D&D 3E/3.5 the 3e skill system

[tetrasodium]

If I read this right, you're using passive ability checks as the floor for a check?

That's entire valid, but I disagree with it. Passive checks are what happens when a PC is expending effort to do that thing over time. It's a time saving construction where you don't have to roll all the time, not a floor for active check. If a PC is on watch, I'm going to use their passive perception as the target for an assassin's stealth check to approach unseen. If the PC declares an action to specifically look at something, that's an active check, and the normal loop occurs (is there a consequence for failure, is the check not trivial, good, ask for a check). Using passive checks as a floor distorts the skill system and, as you note, almost requires DC inflation to keep things in check (heh).

Again, this is a perfectly valid way of doing things, I'm just registering a different approach and my personal dislike of it.

No he has a point. I'll use myself and my cheesemaking hobby as an example.

When I first started I began making mistakes that resulted in hard grainy cheese that couldn't really be called the kind of cheese it was supposed to be and could barely be called cheese in some early cases. Problem there is I suspected a bunch of possible things I was doing wrong and things that might help. Several batches of almost goat cheese later I was doing more things right and getting into identifying my big mistakes so my goat cheese was coming out closer and closer to what it should be. Turns out I misunyhow salting should work and was tearing apart the curds to mix in salt resulting in massively damaged curds. Let's say that goat cheese is dc8 with wine soaked cheese Colby or cheddar dc12 (or several lower checks to both. Under d20 rules every batch of all three has a chance that I will take the curds after they drain out the whey and use a fork to shred them to crumbs so I can mix in salt instead of properly cutting the curds and properly salting the outer surface... it also has a decent chance that each batch will properly do all that simply from d20 plus int/wis mod Passive floor ensures that I won't suddenly forget everything I learned about the time consuming hobby (typically 36-72hours after starting before any cheese is ready for aging)

 

[Ovinomancer]

No he has a point. I'll use myself and my cheesemaking hobby as an example.

When I first started I began making mistakes that resulted in hard grainy cheese that couldn't really be called the kind of cheese it was supposed to be and could barely be called cheese in some early cases. Problem there is I suspected a bunch of possible things I was doing wrong and things that might help. Several batches of almost goat cheese later I was doing more things right and getting into identifying my big mistakes so my goat cheese was coming out closer and closer to what it should be. Turns out I misunyhow salting should work and was tearing apart the curds to mix in salt resulting in massively damaged curds. Let's say that goat cheese is dc8 with wine soaked cheese Colby or cheddar dc12 (or several lower checks to both. Under d20 rules every batch of all three has a chance that I will take the curds after they drain out the whey and use a fork to shred them to crumbs so I can mix in salt instead of properly cutting the curds and properly salting the outer surface... it also has a decent chance that each batch will properly do all that simply from d20 plus int/wis mod Passive floor ensures that I won't suddenly forget everything I learned about the time consuming hobby (typically 36-72hours after starting before any cheese is ready for aging)

If you're proficient, there should be a roll for things less than easy. Says so in the DMG. Problem solved.

I use the Middle Path in the DMG. If an action doesn't have a consequence for failure and/or is trivial, don't ask for a roll. DCs under 10 are trivial. If you tell me that you're leveraging your proficiency in cheesemaking to make a wheel of cheese and it's not for royalty or being done in a rushed manner (which there's not a lot of ways to rush cheese), that's no check, you just do it. I don't need to math up a passive check, because, on that day when you're in a terrible rush to make a wheel of cheese to impress the King, I'm going to call for a check. A failure wouldn't mean you didn't make cheese -- that seems unlikely -- but that your result will not earn you favor with the King.

Now, if you're untrained, you might not even make cheese.

In other words, using passive checks as a floor is addressing the same issues that the middle path does -- it takes checks that shouldn't be made and gives players a way to just be competent. However, not using passive floors means that there's actual drama and risk when situations call for it. Pairing that with fail forward or success at cost means helps make failing a check not be you failing to do anything right; you just don't do enough right. Binary fail/succeed is boring.

 

[GMMichael]

Passive floor ensures that I won't suddenly forget everything I learned about the time consuming hobby

Proper guidance for DMs also ensures that you won't suddenly forget everything you learned about cheesemaking (caseiculture?). There's a wrench in the machine, somewhere, when rolling too low means you have no skill. Oh wait, we may have found it:

Binary fail/succeed is boring.

And it also implies, due to its similarity to the hit/miss dichotomy, that a failure is a catastrophic failure. A "hit" is what you intended: you wanted to cause damage and you did so. A "miss": you did nothing, you caused no damage. Succeed: you made cheese. Fail: you made zero cheese.

