18 Strength barbarian gets into arm-wrestling contest with an 8 Str wizard

Because hes a Wizard

Really though how many raider types in RL do you think have had this very thought?

So he can beat 18 STR barbarians, because he is smart as fuck, because he made it, because he can, because he knew this would happen, because he is a fucking wizard, etc.

Tbh I would've described it as barb getting a sudden cramp.

Everyone has a bad day.

Random factoid he picked up as part of everyday life.

When someone picked druid

When after incredible heavily optimization from martial's side, to the point of some of them cheating hard, they realized the druid picked greenbound summoning and ashbound

When we reach 7th level and every caster ever was laughing at us, even the bard

How do those even work in D&D?

Guess OP still hasn't realized why D&D is garbage.

>when did you realize OP was a fag

Can we launch a petition to force him to wear a trip?

I remember one of the rulebooks saying that this exact scenario should never happen. The stronger character should always win the arm wrestling contest, and opposed rolls should only be made if both characters have the same strength score.

tl;dr your DM fucked up.

18 int

honestly for something like that i would probably use a d6

>On 5% of fighter's swings, ranger's shoots, etc the weapon explodes in their hands

Opposed rolls? Simple. Roll a d20 and add relevant modifiers. Highest number wins. In the event of a tie, usually the one who initiated the check wins; however in an arm-wrestling competition I'd say that instead it simply results in a stalemate and you both make the checks again.

Ability score modifiers are +1 for every 2 points above 10, or -1 for every two points below 11 (or, if you prefer, (N - 10) / 2, always rounding down, where N is your ability score). So an 18 Strength is a +4 bonus, while an 8 Strength is a -1 penalty.

So in OP's example, the 18-Strength character rolled a d20 and got a 2. Adding his Strength modifier gives him a total of 6. The 8-Strength character, meanwhile, rolled a 16. Even adding his -1 penalty, that's still a 15. 15 is greater than 6, so he beats the 18-Strength character.

If you mean how D&D would resolve something without opposed rolls, that's equally simple: just compare the static scores. In this case it would simply comparing 18 to 8. 18 is greater than 8, so the 18-Strength character would win every time.

However that's not necessarily fun, particularly not if you have an 8 Strength but have for whatever reason found yourself to be in a situation where you need to use your Strength. Thus, rolling and adding modifiers, which statistically favors someone with a high Strength, but still gives someone with a low Strength a chance to succeed.

>Studded leather armor

That is not how a natural 1 works.

By default, a natural 1 is a simple failure on an attack roll or saving throw, nothing more or less. It is distinct from other failures in that it is *always* a failure, but it doesn't have to represent anything more dramatic than simply missing your target.

Some DMs like to run with 'critical miss' rules, but that is not the standard.

I wear studded leather. Not armor but still.

d6 + strength STAT, not strength mod. And I'd actually use a d4 instead of a d6. Maybe even a d3. Or I might just let the guy with the higher strength win (and only roll for it if they had the exact same strength).

I lost the count on how many GMs went full final destination with nat1s

>d3+Stat
Nice, this way you can never ever trip, grapple, etc monsters, making martials even more full attack mode

Can someone please find this and show me. I've read every rulebook and don't remember this anywhere. At least not in 5e.

My DM used to have a full-on fumble chart. I asked them about it and they explained they wanted the "stakes" of combat to be higher for PC and NPC alike.

After I pointed out that critical fumbles will impact PC's more often than NPC's, they dropped the fumble chart. Now Nat. 1's are an auto-miss and that is it.

Combat encounters have also gotten a fraction quicker (though that may be a perceptual bias) because we no longer have to roll again, consult a chart, and have those results adjudicated whenever someone rolls a Nat. 1.

See anons? Some stories have a happy ending.

>Nice, this way you can never ever trip, grapple, etc monsters, making martials even more full attack mode
What does tripping have to do with arm wresting?

Everytime something like that happens I always roll Int when the Wizard is going to say something smart, so when I outsmart him and make very clear that I outsmart him with my Int8 barb, you know, stuff like grammar nazi him, correct him, use better terms, etc, just to annoy the shit out of the player.

That sentence makes me think you made the right choice playing a low Intelligence character.

a valid complaint.

You mean a character WITH low intelligence, right?

>After I pointed out that critical fumbles will impact PC's more often than NPC's

Mmn...they should affect individual PCs more often then individual NPCs, but the Dungeon master rolls dice a lot more often than any one individual player, simply because the player characters tend to face many more enemies than there are players.

NPCs taken as a whole would suffer critical failures more often than than PCs taken as a whole.

