LEgends and Lore: Skills
- Thread starter Scribble
- Start date
Personally, I kind of like what he's talking about here, and I think it ties in well with last week's topic. I don't think its perfect as written necessarily, but I think it does provide a nice framework.
I know for my money, it always kind of sucks when you get the super trained character (say the bard with the silver tongue) who rolls for diplomacy and rolls really bad, just barely missing and then the barbarian walks up and say "What the heck, I'll give it a try *rolls* . . . Hey! Nat 20!"
DM: Yeah, you just barely make it.
I know that its easy enough to explain this (the bard's having a bad day, or the barbarian suddenly has a brilliant insight or his diplomacy actually comes off as a bit of an intimidate, etc.) but it still tends to be frustrating for the player who invested in diplomacy (or whatever skill) only to have the day saved by the guy who completed neglected it. Even the rest of the group will often laugh about it, but still feel like they are breaking immersion.
With this system, the bard might still roll poorly, but he's still going to be better off than the barbarian. You really can say "No, step back Grok, you'll only make things worse. I might not make it better, but at least I won't make it worse." (Note, it really doesn't matter if from a mechanical perspective Grok actually CAN make it worse).
The down side to this system is that some groups could use it as an excuse to reduce roleplay. (i.e. -- "Ahh, well, you walk across the rope then.") Of course, nothing would prevent the group from roleplaying this, but the tendency would often be to not roleplay it simply because it could make it seem less important in the overall scheme of things. After all, we tend to associate the important moments in the game with a roll of the die.
I know for my money, it always kind of sucks when you get the super trained character (say the bard with the silver tongue) who rolls for diplomacy and rolls really bad, just barely missing and then the barbarian walks up and say "What the heck, I'll give it a try *rolls* . . . Hey! Nat 20!"
DM: Yeah, you just barely make it.
I know that its easy enough to explain this (the bard's having a bad day, or the barbarian suddenly has a brilliant insight or his diplomacy actually comes off as a bit of an intimidate, etc.) but it still tends to be frustrating for the player who invested in diplomacy (or whatever skill) only to have the day saved by the guy who completed neglected it. Even the rest of the group will often laugh about it, but still feel like they are breaking immersion.
With this system, the bard might still roll poorly, but he's still going to be better off than the barbarian. You really can say "No, step back Grok, you'll only make things worse. I might not make it better, but at least I won't make it worse." (Note, it really doesn't matter if from a mechanical perspective Grok actually CAN make it worse).
The down side to this system is that some groups could use it as an excuse to reduce roleplay. (i.e. -- "Ahh, well, you walk across the rope then.") Of course, nothing would prevent the group from roleplaying this, but the tendency would often be to not roleplay it simply because it could make it seem less important in the overall scheme of things. After all, we tend to associate the important moments in the game with a roll of the die.
I'm going to be honest; this idea stinks to high heaven.
Automatically succeeding is not an issue. If your modifiers are high enough, you can auto-succeed on a lot of stuff. I see characters auto-succeed on Athletics checks and Heal checks as early as 5th level.
Auto-failing quite simply sucks. It's not fun, it doesn't make the game more interesting, and it's not going to lead to memorable stories. In the example of the tight-rope walker on a greased rope in the middle of an earthquake, they should still have a marginal chance of success, simply because this is a high fantasy game, the tight-rope walker is the Big Hero, and because it'd make a better story to say that she succeeded where a lesser man would insta-fail.
Even an untrained tight-rope walker should have a chance of succeeding, because dumb, nearly-impossible luck plays a huge element in fiction. Most highly memorable game D&D stories I can think of have some element of dumb luck. Long odds are a staple of any good narrative. Rolling a natural 20 on that gelatinous cube or the drunken, level 1 Fighter busting out 19 Diplomacy check is what makes the game exciting. It's what makes the game fun and unexpected.
Auto-success and auto-failure already exists in the game in the form of passive Insight and Perception. As a DM, I should be asking: "How hard is this trap to notice and find? What number best represents this difficulty?" Instead, I find myself saying: "Okay, I know that the best passive Perception among my PCs is a 21. So anything higher is failure unless the PCs choose to roll, and anything lower is an auto-success." It gives me a black-and-white option (do I screw the players? Or let them breeze on through) that sucks and is no fun for anybody. It's like plot railroading that's hard-coded into the game system. And now you want to do this with every skill in the game?
The "benefits" are dubious at best. How long does a lone skill check take? How much time are we really saving by forgoing dice? We don't need "impossible baked right into the game." If a player tries to fly with an Athletics check, the DM can and will tell him he's an idiot at any sane game table in the universe. We don't need players to auto-succeed, even on things they're optimized for; luck is what makes the game interesting. And even the pros screw up when the pressure is on.
In short: no. No thank you.
Automatically succeeding is not an issue. If your modifiers are high enough, you can auto-succeed on a lot of stuff. I see characters auto-succeed on Athletics checks and Heal checks as early as 5th level.