 

[tetrasodium]

Proper guidance for DMs also ensures that you won't suddenly forget everything you learned about cheesemaking (caseiculture?). There's a wrench in the machine, somewhere, when rolling too low means you have no skill. Oh wait, we may have found it:


And it also implies, due to its similarity to the hit/miss dichotomy, that a failure is a catastrophic failure. A "hit" is what you intended: you wanted to cause damage and you did so. A "miss": you did nothing, you caused no damage. Succeed: you made cheese. Fail: you made zero cheese.

I didn't expect anyone to take up the cheesemaking example, tbh it's dead simple as long as you have theneeded equipment/cultures & have the basics down Here's the four steps involved in making goat cheese but even advanced cheeses are not significantly more involved despite having a couple more steps or ways you could do things horribly wrong. For what it's worth, queso blanco, mozzarella, & goat cheese are some of the easiest beginner cheeses to start with & don't require much investment to get started on

 

[Panda-s1]

oh boy, I missed this thread somehow. I'll only talk about stuff that somehow hasn't come up yet. also caveat: a lot of my grievances stem from misconceptions others had about the skill system, but I had these misconceptions, too, and when they're common enough it's basically good as RAW (like these are things I ran into among completely different and unrelated groups of people, so I'm assuming gamers everywhere had these misconceptions).

trained vs. untrained: wtf
this issue is twofold for me.

I know some people here are arguing about the need to max out Tumble, but someone once pointed out how since Tumble is a trained skill it's always worth blowing a skill point into it at character creation just for the ability to tumble in the first place. someone else pointed out that spreading your skill points around is a valid strategy since so many skills are trained. I think people tend to forget that while 3.x had a more granular skill system, it still had a lot of on/off skills as well. since your average game rarely makes it past level 10 breadth seemed to trump depth a lot of the time, and yeah I found myself doing this a lot in 3.5, or at the very least struggling to have at least a few decent skills while not being a complete idiot about how the world works.

this leads into the other part which was this belief that you need to be "trained" in any skill in order to even use it to begin with. this one wasn't as common among more established groups, but it feels indicative of how much newer players actually studied the rules 3.x, which were byzantine and—well you get the point.

why take 10? how even is take 20?
a question that very few people I knew could get right back then: what skills can you take 10 on? this seemed like a confusing issue underlying the game until one day I realized the only skill that says you can't take a 10 on is Use Magic Item*. then I had to get over suddenly remembering all those times taking 10 could've helped me get out of some terrible situations. also I had only one DM I trusted enough to tell this to, and he was like "oh, huh, you're right", any other DM probably would've started a long winded argument that would have ended in altering take 10 to something worse (I had some bad DM's at the time). I think the real issue for me is take 10 should have been the DM using common sense to decide that "yeah of course your ranger who fought goblins and studied them for years knows what a goblin looks like". at least I hope that's normal these days (yes I had DM's that bad).

and who decided how take 20 works? how does the mechanic even make any sense? please, some explain this to me, when's the last time irl you naughty word something 19 times in a row and suddenly wildly succeeded the 20th time?

knowledge, and background skills
tangentially related to taking 10, but I don't like how knowledge works. I don't like the Schrodinger's level of determination over whether or not my character knows something, even though they likely would given the circumstances of the game. it's possible I'm misunderstanding this. but as it has played out for me: 1) if I roll knowledge in battle to figure out something about an enemy monster and fail I just know nothing about this monster. never mind if backstory says I do know something, the skill just doesn't work that way. 2) attempting to know more about something means risking knowing nothing at all about that thing. assuming I am able to take 10 on a knowledge skill trying to roll higher than that means I can roll under a 10 and end up knowing nothing. why is this?

knowledge also falls under the category of what I thought were "background skills", including crafting and profession. some people regard those throwaway skills, but it's also like "if my character was a blacksmith, but doesn't have ranks in profession (blacksmith) or craft (blacksmithing), was he really a blacksmith?". some people did make this sort of thing an issue, and I already have to deal with distributing my meager amount of skill points across 30+ skills, I know I don't have to have these skills, but why even have them to begin with?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

If you're proficient, there should be a roll for things less than easy. Says so in the DMG. Problem solved.

I use the Middle Path in the DMG. If an action doesn't have a consequence for failure and/or is trivial, don't ask for a roll. DCs under 10 are trivial. If you tell me that you're leveraging your proficiency in cheesemaking to make a wheel of cheese and it's not for royalty or being done in a rushed manner (which there's not a lot of ways to rush cheese), that's no check, you just do it. I don't need to math up a passive check, because, on that day when you're in a terrible rush to make a wheel of cheese to impress the King, I'm going to call for a check. A failure wouldn't mean you didn't make cheese -- that seems unlikely -- but that your result will not earn you favor with the King.

Now, if you're untrained, you might not even make cheese.

