This might have been discussed to death before but...
Freddy the fighter and Willy the Wizard are stuck in jail after getting drunk at the village's harvest festival and causing quite a scene. Their "cells" are little more than locked rooms adjacent to each other in the basement of the town hall. Not feeling like spending a week in there and eager to get back to adventuring, they decide to try to spring it. Since neither of them are any good at picking locks, they go for the less subtle approach of trying to break down the doors.
Freddy has a herculean strength score of 20 while Willy is sitting at the every-man score of 10. The doors are sturdy with a break DC of 18. Freddy will need to roll a 13 or higher in order to break down his door while Willy's chances seem a bit bleaker as he needs an 18 or higher in order to succeed. Freddy has a 40% chance of breaking down his door while Willy has a 15% chance.
They both go for it. Freddy rolls an 11, which is above average but still not enough to break down the door while Willy gets lucky and rolls a 19, breaking down the door and getting the keys to open the door for Freddy who is obviously feeling a bit humiliated.
The story might seem okay to most players but something seems wrong to me. A strength score of 20 is way beyond that of most people, and I doubt that if ability scores were applied to people in the real world, nobody would even qualify for such a score as most people are sitting on a score similar to that of Willy.
The problem with ability score DC's is that they require you to roll a d20. While this might be okay when dealing with skill points, skill points are usually a lot higher because they combine both the ability score modifier and the ranks of the character in said skill as well as any miscellaneous modifiers from feats and character features. The d20 has an effect but if you have enough points in the skill you'll rarely muck things up.
Ability score DC's are a different story. They are inherently a lot lower than skill ranks so the d20 has a much larger effect on the outcome. This seems really weird, and can be very hard to explain from a storytelling perspective as a DM to your players. The doors were equally sturdy, what allowed the everyman to break it down and not the hulking fighter who didn't even roll poorly? Hell, even if Willy had had a strength score of a pathetic 6, he still would have succeeded if he had rolled a 20, which still has a 5% chance of happening.
Either you're strong enough to break the door down, or you're not. The situation and occasional flukes might hinder you, but with such a big gap between their physical prowess, their chances should be a lot further apart.
TLDR: Using the d20 for ability checks is dumb.
I agree with much of the spirit of your post, but example you illustrate doesn't exactly work for me. Usually a discrepancy in high rolls can be explained narratively quite easily-- the stronger Freddy shifted his center of gravity wrong or hurt his shoulder, the weaker Willy found a rusty point in the bars and worked it from there.
However, I do think there is something wrong in that ability checks are assigned similar DCs to skill checks, but by their nature, you will end up with a much higher chance to succeed on a skill check (because that's skill ranks and other modifiers on top of an ability score). It strikes me that the DCs for pure ability checks should be a little lower, or that some other mechanic needs to be found.
I think it especially fails where ability checks and skill checks can be used to resolve a similar situation--you can break out of a pin with Strength, or use Escape Artist to wriggle out. The problem is you can put ranks into Escape artist but not in breaking things... it seems an unintuitive meshing of two different (if similar) mechanics. Especially since I think if you're good at breaking out strength-wise, you should be as good at is as someone good at wriggling out of things, but I also find the Escape Artist skill pointless and I'm tangenting and I'll stop now. Of course an untrained skill check is an ability check, but then the discrepancy makes sense at least--one person practiced how to do this thing, the other didn't.
In my games, with break DCs, I let someone use their Str + BAB instead of strength alone. Being good at hitting and breaking things seems to be tied up in BAB, yes? So it makes sense. It's essentially a CMB check I guess, but I wouldn't allow an "Agile Maneuvers" bearer use Dex to break something.
Maybe that's another way of dealing with it? It seems like the most common ability score checks that AREN'T untrained skill checks are indeed Strength checks. Seems like a better mechanic for Strength checks should come up for that. I think adding BAB works for me. Otherwise, in a pinch, maybe we can go back to the 2nd Ed Strength tables and use percentile dice instead. :)
The only other ability score checks I can think I ever use are things like, "Make an Int check to see if you remember this person" -- impromptu things that really aren't related to a skill. And normally I don't set the DCs very high.
