• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Skills Get Sea'd

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
The d20 styled skill checks have always bothered me since 3.0, because I was/am also a player of 7th Sea... a game system where there is no theoretical maximum you can roll because of the "exploding" die mechanic.

In a nutshell... to do anything, you'd roll a certain number of d10s (the die of choice for the system), and add them up to reach a target number. If any of those dice showed its highest value of 10, the die was said to "explode". You got to add 10 to your total, then pick it up and roll that die again adding its additional value to your total. If you were lucky enough to then roll a second 10, you'd add 10 to your total and then roll the die again (continuing ad nauseum so long as you kept rolling 10s). This mechanic meant there was never any target number the GM could set that wasn't theoretically possible to reach. As long as you kept rolling 10s, you could always get a higher and higher total.

I felt this was a great mechanic, because it made dice rolls even more exciting than normal. There was never any "ceiling" of possible target number to reach (unlike d20, where the best you can possibly do is 20 + skill mod). Even if a TN was exceedingly high and which might not normally be possible on the total amount of dice I was rolling... there was always that chance that one or more of my dice would explode... then I'd get to add and reroll those dice again.

That kind of excitement I personally find lacking in standard d20 skill checks (and always have, even since the advent of 3.0). There is most definitely a "hard ceiling" of target number. Either you can reach it with a d20 + skill mod, or you can't. Plus, since you only are rolling a single die and usually have calculated what you need to roll or higher prior to throwing it ("okay, the TN is 15 and I have a +6 skill mod, so I need a 9 or higher to make it"), there is much less drama in its rolling. The die drops, you read it, and you immediately know whether or not you were successful. For my money... the drama is much, much less compared to the drama I have felt in making these kinds of rolls in 7th Sea.

Thus, I decided several weeks ago to see if instituting a 7th Sea-styled skill roll mechanic would work with 4e and make skill checks and skill challenges more exciting. I adapted and amended the rules this way:

Everyone's skill mods are calculated as normal: ability modifier + 1/2 level. However, you do not add a +5 for a skill you are trained in (although we still have trained skills).

To make a skill check: roll three d6s added together, plus your skill mod. If any or all of the d6s you rolled shows a 6, you add them to your total and re-roll the die, adding in the new value to your total as well. If you roll another 6, you add it and reroll it a third time... and keep rerolling and adding so long as you keep rolling 6s. You have to reach a TN set by the DM, or beat the opponent in an Opposed check.

If you are Trained in the skill, you get to roll an additional d6 (i.e. 4) instead of the usual three. If you have taken the Skill Focus feat, you get to roll an additional d6 as well (meaning five d6s total).

And that's all there is to it.

The hardest part in all of this is deciding on target numbers for the challenges. My math-whiz player friend tells me that a 3d6 with re-rolled 6s averages out to a little more than 14 per roll. 4d6 with re-rolled 6s averages out to about 19 per roll. Thus (knowing that my 4th level players are usually adding an additional +2 to +6 to these skill rolls for their skill modifier), I start with an average TN of 18, then go up or down by three from there. So easy checks might be TN 15 or even 12, whereas harder checks might go to TN 21 or 24.

Thus far, things have gone very, very well. I definitely think my players find this method a little more drama-filled, because they have to search out where all three or four dice have landed, do some quick addition in their heads, plus hope/exalt when there's a 6 in the mix that they get to reroll. And the drama gets ramped up even higher when they are in an Opposed check and I hold off rolling until they've done theirs and added theirs up... then roll my NPCs dice in front of them. When *I* start dropping 6s down, they know there's a chance that I might be meeting or exceeding them on subsequent rolls and they get a little lump in their throat.

In the grand scheme of things, these are only dice rolls after all... so there's only so much excitement you can actually wring out of them. But I truly believe that the process of rolling many dice, adding dice together and the open-endedness of "exploding" dice makes what little we do have just a little bit more. For a game like this, any little bit helps.

