Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8960070" data-attributes="member: 29398">You're on to something in saying there's three (or even more?) different types of skills.&nbsp; That said, I think the answer is to use different mechanics for each type rather than even trying to unify them all.&nbsp; If nothing else, by type:1. The &quot;highly reliable&quot; ones should use d% to resolve rather than anything less granular, such that (as with the 1e Thief's climbing) the odds of success can go up incrementally by a % or two each level, also the DM has a lot more granulrity available with which to modify the odds for any given in-game situation.&nbsp; And you've got room for a less-than-5% chance of failure which a d20 doesn't allow for.2. Regardless of what dice are used, the mechanic here IMO often wants to be one of gradated results rather than a binary fail-succeed - fail the roll by a bit, no big deal; fail by a lot, you've got a problem.&nbsp; Example: finding and disarming traps - fail by just a bit and nothing untoward happens, fail by a lot and you've set it off.&nbsp; Fail to move silently by a bit, you're still at normal surprise chance; fail by a lot and you've made a racket somehow.&nbsp; Bard charm isn't even a &quot;skill&quot; in my view, it's more like an at-will spell effect and thus probably wants to use spell-like saving throws.&nbsp; Bard lore is another one where gradating the results really makes a difference: if you barely succeed on the roll you know a bit but not much, if you mightily succeed you know far more; if you fail by a bit you don't know anything but if you fail by a lot you think you know all kinds of stuff but the legends have been twisted into untruths over time.What &quot;a bit&quot; and &quot;a lot&quot; represent in hard numbers might almost be a table-by-table decision.3. Roll-under-ability covers the huge majority of these, no need to mess with it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8960070, member: 29398"] You're on to something in saying there's three (or even more?) different types of skills. That said, I think the answer is to use different mechanics for each type rather than even trying to unify them all. If nothing else, by type: 1. The "highly reliable" ones should use d% to resolve rather than anything less granular, such that (as with the 1e Thief's climbing) the odds of success can go up incrementally by a % or two each level, also the DM has a lot more granulrity available with which to modify the odds for any given in-game situation. And you've got room for a less-than-5% chance of failure which a d20 doesn't allow for. 2. Regardless of what dice are used, the mechanic here IMO often wants to be one of gradated results rather than a binary fail-succeed - fail the roll by a bit, no big deal; fail by a lot, you've got a problem. Example: finding and disarming traps - fail by just a bit and nothing untoward happens, fail by a lot and you've set it off. Fail to move silently by a bit, you're still at normal surprise chance; fail by a lot and you've made a racket somehow. Bard charm isn't even a "skill" in my view, it's more like an at-will spell effect and thus probably wants to use spell-like saving throws. Bard lore is another one where gradating the results really makes a difference: if you barely succeed on the roll you know a bit but not much, if you mightily succeed you know far more; if you fail by a bit you don't know anything but if you fail by a lot you think you know all kinds of stuff but the legends have been twisted into untruths over time. What "a bit" and "a lot" represent in hard numbers might almost be a table-by-table decision. 3. Roll-under-ability covers the huge majority of these, no need to mess with it. [/QUOTE]

Verification