D&D 5E Ability checks not using modifier

[Jeff Carlsen]

That's a wonderful attitude to have on website forum; it'd be wonderful if everybody could just "get over it". But nobody ever got over it in 3e, and nobody's ever going to get over it in 5e. The system isn't the one setting the DC's or eyeballing success and failure based on if the dice "looks" right.

Most people I'm going to game with aren't mathematicians, or even have an intuitive feel for numbers. They don't necessarily make the intuitive leap that all the game is obfuscating figuring the odds of success on something. So I'd like it if the designers take all that psychology in mind when they make their rules. The rules don't just need to work, they have to "feel" right.

I apologize for the attitude, but it's a sore spot for me. I had a couple DMs who would rather look at the die result instead of ever setting a DC, rendering the skill bonus pointless. It drove me nuts.

What you propose can't work in the d20 system. Bonuses are supposed to lower the necessary result required to reach a target DC. Unless you want characters to fail at least 45% of the time on all checks, single digit numbers have to be successes at some point.

 

[samursus]

Contests of strength rarely have a random element. In these situations, the character with the higher strength simply wins every time.

On first glance, yes. Looking closer, I can see many instances where a Str contest is an abstraction involving other circumstances or ability scores. Forex : a simple grapple over a sword, or a tug of war would involve Dex for the quickness of shifting balance or Int for using leverage or Con for sheer perserverance. IMO, a random element serves the base system best.

Sent from my Wildfire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Salamandyr]

I apologize for the attitude, but it's a sore spot for me. I had a couple DMs who would rather look at the die result instead of ever setting a DC, rendering the skill bonus pointless. It drove me nuts.

What you propose can't work in the d20 system. Bonuses are supposed to lower the necessary result required to reach a target DC. Unless you want characters to fail at least 45% of the time on all checks, single digit numbers have to be successes at some point.

I've had the exact same experience, Too many DM's who looked at the 3 you rolled on the die, ignored the fact that, with bonus the total was something like 18 or higher, and hemmed and hawed around until you failed. Then there was the opposite problem. Lucky high rolls giving DM's the impression that their DC's were too low (DC 20, a hard check, but the guy with the +10 bonus rolls an 18 and suddenly 20 doesn't sound like something all that high)...so DC's just gradually crop up.

So I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just pointing out that this is a real issue to the way D20 games play out at the table, and it's something I would really love the 5e team to fix. However, you are correct that it can't be done without introducing a completely different task resolution method from D20+attribute mod. If I had my druthers I'd go with a completely different rolling method...either bring back percentiles, or use a task resolution based around rolling 1d6. But I recognize...this will never happen.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

If I had my druthers I'd go with a completely different rolling method...either bring back percentiles, or use a task resolution based around rolling 1d6. But I recognize...this will never happen.

I agree. It's tough. The d20 is the most symbolic die to gamers. It's really very cool, but it's actually a pretty poor die for just about anything. I'd generally prefer task resolution handled with 3d6 + mods, a dice step system, or a dice pool. Of those, only the first is even remotely traditional.

I wonder if removing the effects of natural 20s or 1s would prevent new players from developing the mindset that the die roll itself matters.

 

[Salamandyr]

Probably not. Outside of combat/saves, skill resolution never had nat 20 or nat 1 success/failure in 3rd (prior editions did things differently of course); I don't think skill checks in 4th did either. I think it's just endemic of the big swings and wide variations in numbers, combined with the way the actual odds are obfuscated.

The OP's suggestion would fix the problem, because it would increase the smallest number you could roll (a guy with a 20 couldn't roll lower than an 11), and a DC 11 would be the equivalent of a DC 6 under the current game. So when the DM pulls out those DC 15's, 20's, & 25's the players actually have a decent chance of making them.

 

[Falling Icicle]

However I think you draw a wrong conclusion. I dont think the stat modifiers need to change. I think the DCs need to change. The biggest problem I see with granting such large bonuses to account for DC that can change and swingy contested rolls is combat. You really want people to have +10 damage on attacks? I have a 20 STR, here take my two-handed axe to the head oh and +10 damage. I dont think so...