The DC is 18 which falls into the DC 16-20 range. This is classified as door almost anyone could break given time. So that means both character could take 20 to break down the door. It would take 20 rounds to do that as an attempt takes 1 round and taking 20 multiplies that by 20. So both can get out no problem. Now if the 20 was DC 21 the fighter with higher strength would be the only who could get out and he would have to bust out his wizard buddy.
The only reason I'd require a roll is to get out on the first round when that would be important. Say in situation where you want to get out before another person can finish an act you want to prevent.
So no roll needed here. Just have them take 20. The big strong guy can just break down stronger doors.
The only reason I'd require a roll is to get out on the first round when that would be important. Say in situation where you want to get out before another person can finish an act you want to prevent.
Let's change the example just a little bit, then. For example, there may have been a fire and they both needed to get out right away. How would you explain to your players that the hulking brute couldn't get out even though he rolled an above average roll but the everyman did (and not even on a 20)?
I agree with much of the spirit of your post, but example you illustrate doesn't exactly work for me. Usually a discrepancy in high rolls can be explained narratively quite easily-- the stronger Freddy shifted his center of gravity wrong or hurt his shoulder, the weaker Willy found a rusty point in the bars and worked it from there.
I guess, I just wouldn't think these factors should matter so much. Freddy didn't even make a bad roll.
Otherwise, you make a lot of solid points and it seems we agree on most of the things. The combat maneuver solution you came up with sounds very nice.
I'm thinking whether or not ability checks should require a roll at all. Wouldn't a system where you're either capable enough or not be better? It obviously wouldn't work for the skill system, but for ability scores I think it would work out great.
The only reason I'd require a roll is to get out on the first round when that would be important. Say in situation where you want to get out before another person can finish an act you want to prevent.Let's change the example just a little bit, then. For example, there may have been a fire and they both needed to get out right away. How would you explain to your players that the hulking brute couldn't get out even though he rolled an above average roll but the everyman did (and not even on a 20)?
I think it's important to remember the d20 roll isn't just a "How skillful was the attempt?" roll, it involves pure chance too. When you make an attack and roll high, part of that is just your foe moving the wrong way at the wrong time.
So Willy rolled a 19 - scared of the fire, he gave the door a good kick with all the strength he had, and happened to hit a weak spot.
Freddy kicked at the door in his usual way, but it turned out to be sturdier than the doors he usually kicks down (weak ones are DC 13, he could take 10), and he didn't get lucky. So he tries again, blasting the door in Willy's face with the keys.
In the above scenario it makes much more roleplaying sense for Willy the Wizard to perform an Aid Another action to help Freddy the Fighter bash down the door. Willy just needs a make a DC 10 check, which he did with a roll of 19. That gives Freddy a +2 on his attempt to bash down the door. Add that to Freddy's roll of 11, and you have 11 + 2 (for Willy's Aid Another) + 5 (for Freddy's STR bonus) = 18. Viola! The door is bashed down.
See? With a little forethought, the rules CAN support good role-playing.
In the above scenario it makes much more roleplaying sense for Willy the Wizard to perform an Aid Another action to help Freddy the Fighter bash down the door. Willy just needs a make a DC 10 check, which he did with a roll of 19. That gives Freddy a +2 on his attempt to bash down the door. Add that to Freddy's roll of 11, and you have 11 + 2 (for Willy's Aid Another) + 5 (for Freddy's STR bonus) = 18. Viola! The door is bashed down.
See? With a little forethought, the rules CAN support good role-playing.
They're not in the same room so aid another isn't possible
I think it's important to remember the d20 roll isn't just a "How skillful was the attempt?" roll, it involves pure chance too. When you make an attack and roll high, part of that is just your foe moving the wrong way at the wrong time.
