Reducing randomness

[candidus_cogitens]

The fact that we play a d20 system rather than a d10 or d6 means that on any roll, there is a huge luck factor. In some ways, that is what makes the game fun. It would not be fun if you knew your fighter would hit every time he swung his sword.

On the other hand, maybe the ability modifiers are under-emphasized in comparison to the luck factor.

At higher levels skill ranks, BAB, and base saves become much more important, reducing the importance of your ability modifiers even further.

I'm looking for ideas on how to make ability modifiers count a bit more.

 

[Shalewind]

The coolest idea I have ever seen to do what you describe is the governing ability factor. Perhaps something like this would be in order:

Your ranks in a skill cannot exceed the governing ability that is tied to it. For instance, Climb is a Strength skill, therefore, you could never have more ranks in Climb that you did points in Strength.

Obviously this severely limits the PCs as they near the levels 12-16. But perhaps this is a spring board for new ideas. Anyone?

I have no idea how you could integrate it into the combat mechanic. Personally I think a Strength above 21 already influences combat to a great deal beyond the luck factor.

Another point on luck. Have you considered the alternare +10 for a 20, -10 for a 1?

Hope this helps.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

Did that "Help me design a rule" thread inspire this?

Anyway...

One of the most glaring occurences of this is when two characters match ability versus ability.

Usually, on a given roll, there are multiple modifiers that affect it, BAB, STR, Situation, etc.--so, when it comes down to the ability alone, perhaps it wouldn't be out of order to double, or even triple, the appropriate ability modifier.

For example, in an armwrestling contest, a STR9 (-1) contestant might roll at -3, while his STR14 (+2) opponent might roll at +6.

Similarly, the STR14 character above might gain a +6 bonus when attempting to shift a boulder blocking the party's escape.

You could vary the multiplier to suit your campaign.

 

[LostSoul]

Maybe if it comes down to opposed ability checks, you could let each character reroll a number of times equal to their modifier. In an arm-wrestle, an 18 STR guy can reroll up to 4 times, while a 10 STR guy only once.

Although this wouldn't work with negative ability modifiers. I always thought those didn't work anyways. Oh well.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

in an armwrestling contest, a STR9 (-1) contestant might roll at -3, while his STR14 (+2) opponent might roll at +6.

Similarly, the STR14 character above might gain a +6 bonus when attempting to shift a boulder blocking the party's escape.

These ideas make a lot of sense. It calls to mind the fact that in determining how much gear a player can carry, or how much weight he can drag, no roll is required AT ALL, even though success or failure is directly dependent upon an ability score.

Likewise, one could make the case that in armwrestling, unlike melee combat, there is very little possibility for the unexpected. The stronger character simply WILL win, at least 95% of the time. (I say 95% rather than 100% because there is the possibility that he is sick or hasnt eaten or rested well.)

 

[candidus_cogitens]

Perhaps something like this would be in order: Your ranks in a skill cannot exceed the governing ability that is tied to it. For instance, Climb is a Strength skill, therefore, you could never have more ranks in Climb that you did points in Strength.
.... perhaps this is a spring board for new ideas. Anyone?

I see some possibilities here. How about this tweak:

Ranks cannot be greater than the sum of your level plus governing ability MOD (as opposed to SCORE). This rule would replace the limitation of ranks to 3 + character level.

So, a third level PC with -2 CHA could not have more than one rank in diplomacy, but if the same PC had a +2 DEX, he could have up to five ranks in tumble.

This would eliminate the problem of being more constraining for higher level PCs. As I have modified the rule, it would affect PCs of all levels pretty much the same (I think).

The other consequence of this modification would be that skill ranks would generally be kept at lower levels, unless you have +3 or greater in the related ability. This would then mean that some players would have to spread out their skill points more broadly since they might not be able to spend all their skill points on just a few skills.

 

[Shalewind]

Mmmm. I like it. This would also make some of those feats that grant skill bonuses a little more appealing. Nice tweak.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

I agree.

Very nice tweak!

Nice enough to be considered for the next edition I'd say.

 

[Saeviomagy]

If you're looking to reduce randomness, you could try rolling on more dice which have a similar range of numbers - instead of a d20, you could try 2d10 (range of 2-20), or 3d8-2(1-22) or 4d6 - 3 (1 to 21). Any of these would give more mid-range numbers and less extreme numbers (the chance of rolling a 20 on 2d10 is 1/100 as compared to the usual 1/20). You'd have to be careful to balance the game to take this into account - DCs and modifiers become much more important, and slight variations from normal tasks (with a DC equal to 10+ the normal modifiers the PC's have) become much more difficult or easy.

 

[angramainyu]

A simple way to reduce randomness, in a d20 roll for example, would be instead of rolling one d20, roll three d20 and take the middle value. As long as you've got 3 d20s around, you can roll them all at once, and you don't have to mess around with rolling dice with different side in order to approximate another die.

You still get a chance at those 20s and 1s, but you are more likely to end up with an "average" value.