Auto-failing quite simply sucks. It's not fun, it doesn't make the game more interesting, and it's not going to lead to memorable stories. In the example of the tight-rope walker on a greased rope in the middle of an earthquake, they should still have a marginal chance of success, simply because this is a high fantasy game, the tight-rope walker is the Big Hero, and because it'd make a better story to say that she succeeded where a lesser man would insta-fail.
Even an untrained tight-rope walker should have a chance of succeeding, because dumb, nearly-impossible luck plays a huge element in fiction. Most highly memorable game D&D stories I can think of have some element of dumb luck. Long odds are a staple of any good narrative. Rolling a natural 20 on that gelatinous cube or the drunken, level 1 Fighter busting out 19 Diplomacy check is what makes the game exciting. It's what makes the game fun and unexpected.
Auto-success and auto-failure already exists in the game in the form of passive Insight and Perception. As a DM, I should be asking: "How hard is this trap to notice and find? What number best represents this difficulty?" Instead, I find myself saying: "Okay, I know that the best passive Perception among my PCs is a 21. So anything higher is failure unless the PCs choose to roll, and anything lower is an auto-success." It gives me a black-and-white option (do I screw the players? Or let them breeze on through) that sucks and is no fun for anybody. It's like plot railroading that's hard-coded into the game system. And now you want to do this with every skill in the game?
The "benefits" are dubious at best. How long does a lone skill check take? How much time are we really saving by forgoing dice? We don't need "impossible baked right into the game." If a player tries to fly with an Athletics check, the DM can and will tell him he's an idiot at any sane game table in the universe. We don't need players to auto-succeed, even on things they're optimized for; luck is what makes the game interesting. And even the pros screw up when the pressure is on.
In short: no. No thank you.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
I used a system with rarget numbers not unlike this in 3.5:
10: easy
15: moderate
20: hard
25 very hard
and encouraged everyone to take 10 or 20.
No rolling needed, just time and maybe no disturbances.
The result was fantastic:
Suddenly you had:
- enough skillpoints
- stopped the arms race
- competent characters from level 1 on
- useful cross class skills
- a difference between chars with an 8 in an attribute (incompetent in that particular skill, even for easy tasks) and 10: basically adept for easy tasks, as long as there are no unfavourable condition raising your DC by 2)
I guess this target number approach combined with last weeks skills is better than this weeks competence level approach.
10: easy
15: moderate
20: hard
25 very hard
and encouraged everyone to take 10 or 20.
No rolling needed, just time and maybe no disturbances.
The result was fantastic:
Suddenly you had:
- enough skillpoints
- stopped the arms race
- competent characters from level 1 on
- useful cross class skills
- a difference between chars with an 8 in an attribute (incompetent in that particular skill, even for easy tasks) and 10: basically adept for easy tasks, as long as there are no unfavourable condition raising your DC by 2)
I guess this target number approach combined with last weeks skills is better than this weeks competence level approach.
Scribble
First Post
Why? I mean why the need to bother with skill points if it amounts to the same thing anyway?
Joshua Randall
Legend
That... is a great point.
Subtlepanic
First Post
I'm not keen on the idea as written, as I think there should always be a chance at success, or at least, a chance for a degree of success.
One of my houserules for 3E/4E is exploding dice on skill checks: if you get a natural 20, you roll again and add it to the result. If I want an "impossible" situation, I assign a DC that's at least 20 points higher than Hard. That way, players typically have to roll a natural 20 *and* then score really high on their second roll.
On the very few occasions that they do hit the number, it's always been pretty memorable.
One of my houserules for 3E/4E is exploding dice on skill checks: if you get a natural 20, you roll again and add it to the result. If I want an "impossible" situation, I assign a DC that's at least 20 points higher than Hard. That way, players typically have to roll a natural 20 *and* then score really high on their second roll.
On the very few occasions that they do hit the number, it's always been pretty memorable.
Scribble
First Post
It's not actual errata though- so really what's the harm?
TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
Scribble?
Whats the point of this thread? Is that what you are asking? And hence you are threadcrapping in it?
I think if there is a thread like this, and an article, the whole point of which is to elicit feedback, then we can in fact say, no sir, I don't like it.
If you are really bored, I think there are other threads on ENWorld.
Whats the point of this thread? Is that what you are asking? And hence you are threadcrapping in it?
I think if there is a thread like this, and an article, the whole point of which is to elicit feedback, then we can in fact say, no sir, I don't like it.
If you are really bored, I think there are other threads on ENWorld.
Scribble
First Post
Huh? What's with the anger mode? Back off son!
When the heck did I tell you you have to like the changes?
You stated that you thought it was a large change to resolve a very small issue- I'm actively trying to start conversation by asking why that's a bad thing when it's just theory, and not an actual change.
So maybe let's start again?
I can understand the thought process (it's too much of a change for too small of a problem) in the context of actual planned errata- but I don't get it in the context of some nebulous other reality where this was a possible skill system.
Can you expand upon that?
Similar Threads
