Fixing high skill checks - the Rule of 3

[Runestar]

That could work, but a) you'd be screwing over the low-skill-point classes (those who get 2+Int) even further

The idea is that they opt to focus on placing a few ranks in many different skills, rather than focusing on a single skill exclusively. The concept is something like the point buy stat system. You can have an 18str, but it may be better to reduce that to 16 instead, and assign the 6 extra stat points to dex and con.

Conversely, if they did spend a lot of effort in maxing out a single skill, I see no reason to begrudge them that. They deserve to excel in that area.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

Oddly, I honestly don't get the objection, and I'm the kind of DM who hates stuff like teleport and find the path.

I really don't have a problem with (for instance) the 14th level rogue in one of our Pathfinder games having a +25 Stealth, or the druid in the same game having +30s in both Survival and Perception (actually Notice, in our game), thanks to Skill Focus.

Anyway, my guess is that this is a preference thing for you, based on feel more than anything else -- much the way I can't stand psionics in D&D, or wish PCs were less reliant on magic items -- and as usual (if that's the case), other people aren't going to feel it in their gut the way you do.

Actually, it's not just about the feel -- it's a real mechanical problem with high-level play, that both skill levels and DCs inflate endlessly, while the random part -- the d20 -- grows less and less significant.

In particular, it creates an imbalance where some characters will almost always succeed at certain tasks, and others will inevitably fail. The problem becomes that with a DC of 40, the characters with a skill modifier of +35 are almost always going to succeed, while those with a skill modifier of +20 (which is still immense) can only succeed on a natural 20.

With such disparity in character power, the problem becomes -- how do I make an encounter where the highest-skilled players are challenged, but the lower-skilled ones aren't helplessly sidelined/doomed, depending on the nature of the skill check?

Same thing with saves. You can get one save DC which half the party shrugs off, and the other half dies from with little or no chance of success.

Same thing with AC and attack rolls.

There's a concrete, objective mechanical time bomb built into the d20 system thanks to the steady -- and massive -- inflation of non-random modifiers as levels go up. Along with the dragging morass of iterative attacks, it's one of the main reasons so many people find the higher levels basically unplayable, unless you mostly ditch the rules and go freeform most of the time.

 

[Ashtagon]

I honestly don't think it's a bad thing that the party rogue has a near-certainty (barring natural 1s and the like) of sneaking past an ear demon whilst wearing tap dancing shoes on a glass floor, while the party barbarian with a mere +20 on Move Silently fails.

At such high character levels, it's less about win or lose, success or fail, and more about what is dramatically appropriate and makes a good story. Rogues sneak; barbarians bash. Letting them go against type too easily will reduce the amount of dramatic license and story-telling potential, as the characters would be playing against type.

 

[Noumenon]

You really explained that clearly, Carnivorous Bean. I gave you XP. (Isn't the trial period over for that? Are they going to reset it?)

So is there any fix for that? Like, off the top of my head, every +20 to your skill lets you roll an extra 1d20 instead?

 

[Kerrick]

Realistic is levels 1-6 or so.

Parties challenging armies of humans or small colonies of dragons (ie. superhuman) is levels 7-12 or so.

Parties entering the depths of Hell and coming back in time for lunch before going for round 2 in the afternoon is levels 13-20.

At epic levels, the party should be challenging gods for the right to run a divine sphere of influence, not merely challenging them to a duel, and certainly not be scared of scrambling up a one-mile cliff made of razor blades.

I suppose perception is all in the eye of the beholder. Me, I don't see PCs challenging "armies of humans or small colonies of dragons" until 13-20ish, and making trips to Hell until low epic (20-25ish). This is a rough guideline I wrote for myself awhile back:

At Courageous level, for example, the PCs would be saving villages and doing minor stuff - by the time they're L6, they would be known to the local ruler.

At Paragon level, they'd start moving out into the world (well, more), affecting things on a national level; by the time they're L12, they'd be known to the king (or whoever's running the nation), though they probably wouldn't be able to gain an audience without a good reason.

At Legendary, they would probably be hopping all over the world and making short forays into other planes; they plots they're involved in would be world-spanning. By the time they're L20, they'd be known to many rulers and even the common folk, and maybe even a few powerful extraplanars.

As an addendum, epic is where they'd really start spending more of their time on other planes - making day trips to Hell, for instance, or building their own demiplanes.

