|
I am actually in complete agreement with you, here, Blake, ergo my last little bit there about tasks only being failable when they're level-appropriate and actually challenging.
I do not think that DC's should scale to PC level, but I do think that high-level PC's probably shouldn't waste their time on tasks on which they cannot fail.
To use Z's example, a marathoner's endurance check should determine whether he wins the race, not whether or not he breaks his ankle. If he rolls a one, he simply doesn't win - but it's because 153 people all rolled a 2 -20, not just because he rolled a 1.
Ah that’s right, the wizard who summoned the demon who screwed up the pentacle never happens in stories, the dragon with all its ranks in perception never makes that one mistake in perception. That one time the little rogue is hiding in his lair (opposed check) after he stole a small gem and the dragon {gasp!} also failed to notice (take ten autocheck) the missing bit of treasure.
These are CLASSIC tropes in fantasy and horror lit, if you don't see how failure, mistakes and bad luck (sans DM fiat) can make a good story...
True, but in stories, they are not random happenings, but instead are deliberate plot points. The author wasn't sitting at the typewriter, rolling a d20 to determine if Smaug failed a Perception check.
A flat 5% failure rate is as silly as a flat 5% success rate, and neither of those factor into skill checks. What skill checks need is a margin of failure/margin of success mechanic. That way, when that marathon runner sprains his ankle, his exceptional conditioning and training still enable him to move farther and faster than a coach potato could.
|
A flat 5% failure rate is as silly as a flat 5% success rate, and neither of those factor into skill checks. What skill checks need is a margin of failure/margin of success mechanic. That way, when that marathon runner sprains his ankle, his exceptional conditioning and training still enable him to move farther and faster than a coach potato could.Ah that’s right, the wizard who summoned the demon who screwed up the pentacle never happens in stories, the dragon with all its ranks in perception never makes that one mistake in perception. That one time the little rogue is hiding in his lair (opposed check) after he stole a small gem and the dragon {gasp!} also failed to notice (take ten autocheck) the missing bit of treasure.
These are CLASSIC tropes in fantasy and horror lit, if you don't see how failure, mistakes and bad luck (sans DM fiat) can make a good story...
Missing the point, I said that the D20, 1=5% was bad design for a skill check system. That's a limitation of the D20 system - I would have gone with a D100 - as I mentioned earlier a few times already.
True, but in stories, they are not random happenings, but instead are deliberate plot points. The author wasn't sitting at the typewriter, rolling a d20 to determine if Smaug failed a Perception check.
So we can only have critical skill failures as plot points/device in fiction and not in gaming?
By that line of thinking you need to get rid of saving throws then, since they are in part a lot about luck (and other factors).Sorry guys, just can't agree with any of this.
A natural 1 is a failure in combat and it should be so in any other kind of check in the d20 system.
I say "1" because that is the lowest roll possible on a d20 I have to work with in the current system. Personally I would have used a greater range/different dice to make the chance of something bad happening during a task much lower then 5%. When a check is called for though - not some absurd argument about chewing gum or checking to see if you remember you name but an actual skill check is called for there should always be a chance of failure independent of the PCs skill.
Sometimes all the skill points (training) in the world are not going to stop a gun from jamming. You can reduce this with proper operation and care, but it happens. It happens with gear, and it happens while doing routine things - the idea that any kind of bad luck is rolled into the skill and automatically assumed bypassed on all rolls doesn't cut it.
I like the idea of the DC system - the numbers as a base should have been set much higher and expand exponentially with greater tasks, more variables (and harsher adds), but at its core it's better then what they had before in 2nd ed.
All that being said I think using a d20 to work the mechanic was bad design and limiting. The fact that there is no chance of failure, bad luck, or any external outside factors outside of skill is stupid IMO. 3rd ed gamers seem to love it, so I know I'm in the minority opinion on this.
Missing the point, I said that the D20, 1=5% was bad design for a skill check system. That's a limitation of the D20 system - I would have gone with a D100 - as I mentioned earlier a few times already.
