Kerrick
First Post
I got this idea when I was reading Hawken's idea about SR. He proposed changing the check to a simple 1d20+modifiers vs. SR, and I thought... why not apply this to skills as well?
This is a really far-out idea, so keep an open mind for a minute. I'm not sure if it would work myself (I mean, I know it will work, but I don't know if it's practical), which is why I wanted to get some opinions.
I call this the Rule of 3, and it goes something like this: For any skill score, divide the total score (ranks + ability mod + misc. mods) and divide by 3. This is your effective total, which is what you use when making skill checks.
That's the funky part. Here's the part where I prove my point. I'm going to use the existing 3.5 system and the Pathfinder system to illustrate how this works in practice.
Let's say we've got Frank the L1 halfling rogue. With the 3.5 rules, he has a Climb score of 8: 4 (max ranks) + 2 (Str) + 2 (racial). He could make a DC 10check 95% of the time (failure only on a 1), a DC 15 65% of the time (7 or better on the die), and a DC 20 40% of the time (12 or better). He could even make a DC 25 check (overhang or ceiling with handholds but no footholds) a whopping 10% of the time (18 or better on the die) - at level 1. This despite the fact that DC 15 is supposed to be difficult, and just about anything over DC 20 is supposed to range from very hard to nearly impossible for normal (read: non-epic) people, let alone a just-starting-out adventurer.
Under the Pathfinder rules, his score would be 8 also: 1 (max ranks) + 3 (trained skill bonus) + 2 + 2.
Under the Rule of 3, his score would be 2. Suddenly, that DC 15 check looks pretty daunting - he would succeed only 35% of the time! The DC 20 check? Pfft - good luck; he could succeed only 10% of the time. The DC 25 check is impossible, as it should be for a L1 PC.
As you can see, this rule effectively curtails the rampant increase in skill scores - a DC 15 check becomes (and remains) difficult for most PCs under L10, and a DC 20 does the same for those up to L15 or so. Best of all, you don't have to do anything to PCs' or monsters' skills - you use the existing totals, just divide by 3 to get the effective score you use for checks. You would have to reduce DCs, however - it would be nearly impossible (munchkins notwithstanding) to get a check result over 30-40 with this system, unless you're playing very high epic.
And speaking of epic, it would definitely curtail the uberness of epic PCs. No longer will they be making DC 100 checks to swim up a waterfall or dance on a cloud.
This system also means that modifiers are more important - Skill Focus, for example; a simple +1 bonus from bardsong, minor spells, or even aid another become useful again. BTW, I just want to add that I'm considering changing the animal buff spells to the bonuses they add are "end of chain" - that is, they add a +4 bonus to Strength-based checks and skills instead of a +4 to the ability itself. This makes things a lot easier to figure out, and it would add a nice boost when using the Rule of 3.
This is a really far-out idea, so keep an open mind for a minute. I'm not sure if it would work myself (I mean, I know it will work, but I don't know if it's practical), which is why I wanted to get some opinions.
I call this the Rule of 3, and it goes something like this: For any skill score, divide the total score (ranks + ability mod + misc. mods) and divide by 3. This is your effective total, which is what you use when making skill checks.
That's the funky part. Here's the part where I prove my point. I'm going to use the existing 3.5 system and the Pathfinder system to illustrate how this works in practice.
Let's say we've got Frank the L1 halfling rogue. With the 3.5 rules, he has a Climb score of 8: 4 (max ranks) + 2 (Str) + 2 (racial). He could make a DC 10check 95% of the time (failure only on a 1), a DC 15 65% of the time (7 or better on the die), and a DC 20 40% of the time (12 or better). He could even make a DC 25 check (overhang or ceiling with handholds but no footholds) a whopping 10% of the time (18 or better on the die) - at level 1. This despite the fact that DC 15 is supposed to be difficult, and just about anything over DC 20 is supposed to range from very hard to nearly impossible for normal (read: non-epic) people, let alone a just-starting-out adventurer.
Under the Pathfinder rules, his score would be 8 also: 1 (max ranks) + 3 (trained skill bonus) + 2 + 2.
Under the Rule of 3, his score would be 2. Suddenly, that DC 15 check looks pretty daunting - he would succeed only 35% of the time! The DC 20 check? Pfft - good luck; he could succeed only 10% of the time. The DC 25 check is impossible, as it should be for a L1 PC.
As you can see, this rule effectively curtails the rampant increase in skill scores - a DC 15 check becomes (and remains) difficult for most PCs under L10, and a DC 20 does the same for those up to L15 or so. Best of all, you don't have to do anything to PCs' or monsters' skills - you use the existing totals, just divide by 3 to get the effective score you use for checks. You would have to reduce DCs, however - it would be nearly impossible (munchkins notwithstanding) to get a check result over 30-40 with this system, unless you're playing very high epic.
And speaking of epic, it would definitely curtail the uberness of epic PCs. No longer will they be making DC 100 checks to swim up a waterfall or dance on a cloud.
This system also means that modifiers are more important - Skill Focus, for example; a simple +1 bonus from bardsong, minor spells, or even aid another become useful again. BTW, I just want to add that I'm considering changing the animal buff spells to the bonuses they add are "end of chain" - that is, they add a +4 bonus to Strength-based checks and skills instead of a +4 to the ability itself. This makes things a lot easier to figure out, and it would add a nice boost when using the Rule of 3.
Last edited:
