Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6857906" data-attributes="member: 6778044">OK - So as I said, I don't think game balance is an issue. And I don't particularly care if the same character succeeds more frequently than others, that's part of the point of having a higher skill.I admit that this complicates things a bit. I don't think excessively, but YMMV. Here are the things that came to mind when working through this:#1. Not all passive uses of a skill are the same. For example, I will continue to provide a feeling, sense, or hunch for abilities such as Investigation, Insight, and Perception. This also largely applies to Arcana, History, Religion, and some uses of things like Medicine, Nature, or Survival. Basically the passive use is just like the real world - you notice something is out of place, something pops into your head, or something comes to mind after you've slept on it. Then the player can take that hint and work on it from there. If they wish to utilize the skill specifically, they can make a die roll.Other passive skills are just automatic successes. The blacksmith making a horseshoe. A mountain climber climbing an easy cliff. That sort of thing. They roughly divide between the physical and mental skills, but that's not a hard rule.#2. Skills with proficiency or expertise have a floor for automatic success. Non-proficient does as well, but it's largely irrelevant as you'll see.#3. Instead of Take 10/20 where a fixed amount of time is given, I'm using the die roll to determine the variable amount of time. The difference between the DC and the roll is the amount of time it takes to eventually succeed (provided the DC is within the characters capability). The time scale is not fixed. In combat or dangerous situations it's usually rounds. But some skills (as noted in the example with the horseshoe) might be minutes, hours, or longer.In addition to the time element, I'm using degrees of success/failure. Degrees of success come into play only if you actually roll higher than the needed DC. For now I'm sticking with 5 higher, 7 higher, and 10 higher. The actual effects very greatly with the skill and circumstance. For failure, since a time element is already worked into the die roll, it's also based on the fail by 5, 7 or 10. But even within the 5 there may be some consequences. These complications generally don't extend the time, nor prevent you from completing the task altogether, although the fail by 10 or more or a natural 1 can. For example, if you roll a one trying to pick a lock, you might damage the lock or your pick, preventing you from completing the task normally. It might simply require another skill check with a higher DC to get around the failure. There's a lot of DM discretion here simply because the possibilities are endless.So what's the actual process? Almost the same as it is now.--The passive score is simply the ability modifier for non-proficient skills. This means that for most skills, not even very easy tasks are automatic success since you'll usually have an ability modifier of less than +5. Regardless, somebody that does have a 20 ability has a knack for those sort of things, they are a "natural" so it makes sense that they'd automatically succeed at very easy things, but they'll still need to practice the skill (gain proficiency) to get better at it.Otherwise, the passive score is 8 + proficiency bonus + ability modifier. This means that for proficient skills very easy and easy tasks are automatically successful. Characters that have expertise and at least a +1 modified can automatically succeed a medium tasks.Most characters will need to be 9th level before they will automatically succeed at medium skills (assuming a +3 ability modifier), and 13th level with expertise before automatically succeeding at hard tasks.--As you can see, I've based the system on what I think is reasonable for somebody with the skill to succeed at every time. This goes back to the blacksmith. A trained smith should be able to complete items with easy or very easy difficulty without worrying about failure. An expert smith can do that with medium items as well. There's a reasonable split between non-proficient, proficient, and expertise.By not changing DCs, nor lowering the chance of success for non-proficient skills, it just sets a reasonable floor for somebody who is trained. The difficulty categories (very easy, easy, etc.) are measured against a skilled (trained) individual. That is, a very easy task is very easy for somebody who is trained, or has a natural ability.--I've also added a new Feat: Expertise. The prerequisite is proficiency in a skill, and you can gain expertise in that skill with the feat. You can take the feat multiple times for additional skills. I might limit the skills it can be used on to the ones from your background.I don't think it's all that powerful, and since it requires the use of a feat I don't think it really reduces then benefit of a rogue. What I'm really trying to do is give commoner artisans and craftsman the ability to gain expertise in their given skill. So a commoner blacksmith can be an expert blacksmith without having to be a rogue and have class levels. If I limit it to the skills of your background (many of which are tools) it means it's not terribly attractive to a PC.--So I think this covers all of the things I was trying to accomplish, with the least impact to the rules. When I worked through the numbers with a +5 it took too long for an expert to be a step ahead of a proficient character, although it's still a possibility for those that want a lower floor. The class that gets the biggest boost (really, is hit the least) is a bard with Jack of All Trades. But since it doesn't lower the possibility for success, only the auto-success, I don't think it's a big deal.More importantly, it addresses an issue that I've had with bounded accuracy, which is that there was little difference between proficient and non-proficient skills, particularly at low level. I'm not concerned about high level characters being consistently better than the commoner, that's expected. But the local smith should be better than the local farmer at smithing. Now, a lucky farmer can roll well and make something decent. But not consistently. The smith can crank out basic items all day without a check.The only question is which method I'll use for opposed checks. Most use a die roll anyway. Stealth against the lower passive Perception could be very interesting, especially for non-proficient characters. If neither works well, I might just stick with the 10+ for opposed rolls.Ilbranteloth</blockquote>

Verification