This is still ludicrous. I know quite a few people that run multiple miles every day as exercise, rain or shine. Let's assume they just do 1 mile, though, and have that flat 1=fail, sprain an ankle rule. Over 365 days, 1 year, of running, they have a 98.5% chance to sprain their ankle once. Over 5 years, that's a 99.99999999% chance. And yet, none of them have done so over the previous 5 years. At the same time, I personally would absolutely fail to run a continuous mile in any kind of terrain or weather.
|
|
Missing the point, I said that the D20, 1=5% was bad design for a skill check system. That's a limitation of the D20 system - I would have gone with a D100 - as I mentioned earlier a few times already.This is still ludicrous. I know quite a few people that run multiple miles every day as exercise, rain or shine. Let's assume they just do 1 mile, though, and have that flat 1=fail, sprain an ankle rule. Over 365 days, 1 year, of running, they have a 98.5% chance to sprain their ankle once. Over 5 years, that's a 99.99999999% chance. And yet, none of them have done so over the previous 5 years. At the same time, I personally would absolutely fail to run a continuous mile in any kind of terrain or weather.
Sigh........
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
(This is my "trying to be helpful" expression.)
Might we say that spraining an ankle is a "fumble" on a d20, and would require two natural "1"s in a row? Does that satisfy anyone?
Just shifts the probability to the right, delaying the inevitable.
Instead of an auto-fail for skill and ability checks, I use a 30/-10 rule. Nat 20 counts as if you rolled a 30 (so you can hit high DCs, up to a point) and nat 1 counts as if you rolled a -10 (so you might still succeed, if you have enough pluses from being good at the skill, circumstances, etc.). Taking 20 doesn't count for a 30, and attack rolls and saving throws are still autofail on 1, autosucceed on 20.
(This is my "trying to be helpful" expression.)
Might we say that spraining an ankle is a "fumble" on a d20, and would require two natural "1"s in a row? Does that satisfy anyone?
Not really. "Sprain an ankle" is just shorthand for "attempt to run a mile but fail", and for someone who is fairly physically fit, that's just not something that hard to do. Something they won't fail at barring external stimuli (like stepping wrong and twisting their ankle because there's a hole in the path they weren't expecting). Something they do not fail at barring external stimuli. Sure, some days they decide not to run because it'd be too unpleasant (too hot, pouring rain, snowing, whatever), but if they do decide to run ... they run the mile. They don't fail. Yet someone who is not at all physically fit (such as myself) isn't able to do it. That makes it a reasonable skill check, but a skill check that is entirely possible to auto-succeed at.
Another example is writing a "hello world" program in C/C++. Someone with no skill in programming would fail that check, but I personally never would.
So if you think 1 should always fail on a skill check, do you think a 20 should always succeed?
I like the "natural 1 on skill check = extreme failure" rule because it implies that 1 out of every 20 miles of running Bruce Lee attempted, he apparently failed at and fell prone or something.
Every time Bruce Lee did a pushup, 1 out of every 20 push ups he did, he failed and fell prone.
One out of every punch he threw, he shattered his wrist...
|
|
I like the "natural 1 on skill check = extreme failure" rule because it implies that 1 out of every 20 miles of running Bruce Lee attempted, he apparently failed at and fell prone or something.
On the plus side, that just gave him one more opportunity to do that flippy-standing-up-from-being-prone thing he was so famous for.
I bet he was REALLY embarrased when he rolled a 1 on his run check and then a 1 on his flippy-standing-up-from-prone-thing check, though.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Auxmaulous, you say you only have PCs roll skill checks when it's important or relevant to the plot.
Should tasks that are so easy that the PCs cannot numerically fail them be given such importance?
A natural 1 is a failure in combat and it should be so in any other kind of check in the d20 system.
If you're arguing for consistency here, I'm afraid I'd have to disagree. Skill checks already depart from combat checks in the case of natural 20s (to prevent characters from doing crazy stuff like jumping to the moon). If they treat 20s differently, treating 1s differently shouldn't be an issue.
The reason I would never use a "1=failure" rule for skills is because the game is about heroes. There are enough circumstances where the heroes can fail, most of it in combat. There isn't any reason to make their heroic lives miserable out of combat too.
Think of it like this: does the rule make the game more fun? If not, why have it? The purpose of the skill system isn't to punish the players but to reward them for investing. Should the bilingual character fail to speak a foreign language that he has spoken since birth? If the character has a 10 Intelligence but the player still wants him to be bilingual, should he fail at speaking 5% of the time? Is it fun for someone who wants to make a medicine man who invests a lot in Heal to fail on binding wounds 5% of the time? I don't think it adds to the game and in fact I would think that it would hinder my experience.