So Willy rolled a 19 - scared of the fire, he gave the door a good kick with all the strength he had, and happened to hit a weak spot.
Freddy kicked at the door in his usual way, but it turned out to be sturdier than the doors he usually kicks down (weak ones are DC 13, he could take 10), and he didn't get lucky. So he tries again, blasting the door in Willy's face with the keys.
This. They both needed to have "lucky" rolls to get through the doors. A 40% chance and a 15% chance are going to require you to get lucky on your roll. Willy got really lucky (found a weak spot, used up his reserves of energy, whatever) that he got out so quickly, while Freddy kicked the wrong part of the door.
While Willy is running around looking for keys to let Freddy out, Freddy gets another shot at opening the door and can probably get himself out (if he's lucky).
There's more to opening a door than just running into/kicking/shouldering it.
I've been in dozens of situations like this. I absolutely hate ability checks.
I like the CMB idea. Though I wouldn't allow the feat that switches dex and Str, I would definetely allow the monk ability that gives them full BAB for CMB. I would probably give some things higher DCs though.
The only reason I'd require a roll is to get out on the first round when that would be important. Say in situation where you want to get out before another person can finish an act you want to prevent.Let's change the example just a little bit, then. For example, there may have been a fire and they both needed to get out right away. How would you explain to your players that the hulking brute couldn't get out even though he rolled an above average roll but the everyman did (and not even on a 20)?
It's all chance. That's normal. On a single chance were both have the ability to succeed the one with the lesser chance of succeeding can come out on top due that single chance. But the stronger person can do it more consistently. Make it 5 doors they have break down each to get out and the be strong fighter will come out way ahead.
This happen is real life all the time. Haven't you ever played pool or golf with someone unskilled and and clumsy who pulls off an insane shot. I call it beginners luck but as the games progress the skilled stronger person always comes out ahead.
Where the strong fighter will shine is on DC 21 Door that the weaker wizard can't break down at all. The fighter has chance to break it down and if they have the time could take 20 to do it.
I've been in dozens of situations like this. I absolutely hate ability checks.
I like the CMB idea. Though I wouldn't allow the feat that switches dex and Str, I would definetely allow the monk ability that gives them full BAB for CMB. I would probably give some things higher DCs though.
I've had this happen in real life many times over. It's just how things work. Sometimes people get lucky but luck is something you can't rely on. It might get through the door instantly once but twice is pushing it. The ability check demonstrates this just fine. If you don't want the weak 10 str character breaking down you door make the DC too high for him to do so.
Hell, even if Willy had had a strength score of a pathetic 6, he still would have succeeded if he had rolled a 20, which still has a 5% chance of happening.
The 1/20 automatic failure/success applies for attack rolls, but I don't believe it applies on other kinds of checks, which makes sense. Regardless of how much better an opponent is, in combat there is always a slim chance he might get hit, whereas there is no way a normal person could break down a steel door. It's not possible. And on the other end, even if you roll a 1, if the relevant ability is high, or you have lots of ranks, or the DC is low, or you get some combination, it's possible or should be possible to succeed.
Hell, even if Willy had had a strength score of a pathetic 6, he still would have succeeded if he had rolled a 20, which still has a 5% chance of happening.
The 1/20 automatic failure/success applies for attack rolls, but I don't believe it applies on other kinds of checks, which makes sense. Regardless of how much better an opponent is, in combat there is always a slim chance he might get hit, whereas there is no way a normal person could break down a steel door. It's not possible. And on the other end, even if you roll a 1, if the relevant ability is high, or you have lots of ranks, or the DC is low, or you get some combination, it's possible or should be possible to succeed.
He wouldn't have succeeded because he rolled a natural twenty, but rather because he had a strength modifier of -2 which equals out to 18 (which is enough to beat the DC).
