Help with % based skill system

[smootrk]

I also see the higher level characters as somewhat anti-climatic. I am sure some like the ultra-powered type characters, but I prefer the mundane types. Characters seem more 'real' when they are low level and afraid of the things in the dark.

I have not implemented any limiting rules as of yet... but your campaign thoughts give me some interesting ideas. I actually thought of the 2d10 and 3d6 variants as I read your first post, but I am sure others have thought of the same variant rules before me (I could'nt possibly be that creative on my own).

Post your campaign rules sometime when you have your ideas condensed. I would like to review them for ideas on my own campaign.

 

[The Human Target]

I also see the higher level characters as somewhat anti-climatic. I am sure some like the ultra-powered type characters, but I prefer the mundane types. Characters seem more 'real' when they are low level and afraid of the things in the dark.

I have not implemented any limiting rules as of yet... but your campaign thoughts give me some interesting ideas. I actually thought of the 2d10 and 3d6 variants as I read your first post, but I am sure others have thought of the same variant rules before me (I could'nt possibly be that creative on my own).

Post your campaign rules sometime when you have your ideas condensed. I would like to review them for ideas on my own campaign.

I will. It may be a week or so because of homework. I'd recommend checking out Unearthed Arcana for some cool variant idea.

 

[Aaron2]

But more than that we are trying to play a different style game than standard DnD. I'd like to make characters overall better at lower levels and less godlike at higher.

I don't see how rolling 2d10 instead of d20 will make any difference. If a character has +30 on a skill, he's gonna succeed on a DC 30 check every time no matter what you roll. Using 2d10 or 3d6 will just make it less likely for someone will less skill to succeed on a difficult challenge and more likely that someone with a high skill will not fail on an easy challenge. That sounds like the opposite of what you want.

One system you might want to look at is the system in Traveller:The New Era or Twilight:2000 (or a similar one in James Bond). Under those rules, you try to roll under your skill on a d20 (similar to a % based system). However, instead of difficulty adding or subtracting from your skill*, for a more difficult task you have to roll against 1/2 or 1/4 of your skill. It makes a smooth progression; if one character is twice as likely to succeed on an easy task as another character, he'll also be twice as likely to succeed on a more difficult task. The downside is that you have to be able to multiply and divide in your head but this can be mitigated by precalculating and writing the multiples out on the character sheet.

The way T:TNE worked was that an easy task used 2x your skill. A normal task was 1x, difficult as 1/2x while an extremely difficult task was 1/4x. Skills tended to start out around 10 or so for someone who knew the skill. Since your rolling against 1/4 your skill value, the game supports skills up to 80 before your auto-succeeding on difficult tasks. To use this system with D&D you might have characters have a skill value of Abilty+ranks, so a character with a Dex of 14 and 4 ranks of Hide would have a Hide of 18 and would need to roll a 9 or less for a difficult Hide check or a 4 or less for a very difficult one. You also might want to extend the difficulty out another level with a 1/8x for epic type stuff.

Anyway, just thinking out loud.


Aaron

*If you use a percentile system, like Runequest, that adds or subtracts % based on difficulty, you end up with a system that is mathematically equivalent to D&D's.

 

[Stalker0]

Try this on for size:

It seems your problem is that players start putting their ranks in a few key skills, so they become very specilized. Certain checks they can't fail, and others they can never get.

Here's the system I use....first all crossclass skills no longer cost extra points, but you still can only max them to half of what your max ranks can be. So a first level fighter can take ranks in spot 1 for 1, but he can only have 2 ranks.

Second, after you have 15 ranks in a skill (you of course you could use any number you like), it costs double to increase it further. This represents a mastery level that is very hard to improve.

What I've noticed in my games with this system is players tend to have more diverse skill sets, and tend to have lower ranks. A few have bypassed the 15 rank stature, but they eventually start putting their ranks in other skills.

I think this will give you exactly what your looking for, more diverse skills at lower levels, but definately caps the power at higher ones.

 

[smootrk]

Try this on for size:

Here's the system I use....first all crossclass skills no longer cost extra points, but you still can only max them to half of what your max ranks can be. So a first level fighter can take ranks in spot 1 for 1, but he can only have 2 ranks.

Second, after you have 15 ranks in a skill (you of course you could use any number you like), it costs double to increase it further. This represents a mastery level that is very hard to improve.

That is an excellent idea as well. I like both in combination to actively encourage diversifying. Positive reinforcement always seems to work best. I personally would modify your method to be regular cost up to 10 ranks, 2 points for 1 rank at 11-15 ranks, and 3 for 1 at 16+, or even continue the progression further. That would surely stymie the urge to gain massive rank values for just a few skills, while encouraging the expansion of a variety of skills.
One class that makes the most sense for is the NPC class Expert. Now his skill points would be diversified in the lower levels, while at the higher levels he would use his skill points in his/her most valued craft or skill. A logical extension of the class.