**********

To answer a couple additional things... I only do this for skill checks, *not* for combat. Combat has its excitement built into it with hit points, AC, powers and the like. Exploding die rolls would just make things too complicated. But for skill checks/challenges, the exploding die system is great.

And for those of you familiar with the 7th Sea rules... yes, I do in fact also allow players to "call raises" on their target numbers (again, using numbers in batches of 3). So if a TN is 15 for example, they can voluntarily "call one raise" and make the TN 18 instead... and they will receive additional information if they succeed (or even more info if they called two raises, etc.)

This is especially great when doing skill challenges... because I let them call raises on easier TNs, to spend them to lower the TNs on their more difficult skill checks. So for example, our multiclassed paladin/ranger of Melora was trying to recall whether she knew any information about a location called the "Satyr's Glen". The check was going to be a Nature check, TN 24 (which, being trained in Nature, would be possible but not nearly assured). I first allowed her to make a History check to start with, starting with a base TN of 12. For every raise she called on her History check, if she succeeded, the TN of the Nature check would drop by 3. So she called two raises (to make her History check TN an 18), and succeeded on the roll... thus making her History check TN also an 18. She then succeeded on her Nature check (barely, rolling a 20), and got her information.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sorry for the long post but it's chart/math heavy.

I just wanted to jump in and offer some math. Rather than compute a forumula, that kind of statistics is beyond me, I just computed 100,000,000 skill check rolls using this system with a base of 3d6 through 6d6 (maybe the DM gave a bonus d6 for pastry tribute or something). The average roll for each is 12.6, 16.8, 20.99, 25.20. The highest rolls for each set run from around 60 to around 80. Even with such a large sampling the high rolls varied by several points per run.

I computed the odds of DC's between 5 and 25 inclusive for the untrained, trained, trained+skill focused:

Untrained aka 3d6:
DC 5 success rate 98%
DC 8 success rate 83%
DC 10 success rate 66%
DC 12 success rate 49%
DC 15 success rate 30%
DC 18 success rate 16%
DC 20 success rate 11%
DC 22 success rate 6%
DC 25 success rate 3%

Trained aka 4d6
DC 5 success rate 99%
DC 8 success rate 97%
DC 10 success rate 90%
DC 12 success rate 78%
DC 15 success rate 57%
DC 18 success rate 38%
DC 20 success rate 28%
DC 22 success rate 17%
DC 25 success rate 12%

Trained + Skill Focus aka 5d6
DC 5 success rate 100%
DC 8 success rate 99%
DC 10 success rate 98%
DC 12 success rate 94%
DC 15 success rate 81%
DC 18 success rate 63%
DC 20 success rate 52%
DC 22 success rate 36%
DC 25 success rate 27%

Perhaps a simple rule of thumb would be DC 10 if you want the majority of the time for the skill to succeed. Add 5 if you want to make it primarily trained characters to succeed. Add another 5 if you want really want it made only by supremely trained characters.

The above though does NOT count any attribute bonuses.

If we assume an average of +2 to any skill check the numbers for the untrained change as shown below.

3d6 + 2 from attribute modifier
DC 5 success rate 100%
DC 8 success rate 95%
DC 10 success rate 83%
DC 12 success rate 66%
DC 15 success rate 42%
DC 18 success rate 25%
DC 20 success rate 17%
DC 22 success rate 9%
DC 25 success rate 6%

If it's a skill that's a primary stat for the character and they get a +4 then you have the below and a DC 10 is almost guaranteed for even the untrained character.

3d6+4 from stat mod
DC 5 success rate 100%
DC 8 success rate 99%
DC 10 success rate 95%
DC 12 success rate 83%
DC 15 success rate 57%
DC 18 success rate 35%
DC 20 success rate 25%
DC 22 success rate 13%
DC 25 success rate 9%

5d6+4 from stat mod
DC 5 success rate 100%
DC 8 success rate 100%
DC 10 success rate 99%
DC 12 success rate 99%
DC 15 success rate 96%
DC 18 success rate 86%
DC 20 success rate 76%
DC 22 success rate 58%
DC 25 success rate 46%

So as a more possibly accurate formula this might work out:

DC 10
Add 0 to 4 for stat bonuses.
Add 2 per tier over heroic.
Add 5 if you want trained characters to shine.
Add 5 if you want suprememly trained characters to shine.