If you force characters to fail 5% of the time, what you are doing is not encouraging roleplaying or investing in skills. Instead, the players know that there isn't a point in making an expert trap detector/disarmer. They know that they can never make the awesome swashbuckler because 5% of the time, instead of leaping on the back of a horse from a balcony as he makes his daring escape, he's going to look like a fool in front of the ladies. You can't make a wizard who is an expert in all things mystical because no matter what level he is, he will fail 5% of the time to identify a fireball spell being cast. You could never make an expert on orc slaying because 5% of the time, he couldn't identify an orc even if he is a half-orc ranger with orcs as a favored enemy. And probably the strangest of events, a hummingbird can't eat 5% of the time because it can't hover near the food.
I understand why someone would want to implement a rule like this, but it detracts from the game and actually takes away from the "reality."
|
|
Instead of flameproof suit I should have said flame-retardant
So if you think 1 should always fail on a skill check, do you think a 20 should always succeed?
Yes and no.
This is why the binary succeed/fail rules don't work.
If the guy didn't have the relative skill, say a Barbarian thug trying to figure out an issue concerning nobles he has never had any interest in - I may allow him a bit of the low range knowledge or some info he normally wouldn't have access to because he didn't place the points in that skill if he rolled a desperate natural 20.
I wouldn't treat it as someone with points in Knowledge(Nobility) who would have made the same role, nor would I give him the info I would give the PC with Knowledge(Nobility) and the right amount of skill points w/ the nat 20 who actually beat the set DC of the challenge. So he would get some positive result - but not as good as someone with actual invested ranks in the skill.
Same thing with a desperate wizard trying to clear a distance over a large pit - maybe I would allow him a second roll on a nat 20 and add the results for his jump vs DC. If a PC is willing to take a chance on counting on a nat 20 for a skill check he should get something, maybe not everything if he didn't beat the set DC but he should get something. I don't have a problem with that. I think it fits the heroic theme of the game and if all the armchair statisticians here wouldn't focus on the probability charts (5% excellent sandwich, blah, blah) they may actually see how failed checks add to a story, not take away.
Stuff
I never said there should be a 5% chance of failure on every form of activity. I know the 3.5 zealots want to frame the discussion that way, but that isn't what I said.
an actual skill check is called for there should always be a chance of failure independent of the PCs skill.
If you are using the d20, then yeah a 1 should mean that the desired result or task did not return a reward. Doesn't mean you didn't actually do the task, it doesn't even mean your head accidentally fell off while you were kneeling in worship at your Bruce Lee shrine. It means you were not successful. It yielded no positive results - sort of like posting on these boards.
If you are going to equate a succeed/fail percentage probability chart + DC system for every human action - I would say your intention is misplaced. All I'm saying is that there should be a failure mechanic independent of character skill, currently that is rolling a natural 1 under a few subsystems in the rules - combat and saving throws.
A natural 1 is an auto failure in combat and in saving throws, should be a failure in skill checks also. Not talking calculating a mean failure rate, or probability charts, just a chance to fail on your history check with your +20 mod if you roll a 1 - without regard for the DC.
Your example doesn't really work because you're talking about a trained only skill vs a skill that may be attempted by anyone, tho i see your argument.
And personally I agree that even the simplest tasks sometimes go awry. I have also struggled with how to resolve it tho, with 5% being far too often for realistic purposes.
As has been said, maybe rolling two 1's in a row? Yes, they're heroes, but i don't care if they're olympic athletes or expert mountaineers - sometimes they *will* fall.
This is why rock climbers use safety ropes.
Tying shoes? I think we can get away with that ;p
So with commonsense provisions I'm considering implementing this.
|
|
Your example doesn't really work because you're talking about a trained only skill vs a skill that may be attempted by anyone, tho i see your argument.
And personally I agree that even the simplest tasks sometimes go awry. I have also struggled with how to resolve it tho, with 5% being far too often for realistic purposes.
As has been said, maybe rolling two 1's in a row? Yes, they're heroes, but i don't care if they're olympic athletes or expert mountaineers - sometimes they *will* fall.
This is why rock climbers use safety ropes.
