Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 5843017" data-attributes="member: 70709">The de-emphasis of the ability score is intentional.  With competent training the ability score and the training bonus are basically in parity: both top out at about +5 and both roll only a single die, so a naturally excellent person is about as good as a trained average person.  That also limits the full range of skill bonuses from about -4 (a 3 in a score and untrained) to +10 (a 20 in a score and training) assuming we're using the 3e/4e way of calculating bonuses.  I don't think the full range should ever really exceed 20, and that leaves some room for the inevitable other sources of bonuses.The math of multiple dice is pretty straightforward.  If p is the probability of success on a single roll, then the probability of getting at least one success over n rolls is 1-(1-p)^n.  Here's a couple tables illustrating that.  The first one is just the probability of getting at least one success, likely about what you saw at AnyDice.  The second table is the increase in probability compared to a single roll, which is just 1-(1-p)^n-p.<img src="http://www.pa.msu.edu/%7Egranlund/ENWorld/md1.png" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" /><img src="http://www.pa.msu.edu/%7Egranlund/ENWorld/md2.png" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />As you can see from the second graph, a single extra die gives anywhere makes it anywhere up to 25% more likely to get at least one success.  On average it is just under 16%, roughly a +3 bonus, assuming all the p occur equally often during play.  Probably checks in the middle of the range are more common in play, so the actual benefit of a single extra die is probably a +4 or so.  It is worth keeping in mind, however, that a reroll isn't that helpful on very easy or very difficult checks, and that it can't make a check an automatic success or prevent an automatic failure like a +4 potentially could.The case with rolling 3 dice is very similar, increasing the probability of getting at least one success up to just under 40%.  On average the increase is about 24%, about a +5.  Again, rolls for p somewhere in the middle are probably more common in play, so the actual improvement is probably closer to a +6.I agree that that's pretty potent, but it's also supposed to represent qualitative superiority gained with a significant expenditure of resources.  In a game where skill bonuses generally don't increase (or do so very slowly) I don't think it's inappropriate.Plus, consider how it impacts the checks of different difficulty.  When p is large the increase in probability is small because the character is already good at the task.  In these cases an extra dice is much preferred to a flat bonus on the check, since it is precisely the characters who are good at a thing that have, in the past, driven DC inflation.  When p is moderate the increase in probability is large, representing confidence on all the sorts of checks where taking 10 might normally be appropriate.  Finally, when p is small the improvement is small, and in any case the probability of success doesn't approach 1.  A master that rolls 3 dice on a check where the DC requires he roll a 17-20 (p=.2) still only succeeds a little less than half the time.  I think that still counts as a nail-biter.Thanks for your thoughts!---I thought you might be thorough. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I also need to spread it around, as it turns out.There's no doubt that Aid Another is more potent than it has been in past editions, and really opens up some exciting possibilities for cooperation.  The old +2 was flavorless, and when a character needed help the most (automatic failure) it was useless too.  Plus I think a version of D&D with Aid Another as a viable combat strategy sounds pretty cool.  I can think of plenty of times in past games where I would have given up a standard action to give the rogue or fighter another die to roll for their big attack.  In 4e it would have been incredible for daily attacks.That's a good point about the difficulty of keeping things in an appropriate range given the possibilities of Aid Another.  This is exactly the sort of thing that would need playtesting and math work.  No matter what, I think it's a good reason to make sure Expert and Master training is a pursuit, not a given.  In the end, I think the trick is to simply accept that highly trained characters will succeed at a basic level, and quite possibly very well, and define the check for everyone else.  From what we know right now it sounds like 5e will be emphasizing automatic success when appropriate more strongly than earlier systems.  This tiered skill system could possibly be an enabler for that feature.Absolutely.  In 3.5 the skill points accrue so slowly one rarely "felt" the improvement.  And in 4e the +1/2 level improvement is even less exciting to me.  My touchstones here are the FATE skill pyramid, and the computer game Arcanum which uses a point-based character creation that really doesn't permit mastering more than a few things.  The latter's <a href="http://www.gamebanshee.com/arcanum/skills.php" target="_blank">skills</a> also give a mathematical bonus as they improve, but each step of the way is accompanied by a much more interesting qualitative effect.  (Possibly my favorite: mastery in Haggle or Persuasion would allow you to gamble for or purchase items with which the other creature would normally never part.  Things like personal weapons, unique items, etc.  It is a fantastic and flavorful benefit.) I think I like your second idea better because it suggests skill tricks are fully integrated in the game and doesn't add even more dice.  Conceptually it even has a nice feeling: What pure dumb luck sometimes grants (a skill trick) is something the trained have learned to access more freely.  Besides, one of those skill tricks might be:OK, maybe not exactly like that. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  On the other hand, a master rolling 3 checks already gets a lot of nice  stuff, including skill tricks.  Does he really need a 3x chance of getting one more due to a  natural 20?  I'm hesitant. Hmm, those are both good ideas.  I would absolutely use the complications idea in a skill challenge type system that builds on what is already here, but I'm not sure I'd include it as part of the base system.  Adding complications (or at least interesting ones) can take a lot of time, so I'd want to limit it to pretty significant events only.Thanks for commenting!</blockquote>

Verification