and modifiers for the skills.</blockquote>

Verification