Non-Binary Skills

[Celebrim]

The D20 mechanic seems to work well for skills where we expect a binary outcome - you either do something or know something or you don't. In this case, the mechanic is both simple and has strong versimilitude.

The D20 system also has a built in mechanic - the 'critical' - for situations where 'succeed', 'fail', and 'strong success' are the expected outcomes, and we have examples of systems like FantasyCraft where this is generalized across the system. On the other hand, it's not obvious to me that 'strong success' is intuitive to all skills and situations. Quite a few situations seem clearly binary to me. Nonetheless, it's there if we want it.

The D20 mechanic works less well when the outcomes are succeed, fail, and fumble but we have several techniques we can employ here. We can borrow the 'critical' mechanic and invert it, and indeed I've done so in a limited away. FantasyCraft again in its revision of 3.0 generalizes the fumble as system wide, though again I find this probablimatic as it isn't not often clear what's worse than failure in general terms. (I'm hesistant to build systems that rely on a large degree of DM fiat, especially when it comes to failure. That's fine for something like Paranoia, but maybe not for a game where character life expectancy isn't normally measured in real world minutes.) The other thing we can do is something like the climb skill, where failure by more than 5 represents the critical failure.

Question #1 that I'm interested in is, would it be better if the climb skill only resulted in a fall on a 'fumble' (that is an inverted critical) rather than failure by 5? That is too say, are the existing place where we use failure by 5 reasonable, and in fact should we not be using 'fumble' in these cases? What are the consequences of that change?

Where I've really had problems with D20 is when the the skill isn't even slightly binary. In these cases, D20 tends to use a 'degree of success' mechanic, that is, for every 1 you exceed some target score your success improves by 1 factor. For example, the outcome of your roll might be the number of feet that you jump. However, this degree of success mechanic turns out in play to be too luck dependent. A player does not know whether his character will be able to jump 10' or 30', and it makes a very big difference if you are trying to clear a deep chasm with lava at the bottom.

In the RAW, I think Jump is about the only degree of success skill, but over the years I've introduced others: porter (which effects your carrying weight, potentially reducing your encumberance penalty) and running (which effects your base speed). I've gone through several iterations of these rules and I've never been quite happy with them. For example, for the longest time 'running' only effected your run speed and added to the end of it as bonus movement. But running doesn't happen alot, and I always wanted running to effect normal movement as well - essentially letting any character trained in the skill do a 'rage' movement, gaining an increase in base speed at the cost of temporary fatigue at the end of it.

I've been frustrated for years by the Jump skill, but while I was thinking about Question #1 above I realized that maybe the answer was staring me in the face all along. My thought is that for 'degree of success' perhaps the solution is to invert the 'failure by 5 rule' so that we have a 'success by 5 rule' where each success by 5 or more increases your base expectation of success by one. So for example, maybe you can automatically jump horizontally a distance equal to 1/2 your height + your jump bonus (say +9) or for a total of 12'. Then, if you want to strain for more success, you can make a skill check and gain 1 additional foot for every 5 you beat a 10 by. For the guy with +9 skill, that means the potential results are no extra feet (6 or less on the throw), or 1-3 extra feet with the maximum being a 29 (with the roll of a 20). This gives a final result of 12-15' in distance (all jumps will vary by a 1d4-1 foot range despite using a d20 resolution). This range is small enough that I now know that I can jump the 10' pit, even if I roll a 1, and I also know that if the needed jump is 15' the worst that might happen is that I'll have to stretch and land prone or catch the edge of the pit to avoid falling in. This makes 'stunting' a much more predictable and hense worthwhile endeavor.

It occurs to me that the Knowledge skill has been effectively using this mechanic for a while, only it was hidden by being implicit.

Question #2 is, does this seem like a reasonable solution? Anyone see any problems? The only one I can see is that 'taking 10' won't be nearly as useful, and so certain skill masteries will suffer in utility, but I think this is a really big improvement nonetheless.

Question #3 is, can anyone brainstorm up some non-binary skills or skills?Are there any in the RAW that would improve in versimilitude if we modified them to be 'degree of success'. The only two I can think of right now from the RAW are 'Appraise' and 'Speak Language', but maybe there are some that are less obvious.

