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: 5849144" data-attributes="member: 70709">OK, that wasn't clear to me.  I was under the apparently mistaken impression that the number of successes required was equal to the number of different skills used because breadth (as I understood you) related the number of skills to the number of successes.In my mind a check is always a single use of a single skill, so I don't think of "chained" skill checks as anything but separate checks unless one adds completely new structure on top, like Skill Challenges did.  Aiding oneself with a secondary skill would probably be a rare occurrence in any game I ran, but I think it's an intriguing idea.I think we talked past each other here.  I was assuming that every check with a single skill required a single success (as per my above misunderstanding).  I did not assume that a 1 is an automatic failure.  Also, my objection wasn't that the probability of success can't drop below 5%, it is that it could be 0% or 5% but it could never be in between those.  This is so because, for any check that succeeds on a single success, if p=0 then the probability of success is 0 regardless of how many rolls are attempted, and if p=.05 each additional roll increases the probability of getting a success.  In other words, on checks where a single success is required it is impossible to get, say, a 2.5% chance of success or a .75% chance of success.  My objection is removed because apparently you allow that some checks using a single skill may require more than a single success.The new table is not cumulative, so each element in the table lists the total benefit for that level of training.  Mechanically, it is identical to the first table.  For example, whether one is Competent or a Master, the total skill bonus  is just +5.  A +15 just for training would be disastrous. (The idea for the new table was that a player looking up training bonuses in a table wants to see exactly what they get, not "sum" it up over all the lower levels of training as well.  It was part of my attempt to give it a better presentation.)I clearly have some issues with the breadth/depth situation, because of how badly I misinterpreted your tweaked system in the first place.  Perhaps you can explain again how one determines results in your system.  If I now understand you correctly, a character might roll 4 dice on a skill check using a master skill.  If he gets 1 success then that has some result, and if he gets 4 successes that is some superior result (which naturally only a master could normally get by virtue of his many dice).  I honestly don't see how that fixes anything.  As DM I could always think the situation might warrant giving on 2 successes what I might otherwise have given on 3.  Or on 3 what I might otherwise have given on two.  Suddenly one is adjusting both  the DC and the result, and I don't see any way to avoid that unless the DC is fixed for all checks or the number of results is exactly 1 for all checks.  And if the result can't vary on the number of successes, what is the point of even contemplating a system which counts successes?As I've said, for me the main use of multiple outcomes isn't to adjust the probabilities of success, it is to define outcomes that match the theme of untrained, competent, expert, or master training, i.e. what such a character could reasonably be expected to do, and then define a DC appropriate to that outcome.*or*In cases where there are a clear fixed set of outcomes (like in the Decipher Script example with minimal, partial, and complete results) to pick a DC which gives each result with frequency appropriate to the difficulty of the task.In both the above cases, however, the results are defined first and then the DC is picked.  Most additional modifiers should affect the DC.  But really important ones, ones that are so big they should make an Expert as good as a Master in a particular task, should cause the DM to adjust the results of success itself.  This isn't a mathematical calculation to get the right probabilities, it is a qualitative assessment on how that modifier changes the situation.I'd also note that my proposal is specifically designed to *not* require using the multiple successes and the related binomial math for figuring things out.  A master character obtains an appropriate master-level result by rolling a single die.  The probability of that happening is just p, and lets the DM set appropriate probabilities for success in a natural way.  Yes, there is an increased probability that the character gets an Expert result, but one should set the probabilities for Expert results assuming the person making the check is an Expert, and so on.  The only time the math of multiple required successes rears its head is when the character is attempting to obtain a result above what their training makes "normal".  That represents a special occasion, and in any case the DM should still set the DCs based on what an appropriately trained person would get.  It relieves the DM of the burden of trying to calculate the exact probabilities, and it happens only in cases where the PCs know they are stretching beyond their natural ability.  It might be possible to recast the multiple dice as rerolls.  Certainly the probability of getting at least one success is identical either way.  The difference would come in explaining when one can use skill tricks.  Currently they represent ways to spend extra successes.  If the additional dice represent additional rerolls, however, one would always stop after the first success and would never bother to roll the other rerolls.  So how does one know how many, if any, skill tricks could be used?Allowing different numbers of successes does provide more scope for  resolving skill checks.  Isn't that the point?  If that is an issue the only sure solution is to make every check binary again.I also think you're underestimating how quickly the 'roll another dice to get the next best outcome' works. A master rolling a check that has a Competent, Expert, and Master outcome rolls exactly 1 die with probability p, exactly 2 dice with probability (1-p)p, and exactly 3 dice with probability (1-p)^2.  That means the average number of a dice rolled is 1p + 2(1-p)p+3(1-p)^2=p^2-3p+3.  Assuming all p's occur with equal probability, the average check requires just ~1.85 rolls.  Not only that, if one fails the roll there is no deliberation, one immediately rolls again.  So on average it requires fewer rolls and less math than rolling 3 dice on every check.  Yes, there is some lag because the rolls are performed separately, but one or more rerolls only happens (on average) 50% of the time.  Unless the player is a serious slow-poke when rolling both will take a comparable amount of time.  And remember, this is only the case when all three outcomes have been defined.  If the master rolls a skill with only an Untrained/Competent result (which should be most of them) he can simply roll his 3 dice.Thanks for your clarifications!</blockquote>

Verification