Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Viking Bastard" data-source="post: 6271349" data-attributes="member: 509">I agree with this. If the Ranks are nothing but descriptions for target numbers, they are at best an alternate way of describing DCs ("journeyman" instead of "Hard") or at worst an unnecessary complication.If you treat checks and saves the same (as 4e does) then yeah. Otherwise, no. One is a Save (defensive roll resulting from an situation proclaimed by the DM) and the other is a Check (testing an action proclaimed by the players). This is a fundamental difference, Perception Checks != Perception Saves. If one were to add this Rank system to 4e, I'd think it would be best to treat Perception as a Defense (basically only use passive perception) and drop Endurance from the skill list (and just use Fortitude). I also think a system like works better with narrower skills, "Climb" instead of "Athletics", etc.I don't use opposed checks, unless it's PvP. Everything is just a check vs. a DC, and I've been moving away from difficulties in general. If there are complications ("Oh noes! There's a guard we didn't foresee!") I will proclaim Disadvantage, but generally, I just use a static number (was 14, but I've been using PCs' own Save stat the last few sessions).If it's an easy sneak (say, nobody's on watch, but they might still hear you), you don't need to roll, you just sneak. If it's difficult (or risky, there's a guard!), I'll call for a check except not from the Rogue, with his Move Silently ability. If it's further complicated, I'd call for a check with Disadvantage (with the Rogue having to do a check as well, but without Disadvantage).I think there's a narrative difference in DCs as well. Choosing a DC/Rank in this system carries a bigger "exclusion", making the choice somewhat more stressful for the DM, but I do think of a DCs 12, 18, 25 as having objective meanings of difficulty in the same way as "Journeyman" and "Expert" do--it's just that there's less harm in choosing a bit too high DC versus choosing that only Masters+ can attempt the task.But this is also why I say there's too many Ranks. What's the difference between the Master and Grandmaster, exactly (etc.)? If you only have three Ranks as I previously suggested--Novice, Trained, and Master--it becomes a lot more straightforward:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If it's plausible that someone who had no formal training could do it, it's Novice.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If it's something a bit trickier that you would only expect those trained to be able to do it, it's Trained.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If it's something quite extraordinary, that you would only expect the best of the best to be able to do, it's Master.</li> </ul>I wouldn't use this system for something like Endurance checks against poison, because they are essentially saving throws, and I would never deny players a Save (which is a fast path towards revolution).Otherwise, I think  [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] answers this well enough.I would probably let them both roll. Or them riffing off each other is resolved as one check, but with Advantage.</blockquote>

Verification