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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Szatany" data-source="post: 6123122" data-attributes="member: 21178">Sorry, in this writeup I went with the idea of using full scores instead of scores -10. For scores -10 (which I'm leaning to, after reading everyone's opinions), it will be:My proposal doesn't include training or skill subsystem, but lets assume high score = trained/expert.If you set DCs like this:Easy - DC 5moderate - DC 10hard - DC 15extreme - DC 20then character will have the following % chance of successaverage 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.Roll should matter, but only if there's something at stake. If a very competent character makes not so difficult check, IMO it's okay to just let him auto succeed. My proposal nicely takes off the DM the burden of choosing if a character should make an easy roll or not. In the normal rules, a super expert could still fail average check (and sometimes even easy checks...), but the DM and player might then wonder if the character should make the check or just automatically succeed. He's a master in his field after all. In score-10 mechanic this is solved. Effective characters have good enough number to autosucceed checks that are well below their expertise.At the same time, high difficulty DCs are set in such a way that average characters with little competence can still win them if lucky.</blockquote>

Verification