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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7504651" data-attributes="member: 29398">By RAW, perhaps.But one thing that's being overlooked here, whether intentionally or not, is the notion that not all rolls are going to be made in a strictly binary fail-succeed situation.  Oftentimes the doubt lies not so much in the outcome but in the degree of said outcome.An example might be a perception check or whatever when first seeing a room that has several elements that may or may not be noticed on first glance.  Instead of checking for each one, blend it all into one roll - roll really well, you see 'em all.  Roll badly and you miss the lot.  Roll middling and you see some but not all.Or, for a diplomacy or persuasion or whatever roll, instead of a straight up yes-no outcome put it on a sliding scale instead of a hard-edged DC - the higher you roll, the better things go.  On a very high roll you might even get more than you're asking for!  Of course, the risk here is that on a very low roll problems could arise...Or even a strength check to swim across a river - on 5 or less you don't make it, but where you roll within the range from 6-20 shows how muich effort was involved and-or how long the crossing took.This is something that, unless my memory fails me, the RAW don't handle very well.Lan-"then again, a system that sets its DCs in jumps of 5 at a time rather than 1 at a time is already showing a distinct and annoying lack of granularity"-efan</blockquote>

Verification