The Core Mechanic and DCs

[Herremann the Wise]

Hello Everyone,

Let's assume that the core mechanic is kept: modifier + d20 >= DC (Difficulty Class) means success otherwise failure. What is the range of modifiers/DCs that you want/expect out of the game and how should they be constructed?

Let's assume a novice seeks to perform a task that he or she is average at, has average ability contributing to and is using average equipment to accomplish. Let's give them a base of: +0.
Now, let's go to the other end of the spectrum and look at the master. I think almost by definition, a master can do without chance of failure what the average novice finds impossible. This indicates that a master should have a modifier of +20.

DC Range
This gives us a standardized range of:
• DC 0: What a novice can routinely do.
• DC 8: What a novice is likely to accomplish (I think this is the golden measure in terms of success expectations: 65%).
• DC 20: The limit of the novice.
• DC 21: Impossible for the novice, routine for the master.
• DC 28: What a master is likely but not guaranteed to accomplish.
• DC 40: The limit of the master.
• DC 41+: Beyond the capacity of the master and perhaps entering the capacity of the immortal (routine for a god?)

In terms of gameplay and the relative increase of the modifier, I think the ideal is to be quick to achieve +7 (the modifier perhaps of a highly proficient 1st level character), moving to +12 at a standard pace, to +15 slowly and then a snail's pace to get to +20.

Importantly, I think these modifiers should be standardized regardless of the action being performed; be it hitting with a sword, avoiding a spell, picking a lock, haggling in a bazaar or attempting stealthy movement past a sleeping guard. For myself in terms of the system, I hope that they go back to an absolute DC system where the DCs are firmly grounded in the campaign world; rather than a relative DC system which are grounded more in a set of probabilities.

The above I think lends itself to fewer levels (I think 10 for regular play would be ideal) but having each of those levels being much fatter. A focus on horizontal expansion over vertical growth.

What are your thoughts?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Minigiant]

In another topic I suggested an base attack/skill/caster level of +5. That way a PC with a modifier of +2 or more is has a bonus of at least 7. A character then would be routinely hitting high teens and low twenties. Try would automatically succeed low DCs and hitting things normals having trouble with with few misses.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

quite ok.

But I guess take 10 should be taken into account:

0: everyone can do it all the time, under pressure or not. (Useless...)
5: Everyone can do it when not under pressure (Assuming take ten and a penalty of -4 max...
10: the average person can do it when not under pressure...
20: the average person can only do it with a lot of time, or luck (take 20) or the average master can reliably do it when not under pressure (take 10)
30: something even the master can only do with luck or time.

A master in this system should have a bonus of +10. He can reliably do things, the average person can only do with time or risk of failure.

But we are told, there seems to be something like: take stat.

In this system, if we assume 3.x + attribute bonuses, you need to think it over:

Take stat should be equal to take 10.

so:

DC 3: even the worst human can do it. (Most probably even under stress)
DC 10: same as with take 10. Below average people need more favourable circumstances, while above average people can even do it in unfavourable circumstances -> improvement
DC 20: the best human can't reliably do it even in stress. With a little bit skill training or favourable circumstances, he can reliably do it. Maybe a half-orc fighter with maximum strength can do it without this training.
A Master who has average stats and a +10 bonus can also do it. The difference is: The master still has a good chance if he has to roll. (55%) The Half orc only has a low (30%) chance.

Is it desireable? Maybe. Still have to make up my mind.

 

[howandwhy99]

EDIT: I believe they said they are looking for an enclosed target number range. Something with definite top and bottom numbers. The advantage that I know of with such a system is it allows for play across many levels for PCs as the probability for success or failure on a die roll never reaches 0% or 100% for anyone regardless of class or class level. I'd expect DCs to be even more hard coded like difficulty to break a substance: skin, leather, wood, stone, metal, etc. Then having that arrangement worked into those same materials in other cases too, just as an example.

EDIT: The following was more threadpooping than anything. [sblock]I'd really rather they got rid of the concept of a core mechanic. In terms of design and play it's extraordinarily limiting. I can understand keeping it as some kind of option, perhaps where every roll is always a single d6 or d20 or something, but it's unnecessarily restrictive.

Design a game with the best possible mechanics for the design goals in question at every point. Yes, some of that may be pared down for the sake of uncomplicated rules for ease of play, something with a lower learning curve, some folks call it handling time.

When we get to module add-ons I fully expect only some of the core mechanic scores will be used and 1-2 or even a handful of new ones will be included. Designing without such freedom would be like trying to create a spaceship with only 6 kinds of Lego. We've limited the amount of air in the room. (Imagine designing with only 1 kind of Lego)[/sblock]

 

[Shadeydm]

For myself in terms of the system, I hope that they go back to an absolute DC system where the DCs are firmly grounded in the campaign world; rather than a relative DC system which are grounded more in a set of probabilities.

This would be my preference as well.

 

[Minigiant]

Well lets put some applications to these faceless values.

Using a rope.

DC 0: Holding a top in your hand with no force on the other side. Impossible to fail unless you are clumsy or stressed.