Of course, at the other end of the spectrum, they'll also score critical hits more often, for the same reason.

and since every wizard can best a STR 18 barbarian in arm-wrestling, every wizard knows it. except he forgets it most of the time (on average the wiz loses after all)?

let's just admit that D&D is a gamist system and move on. there is nothing wrong with gamism, it is one of three main main streams (and arguably the most popular) in RPGs.

It is valid, though few systems seem to have an adequate way of dealing with something that directly pits strength vs. strength with little else involved. Honestly, you could treat this like carry capacity, where you don't roll to see how much you can carry each time you put on your gear.

Not at all, because it's just an idiot failing to understand how to use the system.

You might want to stop being an idiot yourself.

>18 str barb
That's your problem, mine had 42 Str without magic items

Arm wrestling is more than strength, user.
Good technique and leverage go way farther than raw strength.

It's hardly valid.

It's not supposed to be indicative of reality, but a system to help produce exciting moments. If the wizard has no chance of winning, the scene is dull, even though the barbarian has a significantly higher chance of winning.

But the fumbles will tend to matter more for the PCs. They introduce volatility of probability, and that's generally to the favor of whoever's probabilities are lower. When you're on top, you want everything smooth and predictable. When you're betting on a longshot, you want something that sows chaos, because you're probably going to lose as-is, which means there's little downside and plenty of upside.

>It's not supposed to be indicative of reality, but a system to help produce exciting moments. If the wizard has no chance of winning, the scene is dull, even though the barbarian has a significantly higher chance of winning.
It's not exciting if reality is retarded. Things don't need to be hyper-realistic, but neither should they be ridiculous and immersion-breaking.

well, it's a baiting statement. D&D is garbage for certain play styles. it's not garbage if you want the gamist experience.

the unified mechanic of opposed rollspic related, man

FPBP

thats not a thing

This, now, lets roll a casting spell contest and see if my barb can win against the wizard...oh wait

>rolling for everything
kek

the system i am developing fixes it

you're not analyzing the system provided. please try to stay on topic.

see, that's why people dislike D&D: the paper-thin rationales GMs have to come up with to cover up the deficiencies of the system.
maybe it's not even so much that people dislike D&D - maybe it's people like D&D's defenders instead.

>It's not supposed to be indicative of reality, but a system to help produce exciting moments.
that's a fair point. but even so one could argue that this hardly the best situation to resolve the conflict. at some point, the wizard should auto-lose. and that should not be at STR -2.

Why do people even pretend to take you trolls seriously?

Actually existed and is a sound design principle, if you knew a thing about physics or, you know, common sense.

I would use passive strength rolls for stuff like this. The only pitfall of D&D is a bad DM.

you're not analysing the RAW system. please try to stay on-topic.

You've never had a bad day? Or an extremely lucky one?

>you're not debating with idiot trolls who just want to complain about a system they clearly don't understand. stay on topic.

Is this the part where I post reaction images and call you a moron?

>You're a bad GM if you follow the rules as intended
Ok, but your argument is rather moot, according to you every system is perfect and devoid of flaws because GMs can be "good" GMs?

>i want to bitch
>here's an easy fix
>no, I want to bitch

Fuck off, you dumb troll.

>the RAW system.
You mean the one which tells you not to roll for everything like a moron?

>the paper-thin rationales GMs have to come up with to cover up the deficiencies of the system.

youtube.com/watch?v=e07y3QI4Kbg

I'll admit the winner doesn't exactly look like the sort who'd have merely 8 Strength, but he certainly doesn't look like he could bench nearly as much as the loser.

youtube.com/watch?v=KUPIUHpkK88

see

That is the RAW system, you fucking moron.
Says so right in the book you don't need to roll for everything.

Can you stat the strawman you posted?

It constantly amazes me the lengths people will go to to defend this bullshit. Your "justifications" are flimsy as fuck and you know it.

Fuck off already, you dumb troll.

If you just make these threads to highlight how stupid you are, don't be amazed by the threads always just ending up with a group of people calling you out on being a dumb troll.

Poe's law is an actual thing.

What games do stuff like this better then?

>Everyone who disagrees with me is a troll!
>Everyone who disagrees with me is one person!
>Nobody could possibly share an opinion that disagrees with mine!

Settle down.

