This was how saving throws and psionic checks worked in second edition. The reason it was scrapped is because, when learning the game, many players would get confused, not knowing if they wanted to roll higher or lower, because every roll and situation worked differently.
Well, it's
similar to how they worked in second, at any rate. In the current edition, there's nothing to differentiate a stat check from a skill check unless it's a skill you get some bonus to, making it a higher total bonus for that particular check. All "checks" are stat checks, but with specialization in a particular area, meaning skills could be removed entirely, replacing them with generalized stat checks and specializations in particular areas. Hiding, for example, would be a Dex check. If you want to be trained in hidingm or specialize in hiding, or whatever the skill mechanic name to replace it with is, then you'd get a certain bonus to rolling Dex checks to hide. Even attack rolls are simply a particular kind of stat check, effectively. Not that this is bad, but if we're going to differentiate between a "skill check" and a "stat check" and an "attack roll" anyway, why do they need to work exactly the same way? Arbitrarily different and arbitrarily uniform are both arbitrary.
If our aim is to streamline the game, this makes perfect sense.
This is why we have the AC?DC system in place, making every check work exactly the same: Roll dice, add modifiers, beat target.
My proposed system works the same way, except you don't want to roll higher than the stat you're using to make the check, and you generally won't have to worry about modifiers (powers or magic items would inevitably step in here somehow, of course).
Looking at your proposed system, for example, another way of doing it would be to assign a modifier to the attribute, and a DC to the roll, in this case 21. This system, because it's the same system used by every other mechanic, is far superior.
I fail to see how it's "superior" as opposed to "uniform". It's not even fully uniform, since the value of damage doesn't work that way. It is basically how all "success/fail" dichotomies are resolved, but the way I proposed didn't make the check significantly different. Rolling a d20 and then adding modifiers and figuring out if it's higher than some other number is essentially just as hard as rolling a d20 and then seeing if it's equal to or higher one value
and equal to or lower than another, except less arithmetic is involved with my way, if you're so concerned about how easy it is.
There's a reason why the game has die rolls the way they are... it's consistant no matter what you're doing. That makes integrating parts of the rules together so much easier.
What I suggested is consistent with that group, except you don't want to roll the largest number on the di, or any number larger than the stat in question. Either way, I admit it's not a perfect suggestion. My entire point was that any changes to the game are based on the subjective whims of the designers and how ever much of the subjective input they listen to from their audience.
For example, let's say a mage character is using some sort of force power to hold a door closed, and some barbarian wants to break through. Well, under a hodgepodge system like second edition, the system left you in the lurch. 4th edition makes it easy. Barbarian makes an attack roll against a passive check of the mage's attack. Or maybe his Will. Or something similiar. Not hard to sort out, because all the different systems are using the same basic math.
I'm not proposing going back to second edition. That was such a bad edition. I'm not proposing anything that gets in the way of some sort of opposed check or attack on the mage's defenses or anything of that sort. In the case you propose, with my suggested manner of rolling stat checks above, the mage's spell would simply increase the difficulty of breaking down the door by some amount as dictated by the spell. If your typical door takes at least a 9 to break down, then perhaps this spell could increase the difficulty by 4, meaning the attempted roll must be between 13 and whatever his strength is if it's higher than that. Not complicated at all. As I said, it's not a perfect idea, and I'm sure I could do better if I had the time to toy around with the idea, but my point remains. Either change is arbitrary, based on the desires of whomever has input on the design.
Baseless speculation is speculative and baseless.
Um... if the mechanics didn't change, it wouldn't be a new edition. It'd be the same edition.
But your mechanics aren't unified. They're just change for the sake of change, and that's not what the evolution of D&D's editions are about. Every change has a reason, and whether or not you agree with the reason, no single change has every truly been arbitrary.
It's the same mechanic, except you don't add or subtract anything and there's an upper limit based on your stat. Roll d20, If it's equal to or greater than the target DC (but not higher than your stat), it's good happy success time. Less math to boot. Both methods function as well as operating on the same general mechanic, which is better depends on your tastes.
D20 works for its intended purposes. It's not supposed to be a feature of mathematical perfection such that all numbers are perfect and 12 and 13 are so different it changes everything on your character sheet. It never has been, nor is that a rational design goal.
Yet the difference between rolling a 12 or a 13 could mean success or failure, depending on the circumstances. I don't even understand what you're claiming, here. What claim did I make that what you just said contradicts it? Who said anything about 12 or 13 being perfect, and what does that even
mean?