In other words, using passive checks as a floor is addressing the same issues that the middle path does -- it takes checks that shouldn't be made and gives players a way to just be competent. However, not using passive floors means that there's actual drama and risk when situations call for it. Pairing that with fail forward or success at cost means helps make failing a check not be you failing to do anything right; you just don't do enough right. Binary fail/succeed is boring.

Thus my statement that circumstances can (and should) be taken into account, applying advantage/disadvantage as needed. Disadvantage for a Passive check is -5, thus making many things that would otherwise be easy enough to do now require a check.

In other words: there's actual drama and risk when situations call for it. It just helps you determine, consistently and fairly, when the situation calls for it.

I'm not a fan of fail forward, but I fully embrace partial success/failure (and my example of time to complete a task can be considered either). We have standard break points as well, typically success/failure by 5 or more, 10 and more, natural 1 or 20, etc. However, there are still a lot of checks that are a binary success/failure regardless.

For me, any system of rules is a framework for the DM to adjudicate the action, not a strict set of rules to follow slavishly. So even if a PC's Passive check would normally indicate success, it's the action at the table that might call for a check anyway. But by using the Passive checks as the usual floor, it makes it extremely easy to make those decisions, and also easily differentiates the abilities of the PCs in a meaningful way.

Combine that with our usual approach of non-proficient = ability modifier + disadvantage, proficient = ability score + proficiency modifier, and expertise is the same as proficiency + advantage, and the possibility that advantage/disadvantage can stack, it creates a complete framework for very quick and easy adjudication. As a DM, you know almost instantly whether a die roll is normally necessary, and makes it easier to identify the times, especially the exceptions, when calling for a die roll will actually enhance the ongoing narrative. Actually asking for a check itself enhances the suspense at the table because you're no longer calling for trivial checks.

That's ultimately what I found that was missing from all of the other systems I've tried, including the D&D systems over the years. The advice is to only call for a die roll when it matters. But by not setting a floor based on the skill of the PCs, you're ignoring part of what makes each character unique - their specific set of skills and their level of proficiency.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thus my statement that circumstances can (and should) be taken into account, applying advantage/disadvantage as needed. Disadvantage for a Passive check is -5, thus making many things that would otherwise be easy enough to do now require a check.

In other words: there's actual drama and risk when situations call for it. It just helps you determine, consistently and fairly, when the situation calls for it.

I'm not a fan of fail forward, but I fully embrace partial success/failure (and my example of time to complete a task can be considered either). We have standard break points as well, typically success/failure by 5 or more, 10 and more, natural 1 or 20, etc. However, there are still a lot of checks that are a binary success/failure regardless.

For me, any system of rules is a framework for the DM to adjudicate the action, not a strict set of rules to follow slavishly. So even if a PC's Passive check would normally indicate success, it's the action at the table that might call for a check anyway. But by using the Passive checks as the usual floor, it makes it extremely easy to make those decisions, and also easily differentiates the abilities of the PCs in a meaningful way.

Combine that with our usual approach of non-proficient = ability modifier + disadvantage, proficient = ability score + proficiency modifier, and expertise is the same as proficiency + advantage, and the possibility that advantage/disadvantage can stack, it creates a complete framework for very quick and easy adjudication. As a DM, you know almost instantly whether a die roll is normally necessary, and makes it easier to identify the times, especially the exceptions, when calling for a die roll will actually enhance the ongoing narrative. Actually asking for a check itself enhances the suspense at the table because you're no longer calling for trivial checks.

That's ultimately what I found that was missing from all of the other systems I've tried, including the D&D systems over the years. The advice is to only call for a die roll when it matters. But by not setting a floor based on the skill of the PCs, you're ignoring part of what makes each character unique - their specific set of skills and their level of proficiency.

I fail to understand how I can possibly be ignoring skills and proficiency just by calling for checks normally. This is a bridge too far -- that the game doesn't acknowledge or represent skill or proficiency unless a passive floor is installed. That's just a weird thing to say.

I don't allow passive checks to be a floor. You end up with things like a passive 25 perception check with a skill bonus of +10 (observant feat). This means that the PC autosucceeds on very hard perception checks at all times (absent disad) but can only succeed on an observation skill check actually rolled about 30% of the time. That's just odd stuff, there. To make that work, you'd have to have a host of other houserules to level it out, and I'm already past my limit of keeping track of PC stats if I tried to remember what their passive scores are. Way too much work for wonky results and not much improvement over just calling for checks when appropriate.

Passive scores represent constant effort over time. It's the score you use when on watch, or if you're looking for traps down a long hall, or other, constant effort tasks. Normally, according to the PHB play loop and using the middle path from the DMG, you'd only ever call for a check when the PC states an action with an uncertain result, the task is achievable and not trivial (this is based on the task, not the PC stats), and there's a consequence for failure. That pretty much solves the calling for trivial checks problem, because you'll only call for checks when these things apply. And, the neat thing, is you don't care what the PC stats are -- the DC should be based on the difficulty of the action attempted. So, if you call for a check and the PC can autobeat it with their stat, they feel super awesome and the thing happens. It's a neat way to do exactly what you're talking about -- making PC skills and proficiency count -- without ever even having to think about what the PC's stats actually are. They're going to try to attempt actions that align with their abilities and PC desires, and you just adjudicate and it comes out in the wash.

