D&D General Levels of Mastery

[Umbran]

So, I really like having several tiers of mastery in skills. I don’t like huge static modifiers, however.

What if base proficiency gets you the proficiency bonus, but after that you have mastery ranks that get you a larger bonus die? Not a stack of dice, but like d4 through d12 as you gain mastery.

Mm. Kind of Alternity-esque.

In a system that has pass/fail without gradation or levels of success, however, it looks better than it actually is. Sure, having multiple dice makes your average performance more reliable. It also opens up very high target numbers. That looks awesome, but the character won't generally be able to hit those when they really need it, and they get no advantage from them when they happen accidentally.

Depending what you are looking for, you might get more out of, "If you roll under a X, treat the die as X," where X goes up with levels of mastery.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Mm. Kind of Alternity-esque.

In a system that has pass/fail without gradation or levels of success, however, it looks better than it actually is. Sure, having multiple dice makes your average performance more reliable. It also opens up very high target numbers. That looks awesome, but the character won't generally be able to hit those when they really need it, and they get no advantage from them when they happen accidentally.

Depending what you are looking for, you might get more out of, "If you roll under a X, treat the die as X," where X goes up with levels of mastery.

Well it’s not a pool of dice, first. It’s a single bonus die that gets larger.

It also wouldn’t come with higher DCs, because it’s specifically preserving bounded accuracy while making “expertise into a more granular benefit.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

So, I really like having several tiers of mastery in skills. I don’t like huge static modifiers, however.

oh this sounds like what a DM I used to have used to do.

What if base proficiency gets you the proficiency bonus, but after that you have mastery ranks that get you a larger bonus die? Not a stack of dice, but like d4 through d12 as you gain mastery.

that is almost exactly how he did it (but it was so impossible to get a d10 let alone a d12 that I only once in 7 or 8 games saw a d10 used and he started at d3)

Maybe every X levels you can gain a new proficiency or increase two masteries by one step?

he handled it as down time training. SO you needed to find an NPC with the level of mastery (or higher) that you wanted then spend the max of the diex3 weeks... so for the d3 it's 9 weeks for the d4 it's 12 MORE weeks for the d6 (I got to this in both perception and deception in one campaign) it was more weeks (so maybe broken up over 3 down times, but 9+12+18 is almost a year of training already)
finding a d3 was normally easy, a d4 teacher was a bit harder depending on skill... but starting at d6 it was like a wizard tracking down a new spell (btw the d10 I saw was on a warlock with Arcana)

I was thinking maybe making +1s and mastery levels class features like current ASI, and moving feats to every 3 character levels, but tbh I’m not sure it’s worth the change.

Any thoughts?

part of me likes the old call of cathulu idea that using a skill gave you chance to make it better, but I never got it quite right.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

One of the things I’d want to preserve is bounded accuracy, and it’s IMO easier to do that with a scaling single die, or a dice pool and no numerical mods, than numerical mods and a dice pool.

there is also something to be said for "take the best of" like advantage... roll 2d4 take the better or roll even 5d6 and take the highest.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

there is also something to be said for "take the best of" like advantage... roll 2d4 take the better or roll even 5d6 and take the highest.

For sure. I’m willing to consider that, I just think that there is enough “bonus die that scales up” stuff in 5e that it would be pretty familiar.

oh this sounds like what a DM I used to have used to do.

that is almost exactly how he did it (but it was so impossible to get a d10 let alone a d12 that I only once in 7 or 8 games saw a d10 used and he started at d3)

he handled it as down time training. SO you needed to find an NPC with the level of mastery (or higher) that you wanted then spend the max of the diex3 weeks... so for the d3 it's 9 weeks for the d4 it's 12 MORE weeks for the d6 (I got to this in both perception and deception in one campaign) it was more weeks (so maybe broken up over 3 down times, but 9+12+18 is almost a year of training already)
finding a d3 was normally easy, a d4 teacher was a bit harder depending on skill... but starting at d6 it was like a wizard tracking down a new spell (btw the d10 I saw was on a warlock with Arcana)

I think you get problems with that approach when you make it rely on finding NPCs to train you, unless that process is in the player’s hands and the DM is just adjudicating the mechanics, not whether a master exists.

part of me likes the old call of cathulu idea that using a skill gave you chance to make it better, but I never got it quite right.

The One Ring had something like that too. You could get so many ticks on you skills, which were in groups, by succeeding nor failing at checks, and then spend them when you gain a level to increase any skill in the same skill group. (So like you get ticks in a group, not a specific skill. I’m explaining it poorly)

 

[Umbran]

Well it’s not a pool of dice, first. It’s a single bonus die that gets larger.

I know. My point was made with that assumption. d20+d8 provides a bell curve rather than a flat distribution.

It also wouldn’t come with higher DCs...[/color]

Yeah, I'm not sure that improves things. Psychologically, it looks like it reaches higher DCs, but it doesn't really do so.

because it’s specifically preserving bounded accuracy while making “expertise into a more granular benefit.

I am not sure why "more granular benefit" is a design goal, when that granularity is not in the character's control. In effect, you are getting a certain bonus on average, but on any particular roll, it is unreliable. I am not sure that's the intent or expectation around Expertise.

 

[Blue]

One of the things I’d want to preserve is bounded accuracy, and it’s IMO easier to do that with a scaling single die, or a dice pool and no numerical mods, than numerical mods and a dice pool.

Bounded accuracy is feavily looking at the maximum of what you can roll, to prevent times where to challenge some locks others out of even trying, or vice versa. "What is the most you can accomplish?" Which is why Advantage fits so well - it doesn't change that.

Adding dice to the roll on the other hand does. Increasing a die size only adds a +1 on average (a minor bump), but adds +2 to the maximum, which will definitely impact bounded accuracy.

I like your concept, of multiple tiers of proficiency. But the mechanic of an increasing die is at odds with a goal of preserving bounded accuracy. I'd suggest figuring out which is more integral to what you want to accomplish.

 

[jmartkdr2]

What are you thinking for rate of progression? If you assume eventual d12's, that's five steps. I'd guess (ballpark) that a non-expert class should be able to max out at least one skill but probably not two - so if you (playing a fighter or sorcerer) start at d4 in four skills, you should get 4-7 bumps, yes? 4 bumps would be the same as "when your proficiency bonus goes up," but if you only get one skill per bump it might not end up where you want.

Obviously rogues get a lot more, with bards and rangers in second place. Some subclasses might get extras (cleric domains get free bums to relevant skills) and some classes might favor certain skills (ie barbarians get free bumps to athletics)

On the other hand, one of the downsides of 3e's skill sysytem is it ends up feeling like a false choice - theoretically you could choose to spread your skills out but in practice it was almost always better to just max however many skills.

 

[Andvari]

Instead of adding higher numbers, you could also allow auto-success against certain DCs.

Basic = Roll as normal.
Expert = Allow the character to "take 10" on any check with the skill.
Master = Allow the character to "take 12" on any check with the skill.

Or something like that.

 

[Stalker0]

If you do do this, just keep in mind that a single die step, that is, increasing the maximum roll by 2, only adds +1 to the average.

That may be true, but when considering bounded accuracy, the maximum is important. We all know the stories of the player that rolled insanely well on and did the impossible.

There's a big difference between "my best result is a 28" and "my best result is a 30". Skill checks don't have consumable costs most of the time, so if a player rolls enough times they will hit those 30s eventually. And once the DC of "practically impossible" becomes "absolutely doable once in a while" it changes the narratives.

I'm not saying that's bad, but it is an important factor that the average doesn't take into account.