D&D 5E two things about D&D that could be more interesting

[evilbob]

A system based off of DC only rewards better rolls or punishes worse rolls based on the actual skill level of the character. The more skilled you are, the more likely you are to get boons or major boons. The less skilled you are, the more likely you are to get complications or major complications.

I think that's why people have been suggesting it: that seems like a decent way to work it.

And tying it into the normal d20 roll means nothing else changes or has to be adjusted. So far no one seems to have come up with anything substantially different. Which is fine - maybe there's not such a thing.

 

[evilbob]

design encounters of exploration and interaction as things that cannot be solved by a single skill check

This is sort of an indirect way to solve the problem: lessen the binary nature of each roll by using multiple skill rolls to affect a single outcome. (Like skill challenges in 4.0, which may have been trying to do exactly the thing we're talking about.)

It's a good idea, but it still relies on binary results, even in aggregation. You still pass/fail each check individually. The ultimate result can have degrees of success, though, I agree. It could also work together with the +/- 5 DC "degrees" of success as well, where instead of adding either 0 or 1 to your "success total" you add from 0 to 5. I already like this better; for example, if your target success total is 9 for 3 checks, that means if you get two really spectacular success you're done.

Also, forgot to mention:

On a 16 or higher (DC 20), you succeed with a boon. You cannot get a major boon because you are not skilled enough (DC 25). FIVE possible results.

(Unless you count 20s as an automatic major boon in this case.)

 

[Tectuktitlay]

Also, forgot to mention:
(Unless you count 20s as an automatic major boon in this case.)

Nah, I don't like the idea of crit successes on 20s or crit failures on 1s for skill checks. Why? Because crit successes on a nat 20 reward the LESS SKILLED more the lower their skill, and crit failures punish the MORE SKILLED higher the more skilled they are.

You only fail on a 1-5 on the die because of how skilled you are? You critically fail 20% of the times you fail. That person with half the skill you have, who fails on a 1-10, only critically fails 10% of the time they fail. Same for successes. You only succeed on a 16-20? You critically succeed 20% of the times you succeed. That person with twice the skill as you who succeeds on an 11-20 only critically succeeds 10% of the time they succeed. No thanks.

And no, if you are wondering I don't like crits on attack rolls either, for the same reason. Certainly not the D&D system of criticals. I mean, that craptacular goblin who can only hit you on a 19-20 critically hits you HALF the times they successfully hit you. But that brutal expert who hits you on an 11-20? They only critically hit you 10% of the time. That is silly.

I actually have crits work like I prefer skills to work. You beat that target's AC by 10 or more? You critically hit. You missed that target's AC by 10 or more? You critically missed. There, now crits are based on your actual skill level. All those things that increase crit ranges, like the Champion's Improved Critical? Now you crit when you beat the AC by 9 instead of 10 (or 8 instead of 10 with Superior Critical).

 

[evilbob]

One other point to remember: D&D (as already mentioned) tends to focus on combat more than some other systems; this means you need to resolve lots of rolls quickly to keep them practical (plus it's just a good idea). Rolling a handful of dice and then examining each result is something you don't typically do if you need to do that over and over quickly. Which is one reason why D&D is so streamlined (except for power palette, which is insanely overly complicated).

So, here's a conversation skill check example:
DC is X; a result of X-10 gives 0 points, X-5 = 1 point, X = 2 points, X+5 = 3, X+10 = 4. A natural 1 means you said something wrong and roll with disadvantage for the rest of the conversation; a natural 20 means you gain 5 points and can roll with advantage for the rest of the conversation. Target is 2 points * Y rounds.

Just throwing things out.

 

[evilbob]

Because crit successes on a nat 20 reward the LESS SKILLED more the lower their skill, and crit failures punish the MORE SKILLED higher the more skilled they are.

I disagree. You only critically fail or succeed 5% of the time, regardless. But either way, it's not important, and certainly not counting crits / 1s on skill checks is the precedent.

 

[Tectuktitlay]

I disagree. You only critically fail or succeed 5% of the time, regardless. But either way, it's not important, and certainly not counting crits / 1s on skill checks is the precedent.

You only critically fail or succeed 5% of the times total, but you critically fail or succeed a MUCH higher percentage of the times you ACTUALLY succeed or fail, and that is a significant difference.

