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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CroBob" data-source="post: 5701421" data-attributes="member: 6683307">Well, it's similar to how they worked in second, at any rate. In the current edition, there's nothing to differentiate a stat check from a skill check unless it's a skill you get some bonus to, making it a higher total bonus for that particular check. All "checks" are stat checks, but with specialization in a particular area, meaning skills could be removed entirely, replacing them with generalized stat checks and specializations in particular areas. Hiding, for example, would be a Dex check. If you want to be trained in hidingm or specialize in hiding, or whatever the skill mechanic name to replace it with is, then you'd get a certain bonus to rolling Dex checks to hide. Even attack rolls are simply a particular kind of stat check, effectively. Not that this is bad, but if we're going to differentiate between a "skill check" and a "stat check" and an "attack roll" anyway, why do they need to work exactly the same way? Arbitrarily different and arbitrarily uniform are both arbitrary.If our aim is to streamline the game, this makes perfect sense.My proposed system works the same way, except you don't want to roll higher than the stat you're using to make the check, and you generally won't have to worry about modifiers (powers or magic items would inevitably step in here somehow, of course).I fail to see how it's "superior" as opposed to "uniform". It's not even fully uniform, since the value of damage doesn't work that way. It is basically how all "success/fail" dichotomies are resolved, but the way I proposed didn't make the check significantly different. Rolling a d20 and then adding modifiers and figuring out if it's higher than some other number is essentially just as hard as rolling a d20 and then seeing if it's equal to or higher one value and equal to or lower than another, except less arithmetic is involved with my way, if you're so concerned about how easy it is.What I suggested is consistent with that group, except you don't want to roll the largest number on the di, or any number larger than the stat in question. Either way, I admit it's not a perfect suggestion. My entire point was that any changes to the game are based on the subjective whims of the designers and how ever much of the subjective input they listen to from their audience.I'm not proposing going back to second edition. That was such a bad edition. I'm not proposing anything that gets in the way of some sort of opposed check or attack on the mage's defenses or anything of that sort. In the case you propose, with my suggested manner of rolling stat checks above, the mage's spell would simply increase the difficulty of breaking down the door by some amount as dictated by the spell. If your typical door takes at least a 9 to break down, then perhaps this spell could increase the difficulty by 4, meaning the attempted roll must be between 13 and whatever his strength is if it's higher than that. Not complicated at all. As I said, it's not a perfect idea, and I'm sure I could do better if I had the time to toy around with the idea, but my point remains. Either change is arbitrary, based on the desires of whomever has input on the design.Um... if the mechanics didn't change, it wouldn't be a new edition. It'd be the same edition.It's the same mechanic, except you don't add or subtract anything and there's an upper limit based on your stat. Roll d20, If it's equal to or greater than the target DC (but not higher than your stat), it's good happy success time. Less math to boot. Both methods function as well as operating on the same general mechanic, which is better depends on your tastes.Yet the difference between rolling a 12 or a 13 could mean success or failure, depending on the circumstances. I don't even understand what you're claiming, here. What claim did I make that what you just said contradicts it? Who said anything about 12 or 13 being perfect, and what does that even mean?</blockquote>

Verification