That's a good point, though the damage bonus from a stat doesn't necessarily need to be the same as the accuracy bonus. They could always set it up so that a 20 stat gives you a +10 bonus on attack rolls and checks, but only a +5 on damage rolls.

 

[Szatany]

I thought your system was stat-10 so a stat of 10 gives you a +0 bonus and a 20 stat gives you a +10. If that is the case I do not think you have done the math right. A DC 15 (easy) for a 10 stat is not 80% chance of success. It is as it turns out, 30% success rate and a 20 stat would have a 80% success rate. I am not going to analyze further.

Sorry, in this writeup I went with the idea of using full scores instead of scores -10. For scores -10 (which I'm leaning to, after reading everyone's opinions), it will be:

My proposal doesn't include training or skill subsystem, but lets assume high score = trained/expert.
If you set DCs like this:

Easy - DC 5
moderate - DC 10
hard - DC 15
extreme - DC 20

then character will have the following % chance of success
average joe (ability =10) easy 80%, moderate 55%, hard 30%, extreme 5%
expert joe (ability =15) easy 100%, moderate 80%, hard 55%, extreme 30%
g.i.joe (ability =20) easy 100%, moderate 100%, hard 80%, extreme 55%

This doesn't include skills or other possible benefits.
Skills under this system would have to do something else than grant numeric bonus to checks, and that's easy to do.
Other bonuses should be kept to minimum, and be only on ocasion.

I wonder if removing the effects of natural 20s or 1s would prevent new players from developing the mindset that the die roll itself matters.

Roll should matter, but only if there's something at stake. If a very competent character makes not so difficult check, IMO it's okay to just let him auto succeed. My proposal nicely takes off the DM the burden of choosing if a character should make an easy roll or not. In the normal rules, a super expert could still fail average check (and sometimes even easy checks...), but the DM and player might then wonder if the character should make the check or just automatically succeed. He's a master in his field after all.
In score-10 mechanic this is solved. Effective characters have good enough number to autosucceed checks that are well below their expertise.
At the same time, high difficulty DCs are set in such a way that average characters with little competence can still win them if lucky.

 

[Szatany]

Contests are a horrible game mechanic and doubling down to try and make the swinginess of the awful mechanic work by doing this is not good.

I agree. The game sorely lacks a mechanic that would adress various levels of randomness in tasks. Attacking someone with a weapon has more factors to it than arm wresting and it would be nice if game could account for that. Perhaps a rules module that says there are 3 levels of randomness: normal, low, and minute. Normal randomness means that a d20 is used, and most rolls should be that. However sometimes DM declares that a particular tasks carries little chance for variation and raw modifiers count more. In such cases, d20 would be replaced with 2d10 for low, or 3d6 for minute levels.

 

[Sadrik]

This doesn't include skills or other possible benefits.
Skills under this system would have to do something else than grant numeric bonus to checks, and that's easy to do.
Other bonuses should be kept to minimum, and be only on ocasion.

That explains it, thanks for reposting. I think the DCs you have here are too easy. Skills and other possible benefits, such as class features, race, skill training, advantage, others helping, tools etc. A skill system needs include all these factors in a task resolution. Some of these should modify the DC and some should modify the bonus the player adds to their roll. Automatic successes, is ok by me.

For me, I like smaller stat bonuses and tighter DCs and heavier influence from all of the other factors other than abilities. For instance I want cover to mean something, it really does not if your dex 20 character is getting a +10 to AC. I want having the right tool to matter for the task, I want all these other factors to matter. With a huge stat mod it diminishes the attractiveness of even bothering to account for those other factors. Hence I like -3 to +3.

 

[Szatany]

For instance I want cover to mean something, it really does not if your dex 20 character is getting a +10 to AC.

I never proposed scores -10 should affect anything except checks, not even saves. Saves, AC, attacks, etc. would still use the modifier, so 20 Dex still = +5 AC.