Complex Skill Checks

[hbarsquared]

I love using skills, and I think Unearthed Arcana made a terrific effort to make some skill checks more interactive with the "Complex Skill Check" system. Diplomacy should be a drawn out affair where the final outcome is not dependent on a single die roll.

My idea is that such checks should be more akin to combat. The skill check roll itself is analgous to your "to hit" roll. There should also be "hit points" that keep track of how successful you are in accomplishing a task, and "damage" dealt when a check results in a failure.

Life and death in combat is not dependent on a single die roll: neither should Disable Device or Bluff. So, here is a tweaked version of the Complex system that I submit for your perusal.
​

When a check is called for that is "complicated or time-consuming" you can make a Complex Skill Check.

"To hit" equivalent: your skill check modifier (including ranks, ability modifier, and bonuses).
"Hit points" equivalent: the number of ranks you have in the skill.
"Damage" equivalent: 1d4+ability modifier for skills with no ranks, 1d6+ability modifier for with ranks. Minimum of 1.

Opposed Skill Checks

For example: Bluff vs. Sense Motive.

PC has 8 ranks in Bluff and a +1 Charisma modifer.
Guard has 4 ranks in Sense Motive, a +0 Wisdom modifer, and +4 from magic item bonuses.
Opposed checks are made normally.

If the PC wins, he rolls 1d6+1 and deals this "damage" to the guard's 4 hit points in Sense Motive If the guard is reduced to 0, the Bluff succeeds. If the guard is not reduced to 0, they make opposed checks again. (The guard's ranks are not actually reduced, the value is used to just determine initial "hit points" in the skill.)

If the guard wins, he rolls 1d6 and deals the damage to the PCs 8 hit points in Bluff. Again, ranks are not actually reduced.

If the opposed checks are equal, no progress is made.

Whoever is reduced to 0 first, loses. This may be after one check, or after several. Aid Another may be used normally, and circumstance bonuses may be added.​

Fixed Skill Checks (with a DC)

For example: Disable Device

PC has 16 ranks in Disable Device, a +3 Intelligence modifer, and +6 from various other bonuses.
DC 40 to disable.

The "hit points" for a fixed skill check is equal to half the DC.
The "damage" for a fixed skill when the PC rolls a failure is 1d6+ 1/10 of the DC (rounded up).

The PC rolls the check normally. If the PC succeeds, he rolls 1d6+3 and deals this damage to the Disable Device's original 20 hit points. Checks are continued until the Disable Device reaches 0, at which point the PC succeeds.

If the PC fails on a roll, the PC takes 1d6+4 damage to their original 16 hit points. If the PC reaches 0, they fail.​

Suggestions for Skill usage

"Simple" checks that usually require only one roll, and have the phrase "if fail by 5 or less, no progress is made), can be adapted to a complex system. Balance and Climb can become exciting encounters.

"Simple checks" that usually require only one roll can be modifed in description. Spot, Move Silently, Hide... In a complex skill check, a single success can mean "You think you se something" or a single failure means "The guard narrows his eyes and approaches your hiding spot." In these cases, bonuses and/or penalties should be applied to successive checks.

Diplomacy can be opposed by Diplomacy (for negotiations).

For added tension, you can remove the synergy bonuses from the skill system. Instead, you must make a single check that results in a flat success or failure that will provide you a +2 bonus to your complex skill check.​

Imagine this in game:

"I try to convince the prince to pay for our accomodations for the night."

DM: Diplomacy check. (Prince is stingy, and the request isn't exactly reasonable, so Prince gets a +10 bonus to Diplomacy check)

Prince: 5 ranks in Diplomacy, +2 Charisma, +10 bonus from above = +17
PC: 11 ranks in Diplomacy, +3 Charisma = +14

Prince rolls 29, PC rolls 17. Prince rolls 7 "damage," PC reduced to 4 "hit points."

DM: The Prince says he sees no reason to provide anything else for you. He's already given you enough provisions for the adventure.

"I say I completley understand, but we are tired and would really appreciate it."

Prince rolls 24, PC rolls 32. PC rolls 4 "damage," Prince reduced to 1 "hit point."