So we end up with DC's between 10 and 28 (let's say 25 since I only computed dc 25). Again we toss out the 1/2 skill level since as a rough rule DC's go up by 1/2 level so again it's a wash and makes no difference.

At the low end even an untrained without a stat bonus is going to succeed 2/3rds of the time and at the high end the same character still has a 3% of success.

And with training, excess training for some and stat bonuses a character is going to make even that hard check at DC25 almost half the time.

Anyway, I like the rule, going to house rule it in definitely because I disliked the 'sorry, you're one point short of being able to possible do this.' factor of the existing skill chance. It's always possible someone could get lucky or have a brain blast or 'play above their abilities'. We all know the feeling of 'being in the zone' sometimes and doing things we couldn't ever do again. I once one night while trying to impress a girl back in my misspent youth, sank 108 balls straight on a pool table. That's a real pool table, not wii pool. :P A feat I've never even remotely come close to doing before or since. To put it in these terms my dice exploded and I rolled six after six. :) Under the standard DnD skill system I could never have done that.
 


Would 2d8 (exploding) be closer to the average d20 roll that we all know and love, 10.5? I do think the players would like an exploding result system, but I don't want to be changing DCs across the board for it. You'd think that, in the past 5 decades or so of gaming, someone would have created a program that'll calculate die results for questions like this, but no such luck according to google.
 

Exploding dice and similar open-ended die-rolling methods (my favorite is Feng Shui) work well to produce the occasional exceptional rolls.

In a system that awards exceptional rolls, this adds fun and randomness to the story. For example, Feng Shui adds the margin of the attack roll to damage. If you hit exactly, you might only do a few points of damage, but with an exceptional (and rare) roll, you can do many times the normal damage, which is fun if sometimes a little anticlimactic. A similar result is achieved with the 3.0 and 3.5 critical mechanic - if you roll 20, you can roll against the normal difficulty to verify, and if this second roll succeeds you get an exceptional result. There was an optional rule to use this for skill rolls as well. This is a good way to include exceptional results - the critical success is rare, and the system allows for a reasonable basic chance to succeed. The way to do this with open-ended dice is of course to call any die roll that succeeds by a large margin - say by 20 points in "exploding d20", to count as a critical success.

What this system does NOT do is allow the GM to set unreasonably high DC knowing the players always have a minimal chance to succeed. Having less than 5% chance to succeed at something does not make a good story. In fact, anything with less than a 25% chance to succeed is usually not very fun. In this case, the d20 mechanic works really well - the linear success chance insures there is generally a reasonable chance to both succeed or fail, or the roll is irrelevant and can be skipped altogether.
 

Would 2d8 (exploding) be closer to the average d20 roll that we all know and love, 10.5? I do think the players would like an exploding result system, but I don't want to be changing DCs across the board for it. You'd think that, in the past 5 decades or so of gaming, someone would have created a program that'll calculate die results for questions like this, but no such luck according to google.

I think you could use the existing published DC's using this system. It wouldn't be exactly the same chances but would the players even notice? If you use the unofficial erratted erratad DC's of 10/15/20 (instead of 5/10/15) as a base you'd be in the ballpark, the players would usually make a 10 (easy), have a harder time to make a 15 and a harder still time to make a 20. Trained would significantly up those higher dc success rates which is what you'd be looking for. And anyone that goes the step further and spends a feat on a skill is inreasing their chances significantly more.

Using d8's, 2d8 for untrained, 3d8 for trained, 4d8 for trained + skill focus, with and without the a stat bonus of +4 you get these numbers which works out to a little worse chance for the untrained person at higher difficulties and a better chance for the trained/skillfocused person.

