sure, and a lot of people didn't get that. there was a lot of "can I take 10 on survival" or "you can't take 10 on spot checks" going on back then, I can't be the only one who ran into this issue.
with skill checks?
D&D 3E/3.5 the 3e skill system
Michael Silverbane
Adventurer
If "play Dark Souls III" is a skill, then yes, with skill checks.
Greenfield
Adventurer
Just because it applies...
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
It's actually pretty easy. You keep trying and trying and trying until you do the best you can possibly do without forcing the player to actually roll every attempt. You just lump it all into "Well, you take extra time (20x the usual time for a single trial) and do the best job you can do." It's not literally trying 20 times, failing 19 and then doing the best you can do on the exact 20th try.
Note: Even taking 20 doesn't guarantee success if the DC was above your max result. That's why I describe it as taking the time to do the best you can do.
um...
it's really not hard to frame this as failing 19 times and rolling a 20 the 20th time. the issue I find with this I can take 20 without having the need for a 20. like say I need a 13 to pass the DC of a skill check. if nothing crazy is happening I'm probably just gonna take 20 on the check. why can't I just take 13? if I took 13 rounds to succeed that would make more sense. it would also make more sense if it were framed as one really long skill attempt. I'm sure if I used lock picking as an example you could say that if you take 20 you do "fail" a bunch of times before success, but the same is true for lock picking in a single attempt.3.5 SRD said:
Greenfield
Adventurer
As a tangent on the 3e skill discussion, have you ever discussed the crafting rules? I'm not talking about making magic items, just making things.
In 3e you determine the DC to make the item, then roll your crafting skill. If you beat the DC then multioly your roll times the DC. The result is how many copper pieces worth of progress you made that day. If you decide to take a week or more at it then the roll is made once for each complete week, plus one per extra day.
The weekly roll pays in silver pieces instead of copper, effectively giving you a bonus for dedicating a week or more to the project.
If you're trying for a master worked item you make a separate roll, with a DC of 20.
If you fail the basic crafting roll, but fail by less than 5, the only penalty is that you make no p[rogress. Fail it by more than five and you've ruined materials, and may have to start over.
In context with the "Take 10" and "Take 20" rules, you could only use those rules if you weren't capable of failing by more than 5.
So let's look at a weapons maker trying fo make an 8 GP sword with a DC 15 target.
If he/she rolls the 15 then 225 copper worth of progress is made (2.25 gold). So the sword will take about three days to finish, less if the crafter makes better rolls.
What do you think of that mechanic: To easy, too hard, too complicated?
In 3e you determine the DC to make the item, then roll your crafting skill. If you beat the DC then multioly your roll times the DC. The result is how many copper pieces worth of progress you made that day. If you decide to take a week or more at it then the roll is made once for each complete week, plus one per extra day.
The weekly roll pays in silver pieces instead of copper, effectively giving you a bonus for dedicating a week or more to the project.
If you're trying for a master worked item you make a separate roll, with a DC of 20.
If you fail the basic crafting roll, but fail by less than 5, the only penalty is that you make no p[rogress. Fail it by more than five and you've ruined materials, and may have to start over.
In context with the "Take 10" and "Take 20" rules, you could only use those rules if you weren't capable of failing by more than 5.
So let's look at a weapons maker trying fo make an 8 GP sword with a DC 15 target.
If he/she rolls the 15 then 225 copper worth of progress is made (2.25 gold). So the sword will take about three days to finish, less if the crafter makes better rolls.
What do you think of that mechanic: To easy, too hard, too complicated?
I think I thought it was okay at the time, but also kinda hell if you didn't max out Crafting and have high Int. also didn't really like how crafting was so tied to Int either, like it makes sense for the nerdy scientist making contraptions, and I get that certain crafting methods were sorta tribal knowledge-ish, but last I checked the local blacksmith was buff as hell and not at all interested in actual science. also, see my complaint about "background skills".
I think I also remember the crafting system because its removal in 4e spawned this huge uproar from people who never used it. I can't recall exactly how crafting worked in previous editions, but no blame 4e for ruining that "tradition"
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Because you may not know it will only take a 13, duh. It’s somewhat abstract. Don’t sprain your brain on it.
yes, abstact, and yet the rules say it always takes 20 times as long to do.
Greenfield
Adventurer
If you know me at all you know I end up telling stories, so...
I was running an adventure at a convention, and the lead up was that there was an Autumn festival and the party was there. There were "games" (archery, horse races, javelin etc.) and a gathering of craftsmen.
One of the players, whose character was a bit over the top, decided that she was going to teach the Dwarven smiths how to make a Katana.
Since this was the role-playing preface to the full adventure, I played along. Since the festival was a week long, her goal wasn't impossible. She wouldn't be able to finish it in a week, but...
It turned out that her characyer had a total bonus for Craft - Weaponsmith of +3. Since, according to her, the Katana is always Master worked, she'd need to be able to get a 20 result. She was shocked when she found that the Dwarven smiths didn't consider a Master. She was high level, but had put very few points in that skill.
We ran the math on her Katana, which the books say is treated as a Masterworked Bastard Sword, so the price is over 300.
While the DC for making it Masterworked (DC 20) is a problem for someone with +3 in the skull, the basic Craft DC of 15 is the real issue: If she makes the basic roll, she'll make 22.5 gp worth of progress each week, she'll be at it for several months. She couldn't believe that.
My general take is that someone needs to have a total bonus of +10 to even be considered a Journeyman: They can Take 10 for most tasks, since they can't fail by more than 5. To be a Master I'm thinking you need a +15, so you can't fail by more than 5.
Of course that +15 might include circumstance bonuses like a well prepared shop, work assistants etc, so the NPC can still be below 10th level.
I guess this is where the tangent comes back to the original topic, which was what was wrong, or right, about the 3E skill system.
In the non-granular version used in later editions, the high level character would have gotten to be a better smith without ever taking any further training or practice with the craft. All they had to do was kill things.
I was running an adventure at a convention, and the lead up was that there was an Autumn festival and the party was there. There were "games" (archery, horse races, javelin etc.) and a gathering of craftsmen.
One of the players, whose character was a bit over the top, decided that she was going to teach the Dwarven smiths how to make a Katana.
Since this was the role-playing preface to the full adventure, I played along. Since the festival was a week long, her goal wasn't impossible. She wouldn't be able to finish it in a week, but...
It turned out that her characyer had a total bonus for Craft - Weaponsmith of +3. Since, according to her, the Katana is always Master worked, she'd need to be able to get a 20 result. She was shocked when she found that the Dwarven smiths didn't consider a Master. She was high level, but had put very few points in that skill.
We ran the math on her Katana, which the books say is treated as a Masterworked Bastard Sword, so the price is over 300.
While the DC for making it Masterworked (DC 20) is a problem for someone with +3 in the skull, the basic Craft DC of 15 is the real issue: If she makes the basic roll, she'll make 22.5 gp worth of progress each week, she'll be at it for several months. She couldn't believe that.
My general take is that someone needs to have a total bonus of +10 to even be considered a Journeyman: They can Take 10 for most tasks, since they can't fail by more than 5. To be a Master I'm thinking you need a +15, so you can't fail by more than 5.
Of course that +15 might include circumstance bonuses like a well prepared shop, work assistants etc, so the NPC can still be below 10th level.
I guess this is where the tangent comes back to the original topic, which was what was wrong, or right, about the 3E skill system.
In the non-granular version used in later editions, the high level character would have gotten to be a better smith without ever taking any further training or practice with the craft. All they had to do was kill things.
