Originally Posted by Drath Malorn
Originally Posted by Mortigan
Tracking the number of failed rolls I have had, you are 75% guaranteed to fail a roll if it requires a 5 or lower.
That sounds perfectly right. If you require a 5 or lower (so, a 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5), you have a 25% chance of success, and thus a 75% chance of failing.

Originally Posted by Mortigan
I mean for gods sake I failed a roll that required a 2... a stinking 2... and I roll a 1.
That happens. About 5% of the time.

Originally Posted by Mortigan
I roll 6 or lower 75% of the time and my skills don't seem to even make a difference.
Skills only affect your roll target. Say, if the Difficulty Class (DC) of a skill check is 11, and you have proficiency in the skill (giving you a +2) and 14 in the associated Ability Score (giving you a +2), you have a total bonus of +4. Instead of computing 1d20+4 and checking whether this is greater than or equal to 11, the game rolls 1d20 and checks whether this is greater than or equal to 11 - 4 = 7. This 7 is the roll target. Skill doesn't affect it : the roll target has already factored in your skills.

Now, if you must roll 7 or more to succeed, you fail if you roll 6 or less, which you have a 30% of experiencing. If you have data to support the fact that you roll 6 or less 75% of the time, I'd be happy to see it.

Random number generators are not super difficult programs to write. So I think a serious amount of data would be required to test the random number generator they are using and reject the hypothesis that it's a good one.

You're being clever but you know what he means. If the minimum you must roll is five or lower, he's saying it feels like the stats are 75% for it's 75% against.