Rule of Three: May 22

[Kinak]

Some interesting stuff in there, thanks!

For example, right now, when a 1st-level rogue makes an ability check and applies the bonus from one of his or her skills, the rogue can take either the die roll or 10, whichever is higher. We think this is a good expression of an increase in reliability in the arena of skills.

I like this a lot, actually. It's a smaller effect than rolling twice and taking the higher, but I really like how it cuts off the low end rather than biasing everything upwards.

However, we know that sometimes the adventure is just going to demand an encounter that is so tactically involved that a battlemat is the only practical way to go... Moreover, I think including encounters that make use of a battlemat nearly mandatory is something we want to be judicious with, saving it for adventures that are really geared toward the tactical style of play.

I appreciate that they're thinking about this, but the tone doesn't really make me hopeful about the game functioning off the grid.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Haldrik]

There still seems to be a drop off problem.

• 16 Strength versus a DC16 door autosucceeds: 100% success.
• But 16 Strength (+3 +2 Open Doors) versus a DC17 door needs 12 on d20: 45% success.

Thus a DC +1 causes a 55% (!) chance of failure.



I suppose this mechanic using the Score to ignore difficulty is in keeping with “dont roll if failure is less than 50%”. But it seems drastic.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Err...why would you think a 16 Strength would give you a +6 modifier? Everything we've been told so far has said modifiers work the same way they do in 3.5/4e. Which means a 16 str is a +3.

That means with a 16 str, you can open DC 16 doors without rolling and a DC 17 needs a 14+ to succeed. If you have +2 to your skill that only brings it up to 12+.

In a lot of the skill articles they've said they wanted a system that was approximately equal in "raw talent" vs "trained". This makes sense if they keep the modifiers the same. Someone with a 14 in a stat and is trained in something gets equal skill from their stat and training. Exceptional people get a bit more from stat.

Though it does bring up an interesting point. If you can auto succeed in a skill by having a stat equal to the DC....then wouldn't that mean that being able to use 10 instead of your die roll wouldn't come in handy for any skill based on a stat that you had 12 or higher in?

Or are there some skills that you aren't allowed to auto succeed in and therefore always have to roll?

I sort of figured that the ability modifier would have to be ability-10, because otherwise, as you say, the Rogue's ability would be unhelpful in a certain range.

If you have 14 Dex and you are trained, then DC 15 stuff.. you have to roll on either way. In fact, it becomes useless for any DC 13 or above if you are trained, 10 or above if you aren't:

Ability - Take 10 Score (trained/untrained)

8 - 11/9
9 - 11/9
10 - 12/10
11 - 12/10
12 - 13/11
13 - 13/11
14 - 14/12
15 - 14/12

Ability modifiers can't be like 3rd/4th edition if this system is going to work..

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

There still seems to be a drop off problem.

• 16 Strength versus a DC16 door autosucceeds: 100% success.
• But 16 Strength (+3 +2 Open Doors) versus a DC17 door needs 12 on d20: 45% success.

Thus a DC +1 causes a 55% (!) chance of failure.



I suppose this mechanic using the Score to ignore difficulty is in keeping with “dont roll if failure is less than 50%”. But it seems drastic.

See my post above. I think the ability score modifiers have to be directly linear: ability score - 10. That means a drop off to 50% success if untrained and 60% if trained.

 

[hafrogman]

Though it does bring up an interesting point. If you can auto succeed in a skill by having a stat equal to the DC....then wouldn't that mean that being able to use 10 instead of your die roll wouldn't come in handy for any skill based on a stat that you had 12 or higher in?

The other thing to consider is that it's not pick 10 or roll, it's roll . . . and then choose the roll or 10. Then you combine that with the idea of marginal success (or failure). 3.X's climb skill is the easiest example. Fail by less than 5, don't climb. Fail by more than 5? Fall.

Does the rogue make it down the cliff? No, but he also succeeded in not plummeting to his death.

 

[Minigiant]

There still seems to be a drop off problem.

• 16 Strength versus a DC16 door autosucceeds: 100% success.
• But 16 Strength (+3 +2 Open Doors) versus a DC17 door needs 12 on d20: 45% success.

Thus a DC +1 causes a 55% (!) chance of failure.



I suppose this mechanic using the Score to ignore difficulty is in keeping with “dont roll if failure is less than 50%”. But it seems drastic.

This is why I hate low numbers in a d20 system.

But for the most part, using your ability score is like rolling a 10 and doubling your ability modifier. The higher you get, the worse the drop.

Now if they did +5 skill training like 4E and use 3/4E ability modifiers, then it is a +8 bonus. That is a 35% drop for a level 1. But rogues can take 10 and autosucceed.

3E's max ranks on a class skill is +3 plus level. That is a 55% chance. Thus a 45% drop off bless you can take 10.

This is why skill bonus must be at least +4. +5 is better. Just don't grant a level bonus.

 

[Dausuul]

Err...why would you think a 16 Strength would give you a +6 modifier? Everything we've been told so far has said modifiers work the same way they do in 3.5/4e. Which means a 16 str is a +3.

Why do you think D&DN even has a "Strength modifier?" The whole concept is kind of dumb when you think about it. In 3E and 4E, you have this number called a Strength score, but you then have to convert it to another number before you can use it. Aside from the encumbrance tables, nothing in the entire system uses your Strength score as written. Having both a score and a modifier is needless complication and a waste of space. I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain to newbies, "No, when I call for a Strength check, you add this number*."

My guess is that in D&DN, if you have a 16 Strength, your Strength check is 1d20+16. It's simpler than derived values, it means you can implement things like ability damage without a flood of knock-on calculations, and it creates a meaningful difference between a 10 and a 16 Strength. It also means that the "DC less than your ability score = autosuccess" rule makes perfect sense. If you're rolling 1d20+16 against DC 16, you don't have to bother rolling. If you're rolling against DC 17, you have a 5% chance of failure (assuming a natural 1 always fails). No discontinuity.

[SIZE=-2]*Especially in 4E, where you have two Strength modifiers depending on whether you're adding half level or not. FAIL.[/SIZE]

 

[triqui]

There still seems to be a drop off problem.

• 16 Strength versus a DC16 door autosucceeds: 100% success.
• But 16 Strength (+3 +2 Open Doors) versus a DC17 door needs 12 on d20: 45% success.

Thus a DC +1 causes a 55% (!) chance of failure.



I suppose this mechanic using the Score to ignore difficulty is in keeping with “dont roll if failure is less than 50%”. But it seems drastic.

I think I've read in old posts by Mearls and Cook, about using re-rolls as part of the skill system.

If so, 45% success with reroll means 69,75% chance of success.

 

[grimslade]

I don't know. I thought having character gen rules within 2 months of the initial play test was newsworthy.

I like that the rogue is always above average in skills.

 

[YRUSirius]

There still seems to be a drop off problem.

• 16 Strength versus a DC16 door autosucceeds: 100% success.
• But 16 Strength (+3 +2 Open Doors) versus a DC17 door needs 12 on d20: 45% success.

Thus a DC +1 causes a 55% (!) chance of failure.



I suppose this mechanic using the Score to ignore difficulty is in keeping with “dont roll if failure is less than 50%”. But it seems drastic.

No, no, we all got it all backwards.

It isn't a drop in chance of success because of a DC +1. It's a bonus in chance of success because of a DC -1.

Get it?

-YRUSirius