Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AeroDm" data-source="post: 5651358" data-attributes="member: 13650">That's pretty darn interesting. A few comments:I'm not sure the DC has to increase for each category. If you think about a system like 4e, there are easy, medium, and difficult settings to a skill. The DCs are then set so that a character has a 65% chance to succeed at a skill of their appropriate level. That same format is what you are aiming at except you've said that easy has 65%, medium has 55%, and difficult has 45%. It is sort of a double tax (pay once for the skill proficiency and again for reduced chance to succeed).I would change the penalty to -5 if one category below and -10 if two categories below. The reason is that skills are already very not-inclusive and the game is generally more fun when people can try things. Also, if Anne is an Expert climbing an Expert cliff, we want her to have *some* chance to fail. Let's say it is as little as 20% requiring her to roll a 5 or higher. The -10 penalty then has to roll a 15. At that steep a penalty, few people will bother trying if they aren't as proficient as the cliff. Maybe that's the goal, but I'd prefer the more inclusive approach.Finally, I'm presuming a 4e like system where characters improve over time. If a 10th level character adds +5 for level, you might need more ways for the DC to scale. Otherwise, on a 30th level game like 4e, the +15 from level alone means a character auto succeeds on anything of their level or lower and really struggles for anything above their level. That sort of binary result won't be very exciting.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AeroDm, post: 5651358, member: 13650"] That's pretty darn interesting. A few comments: I'm not sure the DC has to increase for each category. If you think about a system like 4e, there are easy, medium, and difficult settings to a skill. The DCs are then set so that a character has a 65% chance to succeed at a skill of their appropriate level. That same format is what you are aiming at except you've said that easy has 65%, medium has 55%, and difficult has 45%. It is sort of a double tax (pay once for the skill proficiency and again for reduced chance to succeed). I would change the penalty to -5 if one category below and -10 if two categories below. The reason is that skills are already very not-inclusive and the game is generally more fun when people can try things. Also, if Anne is an Expert climbing an Expert cliff, we want her to have *some* chance to fail. Let's say it is as little as 20% requiring her to roll a 5 or higher. The -10 penalty then has to roll a 15. At that steep a penalty, few people will bother trying if they aren't as proficient as the cliff. Maybe that's the goal, but I'd prefer the more inclusive approach. Finally, I'm presuming a 4e like system where characters improve over time. If a 10th level character adds +5 for level, you might need more ways for the DC to scale. Otherwise, on a 30th level game like 4e, the +15 from level alone means a character auto succeeds on anything of their level or lower and really struggles for anything above their level. That sort of binary result won't be very exciting. [/QUOTE]

Verification