Alt D20 Attribute system

[garrowolf]

Make attributes more important by taking the value and subtracting 10 instead of the attribute modifiers. So an 11 is a +1, 12 is +2, etc.

 

[Morrus]

I'd need a lot more information before I could comment on this. What's the reasoning behind it? What overall effect does it ave on the game? Essentially you're doubling ability mods, which will make attack rolls more likely, skill checks more likely, saves more likely, damage rolls higher, hit points higher -- it'll have major repercussions through just about every aspect of the game. You're creating super strong, fast, smart, wise PCs.

 

[darjr]

If that's the intent its a simple way to do it. I have had players that were unable to easily figure out there stat mod without a chart but it was never a huge issue.

 

[garrowolf]

Basically i was thinking about how much attributes contribute to skill rolls and it felt like they were under represented. It didn't seem that there was all that much difference between an average guy and a very strong or smart or what ever character. Now when you have a character that has any attributes at the high end of human range it is a significant character.
Another factor is that I don't use random attribute rolls. Characters start out with a total bonus of +5 for a modern character. That way characters have space to grow. For a high fantasy game they could start with +12.

 

[Michael Morris]

General system construction guideline - modifiers beyond 1/4 the die range are degenerate to the system. So for d20, modifiers beyond +5 degenerate the system. They create a skew of target numbers where those without the modifiers cannot hit the target number, and target numbers they can hit become meaningless to the character with the modifier.

Consider target number 11. Hitting this number is a 50% chance with an unmodified d20. With a +5 modifier, it climbs to a 75% chance. You are proposing a system where characters can start with +10 modifiers once level one skills are modded in. For such a character, 1 is the only roll that misses, and the midpoint of their skill roll is 20, which is again at the fringe of what the unskilled characters can do.

I've seen this in Pathfinder, and by extension it plagues 3.5. Once characters are at 15th level they're clocking around +25 on their favorite skills. Normal target numbers no longer have any meaning to them. But they still need to be called for because on any given skill there's someone in the party that cannot perform the action. Rather than be a guide to what a character is good at, skills have, in my game at least, become a straight jacket to what characters can and cannot do, at least when I'm trying to challenge the skill monkeys on the check. Whenever I do that, I insure those without the skill flat out have no shot at success.

I've been working on a system that allows player progression without this form of degeneration, where target numbers can be left static - DC 18 is a moderate check under this system regardless of whether a 1st or 20th level character is rolling. Does the 20th level character have a better shot? Yes, but he can still possibly fail though its highly unlikely. The system is largely untested still and I'm going about it at a snail's pace.

 

[garrowolf]

Actually the skill system I use has Target Numbers that go up to 40 and 50 but for skill checks that only a master should be able to make. It has critical success and failure and all the action built into a single roll per action (but that is a different system).
On the other hand PCs start with only 5 points to spend on their attributes so they are dealing with lower starting range.
I think that the problem is that the system assumes that starting characters should be able to have a shot at all skill checks, even though life does not work like that at all. If you take that assumption out then you start having TNs based on higher ranges that only a highly skilled character can do. It lets the character grow into a character that can do more through just the skill system.

 

[Michael Morris]

Games aren't life. For starters, the dead can't be returned to life. Your average D&D character goes through crap unfazed that would put any real person in the mental ward with PTSD for life. Realism is at best a red herring in game design. At worst it leads to game designs that are hopelessly complex, difficult to adjudicate and completely unfun to play for anyone other than the guy who came up with them.

So you want target numbers twice the value of resolution die? Go for it, but anyone without the key skill is going to be sitting at the table bored while your skill monkey does his thing. When people get bored they get out cell phones and play other games, read a book or talk among themselves.

Is it realistic for everyone to have a shot at a skill? Perhaps not, but it beats the alternative.

 

[Zireael]

Actually the skill system I use has Target Numbers that go up to 40 and 50 but for skill checks that only a master should be able to make. It has critical success and failure and all the action built into a single roll per action (but that is a different system).
On the other hand PCs start with only 5 points to spend on their attributes so they are dealing with lower starting range.
I think that the problem is that the system assumes that starting characters should be able to have a shot at all skill checks, even though life does not work like that at all. If you take that assumption out then you start having TNs based on higher ranges that only a highly skilled character can do. It lets the character grow into a character that can do more through just the skill system.

What's the average TN in your system? That will help us decide how important the change to ability modifiers is...

 

[garrowolf]

The TN depends on the actions that you are attempting. I have a series of skill ranks that give you +4 to your skill each rank. Each skill rank represents real world levels of skill such as basic, trained, focused, and mastery. Something that is easy for someone who is focused on that skill will be very hard for someone with only basic training in it.

 

[GMMichael]

Basically i was thinking about how much attributes contribute to skill rolls and it felt like they were under represented. It didn't seem that there was all that much difference between an average guy and a very strong or smart or what ever character. Now when you have a character that has any attributes at the high end of human range it is a significant character.

First: look at your target numbers. If you're determining outcomes with a d20, then someone with no bonuses can do what someone with +10 can do, 50% of the time. You can push the TNs up and increase the game's arithmetic requirements, or you can keep them low and need to solve the problem a different way...

Dragon Age RPG keeps the TNs low by adding more simple math to the...equation. I'm pretty sure every roll is a 3d6, so you have an awesome bell curve effect, but slightly slower rolls while a little more math gets done.

Modos RPG allows everyone to take half the die. So if you're up against the guy with a +10 again, he can take 10 on a d20, add his +10, and set the TN at 20. Now the guy without bonuses has a 5% chance to tie the very strong or very smart character, thereby setting those skill levels further apart.

Note that this math changes for two reasons:
1 - whether you're measuring degrees of success or pass/fail.
2 - whether the very guy is opposing the plain guy, or if their efforts are independent.