 

[ValhallaGH]

#1 This is a matter of style, especially the level of cinematic style in a particular game. Regulating major failure to 'fumbles' makes it a matter of extreme (bad) luck, rather than a danger of attempting that which is beyond your skill.
In the context of most of the d20 system, shifting "climber falls" to a fumble is appropriate. Whether or not it is a desirable shift depends upon the style and tone of a particular table's version of d20.
Also, take a look at Disable Device and Swim, which also use the 'fail by 5+' mechanic.

#2 Yes, this is a good mechanic.
I especially like how you applied it to jump, thereby normalizing one of the least predictable skills. Also, it makes the skill a good bit saner, where characters can't be setting world records at fifth level.
Taking 10 is still really useful, since it can get you a basic success and avoid any potential of failure. In the Jump example, taking 10 gets a 19 -> 13', which is a good jump (if not the character's best possible) and well within range of clinging to the ledge.

#3 Gather Information. Disable Device (disabling parts of traps, but not other parts, leaving some danger; bonus, the base DC can come down a bit). Knowledge (which is already there, as you noted).

 

[Kerrick]

#1: Why not have degrees of failure? If you blow the Climb check by 5 or more, you fall a certain distance; if you roll a 1, you suffer a catastrophic failure and fall all the way. This mechanic can also be applied to other skills where failure carries a penalty, and could be applied to most skills in general:

Appraise (not really a "penalty", but you seriously over/underestimate the value), Craft, Diplomacy (I think you can imagine what would happen), Disable Device (set off the trap, no save to avoid it), Escape Artist (get yourself hopeless tangled up, or enough so that further attempts require more time or a higher DC), Heal (makes the condition worse, or deals more damage), Hide/MS (you're not only not hiding or silent, you're pretty obvious to anyone with eyes/ears), Open Lock (snap off a pick in the lock), Sleight of Hand (you drop the item in addition to either alerting your target or looking stupid, if you're trying to hide something), Survival (follow the wrong tracks, suffer a penalty to checks, or get lost), Swim (drown), Tumble (fall and suffer damage and/or become dazed), UMD (use more charges than normal, or a chance of destroying the device), Use Rope (break the rope).

#2: I don't know that Jump is really that bad - you know your bonus, and thus you know how far you can jump. The d20 roll is simply a measure of how much further you think you can get, which really does rely on luck - how much room you have, environmental conditions, the PC's encumbrance and fatigue (which are rarely factored in normally), etc.

The argument about 5th-level PCs making world-record jumps can go either way; after all, most real-world humans are not much higher than 5th level, but it's also silly that a high-level rogue can leap tall buildings in a single bound. I think there's a happy medium there, but it would involve adjusting the DCs.

All of that aside, I rather like degrees of success/failure. I use that mechanic for several of my skills.

#3: Appraise, Craft (lower time/cost), Diplomacy (can gain greater benefits, but this is DM fiat), Disable Device (there's a rule somewhere, maybe in the rogue splatbook, where greater success means you can bypass the trap and reset it yourself, instead of just breaking it; also reduced time), Heal (heal more hit points), Open Lock (reduced time), Tumble (increased AC vs. opponents, less damage from a fall, etc.).

Speak Language would work only if you did a system like this one, where you had different levels of proficiency. A binary "either you know it or you don't" system doesn't allow for degrees of success or failure.

This is a cool idea overall. I might yoink some of this for PP.

 

[slwoyach]

I think most dms already treat a failure by 1 differently than a failure by 10. Carving rules in stones on this matter will limit a dms flexibility in the matter by handcuffing him to rules the players will expect him to follow.

 

[Celebrim]

I think most dms already treat a failure by 1 differently than a failure by 10.

I'm not prepared to say what most DM's do, but I find this difficult to believe.

Exactly what do you mean here. How do you treat a failure by 1 on an attack roll, differently than you treat failure by 10?

How do you treat failure by 1 differently on a search roll than you treat failure by 10? Don't you either find it or you don't?

How do your treat failure by 1 on a hide roll (opposed by spot) differently than you choose failure by 10? Aren't you either seen or not seen?

Just as you can't be 'a little bit pregnent', I'm inclined to think that you can't always be non-binary. Some times it either is or it isn't.

