Talk:The Edge (3.5e Variant Rule)

Ratings

	Fluffykittens is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.
	"Anyone making an attack on you that targets AC or Reflex gains the edge," This is 3.5, not 4e. You don't attack people's reflexes!

Fix'd. --Ghostwheel (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

DanielDraco favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!

Looking at the probabilities involved, I really like what I'm seeing here. For the most part the only significant consequence of the edge is that nat 1s and 20s become more or less prevalent, because your average roll only changes up to ±3.32 but 1s and 20s can get as (un)likely as 9.75% or 0.25%. At a glance, it's a simple way to give a non-RNG-breaking bonus/penalty. But because it changes the shape of the distribution, this can become very interesting combined with effects like Power Attack that make your roll bonus a variable tactical decision. With this, I suddenly have a renewed interest in metacombat feats. I'm half-tempted to write a class to bring the two together more fully.

	Foxwarrior is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.
	The idea of having a second die with a bonus or penalty to make its effect more subtle is cool, but it would either slow down the game noticeably or require you to use two colors of d20s.

	Havvy likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	A nice system for staying in the RNG while having bonuses and penalties.

Presupposing Other Variants?

You talk about attacking against saves a couple times. Are you presupposing the variant of making attackers roll against a static save defense? If so, I'd suggest rewording to more standard assumptions -- it's easier for DMs to adjust from standard to variant than it is for them to figure out what the hell you mean and then transfer the concept back to standard rules. --DanielDraco (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Fix'd. --Ghostwheel (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)