As for beginners luck and insane shots, I know incredible stuff can happen against the odds and whatnot, but a 5% chance isn't exactly astronomical.
I'm with the OP. Personally, I'd just make the DC's higher for things like this and add a new skill called "Might" (taken from other RPGs). So you would roll Strength (your raw power) plus Might (how well you can apply that raw power) and suddenly the Strength 10 Rogue finds that he just can't bend those bars, even on a natural 20. It would give Fighters and Barbarians (the 2 classes who I'd give Might as an in class skill) something to be good at besides hitting things.
Our group used a house rule for this. We decided that for ability checks, your bonus was equal to (Score - 10). It's pretty close to doubling the normal ability bonus.
This worked really well. There is still enough of a random factor in play to make some difference, but the odds of the STR 10 farmer defeating the STR 18 weightlifter in an arm-wrestling match shift downward significantly. It also allows odd-numbered ability scores to have a slight effect.
To us, at least, it even intuitively meshed better with the skill system. For skill checks, you have an ability score that influences the result, but also an element of training that at high levels can dwarf the effect of the natural ability. Using this ability check system reflects that your raw attribute is more important in this sort of check, and essentially doubles it (you more-or-less get attribute bonus + attribute bonus, instead of attribute bonus + competency level).
What do you guys think about allowing Warrior classes to add their BaB to such Strength checks? It'd solve a lot of the problem I'm thinking. One of my players came up with the idea in tonight's PF game.
The first houserule I ever made was that all brute-strength checks (including, back then, bullrush checks) use a d6 rather than a d20, with proportionately lower DCs.
That still gives a goblin (-5) a decent chance of defeating the average human (+0) at a contest of brute strength, which is arguably still silly, but this is heroic fantasy so hey. I've since extended the idea of "brute" checks (i.e, checks with a d6) to any task which I feel should be random but not too random.
I personally think that the d20 is just too big. To always beat someone you need a modifier 19 points higher than them.
|
Our group used a house rule for this. We decided that for ability checks, your bonus was equal to (Score - 10). It's pretty close to doubling the normal ability bonus.
What about just doubling the ability bonus? So a Str 16 w/ +3 would add +6 and a Str 18 w/ +4 would add +8. You could even let Str 17 add +7 to make odd stats matter more. That would at least keep ability bonuses in the same range as skill bonuses and make for really easy math.
|
Well, we used a D10 for initiative checks for a very long time, because for people that didn't possess the Improved Initiative feat it was pretty much just a Dex check. With a D20, you would get people with +0 out-speeding the +4 people fairly often. With a D10, the person with the high dexterity is most likely going to go first; a person with a base 10 dex won't be able to beat that 18 dex improved initiative guy, which is how it should be. Of course, you get a lot more people rolling the same thing, but then you either just have a roll off or say the person with the higher Dex score goes first.
Anyways, I think it can be applied the same way to most other Ability checks, at least the opposed ones. You would have to do something weird with the DC's, because just rolling a dice with half the amount of sides is pretty much the same as doubling the bonus, only I guess there is a little less variation...
All I can say is that the initiative rule is one that worked well for us for a long time, and now I'm wondering what reason I had for getting rid of it for our current campaign...... I honestly can't think of a reason other than I wanted to stick strictly to PF core rules without too much variation.
I call this the peanut butter jar principle. You know how sometimes you've got a jar, and you reef on it and reef on it and nothing moves and its frustrating and you hand it off to someone else and *pop* it opens with just a twist?
What you describe is not a problem with ability checks, but with the d20 system in general. It offers a big range of possible outcomes.
A weak character makes a strength check a strong one failed, and that can be humiliating.
But what about the fighter with his sword missing someone only to have the wizard with his dagger hit it? Or the strong-willed monk failing the save against a compulsion while the dumb fighter makes the save?
It's all because you have a big range of possible results, with the best (20) being just as likely as the average (10/11) or the worst (1).