DM: The Prince reconsiders thoughtfully.

"I bring up the fact that we are in the King's favor, and we will be sure to mention the Prince's graciousness when the King returns."

DM: +2 bonus (can't use this same reason a second time during negotiations)

Prince rolls 22, PC rolls 19+2 for 21. Prince rolls 3 "damage," PC reduced to 1 "hit point."

DM: The Prince says, "How dare you bring my father into this? I already have his favor."

"I say that we promise to not be any trouble."

DM: So you don't plan to go sneaking around at night?

"Well, uh, actually..."

DM: Bluff check.

Prince rolls a 14 on Sense Motive, PC rolls a 19.

DM: Okay, he believes you. Now roll your Diplomacy with +2.

Prince rolls 27, PC rolls 25+2 for 27. No progress is made.

DM: The Prince considers for a moment.

"I say please."

Prince rolls 31, PC rolls 34. PC rolls 8 "damage," Prince reduced to 0 "hit points."

DM: The Prince finally gives in and agrees to pay for your accomodations.

 

[erf_beto]

Wow, this is so cool. I mean, its obviously dnd (with the hit points, and DCs, and 'skill attacks') but it feels like WW's Storyteller/ing system, where you have to acumulate successes. It seems like a nice variant, specially for those who like Storytelling, and adds a lot of tension on 'battle-light' campaigns.

Just find better names than 'skill hit points' and 'skill damage', and you're good to go, my friend!

Though I haven't really given much thought to it, perhaps the 'damage' should scale with your skill check roll: it seems unfair to 'hit' with 20 points over the DC and only do 2 damage - but then again, that also happens in combat, doesn't it? :\

Speaking of combat: do you get crits on a natural 20?

Oh, and how about increasing the damage dice with skill ranks, like the monk's unnarmed damage scales with BAB? It's like getting a better weapon at higher (skill) levels. Not saying it should increase every one rank, but every four, five or ten ranks you increase to 1d8, 1d10...

(and all of a sudden people are becoming very polite: "I say please" ? that's hilarious! I loved it! )

 

[hbarsquared]

I've never played WW myself, but I thank you for your glowing remarks!

Though I haven't really given much thought to it, perhaps the 'damage' should scale with your skill check roll: it seems unfair to 'hit' with 20 points over the DC and only do 2 damage - but then again, that also happens in combat, doesn't it?

Exactly.

First, skill ranks don't scale nearly as quickly as normal hit points do. Introducing a scaling "damage" mechanic for complex skill checks could easily cause problems.

Second, since "damage" is based on the ability modifer, having a higher ability score will have a much larger effect. Which is on purpose. I like the idea of an NPC aristocrat with a high Charisma doing more skill damage to a PC who might have more ranks than the NPC.

Third, at higher levels, the fixed DC skill checks will be doing more damage (higher DC -> higher damage). Also, as you interact with higher level NPCs, their higher ability modifiers will, be doing more damage. The 1d6 is just to introduce another tension-building roll: it can just as easily be replaced by a fixed value.

Speaking of combat: do you get crits on a natural 20?

I almost included it, above. The problem is that, especially at low levels, it creates a scenario in which a single successful check results in an immediate success: defeating the purpose of the complex skill check in the first place. However, automatic success on a 20 and automatic failure on a 1 should be fine.

Oh, and how about increasing the damage dice with skill ranks, like the monk's unnarmed damage scales with BAB? It's like getting a better weapon at higher (skill) levels. Not saying it should increase every one rank, but every four, five or ten ranks you increase to 1d8, 1d10...

All of these are good ideas, of course. I didn't include these changes because I wanted to keep it as simple and accessible as possible. There is really very little to remember, overall, for both player and DM. Ranks are already a defined value, as are ability modifiers, so the bookkeeping behind the system is minimal. All you have to do is roll your skill checks as normal, just multiple times.

I can see a system like this making use of feats. A feat that enables an increase in the "damage die" by one step every five or ten ranks. A feat that allows you to roll 2d6 with every success. A feat that allows criticals. Stuff like that.

 

[erf_beto]

Well, when you put it like that, I totally agree with you.
Creating feats that increase damage sounds more reasonable (heck, we already have Skill Focus, why not Skill Specialization?)

