Search Posts
I like 'bolstered against'. It means you're using a minimum of four words (bolstered against this effect/your use of this effect), but most of the examples go the extra mile to make it clear how the keyword is being used. Combat medic doesn't need to specify that it only bolsters against your use of the effect since that's the default, but they went ahead and used the word count on it anyway.
I've thought about a system where all GM-facing rolls would use a flat value and all player-facing rolls would include a, er, roll. How this would work is that monsters would have flat save/DC values that players would need to hit in order to cause an effect - AC of 15, Fort of 12, Reflex of 13, etc. The GM wouldn't need to roll for monster attacks, either - everything, including weapon attacks, would require a roll for the player. If a goblin shoots you with a shortbow, instead of the GM rolling an attack roll the player would roll their Armor save, similarly to how you'd roll a Fort, Reflex or Will save. Roll well enough to beat the DC and the attack misses, roll low and it hits. I like the idea because it leaves all the rolling in the hands of the players, and simplifies the DM's job since they don't need to make rolls for their monsters - it's simply a flat value that the player has to roll against instead. It also preserves and even enhances the fun the player has, where they get to roll dice and see if their character gets out of the way in time or not. The downside is that it definitely, 100% sets up GM controlled characters and player controlled characters with different rules, and I know some people hate that. 4e-style spell attack rolls versus set saves, similar to AC, is also a good solution.
New Identified Problem #12: Janky Lockpicking Rules: The rules for picking complex locks are tedious. Oh so very tedious. They involve the rogue's player making roll after roll after roll just to unlock a complex door, until they critically fail and snap their lockpick, or until the door finally budges. In this game, the Dexterity 16 cleric removed their breastplate to try to unlock a door with a DC 20, three-success lock. After 26, yes, 26 consecutive rolls, they had snapped a total of four lockpicks, and the door remained locked. Everyone else was twiddling their thumbs and simply watching this embarrassment unfold. What is this, a Bethesda game? This needs to go.It only states 3 successful checks, not 3 consecutive successful checks. Did your players really rolled bad on 23 checks before success? Lets break out some math. With +3 dex and trained Thievery, no ACP, your Thievery modifier is +4. The door is DC 20, which gives the following table of results: Roll a 1 to 6 (5-10): Critical Failure, either lose a success or break a pick if you have no successes.
Or, to put it another way: 30% chance of a critical failure, 45% of a failure, 20% chance of a success and 5% chance of a critical success. Critical failures are more likely than successes and critical successes combined, or as likely if you're counting a critical success as double the effect. This makes it fairly likely that you'll hit critical failures as you go. And the most likely result is failure, which just means you roll again and nothing happens. Assuming you count crit successes as twice as valuable as successes, which isn't quite true, and completely discount failures since they don't matter, this basically boils down to flipping a coin. You want it to land on heads three times in a row. If it lands on tails you subtract a heads, and if you don't have any heads left, break your pick. You can give it a try to see how it works out - it's definitely possible to win, but it's also extremely swingy. |
