Flexor the Mighty!
18/100 Strength!
I'm fine with either. A percentile system is no less of a burden to handle than D20 beat a DC so it works fine at the table, even mixed with another mechanic.
Unified mechanics all the way. It's ironic that grognards who dislike the complexity of 3.PF would want to retain the old mess that was pre-3,0:
Unified mechanics all the way. It's ironic that grognards who dislike the complexity of 3.PF would want to retain the old mess that was pre-3,0:
Low THAC0 is good, low save thresholds are good, high ability scores are good. Roll high when you swing your sword, roll low when you're picking a lock. Roll under your unmodified Dexterity score to catch the goblet that fell off the table (how the average DM would probably resolve something that wasn't covered by a non-weapon proficiency), roll under your ability score as if it was 3 lower than it actually is when trying to use this non-weapon proficiency, roll under your ability score as if it was 3 higher than it actually is for this other non-weapon proficiency. Roll a d20 when you swing your sword, resist the wizard's charm, or dodge the dragons's breath weapon. Roll % to disarm a trap or survive resurrection. Roll a d6 to notice secret doors. Roll a d10 to determine initiative.
Devil's advocate question: is that really harder to remember 3d6 for skill checks and 1d20 for combat than having different damage dice for different weapons? In other words, in D&D I know my sword does 1d8 and dagger does 1d4. So having 3d6 skill checks and 1d20 combat rolls would seem just as easy to remember(?)
It's not so much that it's more complicated, as it is that the complexity is less useful.Devil's advocate question: is that really harder to remember 3d6 for skill checks and 1d20 for combat than having different damage dice for different weapons? In other words, in D&D I know my sword does 1d8 and dagger does 1d4. So having 3d6 skill checks and 1d20 combat rolls would seem just as easy to remember(?)
I don't really have a preference between consistent & varied mechanics, but I must admit that, having learned RPGs with B/X and AD&D, I still think of things in those terms. You want to roll low for ability checks and high for combat. I still think of armor class as running from 10 to -10. It could be pure nostalgia as well, but I do think there is an undefinable flavor and character to those old messy mechanics. I don't recall having a hard time learning when to roll high or low, or that you use a d6 for surprise and a d20 for saves. But that was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.It is not really that ironic once you have learnt all the old stuff then it is probably easier to keep going then relearning a different system.
I don't really have a preference between consistent & varied mechanics, but I must admit that, having learned RPGs with B/X and AD&D, I still think of things in those terms. You want to roll low for ability checks and high for combat. I still think of armor class as running from 10 to -10. It could be pure nostalgia as well, but I do think there is an undefinable flavor and character to those old messy mechanics. I don't recall having a hard time learning when to roll high or low, or that you use a d6 for surprise and a d20 for saves. But that was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.Shasarak said:It is not really that ironic once you have learnt all the old stuff then it is probably easier to keep going then relearning a different system.
Fair enough. Each to their own.I didn't have a hard time learning them as well, but 3.0's unified mechanics were a breath of fresh air nonetheless and I didn't miss the old ways one bit.
It runs aground on relative difficulty. Are you opening a stuck door, lifting a portculis, bending an iron bar, a bronze bar, an adamantine bar? Roll under with a bonus? Roll under by X, so rolling 1 is your best effort?Rolling under your stat was the simplest of all. Your strength is a 14, roll under that on a d20. The End. No calculating proficiency or consulting a sheet to see what your modifier is, just roll the die and see the result.
Determining whether it's Acrobatics or Athletics is no different than determining whether it should be a Dexterity check or a Strength check. It's the exact same amount of effort for the DM, and it's the main reason why every skill is tied to exactly one ability score, so you never have to worry about Strength + Acrobatics or Con + Athletics or anything like that.Rolling under your stat was the simplest of all. Your strength is a 14, roll under that on a d20. The End. No calculating proficiency or consulting a sheet to see what your modifier is, just roll the die and see the result. The problem is now having stats higher than 18 sort of kills the whole idea of that roll. However, it is far easier to just say your Dex is a 15 and you rolled a 12, therefore you passed, then as a DM wondering if this should be acrobatics or atheletics, what level you are and add the 2, did your character choose that at the start for extra proficiency, and so on.
it actually does save quite a bit of time and effort to just roll under. Of course, the trade off there is if you want some checks to be easier or harder than other checks, in which case it's significantly more effort to try and modify that roll in order to account for such a thing.
It's true that there are a lot more skills than there are ability score, so it can take a little bit longer to find the right one on the list. That's a fair point.The DM can just say to add a +2 to make it harder, or a plus 10 even if so inclined. The roll under is just so easy and requires so little effort, whereas the roll over requires checking your list of 35 different proficienciies to find your plus in question. I would say it still should be used except it is so easy to get higher than 18 now, as to make the roll under method obsolete.
Rolling under your stat was the simplest of all. Your strength is a 14, roll under that on a d20. The End. No calculating proficiency or consulting a sheet to see what your modifier is, just roll the die and see the result.
However, it is far easier to just say your Dex is a 15 and you rolled a 12, therefore you passed, then as a DM wondering if this should be acrobatics or atheletics, what level you are and add the 2, did your character choose that at the start for extra proficiency, and so on.
Aside from the intuitive hurdle of '+' being bad '-' being good, that's not any different from just rolling to hit a target number with a more intuitive bonus or penalty.The DM can just say to add a +2 to make it harder, or a plus 10 even if so inclined.
And the same uniform distribution. Some resolutions might benefit from a normal distribution, for instance.Uniformity has an obvious simplicity to it, and saves having to muck about with lots of dice. But there are issues with making everything have the same granularity.
There could be a solid argument for mapping each dice mechanic's result distribution to the nature of the task. It might be complex, but it would be a complexity with a purpose, as opposed to the needless complexity we saw in the early game.Did 1e/2e have a need for more consistent/unified mechanics? Undoubtedly. Some die rolls will need lots of modifiers. Some don’t. Some need fine degrees of success, others are simple, unmodified pass/fail. Sometimes what is attempted should succeed or fail without a random die roll element at all.
It's true that there are a lot more skills than there are ability score, so it can take a little bit longer to find the right one on the list. That's a fair point.
Aside from the intuitive hurdle of '+' being bad '-' being good, ... complexity with a purpose, as opposed to the needless complexity we saw in the early game.