Carving rules in stones on this matter will limit a dms flexibility in the matter by handcuffing him to rules the players will expect him to follow.

I don't think anyone has ever accused me of adhering to closely to the rules before.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

(Q1) I think what you're getting at makes perfect sense in many instances.

The only thing I'd point out is that one skill might have two different uses or circumstances, one of which neatly follows the "fall-on-fail-by-5" model, the other following the "fail-by-degrees" or "fall-only-on-fumble" model. (And the inverse, for successes, naturally.)

Climb is a good example. For climbing up very steep slope, failure by degrees makes sense: fail by less than 5 is no progress; fail by 5 or more is slip back so many feet, depending on the number; and fumble means roll back to the bottom.

Climbing an overhang without ropes, though, is a different situation; fail by less than 5 means no progress. But what does a fail by more than 5 mean? You can't slip back in this case; falling is the only option. To my mind, in this particular case, falling on less than a fumble is quite appropriate, simply because there's much less room for error. Alternatively, it's like redefining fumble to be DC-5, rather than 1.

Jump is similar. You know you can jump at least (ranks+modifiers) feet; the d20 roll is effectively how much farther you go. Long jump is really one of the simplest cases out there, because it doesn't even really use a DC: Roll the jump check. That's how far you jumped. But if there's a chasm under you, and your jump is more than 5ft short, then you fall and take a dip in the lava, fumbles or no. Whether or not there's a chasm determines whether or not the skill is used in its binary form.
(btw, this is why I like Jump: it's super simple for my tiny mind in it's most used application! )

On the other hand, your fix is nice because it *does* eliminate the 20 foot uncertainty in the jump, down to a more realistic range. Consider me officially torn on this one.

(Q2) Yes, I think the mechanic is an excellent one, with the caveat that it shouldn't necessarily apply in all cases for a particular skill. More precisely: it's a great mechanic on a "per use" basis, rather than on a "per skill" basis. In fact, I think this is exactly how I've done a lot of on-the-fly rulings, but without any formalization of a rule.

(Q3) Other skills that can benefit from degrees of success:
Decipher script - more success equates to better understanding
Craft - more success gets it done quicker, or gets more made (if applicable).
Profession - more success earns more income, makes a contact, etc
Perform - (ditto)
Disable Device - more success gets it done quicker (and I'd keep fail-by-5, at least for traps because, well, that's what they're supposed to do)
Speak Language - more success means improved communication, therefore bonus on related social skill checks, eg Diplomacy, Gather Info, Bluff, etc. (But won't this only work using ranks?)
Heal - more success gives faster healing (eg, more hp recovered per day)

 

[slwoyach]

I'm not prepared to say what most DM's do, but I find this difficult to believe.

Exactly what do you mean here. How do you treat a failure by 1 on an attack roll, differently than you treat failure by 10?

How do you treat failure by 1 differently on a search roll than you treat failure by 10? Don't you either find it or you don't?

How do your treat failure by 1 on a hide roll (opposed by spot) differently than you choose failure by 10? Aren't you either seen or not seen?

Just as you can't be 'a little bit pregnent', I'm inclined to think that you can't always be non-binary. Some times it either is or it isn't.

A) About the attack rolls, your post is about skills. Please don't change the rules midstream.

B) You state in your post that some skills are success or failure, and some should have degrees of success. I find your choice to select circumstances that are specifically pass or fail to be absolutely ridiculous. Climbing, balance, tumbling, knowledge, ride, and many other skills I certainly treat differently. If you try a stunt on a horse and fail your ride check by one you don't succeed, if you fail by 10 you may very well fall off your horse in the right circumstances.

 

[Celebrim]

A) About the attack rolls, your post is about skills. Please don't change the rules midstream.

I'm not. If skills are to have fumbles or critical hits, then its perfectly reasonable to suggest that they would work in practice like attack rolls. Both the attack roll and the skill check use a unified mechanic. I'm talking about (among other things) making that mechanic even more unified, as for example, FantasyCraft and others have done.

You state in your post that some skills are success or failure, and some should have degrees of success.

No, I state in my post that some skills are success or failure and that some do have degrees of success. I'm not making that up. Then I ask some very specific questions about the consequences of changing that so that, for example, some pass/fail skills have degrees of success.

