Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6188563" data-attributes="member: 1465">I would really, really want the math behind to make untrained checks possible but not worth on a regular basis.I want the party without a tracker to be poor at tracking, just like the party without a trapfinder is poor at trapfinding, the party with no healers is poor at healing and the party with no fighter-types is poor at fighting. For me that's natural... &quot;Poor&quot; doesn't mean &quot;unable&quot; however. The point is in the average. With no tracker, it is good if it's still possible for the others to give it a try(*) when it's really needed, but not worth trying to make it as a regular tactic.(*)There is a hidden problem here, that IMXP if no one is the dedicated tracker (or whatever) and there is no penalty for failure, typically everybody starts trying which actually very likely increases the chance of success compared to when only the Ranger tries and the others assume it's not worth trying.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 6188563, member: 1465"] I would really, really want the math behind to make untrained checks [I]possible[/I] but [I]not worth on a regular basis[/I]. I want the party without a tracker to be poor at tracking, just like the party without a trapfinder is poor at trapfinding, the party with no healers is poor at healing and the party with no fighter-types is poor at fighting. For me that's natural... "Poor" doesn't mean "unable" however. The point is in the average. With no tracker, it is good if it's still possible for the others to give it a try(*) when it's really needed, but not worth trying to make it as a regular tactic. (*)There is a hidden problem here, that IMXP if no one is the dedicated tracker (or whatever) and there is no penalty for failure, typically everybody starts trying which actually very likely increases the chance of success compared to when only the Ranger tries and the others assume it's not worth trying. [/QUOTE]

Verification