To take the most extreme example, if that goblin hits your AC exactly on a natural 20, that goblin critically hits you 100% of the times they hit you. Even if they only critically hit you 5% of the times they ROLL, they ALWAYS critically hit you.

By the same token, that BBEG who hits your AC exactly on a 2 on the die critically misses you 100% of the times they miss you (if you play with critical misses, obviously).

So the crit system rewards you more and more the LESS skilled you are, and punishes you more and more the MORE skilled you are.

 

[Fanaelialae]

No. I've done all those things. These are my conclusions. You can disagree but please stop trying to "fix" D&D for me when it's not broken. You've gotten distracted by the word "type." I was saying "job." Job is right. D&D starts by telling you to think about your job. Other games start by telling you to think about who you are as a person. (For many people, that's the same thing. Maybe you're one. That's great.) Either way it doesn't matter because I can fix that part for me, like I already said.

I wasn't trying to fix anything. The crux of what I was saying was that WoD also uses a job system, IME of course. I played in a big V:tM game for several years and was usually the person helping players generate characters. I preferred a neutral "hands off" approach to my role, not wanting to influence their character with my own biases. I was mostly there to explain things and make sure that no mistakes were made. Most experienced players started by choosing their clan. Most newbies would alter their character concept when they found a clan they liked. Obviously experiences will vary, but WoD can definitely be approached as having jobs, much like D&D can. Moreover, IME, it usually is. To get a truly jobless experience I expect you need something more like GURPS.

As for a non-binary rolling system, what I sometimes use is a simple percent system. If your check rolls the DC exactly, it is considered a basic success. Every point below or above means you did 10% better or worse than the basic success. If 10% seems like too much, use 5% instead.

 

[MoonSong]

Your class is not a job, it is what your character is.

D&D classes were designed as strong archetypes, that is why there were only three of them at launch. These archetypes aren't an occupation, they are the core of a character. An OD&D fighting man is so much more than simply a swordsman. There are many men at arms who soldier for a living but the fighting man can potentially fight with the strength of many men.

A magic user isn't simply, a caster.He or she is wizard commanding powers of nightmare and legend. A cleric is a devout holy man or woman who wields the powers given by the gods themselves and makes monstrous undead fear them.

These are not typical occupations such as a blacksmith or a carpenter. A class represents so much more than a job.

Of course nowadays the designers have made classes more like jobs because there is class for just about everything. Once everything is subdivided into hyper focused areas of specialty then yes, classes can seem more like jobs.

I would distinguish between classes that are more about what you are -like barbarian and sorcerer- than what you spend your time on -like wizard-, and a good deal of newer classes are in that heap.

Background=job is much closer to true than class=job in most cases, IMO. And even there I am suspect.

[Also... Caution: Unless my point persuades you to believe I am indeed right, please don't respond to me.]

Funny how we finally agree on something. My only concern is that background is called that instead of job, because background implies that is all in the past and most PCs these days have only one job "murder hobo"

No. I've done all those things. These are my conclusions. You can disagree but please stop trying to "fix" D&D for me when it's not broken. You've gotten distracted by the word "type." I was saying "job." Job is right. D&D starts by telling you to think about your job. Other games start by telling you to think about who you are as a person. (For many people, that's the same thing. Maybe you're one. That's great.) Either way it doesn't matter because I can fix that part for me, like I already said.

No, no, no. Read the first post. "And it's NOT about being able to do anything"

Like I said, classes like sorcerer break this mold, or at least used to. The 5e version dictates too much of what you should be doing and looks more like a job than something coded in your blood that says nothing about your persona.

I'm going to add FATAL to the list of RPGs I wish I didn't know about. Currently the only other game on the list I can recall is Ponyfinder, which I'm sure is played exclusively by bronies.

What's wrong with ponies? they are no different from bunnies, kitties, puppies and koalas. Cute things are cute.

 

[Ath'kethin]

Oops. Somebody already said what I went to say.

Does it count as ninja'd when by the time you go to make your point it is on page 6 of the responses?

 

[MoonSong]

Nothing is wrong with ponies, everything is wrong with bronies who will be the most likely audience for ponyfinder (even if the original intent was to get kids into RPGs).

What is exactly wrong with bronies and how does it detract from a setting about cute animals? (And why it would put a game about cute animals on the same level of wrong as FATAL that is so obviously the result of a sick mind?)