Tying shoes? I think we can get away with that ;p
So with commonsense provisions I'm considering implementing this.
That pretty much was my point, thanks for the for taking the effort in understanding what I was getting at.
I am currently using a natural 1 as a fix, but it's too much of a percentage block to be fair, and considering it also hinders higher skilled players who still have the same 5% no matter what the level of the task even though they may have spent quite a few points on a skill. The value of the 1 isn't diminished as they go up in level, it stays the same no matter how much effort they have put into their PCs skills.
So I haven't just glossed on this as a willy-nilly judgment, or thought of this as a new way of how I am going to punish my players, etc. I have actually though this through looking for a solution but couldn't abide by the current "no fail unless you fail the DC roll system". I rather have a large (5%) hanging constant fail rate for appropriately called checks than stacked scores with a success/fail rate exclusively tied to skill + task.
Maybe a double/opening roll if the get a nat 1 as you suggested. Better than what I got.
The value of the 1 isn't diminished as they go up in level, it stays the same no matter how much effort they have put into their PCs skills.
This is the main problem. It needs to scale.
Until i work something more realistic out, I'm gonna try the 2 1's in a row. Open to tweaking of course.
I believe the DC system was partly inspired by the Ease Factor chart which existed in Ars Magica (note Johnathan Tweet: co-creator of 3.0 and co-creator of the original Ars Magica system).
Now in Ars, you had a "stress" die and a "simple" die, both were d10's. Simple = 1 through 10. Stress = 2-9, a possible botch on 0, and 1 is a reroll & double the result.
The SG determines if the situation is stressful or simple. Notice how the Ease Factor / DC target doesn't necessarily change?
This is a fundamental flaw in 3.x > Pathfinder, as they ported over the excellent concept of the DC without the die quality (and therefore, the inherent possibility of "botches").
Ha. If 20 takes 20 then 10 takes ten... not so much.
I do love the logic though because if you were some how trying to fail a check and say took 5 that takes 5 rounds to attempt? Taking a 3 takes 3 rounds?
Absurdity is more obvious if you continue down the path they started.
|
A related question.
Say I'm wanting to make a knowledge check on something. I could take a 10 as long as I'm not distracted or I could make a roll, yes? And no re-rolls are allowed for knowledge checks so I couldn't do both.
But surely taking 10 just represents my surface knowledge. If I fail that then I can't dig deeper.
Also, if I roll but get a 3 and my skill mod was +10 for a knowledge DC of 15 then I've failed as well. Yet it would be easy if I took a 10.
If you know the target DC then of course you can choose the right one. But that's not normally the case. Is there no way round this?
StuffI never said there should be a 5% chance of failure on every form of activity. I know the 3.5 zealots want to frame the discussion that way, but that isn't what I said.
an actual skill check is called for there should always be a chance of failure independent of the PCs skill.If you are using the d20, then yeah a 1 should mean that the desired result or task...
The reason I picked every one of those skills is because they do call for skill checks by RAW. I intentionally got away from the running, shoe tying, etc because they don't call for skill checks. That is the problem with 1 = autofail. Using this, they will fail 5% of the time. That's why the rule does not exist. It doesn't make sense.
Of course if you are going to say that the half-orc ranger with orcs as a favored enemy doesn't have to make a Knowledge (local) check to identify orcs (DC 5), or are going to allow hummingbirds to hover (fly check DC 15), just because they have high enough skill checks or some arbitrary reason, then you are essentially using the rules that say 1 =/= autofail.
A related question.
Say I'm wanting to make a knowledge check on something. I could take a 10 as long as I'm not distracted or I could make a roll, yes? And no re-rolls are allowed for knowledge checks so I couldn't do both.
But surely taking 10 just represents my surface knowledge. If I fail that then I can't dig deeper.
Also, if I roll but get a 3 and my skill mod was +10 for a knowledge DC of 15 then I've failed as well. Yet it would be easy if I took a 10.
If you know the target DC then of course you can choose the right one. But that's not normally the case. Is there no way round this?
Some DCs you can figure out using the Core Rules. I wouldn't have a problem with my players taking a few moments to determine the DC of walking across an icy plank of metal 2 feet wide at a 20 degree angle at full speed (DC 5 + 5 + 2 + 5 = 17). It's something they can observe. If they want to identify a monster, then they need to determine if they want to take that chance.
