Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What if Expertise were a simple +2?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7507958" data-attributes="member: 6919838"><p>Just to be clear - </p><p></p><p>"At that point, you're getting to the conceptual limitations of a binary-success skill system. You could try to overhaul the skill system, introducing something like skill challenges, but that also seems like it's beyond the scope of this thread"</p><p></p><p>technically, for skills or ability checks in 5e it is not binary at all - </p><p></p><p>there are three outcomes at least - four in contests tho that might just be a different three.</p><p></p><p>for a basic task and ability check - </p><p>meet/beat the dc for success</p><p>less than dc for failure to make progress.</p><p>less than dc for make some progress with setback set by gm</p><p></p><p>So that is three options with a lot of variety for the third.</p><p></p><p>For contests its also trinary with the third option being tie leaving the situation as it was, which may mean in doubt which also opens up a big can of wormy possibilities as another serioes of actions by others gets into the mix.</p><p></p><p>So, you see, the difference between an auto-result and an uncertain result is a lot more than the same boring stuff or a binary pair of options. </p><p></p><p>this should not be taken as a criticism of the reliable talent feature by me.</p><p></p><p>However, if a Gm wanted to alter reliable talent to add some drama back in, i would suggest a consideration of the following type of alternative:</p><p></p><p><strong>Reliable Complications (Replacement for Reliable talent): For the same skills/checks/tools as indicated with reliable talent, the player can choose (after the roll and knowledge of success/fail is given) to make a failed check into a success with setback determined by the gm.</strong></p><p></p><p>this adds a little bit more umph - its not a flat 10 but a success - but always comes with setback when the initial roll fails and still keeps the drama aspects fully in play. it is actually just giving the choice between "no progress" and "some progress with setback" from the GM to the player, so its not even adding anything - just shifting who makes the choice.</p><p></p><p>Obviously, an impossible task gets no check anyway so this cannot let you jump to the moon etc.</p><p></p><p>Thats the kind of possibility that you can get to when you realize its not just binary by the basic PHB. maybe some like it, maybe others don't.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7507958, member: 6919838"] Just to be clear - "At that point, you're getting to the conceptual limitations of a binary-success skill system. You could try to overhaul the skill system, introducing something like skill challenges, but that also seems like it's beyond the scope of this thread" technically, for skills or ability checks in 5e it is not binary at all - there are three outcomes at least - four in contests tho that might just be a different three. for a basic task and ability check - meet/beat the dc for success less than dc for failure to make progress. less than dc for make some progress with setback set by gm So that is three options with a lot of variety for the third. For contests its also trinary with the third option being tie leaving the situation as it was, which may mean in doubt which also opens up a big can of wormy possibilities as another serioes of actions by others gets into the mix. So, you see, the difference between an auto-result and an uncertain result is a lot more than the same boring stuff or a binary pair of options. this should not be taken as a criticism of the reliable talent feature by me. However, if a Gm wanted to alter reliable talent to add some drama back in, i would suggest a consideration of the following type of alternative: [B]Reliable Complications (Replacement for Reliable talent): For the same skills/checks/tools as indicated with reliable talent, the player can choose (after the roll and knowledge of success/fail is given) to make a failed check into a success with setback determined by the gm.[/B] this adds a little bit more umph - its not a flat 10 but a success - but always comes with setback when the initial roll fails and still keeps the drama aspects fully in play. it is actually just giving the choice between "no progress" and "some progress with setback" from the GM to the player, so its not even adding anything - just shifting who makes the choice. Obviously, an impossible task gets no check anyway so this cannot let you jump to the moon etc. Thats the kind of possibility that you can get to when you realize its not just binary by the basic PHB. maybe some like it, maybe others don't. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What if Expertise were a simple +2?
Top