Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8652495" data-attributes="member: 71699">[USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER] for visTo clear up some possible misapprehensions. In PbtA if I roll a 10 but I have -1 for the relevant ability then I don't get a full success. PbtA uses a narrower range of modifers than 5e, and few or none come from the environment - they come from player choices - but it still does use a roll+modifier index to results.In the set roll+modifer approach I suggest for 5e, the differences are that a wider range of modifers are used (an advantage of the d20 flat distribution against the 2d6 curved) and those modifiers can come from things outside player choices, such as environment.The basic version of what I suggest is like this10+&nbsp; &nbsp; = full success5+ &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; = success with complicationLower = failure with consequencesDifficulty classes are converted to modifiers Very Easy becomes +5, Easy +0, Moderate –5, Hard –10, Very Hard –15, Nearly Impossible –20. As you can see, this is mathematically no different from DCs-as-targets. But it does remove ambiguity from the process. Players know that if their roll+modifier is 10+, they succeed.What this change does is make it easier and more reliable to apply the DMG 242 rules in play, allowing better focus on three (or more) levels of consequences.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8652495, member: 71699"] [USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER] for vis To clear up some possible misapprehensions. In PbtA if I roll a 10 but I have -1 for the relevant ability then I [B]don't[/B] get a full success. PbtA uses a narrower range of modifers than 5e, and few or none come from the environment - they come from player choices - but it still does use a [B]roll+modifier [/B]index to results. In the set [B]roll+modifer[/B] approach I suggest for 5e, the differences are that a wider range of modifers are used (an advantage of the d20 flat distribution against the 2d6 curved) and those modifiers can come from things outside player choices, such as environment. The basic version of what I suggest is like this [B]10+[/B] = full success [B]5+ [/B] = success with complication [B]Lower [/B]= failure with consequences Difficulty classes are converted to modifiers Very Easy becomes +5, Easy +0, Moderate –5, Hard –10, Very Hard –15, Nearly Impossible –20. As you can see, this is mathematically no different from DCs-as-targets. But it does remove ambiguity from the process. Players know that if their [B]roll+modifier[/B] is 10+, they succeed. What this change does is make it easier and more reliable to apply the DMG 242 rules in play, allowing better focus on three (or more) levels of consequences. [/QUOTE]

Verification