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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
WotC_Shoe: He DM's, but his pc's don't fight!
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="Lord Zardoz" data-source="post: 4146379" data-attributes="member: 704"><p>I would think that the simple presence of a system for resolving the checks that gives a bit more certainty than opposed roles. Particularily when you consider the chance of success for un untrained check in 3rd edition drops to a non factor in 3rd edition, while in 4th edition you will probably have at least a reasonable success. Also consider that the difficulty scale that causes the DM not to discount the approach out of hand due to trivial Min / Maxing, as with the static nature of the Diplomacy check.</p><p></p><p>In 3rd edition, you could try this with a combination of Bluff, Gather Information, Intimidate, Diplomacy, Forgery, Disguise, and Sense motive.</p><p></p><p>But while opposed rolls are a fine and balanced way to do things, there is a massive amount of variance. If you have a +3 and your opponent has a +4, the difference in your skill levels will not matter at all unless you roll within 2 points of one another. Otherwise you may as well be playing paper / rock / scissors. On the Dm side, a character with maxed Diplomacy and Bluff at about level 6 becomes essentially unstoppable by those without ranks in Sense Motive. With 4th editions untrained check, your 8th level elite guards wont get bluffed out by a 4th level rogue who happened to have maxed out bluff with a high charisma, max skill ranks, and the Skill Focus feat.</p><p></p><p>People like to crap on 3rd editions Diplomacy skill because when used exactly as written, it was broken. But the existence of a broken skill meant you could choose to focus your character on that, and the DM would probably just choose to modify the adjudication somehow. A broken skill is better than no skill, since it will at least cause a discussion betwee the DM and the player,and cause the DM to at least consider to account for it as a viable approach.</p><p></p><p>The existence of a well written and well balanced rule will let the DM change gears much more easily if he is caught off guard, and will probably be enough for him to not just hand wave a failure right off the bat.</p><p></p><p>END COMMUNICATION</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lord Zardoz, post: 4146379, member: 704"] I would think that the simple presence of a system for resolving the checks that gives a bit more certainty than opposed roles. Particularily when you consider the chance of success for un untrained check in 3rd edition drops to a non factor in 3rd edition, while in 4th edition you will probably have at least a reasonable success. Also consider that the difficulty scale that causes the DM not to discount the approach out of hand due to trivial Min / Maxing, as with the static nature of the Diplomacy check. In 3rd edition, you could try this with a combination of Bluff, Gather Information, Intimidate, Diplomacy, Forgery, Disguise, and Sense motive. But while opposed rolls are a fine and balanced way to do things, there is a massive amount of variance. If you have a +3 and your opponent has a +4, the difference in your skill levels will not matter at all unless you roll within 2 points of one another. Otherwise you may as well be playing paper / rock / scissors. On the Dm side, a character with maxed Diplomacy and Bluff at about level 6 becomes essentially unstoppable by those without ranks in Sense Motive. With 4th editions untrained check, your 8th level elite guards wont get bluffed out by a 4th level rogue who happened to have maxed out bluff with a high charisma, max skill ranks, and the Skill Focus feat. People like to crap on 3rd editions Diplomacy skill because when used exactly as written, it was broken. But the existence of a broken skill meant you could choose to focus your character on that, and the DM would probably just choose to modify the adjudication somehow. A broken skill is better than no skill, since it will at least cause a discussion betwee the DM and the player,and cause the DM to at least consider to account for it as a viable approach. The existence of a well written and well balanced rule will let the DM change gears much more easily if he is caught off guard, and will probably be enough for him to not just hand wave a failure right off the bat. END COMMUNICATION [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
WotC_Shoe: He DM's, but his pc's don't fight!
Top