On smaller bonuses and the d20 mechanic

[Oldtimer]

It absolutely is relative, but let me be clear what "it" I'm talking about. While you are correct that the odds are exactly the same (second consideration), the result of 1d20+35 is determined more by the character (modifier) than fate (1d20), while the result of 1d20+2 is determined mostly by fate. That they have exactly the same chance of producing success (for target numbers 50 and 17, respectively) is irrelevant to the first consideration (2 is small compared to 20, while 35 is relatively large).

I honestly don't understand your reasoning here. What does it matter if 2 is small compared to 20, while 35 is relatively large? It makes no sense to say that the result of 1d20+35 is determined more by the modifier than fate. While I agree that a larger fraction of the sum stems from the modifier than from the die roll, I fail to see the relevance in this. To me, you could just as well include the colour of the d20 in the argument as well.

I could see that if could be significant if we measured how may times higher than the target number we rolled. Then fate would start to mean less and less the more the numbers rose. But that is not the case here. The result taken in isolation is just a number. No part of the equation 1d20+35 can take more or less credit for arriving at exactly that number.

 

[Yora]

So the range that modidiers can have is irrelevant in regard to enemies, but mostly defines the difference between party members.
Which has the result that at low levels, the differences are relatively small, as a high dexterity fighter in medium armor may have +2 in stealth and a rogue has say +6 (low optimization, I know), which is a difference of 4 numbers on the d20. As they gain levels, the fighter may accidentally rise to +4, while the rogue works a lot to get it up to +16, increasing the difference to 12 numbers on a d20. Now I would assume that the DCs a PC has to face (as the result from Perception by enemies) is calibrated to be challenging to a rogue.

As a result, at low levels fighters have some chance to sneak, but as the ability to percieve sneaking PC grows at a pace that can pick up with the rogue, the fighters chances to successfully sneak actually become relatively smaller.
Instead of the rogue being able to say "I sneak better than you" he actually would have to say "you suck more at sneaking than me".

And would it actually be that bad if the difference is small? Say the party needs some scounting done and the chance of not causing allert has to be as high as possible. So even if it's just a small difference, the rogue will do the scouting, and he will do it alone, since that's the best chance they have to get their intel and being undetected. At no time will the fighter say "you know, I think this time you stay here and I go instead". The rogues role as scout is still firmly reserved for him.
If there is an emergency and they really need to sneak everyone through somewhere, then the small difference means there's still some chance to get the fighter and cleric through undetected. The chance is not as good as the rogue being alone, but it may still work. Which in my book makes the game a lot more fun.

 

[Flatus Maximus]

I think that compared to the d20, modifiers of +5 or +7 may not seem like much is true, but in reality, it really doesn't matter. As the modifiers rise, so do the target numbers.

1d20+28 against a DC of 41 seems really cool.
But the chances are just the same as 1d20+8 against a DC of 21. Dealing with large numbers only for the illusion of being totaly awesome and doing totaly incredible things is not worth it in my book.
It also has the downside that some things become meaningless very fast, and others are unreachable for a very long time. As you advance through the levels, monsters and equipment gets thrown away with new ones comming to replace them at a very fast pace. Which is good for some groups, but really annoying for more "heroic" style games in which monsters and items are supposed to be relevant pretty much all the time for the whole campaign.

So I am glad 5th Edition is planned to keep the power curve much flatter than before.

I agree with all this, and do not advocate really big modifiers/target numbers. However, there is a difference between 1d20+28 vs. DC 41 and 1d20+8 vs. DC 21. In the second case "commoners" (low-level PCs/NPCs) can possibly make the check, while in the first case only superheroes can reasonably hope to succeed. Even though the probability of success for the PC is the same.

In other words, the size of the modifier relative to the size of the die matters when comparing PCs to "commoners" (for lack of a better term). If the modifiers are too small, the difference between PC and commoner become negligible. For the same target number, commoners with small/no modifiers are more dependent on fate smiling upon them, while the PC with a moderately-sized modifier is less reliant on fate.

 

[Yora]

Okay, that is really personal preference to a great deal.
I think there's notthing wrong with playing superhuman powered games, but if you don't want to, you should be able to. In 3rd Edition, the slightly akward solution was E6. All numbers are capped at 6th level and you don't get any more advancement after that. But to be fair, 6th level is really not that much.

If you stretch it more to, say 12th level, when characters start being able to do things that are impossible to normal people, you can have the fun of steady advancement and still having a very long time of play before you reach the point.
Which happens to be something 5th Edition is planned to do. Nice!

If you want to play superhuman, start the 5th Edition game at 20th level instead of 10th and award twice as many XP to anyone, and you just have the same experience. But that way you avoid low-power games to have huge stretches during which your character does not get anything new at all.
Everybody happy!!!

 

[Flatus Maximus]

By "superheroes," I just mean folks that can do things that "commoners" can't. Neither TN nor M need be huge.