 

[The Levitator]

I have to say, that I see myself as a storytelling DM. Even our combats are descriptive. I don't use any numbers to describe combat and I use a ton of variants to help me interpret the numbers to give as immersive a description as possible. I REALLY like this idea and I hope this thread continues with more input to really flesh this out.

Nice job!

I'm going to play with this idea myself, and while I'm not expert at the mechanical side of D&D, the storyteller side of me might have an epiphany or two that I hope to share.

 

[Celebrim]

I think that in theory this is a very good approach, but its a simulationist approach that I think in practice is going to bog the game down with number rolling. Particularly in the midst of role playing, all that math is going to be a mental distraction and going to break the emmersiveness of the situation. If I used it at all, I'd use it sparingly and only with very experienced players.

Now, is this a great system to backend a gritty computer based RPG? Absolutely. In that situation, the drawbacks of the system can be minimized and it allows your dialogue trees to dissuade the sort of exhaustive approach that most RPG's have now and have some actual crunch to them.

 

[hbarsquared]

but its a simulationist approach that I think in practice is going to bog the game down with number rolling.

Indeed.

However, this is an alternate for those that like the immersiveness of rolling dice.

One could say the same thing about combat: too many die rolls. Sure, one could just describe the combat back and forth ... but then you're no longer really playing D&D.

My goal was to make social roleplay just as immersive as normal combat. It depends entirely on individual groups, definitely. But I think this method can make social roleplay more exciting for those that enjoy the challenge and rush from rolling dice.

Here's an update:

Vocabulary

Success / Failure: The result of a single roll.

Overall Success / Overall Failure: The sucess or failure of the attempted task.

Skill check: The roll including all modifiers to the skill used.

Power: At the start of an encounter, equal to the number of ranks in the skill used, or half the DC for non-opposed skill checks. Effectiveness is subtracted from this value over the course of a complex skill check. When your Competence reaches zero, the attempted task is an overall failure.

Effectiveness: After a successful skill check, the number subtracted from the Power of the opposing character or DC.​

Trained and Untrained Skills

I'm thinking of changing the "effectiveness" (the "damage") of a successful check for those untrained in a skill (those with zero ranks).

Instead of 1d4 plus ability modifier, it will just be the ability modifier. (Minimum of zero)

This means that someone without any training in a skill will do significantly worse than someone even with just one rank.

Also, someone with a negative modifier on the ability, without any ranks, will never have an overall success. This is intentional. If you have no aptitude for a skill (a +0 or negative ability modifier) and have never practiced the skill (no ranks), you should not be able to succeed, ever. Depending on your game and playstyle, this can be good or bad.

Investing that first rank in a skill automatically gains you: 1) a minimum of one "effectiveness" on a successful roll (in case of negative ability modifiers), and 2) an additional 1d6 points of effectiveness to your modifier.​

 

[The Levitator]

Like I said, I'm not a statistician. But I have a question for those who are better with crunching the numbers than I. Would there be a way to reduce the rolling and just use the result as a way to determine success? Let's say that Roger the Rogue is trying to bluff his way into a posh party. He has 3 ranks in Bluff and a 16 CHA. Fred the Fighter has 1 rank in sense motive and a 10 WIS. With the above system, this would give Roger a +5 to succeed and 3 Success points (just trying on something different than HP ). Fred would have a +1 to Success and 1 Success point. As a DM, I would also give Fred a +2 bonus as he was given a guest list and explicit instructions to keep undesireables out. So his total would be a +3 success.

Roger rolls a 19
Fred rolls a 14

Roger would have a total Success of 24
Fred would have a total Success of 13

Roger would win by 11, so I was thinking some kind of static rate like 1/2 of the difference = Success points. Or maybe a scaling system where like 1-2 pt. difference=1 success point, 3-4 pt. difference=2 success points, etc. Please keep in mind that I'm not suggesting these actual numbers, just the concepts to reduce extra rolling.

To use a static system based on the amount of success, or a scaling system where the amount of Success would scale with the degree of Success on the 1st roll.

I hope I'm explaining myelf correctly. I'd love to see what the number crunchers could do with these 2 approaches!