Winning arm wrestling from a single roll is like winning a fight to the death at first blood

taken into account. we're analysing the mechanics nonetheless. in the latest version, the Contest rules lay out that you roll d20+bonbues for eahc party involved.

we're criticizing that D&D does not deliver a better mechanic than that. a valid complaint.

one would have to be a deendee taliban to dispute that.

see

Anima is 1d10 + Full STAT (Goes from 1 to 20, though realistically speaking is more like from 4 to 13)

>few systems seem to have an adequate way of dealing with something that directly pits strength vs. strength with little else involved
It's mostly just D&D that has this much of a problem. It's the fact that the die size is so large relative to the modifiers involved. Pic related, The D&D scenario the weaker character wins about 20% of the time (18 str vs 8), Ars Magica the weaker character wins 3% (+4 str vs -2), and in fate it's pretty much certain the stronger character wins (+4 athletics vs 0). All situations represent "slightly but noticeably weaker than average vs exceptionally high strength."

I could arm wrestle the national arm-wrestling champion a thousand times and I would never once come close to even holding steady against him for a few seconds.

Nah, it's like post-natal depression; it doesn't actually exist. People are just idiots

so do you want a fixed strength contest, higher ALWAYS wins, or do you want just want winning on average, winning MOST of the time but accounting for flukes, by introducing some random variable to take advantage of?

>everyone who routinely makes threads only to make weak complaints about a popular system is a troll

Yes. You are a troll. Your OP image is essentially the equivalent of wearing one of those "I'm an Aetheist, Debate me" t-shirts in the Vatican.

No, we're not "analyzing the mechanics."

We're explaining basic rules to idiots who can't read, and are willfully doing their best to be stupid and uncooperative.

>Implying I'm the OP.

Holy fuck you are delusional.

GURPS. 3d6, get under (your stat + modifiers). I don't remember if 4e has it, but 3e had an optional rule for dealing with creatures with really low strength trying to arm-wrestle.

Scale one of them to 10 (usually the lowest). then apply the same multiplier to the other. For example, if you have a ST 1 creature arm-wrestling an ST 2 creature, you adjust that to ST 10 vs ST 20. This means the contest isn't just constant failure until somebody rolls a 3 and automatically succeeds.

>we're criticizing that D&D does not deliver a better mechanic than that

I'm not sure how any game could without coming up with a needlessly clunky arm-wrestling subsystem.

Remember that the point of rolling isn't so that the 18-Strength character can shit all over the 8-Strength peons. It's so that a player of an 8-Strength character who somehow finds himself in a situation where he *needs* to succeed at a Strength check, has at least some chance of passing it.

That this means that an 8-Strength character can occasionally beat an 18-Strength character in an arm-wrestling competition is an unintended but unavoidable side-effect, but fortunately enough it can be glossed over by the fact that visibly weaker opponents CAN beat visibly stronger opponents in an arm-wrestling match under the right conditions - i.e., when they roll good.

And that's all that matters.

Both sound terrible

Please, don't tell me there's two people as stupid as you are. I might lose a fair amount of faith in humanity.

I might not be the smartest man on the planet, but at least I don't defend D&D.

>obtuse and clunky mechanical mess that might as well be pure homebrew

And you guys wonder why people don't bother with GURPS?

The wizard wished he won every arm wrestling game

It's not just roll under, you have to compare margins of success. So if your strength is 18 and you roll a 16, your MoS is two, you'll lose to the guy whose strength is 15 but rolled a 12. Which is p unlikely to happen due to how 3d6 works.

What's worse is that you spend your time telling people how much you dislike the thing they like.

You're not just stupid, you fail to see how stupid you are.

>obtuse and clunky
You may have dyscalculia.

First time I played, I went Dex Monk with TWF, Imp TWF and Snap Kick

>Fuck off already, you dumb troll.
triggered

we just enjoy watching deendeefags like you descending into rage

that's a valid question. dice pools are probably better for opposed tests. FATE works probably much better with its -4 to +4 range. CoC, I believe, has 50/50 chance for equal attributes and +/-5% per point difference.

you mean just like how the wizard cannot have a tumble contest with the fighter unless he wastes a skill point on it.

admittedly the barbarian does not actually have any trained only skills as class skills

it is a little silly that you cant use decipher script untrained i think i may add that to my houserules

Stop misusing the word "valid" to try and give legitimacy to your retarded trolling.

dam thats a nice chart what did you use to make it

>it is a little silly that you cant use decipher script untrained
In what possible way? This is like saying 'everybody on the planet should have a chance to understand Futhark runes, even if they're not a scholar of Old Norse'.

hahaha, the awareness that deendeefags think there is only one detractor to their system is spreading.

GURPS isnt much better. FATE is.

the issue is opposed tests though. not arm-wrestling. and we're claiming that STR 18 versus STR 8 should not be a contest. STR 14 vs STR 18 maybe. but not STR 8.

if he isnt OP, it's at least three, you faggot.

What if I told you that I just like it when you screech and holler like a chimpanzee whenever someone dares to criticize your favorite system?

you should have raged first, then you would have won