Unearthed Arcana had a variant rule for this, which you can find HERE
The "Bell Curve Rolls" variant replaces the d20 with 3d6.
Instead of a flat 5% for each possible outcome (rolling 1d20), you have between less than 0.5% for each of the extremes (3 and 18) to 12,5% for each of the average values (10 and 11).
In fact, almost every second roll will be between 9 and 13.
There are other adjustments, too, but basically, you'll have a much more average result than before.
Ellington: A frustrating situation, in which we've all been at some point. Nobody likes to be the fighter losing an arm-wrestle to some drippy wizard, no self-respecting wizard wants to lose a quiz to some illiterate barbarian, etc...
Dork Lord offers a simple solution, but I think it's under-developed. For parity's sake there should be such a skill for each ability (e.g. Education for Intelligence, Fitness for Constitution, Good-Looking for Charisma). Each class could consider their hot stat a class skill, and others cross-class. Of course, this gives classes with a lot of skill points an unfair advantage, as many skill checks default to ability checks (unless the check requires training in a particular skill). This could be resolved with six feats, one for each ability, giving a modest feat bonus to ability checks only. Less abusable, and each class could have access to selected feats (e.g. Fighter might have access to Might and Fitness, Cleric might have access to the Wisdom and Charisma feats, etc...).
KaeYoss offers another solution, which is obviously more fully developed. This would remove a lot of the freak random results, but would also make the game much more predictable. I suppose it depends what you want from your game. Do you want predictable 'realism' or unpredictable chaos?
For myself, I think sometimes you eat the bar, and sometimes, well, he eats you. If that means my cleric sometimes comes across as less wise than some shmuck of a fighter, so be it. One day, I'll take him at that arm-wrestle.
If you set DC based on minimum score needed, you might be happier. If you think 'with anything less than 14 Str, no way,' then set the DC to 22. The high Str guy can either roll or, given time, take 20. The guy with insufficient Str has to suck it and wait.
I like the CMB idea but I think you should allow Agile Maneuvers. It's within the realm of heroic reason that a particularly agile adventurer can use precise blows to hit the door in just the right places.
Also, jeez, only a handful of guys are going to bother taking the feat. Come on! :)
Our group used a house rule for this. We decided that for ability checks, your bonus was equal to (Score - 10). It's pretty close to doubling the normal ability bonus.What about just doubling the ability bonus? So a Str 16 w/ +3 would add +6 and a Str 18 w/ +4 would add +8. You could even let Str 17 add +7 to make odd stats matter more. That would at least keep ability bonuses in the same range as skill bonuses and make for really easy math.
That's what (Score - 10) comes out to. :)
One nice thing about handling it this way instead of using a bell curve or a different die is that it lets you stay in the d20 framework, while making attribute score variations much more significant for those tasks in which the attribute score is the only significant defining factor.
I've been using 2d10's for skill checks for a couple of years now and the whole group have taken to them very well.
You could use 2d10's for Strength checks. You get an average of 11, and so the ability mod will have a greater effect on your rolls.
It's all because you have a big range of possible results, with the best (20) being just as likely as the average (10/11) or the worst (1).
I agree. However, I think there are times when this is less 'realistic' than others.
For instance, I think that a newbie with a bow getting lucky and hitting the guy that you (the 10th level fighter) just missed makes sense. Combat is chaotic.
Kicking down doors, less so. Same with, say, logic puzzles, or checks to maintain a forced march. Random perhaps, but not that random, so the volatility of the d20 really stands out.
Kicking down doors, less so. Same with, say, logic puzzles, or checks to maintain a forced march. Random perhaps, but not that random, so the volatility of the d20 really stands out.
The volatility of the d20 does stand out a little, but then, not all cell doors are created equal, not all have the same amounts of wear and tear, and some may have floors a little more slippery right in front of them. The weaker character breaking the door before the stronger one isn't that hard to describe or explain in a game-satisfying way.