EDIT: Oops, it appears my hypothetical numbers are off. Fred would have had a 17 due to the +2 circumstance bonus so the diffrence would only be 7 points.

 

[Celebrim]

Indeed.

However, this is an alternate for those that like the immersiveness of rolling dice.

I understand your point and I agree, but as long as we are on the subject of vocabulary I don't think its the experience of immersion that dice really achieves, but rather the thrill and excitement of competition. So, if you mean that some players are going to enjoy social roleplay more if it is explicitly competitive, then I'm inclined to agree with you.

What I note though about your example of play is that it is exactly the opposite of immersiveness. Everyone speaks of their characters in a procedural out of character voice, "I try to convince the Prince to give us accomodations for the night...", instead of the personal in character voice, "Your Highness, my men and I are tired from the road, and we beseech of you to extend the renowned hospitality of your castle to these weary travellers." The mechanic of rolling the dice fits into a procedural voice somewhat naturally, but I think it would get fairly disruptive to 'natural' conversational tone. My usual approach is to let a conversation like that play out, make an assessment of how well they played it, and then allow a diplomacy check with suitable modifiers at the end of it.

To be honest though, one of the most intense and exciting RP sessions I was ever a part of centered on a very complex ten party political negotiation and no dice where thrown over the course of like 10 hours of play.

I wish I could give some useful feedback on improving mechanics, but the more I think about the things which would make this system interesting, the less attractive the mechanics get. For example, much of what makes combat interesting is the potential for a variety of manuevers. But if we start adding conversational manuevers to make the system have more variaty, then I fear it will detract from immersiveness even further. Nonetheless, pretending that I'm attracted to the system, I'd suggest you consider looking into conversational mechanics like 'saving face' (a heal?), 'hiding behind manners' (defensive fighting?), 'bluntness' (power attack?), 'changing the subject' (dodging an impending failure), or whatever. I can't give you much advice about how to make it pretty, because this isn't really my cup of tea.

Another thing I'm worried about is that you need explicit rules for what happens when you try to pull out of a contest. For example, if I'm losing to a trap, I'd want to get out before it went off and stop trying to disarm it, but you better have explicit rules about when and if this is possible or no one will ever spring a trap again.

 

[hbarsquared]

I don't think its the experience of immersion that dice really achieves, but rather the thrill and excitement of competition. So, if you mean that some players are going to enjoy social roleplay more if it is explicitly competitive, then I'm inclined to agree with you.

That is a far more accurate assessment.

Everyone speaks of their characters in a procedural out of character voice
...
The mechanic of rolling the dice fits into a procedural voice somewhat naturally,

Also very true. Once you add "dice mechanics" to any set of actions, the "voice" will take on this tone. Again, depending on the group, it can be fairly disruptive and jarring, or it can be very natural and familiar.

To be honest though, one of the most intense and exciting RP sessions I was ever a part of centered on a very complex ten party political negotiation and no dice where thrown over the course of like 10 hours of play.

This mechanic is definitely not for groups or sessions such as these. Neither is it meant to replace such instances. It is simply an alternative.

As an aside, I believe using such a system promotes satisfactory out-of-combat solutions. The whole concept of Challenge Ratings and XP are centered around combat, and although the DMG explicitly states that "overcoming a challenge" is all that is required, relying on a single roll from a PC is rarely going to be as "satisfactory" for the players. It also fits the idea of genuinely earning XP for a challenging situation.

For example, much of what makes combat interesting is the potential for a variety of manuevers. But if we start adding conversational manuevers to make the system have more variaty, then I fear it will detract from immersiveness even further.

This is why I introduced the use of simple checks to provide a bonus to an ongoing complex check (in place of synergy bonuses). In addition, specialized feats might form the same function. I think this allows for multiple "conversational manuevers" while maintaining the straightforwad mechanics.

Another thing I'm worried about is that you need explicit rules for what happens when you try to pull out of a contest.

This is something I've been wrestling with, as well. I think you can "pull out" of a complex check at any time: but it counts as an automatic failure. Thus, once you start monkeying around with that trap, you're going to have to see it through to the end.