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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5830722" data-attributes="member: 2067">I was taking a broader view than the individual attack rolls: the success of the combat itself. The chance of success for the wizard in a combat where the wizard employs magic missile and the enemy is a "generic" mid-hp, mid-damage monster, is very, very low. The wizard in this scenario has a much lower chance to succeed at the combat than a fighter would. I don't disagree, but I think it's a little narrow to categorically write off the 25% chance of success. There are designs that can make that relevant.This would be my recommendation -- the wizard is always (barring certain character options) going to have a smaller chance to win in a straight combat than a fighter. The fighter (barring certain character options) is always going to have a smaller chance to persuade an NPC than a cleric. The cleric (barring certain character options) is always going to have a smaller chance to find traps than the thief. The thief (barring certain character options) is always going to have a smaller chance to win a fight than a fighter. To relate it to 4e, it's the spread between having training in a skill that you also have a +5 ability bonus to and a relevant background for (+12 @ level one), and not having training in a skill that you stick your 8 in (-1 @ level one).I think that's too big of a spread, personally, but 4e does still manage to sort of keep it viable. Reduce it down to the difference between, say, +2 and -2 or +4 and -4 at level 1 (and then raise all ships equally), and you've got more what I think might work well.</blockquote>

Verification