So 2d8 penalizes the untrained but benefits the trained person. This would have the effect of rewarding those characters that train in a skill with a better chance of success which may or may not be what you're looking for. And on a rather whimsical nature it is typically easier to find d6's than d8's in larger quantities at most gaming tables. :)

2d8
DC 5 success rate 90%
DC 8 success rate 67%
DC 10 success rate 46%
DC 12 success rate 31%
DC 15 success rate 17%
DC 18 success rate 10%
DC 20 success rate 6%
DC 22 success rate 3%
DC 25 success rate 2%

3d8
DC 5 success rate 99%
DC 8 success rate 93%
DC 10 success rate 83%
DC 12 success rate 70%
DC 15 success rate 47%
DC 18 success rate 30%
DC 20 success rate 22%
DC 22 success rate 13%
DC 25 success rate 9%

4d8
DC 5 success rate 99%
DC 8 success rate 99%
DC 10 success rate 96%
DC 12 success rate 92%
DC 15 success rate 78%
DC 18 success rate 60%
DC 20 success rate 48%
DC 22 success rate 33%
DC 25 success rate 25%

2d8+4
DC 5 success rate 100%
DC 8 success rate 95%
DC 10 success rate 84%
DC 12 success rate 67%
DC 15 success rate 38%
DC 18 success rate 21%
DC 20 success rate 15%
DC 22 success rate 8%
DC 25 success rate 5%

3d8+4
DC 5 success rate 100%
DC 8 success rate 99%
DC 10 success rate 98%
DC 12 success rate 93%
DC 15 success rate 77%
DC 18 success rate 55%
DC 20 success rate 41%
DC 22 success rate 26%
DC 25 success rate 19%

4d8+4
DC 5 success rate 100%
DC 8 success rate 100%
DC 10 success rate 99%
DC 12 success rate 99%
DC 15 success rate 94%
DC 18 success rate 83%
DC 20 success rate 73%
DC 22 success rate 54%
DC 25 success rate 43%
 

I'm highly intrigued. Math aside, I agree with the notion that the "feel" of dice rolls with exploding handfuls of dice rather than a d20 (which, I agree, should be retained for combat rolls).

I shall have to consider this further and see what my players think.
 

Yeah, now that you mention it, I'm always borrowing d8s for my sneak attack in one of my games.

What are you using to chart these results, danmar? I doubt you'lre rolling 1000 times per roll.
 

Yeah, now that you mention it, I'm always borrowing d8s for my sneak attack in one of my games.

What are you using to chart these results, danmar? I doubt you'lre rolling 1000 times per roll.


It's a little javascript thing, fairly trivial to do, javascript because I just run it in a browser, not the fastest computational system in the world but you can't be it for rapid prototyping for something like this. Each set above is the result of a million sets of rolls actually for each one. I tried billions of rolls but that made each run take upwards of 40-50 seconds and the only thing that changed was the 4 or 5 decimal point so I cut it back to a million rolls which take maybe a 1 to 2 seconds to churn through. Frankly I had a hard time caring about deviations between 27.5828171552% and 27.5828184321%. :D
 

Exploding dice and similar open-ended die-rolling methods (my favorite is Feng Shui) work well to produce the occasional exceptional rolls.

Agreed.. my favorite is WEG SW, with the 'Wild Die' concept that could swing your results rather significantly.

And as much as I like this idea, the two concerns I have are:

1) 4e doesn't have a 'critical success' sort of mechanic for skills.

2) The math of multiple dice generally means a stronger bell curve towards an average result. While this is good in that PCs will be able to be more reliable with thier skills, it also means the higher DCs will be statistically harder to get. So, as a GM I need to ensure my encounter design provides an opportunity for critical successes and yet cuts down on the difficutly of 'need to have happen' checks.

I do like the significant change between untrained and trained. I think this is better than the D20 + 5 rule in emulating the reliability of a trained character being better...and that alone might sell me on this system.


For skill challenges, I use Stalker0's Obsidian, so a critical success is easily accounted for with the simple rules of 'For each 10 points you beat the target number, you gain an additional success'.

Any ideas/sugestions on how to handle critical successes in normal skill checks?
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top