For example, if TN = 21, and a PC has M = +1, then the PC has an admittedly small, but positive, chance to succeed, while the commoner does not. (This goes back to why I'm looking at TN-M, instead of these separately.) If the task is "save the world," then only PCs can do this. Probably not what you had in mind, eh?

How 'bout this: small TN, small M ---> OD&D, while large TN, large M ---> epic D&D 3.x! I would like to see something in between, but hearing "we're trying to make M small" makes me think "so D&Dn is going to be OD&D?"

 

[edhel]

I think the current proposed solution with 5e is "in this case, make the Fighter succeed." This is pretty unappealing to me, personally, as it kind of just tries to sweep the problem under the table. Let's look at another example.

_Why_ is it unappealing? It's not sweeping the problem under the table but adopting the GM advice many games offer these days. It's basically 'either set the stakes or say yes'. You shouldn't even have to roll if there's nothing at stake; they're offering that advice as standard M.O. If there's something at stake, you may not necessarily roll to see if you break the door (task resolution) but to see if you break the door in time before the guards arrive (conflict/scene resolution). It's within both of their ability to break the wooden door but the fighter has an advantage from his high strength.

The Ranger gets +3 to Hiding from his Dexterity. The Rogue gets +3 to Hiding from his Dexterity, and +2 from his class (his total is +5). They both decide to hide, and enemies attempt to spot them. The Wizard and Fighter (+1 bonus to Hiding) also attempt to hide. When it comes to what the enemies need to roll on their Notice Hiding Enemies check, it's kind of a crap shoot on who will roll low.

No. You roll against the enemies' passive Notice, you don't roll both. I think 4E explicitly gave this advice.

I also heavily disagree with the part saying wizards and fighters would be close in martial skill (or whatever). My house rules are very similar to what 5e is supposed to become and, after several years of play, fighters still dominate melee and physical activity despite a very low power curve and seemingly small differences in modifiers.

Again, since it keeps getting brought up, this isn't about chances of succeeding consistently (you always have 55% chance of success). It's about how well one person can succeed in relation to all other PCs and NPCs, and whether or not his skill is properly reflected within the fiction. As always, play what you like

You and your DM tell what happens and can reflect the heroic nature of the characters in your fiction. Instead of failing in a task/intent (opening a door, hiding from guards), you can describe complications in your fiction. You can be badass and fail.

 

[JamesonCourage]

_Why_ is it unappealing?

I went on to explain why. It works on certain things, but falls apart at opposed checks, especially when they're playing around with the idea of "the DC is set by an opposed roll", which they are (as far as I know).

It's not sweeping the problem under the table but adopting the GM advice many games offer these days. It's basically 'either set the stakes or say yes'. You shouldn't even have to roll if there's nothing at stake; they're offering that advice as standard M.O. If there's something at stake, you may not necessarily roll to see if you break the door (task resolution) but to see if you break the door in time before the guards arrive (conflict/scene resolution). It's within both of their ability to break the wooden door but the fighter has an advantage from his high strength.

It's true that many games adopt this advice, but it's something I've rejected. Maybe that's another reason I disagree with it.

No. You roll against the enemies' passive Notice, you don't roll both. I think 4E explicitly gave this advice.

I'm under the impression that it might be opposed rolls, as of this point in the game. Even if it's not, it's still a crapshoot as to who falls under that DC 13 check.

I also heavily disagree with the part saying wizards and fighters would be close in martial skill (or whatever). My house rules are very similar to what 5e is supposed to become and, after several years of play, fighters still dominate melee and physical activity despite a very low power curve and seemingly small differences in modifiers.

Agreeing to disagree, then. You have your experience, but I don't know how it contradicts what I've stated, other than "it does" so far. If you want to expand on it, it might change my mind, though.

You and your DM tell what happens and can reflect the heroic nature of the characters in your fiction. Instead of failing in a task/intent (opening a door, hiding from guards), you can describe complications in your fiction. You can be badass and fail.

This is definitely a more hand-on narrative approach to the game, and that's fine, but for those of us who don't like it (the Fighter is much better, really! He's just got the worst luck in the world!) because we prefer a more simulationist approach, this solution is often a last resort. Thanks for offering a solution, though. I do use that type of description from time to time. As always, play what you like

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Another, possibly better solution that they'll never adopt would be to replace the d20 with 3d6 so that the results are a bell curve. If the random results trend toward the middle, then all static bonuses are more significant.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Another, possibly better solution that they'll never adopt would be to replace the d20 with 3d6 so that the results are a bell curve. If the random results trend toward the middle, then all static bonuses are more significant.

Keep the modifiers under control, and you can hot swap the d20 with 2d10, and it will work even better, as you cover almost the exact range, with probabilities that are easier to explain. The extreme nature of the curve in the middle of 3d6 is probably a bridge too far for many folks. (Though of course, if you can use 2d10, and you want those extremes, you can probably get away with 3d6. Or even d8+d12, which has some interesting tweaks in the middle.)