D&D 5E Ability checks not using modifier

[Sadrik]

Sadrik, it's a d20 system. The way you alter randomness is by changing the dice used, the bonuses to skills or ability scores doesn't change that math too much.

Otherwise, yes, d20 + (anything) will always have quite the random curve.

Actually that is not true. d20 + another random element will create a curve. d20 + static number will create a straight line.

 

[Sadrik]

My proposal doesn't include training or skill subsystem, but lets assume high score = trained/expert.
If you set DCs like this:

Easy - DC 15
moderate - DC 20
hard - DC 25
extreme - DC 30

then character will have the following % chance of success
average joe (ability =10) easy 80%, moderate 55%, hard 30%, extreme 5%
expert joe (ability =15) easy 100%, moderate 80%, hard 55%, extreme 30%
g.i.joe (ability =20) easy 100%, moderate 100%, hard 80%, extreme 55%

This doesn't include skills or other possible benefits.
Skills under this system would have to do something else than grant numeric bonus to checks, and that's easy to do.
Other bonuses should be kept to minimum, and be only on ocasion.

I thought your system was stat-10 so a stat of 10 gives you a +0 bonus and a 20 stat gives you a +10. If that is the case I do not think you have done the math right. A DC 15 (easy) for a 10 stat is not 80% chance of success. It is as it turns out, 30% success rate and a 20 stat would have a 80% success rate. I am not going to analyze further.

 

[Sadrik]

I dislike the fact that a character with str 10 has rather large % chance of defeating str 20 character in a contest of strenght.

Contests are a horrible game mechanic and doubling down to try and make the swinginess of the awful mechanic work by doing this is not good.

 

[keterys]

Actually that is not true. d20 + another random element will create a curve. d20 + static number will create a straight line.

That would be "changing the dice used", as I said, yes.

2d20 is a curve, indeed. 1d20 + 1d4 or 1d6 isn't much of a curve, but eh. That is probably the intent of skill dice, but they've apparently decided to drop them.

 

[jadrax]

Actually that is not true. d20 + another random element will create a curve. d20 + static number will create a straight line.

Another reason why the Skill Die idea was great.

 

[Sadrik]

Well stated

However I think you draw a wrong conclusion. I dont think the stat modifiers need to change. I think the DCs need to change. The biggest problem I see with granting such large bonuses to account for DC that can change and swingy contested rolls is combat. You really want people to have +10 damage on attacks? I have a 20 STR, here take my two-handed axe to the head oh and +10 damage. I dont think so...

 

[Sadrik]

That would be "changing the dice used", as I said, yes.

2d20 is a curve, indeed. 1d20 + 1d4 or 1d6 isn't much of a curve, but eh. That is probably the intent of skill dice, but they've apparently decided to drop them.

Lets just say in my mind I have dropped them. From a mechanical perspective I would rather see a truer bell curve. I think training for skills as being what advantage is now would be better. I also think lowering the DCs dramatically would be good. DC 5 for easy, then if you have training your 2d20 keep the higher + ability is an almost auto success. Make advantage and disadvantage flat modifiers. Yeah I know it is a cool circumstantial modifier tool but a flat +X/-X might be better.

 

[Salamandyr]

Doing it the way the OP suggests has one very good thing to say for it...DM psychology. Ideally, the DC for most challenges in the current packet ought to be DC10. Somebody with no particular talent one way or the other has a 50/50 shot at success while someone with Arnold Schwarzenegger/Albert Einstein levels in an attribute has a 75-80% shot. Some stuff should be even easier, because let's face it, the smartest/strongest people should be autosucceeding at a lot of things that are an interesting challenge to those of us laboring in the 8-13 range of the attribute bell curve. So we should see a fair number of DC 6's & 7's

But let's face it, nobody at the table is going to want to let a roll of 5 be a success. It just feels wrong to let something succeed when it hasn't even made double digits. So what we're actually going to see is most challenges being being DC 15 or better where Paragons of talent in an an attribute have a 50/50 shot or less to succeed, and anyone else shouldn't even bother.

So attribute-10 does allow for greater granularity and DC's that feel more "right" to the players at the table. It has the disadvantage of creating two different mechanics, and if we're going to do that, we might as well rid ourselves of the tyranny of the d20 and find a better mechanic for skill resolution like a single d6 or 2d6.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

But let's face it, nobody at the table is going to want to let a roll of 5 be a success. It just feels wrong to let something succeed when it hasn't even made double digits. So what we're actually going to see is most challenges being being DC 15 or better where Paragons of talent in an an attribute have a 50/50 shot or less to succeed, and anyone else shouldn't even bother.

Everybody at the table needs to get over it. The system doesn't care about the die result, but the check total.

 

[Salamandyr]

Everybody at the table needs to get over it. The system doesn't care about the die result, but the check total.

That's a wonderful attitude to have on website forum; it'd be wonderful if everybody could just "get over it". But nobody ever got over it in 3e, and nobody's ever going to get over it in 5e. The system isn't the one setting the DC's or eyeballing success and failure based on if the dice "looks" right.

Most people I'm going to game with aren't mathematicians, or even have an intuitive feel for numbers. They don't necessarily make the intuitive leap that all the game is obfuscating figuring the odds of success on something. So I'd like it if the designers take all that psychology in mind when they make their rules. The rules don't just need to work, they have to "feel" right.