As someone who believes that anything above L6 is "superhuman", I'm surprised you're not in agreement with this. Making masterwork items with just under a 50% chance of succees is pretty superhuman to me - it should be something that only someone with many years of experience can do.

The designers put that chart (the DC equivalencies chart I mentioned in my first post) in the PHB for a reason; the DMG even has another one listing common tasks and the DCs for them. I think it (their system) makes eminent sense - give the epic PCs something to shoot for, instead of making them say "Ho-hum, another skill check. I don't even need to roll - my modifier alone beats the DC." And yet, the skill DCs scale wildly out of control and quickly render those guidelines worthless.

You really explained that clearly, Carnivorous Bean. I gave you XP. (Isn't the trial period over for that? Are they going to reset it?)

Same here. Thanks.

So is there any fix for that? Like, off the top of my head, every +20 to your skill lets you roll an extra 1d20 instead?

I once saw a rule called the Rule of 20, where every +10 let you roll another 1d20 instead. I haven't tested the Rule of 3 except on paper, but I think it would work just fine.

 

[Ashtagon]

A quick and dirty modification of that rule of 3 which would still maintain a decent bonus for characters that should have them is as follows:

Bonuses from feats, racial bonus, spells, magic items, and ability scores are NOT divided by three. Only ranks gained from skill points are divided by three.

This has the added bonus of finally making the "skill bonus feats" worthwhile.

 

[Nimloth]

I suppose so. I just think it's absurd that a L1 commoner (let's say a blacksmith) can make a DC 20 check (4 ranks, +1 Int, +2 for Skill Focus, and we'll toss in a helper for another +2 = +9) 45% of the time.

The typical DnD assumption is that a person can (and usually does) stay L1 their whole (or at least almost) life. I disagree with this assumption, but thats not the point. The point is, your blacksmith could be a mature journeyman blacksmith, with many years at the forge. He has max ranks, an assistant and has even spent a feat (which is +3) on it, so he doesn't have to be an apprentice. Therefore, being able to make mw items is not absurd.

I do have 1 question for Kerrick, what is your opinion on the take 10/take 20 rules?

 

[Kerrick]

Bonuses from feats, racial bonus, spells, magic items, and ability scores are NOT divided by three. Only ranks gained from skill points are divided by three.

This has the added bonus of finally making the "skill bonus feats" worthwhile.

All those extra modifiers are what boost the skill scores so high in the first place.

The typical DnD assumption is that a person can (and usually does) stay L1 their whole (or at least almost) life. I disagree with this assumption, but thats not the point. The point is, your blacksmith could be a mature journeyman blacksmith, with many years at the forge. He has max ranks, an assistant and has even spent a feat (which is +3) on it, so he doesn't have to be an apprentice. Therefore, being able to make mw items is not absurd.

If he's a master smith, sure... but that's usually reflected by his having several levels in expert or whatever (I acknowledge that this is a flaw in the system itself; it's really a topic for another discussion).

I do have 1 question for Kerrick, what is your opinion on the take 10/take 20 rules?

I have no problem with Take 10 - 10 is the average roll on a d20 anyway, so most people will take 10 when they have no/little chance of failing and no real reason to roll a d20. As for take 20... I've never seen anyone use it, because a) it takes too long; and/or b) they generally have a skill score high enough to make the DC anyway because, as I said before, scores scale faster than the DCs.

 

[Noumenon]

As for take 20... I've never seen anyone use it, because a) it takes too long; and/or b) they generally have a skill score high enough to make the DC anyway because, as I said before, scores scale faster than the DCs.

90% of take 20s are
* strength to open doors
* listen at closed doors
* Open Locks
* Search

 

[Kitty Joker]

Why not just erase most of the means of increasing skills? Their base ranks, if they put in max ranks, give a 1st level character a 50% chance to make a DC 13 check, a 10th level character a 50% chance to make a DC 23 check, and a 20th level character a 50% chance to make a DC 33 check. This seems balanced to me, though the x4 at first level thing makes the numbers odd.

Ability scores can mess up these numbers, so get rid of that association. With a +5/+10 item or spell, they can more reliably make these checks, but they are sacrificing combat ability (in gold or spell slots), which is fine. Make the items enhancement bonuses so that they don't stack with the spells. If the numbers still seem too high to you, get rid of the items and spells, or make them more expensive/higher level. Take out every other means of increasing skills, except racial bonuses, which are typically minor and flavorful enough to keep in. This simply lets you control what DC your players can hit. If you want them to have an X% chance at X level, I think this is the easiest way to do it.