Play a Rogue, get skill mastery and if he tells you that its gonna take you a min each time you take a 10 of acrobatics, just be gald you got matrix jump powers.......that go real slow?
|
|
One of the things I have always felt was annoying was when GMs would require a skill check on simple everyday tasks just to see if a character would fail.
While it's true that a person may trip and twist their ankle when walking down a street, the chance of it occurring is very small. Requiring skill checks for these types of situations does not increase the enjoyability of the game. It slows gameplay down and can sometimes cause frustration for the player that does fail (and twists his ankle).
Doing a Take 10 on a skill roll is a good way to simulate a result for an average attempt without bogging down the situation with another roll. It can also help emphasize when a character is so good that they are able to get a good result with little effort.
For my part the 30/-10 rule has always sufficed. It means that good luck can throw you a bone, bad luck can ruin your day, but in the end your skill still matters. The knight in full plate with a -8 acrobatics can make that 20-foot-jump through more luck than skill, but the monk with +15 acrobatics can do better by taking 10. And when the monk rolls a natural one, he doesn't fall and break a leg or land on the button that blows up the world, he just misjudges the timing on his jump and only manages a 5-foot-hop.
And of course the argument with the marathon runner doing a mile is ridiculous because he can take 10, and therefore never sprains his ankle. Only if he needs better than a take ten - if he needs to run a mile quickly to save his best friend, or outrun the bear chasing him - then the chance of failure enters in counterbalance with the chance of increased success. Because that's more interesting.
So basically my rule is that if you cannot take 10 or choose not to take 10 then you are "pushing yourself" and have a chance to screw up or succeed spectacularly. Otherwise you can always choose to be average.
Now for the OT of taking 10 taking 10 times as long, my DM used to think that as well. Luckily he believed me when I showed him it wasn't the case. Now if only I could convince him that the "50% chance to hit your ally when shooting into a grapple" 'rule' doesn't exist (this is a 3.5 game, btw). It's almost as bad as when he ruled that it's impossible to make ranged attacks through an ally's space...
I just noticed something funny about what SKR said about
-tie your shoes
-remember your name.. etc
He said disable device for tie shoes... but its trained only...
so people who aren't trained in disable device can't tie their shoes? LOL...
|
|
World class marathoner's aren't a very good example. I mean there's 200 guys running at the pace where you start rolling con checks each round after "con score" rounds. I wonder what their dump stat is. Of these probably 50-100 will be invited to participate in the 5 major world marathonds 2 spring 2 +1(Berlin invites fewer top athletes to actually race but will have a large field to push for world record so i've separated it) fall maybe 20+5 to each of the "2 races" maybe 5+10 to the +1 race with the +'s being the guys invited to pace the leaders for the first half to maybe 3rd quarter of the race. And in each of these races 2-3 won't even show up to start the race due to injuries. Another 5-8 will show up with injuries and maybe actually 3 of those will complete the race. Hey, they wanted to get paid so they bluffed that their healthy to collect their check. Of the six runners we sent to the olympics last year how many even finished? But 26.2 is too long. How about shorter?
Women's 1500 anyone? Medal contender Morgan Uceny falls in the finals of the 1500 in the World Championships and then the next year in the finals of the Olympics. Just a simple case of stepping where you shouldn't ang going down. But 1500 is too long.
Long Jump? My Barbarian (+3 from +10 movement rate)(+3 16dex)(+3 Class Skil)(+3 Skill focus) can jump a world record 29 feet pit at 6th level taking 10. Of course how many attempts at the world record were taken off a runway designed for jumping that doesn't penalize you due to being 3 inches over the line like a pit would. Bad conditions 25-19 feet no problem. The problem I have with this is that a player can analyze what they need to clear this pit and take something they have a 50% chance of doing and converting it to a 100% success rate. There's a reason the pit was there. Burn a feather fall spell, burn a cat's grace, burn a healing potion, but don't call yourself a hero if you lawyer around taking risks.
You're the bad guy and i'm coming to get you. And i'm bringing my 500+ CON marathoner friends with me.
I see a necromancers... Thread necro inbound.
Real life doesn't always translate to DND btw. Which is probably for the best.
Edit: Just looked at the first post and the last... went off topic somewhere I think.
I see what you did thar.
It doesn't ingame time though.