I find your choice to select circumstances that are specifically pass or fail to be absolutely ridiculous.

I found your assertion that most DMs already treated failure by 1 differently than failure by 10 in the general case to be ridiculous, I just was going to avoid coming out and saying it.

Climbing, balance, tumbling, knowledge, ride, and many other skills I certainly treat differently. If you try a stunt on a horse and fail your ride check by one you don't succeed, if you fail by 10 you may very well fall off your horse in the right circumstances.

Ok, now we have a concrete example. Ride is (with the exception of exceptional uses allowed by a feat) a pass/fail skill. The rules clearly state what happens if you fail and what happens if you succeed. There is no degree of success in the rules. Is it your assertion that almost all DMs assumed that the ride skill could be fumbled? That is, if you failed by 1, it meant you got the result in the RAW, and if you failed by some amount not disclosed (but certainly by 10) that you got an additional unspecified penalty? If I'm a player in your campaign, how would I assess the risk of the stunt I was thinking of performing? That is, how would I know whether it was worth the attempt or that the potential risks were too high? Did almost everyone play 'your way'?

I find that very unlikely.

 

[slwoyach]

Did almost everyone play 'your way'?

I find that very unlikely.

Almost every DM I've played with over the last 20+ years, and most of the ones who didn't were pretty bad.

 

[Celebrim]

Almost every DM I've played with over the last 20+ years, and most of the ones who didn't were pretty bad.

Wait a minute. Did I miss something, or did 3rd edition only come out about 10 years ago? When were you doing skill checks in D&D more than 20 years ago? And how, more than 20 years ago where you playing at tables that all managed to adopt identical house rules regarding skill usage?

Proir to 3rd edition, there was no unified skill system resolution and many DMs used none at all. For those that did have skill resolution systems, the following where common in published works and widely adopted in haphazard ways:

1) Save vs. Paralyzation: This was one of the more common fudge mechanics, and corresponded roughly to 'Reflex Saves' in 3rd edition. This was commonly used as a general check to see if the character was fast enough to escape some hazard that didn't fall comfortably into the rules. Was the ceiling collapsing? 'Save vs. Paralyzation' or take 5d50 damage. And so forth. Loosely, the saving throw corresponds not only to reflex saves, but to tumble checks, jump checks, and so forth in 3rd edition.
2) Attribute Check: This is simply throwing your attribute on a d20 or less. Dexterity checks were the most common since the other skills tended to have other mechanics or subsystems that were more widely used. For example, while you might call for a Strength Check, more commonly you'd call for a bend bars or open doors check to simulate some feat of strength. Loosely, this mechanic was used in place of escape artist, balance, and so forth.
3) Thief Skills: The only core class with explicit skills was the Thief. When the party had to do something collectively that was normally the provenence of thieves only, the module would often define a base skill check for non-theives, to climb a wall for example. In such cases, the theives often got a bonus to their ability to represent that the task was so easy, even an non-thief could complete it.
4) NWP Check: Introduced late in 1st edition and expanded on heavily in 2nd edition, this is simply a special case of an attribute check, perhaps with a small bonus or to gain some small bonus or to simulate some 'trained only' skill.

I would love to hear the unified skill mechanic that was being used by every 1st level DM you played with and which treated every 'skill' as being non-binary and having critical failures given that none of the above suggest that (and how few skills naturally translate to degree of success instead of pass/fail). Did you commonly make the results of a saving throw worse when you failed by 10 rather than just failed by 1, and how did you do that when most 1st edition saves were of the 'save or die' variaty?

I should also note that there is a very very big difference between adding additional fluff on a failed by 10 to provide the flavor of a disasterous failure, and changing the outcome on a failed skill check to mechanically create a disasterous failure. For example, in 1st edition had a thief failed a 'move silently' check by a very large amount, I might have narrated this as tripping over a tin pail, then stumbling into suit of armor that went clattering over the floor. But while this sounds like a 'fumble', it is not in fact anything but a binary failure dressed up in fluff, since regardless of whether the 'move silently' check is failed by 1 or 50, the mechanical outcome is 'monster is alerted to PC's presence'.