And, I say this after having tried what you're talking about. I even further codified skills and bonuses to attempt to achieve skill perfection. It took getting frustrated and then actually listening to a few other ideas from posters here (shocking, I know) to get to the point that I was doing way, way too much work to get a result I didn't actually like. I tried the rules, and, wouldn't you know, they actually work pretty well. I don't fret it, my players are having more fun, and I'm having more fun. It's cool.

But, that's my way, not THE way. I'm glad you have a system that works for you, I just find it to be way too much work for not enough payoff. Especially the knock-on effects of having to houserule other things to fit it in and the DC inflation.

 

[tetrasodium]

I fail to understand how I can possibly be ignoring skills and proficiency just by calling for checks normally. This is a bridge too far -- that the game doesn't acknowledge or represent skill or proficiency unless a passive floor is installed. That's just a weird thing to say.

I don't allow passive checks to be a floor. You end up with things like a passive 25 perception check with a skill bonus of +10 (observant feat). This means that the PC autosucceeds on very hard perception checks at all times (absent disad) but can only succeed on an observation skill check actually rolled about 30% of the time. That's just odd stuff, there. To make that work, you'd have to have a host of other houserules to level it out, and I'm already past my limit of keeping track of PC stats if I tried to remember what their passive scores are. Way too much work for wonky results and not much improvement over just calling for checks when appropriate.

Passive scores represent constant effort over time. It's the score you use when on watch, or if you're looking for traps down a long hall, or other, constant effort tasks. Normally, according to the PHB play loop and using the middle path from the DMG, you'd only ever call for a check when the PC states an action with an uncertain result, the task is achievable and not trivial (this is based on the task, not the PC stats), and there's a consequence for failure. That pretty much solves the calling for trivial checks problem, because you'll only call for checks when these things apply. And, the neat thing, is you don't care what the PC stats are -- the DC should be based on the difficulty of the action attempted. So, if you call for a check and the PC can autobeat it with their stat, they feel super awesome and the thing happens. It's a neat way to do exactly what you're talking about -- making PC skills and proficiency count -- without ever even having to think about what the PC's stats actually are. They're going to try to attempt actions that align with their abilities and PC desires, and you just adjudicate and it comes out in the wash.

And, I say this after having tried what you're talking about. I even further codified skills and bonuses to attempt to achieve skill perfection. It took getting frustrated and then actually listening to a few other ideas from posters here (shocking, I know) to get to the point that I was doing way, way too much work to get a result I didn't actually like. I tried the rules, and, wouldn't you know, they actually work pretty well. I don't fret it, my players are having more fun, and I'm having more fun. It's cool.

But, that's my way, not THE way. I'm glad you have a system that works for you, I just find it to be way too much work for not enough payoff. Especially the knock-on effects of having to houserule other things to fit it in and the DC inflation.

And here people have been arguing how things that shatter bounded accuracy aren't a problem through this and other threads.
I'm not sure how you figure "around 30%" chance of rolling 1-9 on a d20 though

 

[Ovinomancer]

And here people have been arguing how things that shatter bounded accuracy aren't a problem through this and other threads.
I'm not sure how you figure "around 30%" chance of rolling 1-9 on a d20 though

DC is 25, skill bonus is +10, you need a 15+, not 10-.

And, no, if you don't use passive scores as a floor, this isn't a breaking event. I means they keep good watch. That's at the cost of a major resource, and only works for repetitive tasks. Seems fair.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

why take 10? how even is take 20?
a question that very few people I knew could get right back then: what skills can you take 10 on? this seemed like a confusing issue underlying the game until one day I realized the only skill that says you can't take a 10 on is Use Magic Item*. then I had to get over suddenly remembering all those times taking 10 could've helped me get out of some terrible situations. also I had only one DM I trusted enough to tell this to, and he was like "oh, huh, you're right", any other DM probably would've started a long winded argument that would have ended in altering take 10 to something worse (I had some bad DM's at the time). I think the real issue for me is take 10 should have been the DM using common sense to decide that "yeah of course your ranger who fought goblins and studied them for years knows what a goblin looks like". at least I hope that's normal these days (yes I had DM's that bad).

Right, Take 10 was primarily restricted by situations, rather than by skill. The general rule there was, "if someone is trying to kill you, you can't take 10."

and who decided how take 20 works? how does the mechanic even make any sense? please, some explain this to me, when's the last time irl you ****ed something 19 times in a row and suddenly wildly succeeded the 20th time?

Dark Souls III