DC 10: Tying a firm knot. Impossible for a normal person to fail if not stressed. But with a straddle the normal person has a 50% chance of failure. The rope expert. (10) and rope master (+20) wont fail under stress though

DC 15: Tying a common but special knot. The normal guy will screw up a bit and only suceed ¼ of the time. He'll fail a few times but he'll eventually get it (via rerolls or Take 20)

DC 20: Binding a professional thief. A normal person will most likely fail. The thief will get away unless the binder rolls a 20. Even if the thief is unconscious or doesn't struggle during the binding. The expert (+10) can always bind a helpless pro thief. If the thief moves during binding (but doesn't try to escape, just tries to screw up the knot) , the expert still has a 50% chance to succeed at the knot.


DC 24: Throw and secure a trapping hook 75ft. A normal person can't do it period. An expert must roll high. A master just needs a decent roll or no stress.

Now, one designer, I forget which one, has said they are doing Ability Score Thresholds where a high enough ability can remove the need to roll.

Perhaps a master doesn't get a huge bonus. Instead the master is allowed a low threshold for autosuccess. Tying a special know could be now a DC 20 or an autosuccess for any trained person with Dexterity of 15 or higher.

The normals need a lot of time and retries (take 20) or get lucky (roll a 20). A trained character just needs to have Dex 15.


The only issues is for for characters who SHOULD be experts but have the action based of a secondary ability. Rangers using 13-14 Wisdom for survival skills ands perception. Rogues bluffing and charming their way out of jams with moderate Charisma. Clerics reciting divine history with medium Intelligence. Etc.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Values of +0 to +20 might be ok for the absolute extremes of the range, all things considered. However, for most applications, you'd like something more about half that size, as this keeps the d20 roll meaningful. If that means that the normal range is about +5 to +15, I could live with that. That also fits my view that an average person with no particular advantages ought to have around a +4 or +5, leaving numbers lower than that for those with actual weaknesses. (It seems to work better in play than having a bunch of minuses to rolls on that end, IMHO.)

I disagree that this is the "apprentice to master" range of skills. Masters can routinely do things that lesser beings struggle with. A linear roll, such as the d20 + mods, is a lousy way to model that reality. Thus, I agree with the design hints that some rerolls or other extra rolls might come into play. Not only does that better model the master handling a task of a lesser skilled creature, it scales better when you start comparing apprentice to journeyman or expert to master, instead of looking at only the extremes. Finally, I think it will better accomplishes your goals of standardized modifiers.

 

[Rampaging Lawn Gnome]

Masters can routinely do things that lesser beings struggle with. A linear roll, such as the d20 + mods, is a lousy way to model that reality. Thus, I agree with the design hints that some rerolls or other extra rolls might come into play. Not only does that better model the master handling a task of a lesser skilled creature, it scales better when you start comparing apprentice to journeyman or expert to master, instead of looking at only the extremes. Finally, I think it will better accomplishes your goals of standardized modifiers.

I would favor additional dice as well.
Haven't done the math, just spitballing, but something along the lines of:
apprentice = 1d20
journeyman = 1d20 + 1d6
expert = 2d20 (take higher)
master = 2d20 (take higher) + 1d6

 

[Frostmarrow]

This will probably not happen but I suggest it's not the chance of success that varies with skill but the degree of success. A successful novice makes a little headway on a successful roll where a master goes a long way.
It's not something that has been griped about a lot but I find that characters with 100% chance of success ruins the excitement. As a DM it completely sucks to not be able to tie up the PCs, stage an ambush or generally not being able to subtly control and plan the adventure. I don't mind having my plans, as DM, ruined (in fact I like that), but I don't like planned failure. I'd rather have chance matter.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

The only issues is for for characters who SHOULD be experts but have the action based of a secondary ability. Rangers using 13-14 Wisdom for survival skills ands perception. Rogues bluffing and charming their way out of jams with moderate Charisma. Clerics reciting divine history with medium Intelligence. Etc.

I think this could be solved using a similar system of auto-success but related to the nurture side of things rather than nature. Imagine if based on training, a character's skill was rated:

• Unfamiliar/Hampered
• Familiar
• Proficient
• Expert
• Specialist
• Master

In this way a ranger who is an expert in Woodlore (that is based on a secondary ability modifer: wisdom) can accomplish many things automatically simply because they are an expert in that field. Likewise for any character who is well-trained but perhaps behind in raw ability, this becomes a method of automatic resolution.

The other feature that I like about this is that it allows you to differentiate between skills that might be heavily skewed to either nature or nurture. For example, jumping is much more related to raw strength and dexterity, with training not having as much influence. Such skills will focus on natural ability scores (rather than training) for automatic resolution bypassing the core mechanic. Alternatively, skills based much more on "nurture" or training such as Arcane Lore, will have training based capacity such as "expert" or "specialist" be what is required for automatic success and resolution. I think this would work rather nicely in representing different skills where as ability score alone fails to represent training heavy skills such as the appraisal of obscure items, disabling traps, the mundane but highly skilled healing of severely injured characters, highly gymnastic manoeuvres and so on.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise