Ability Checks too Random [Archive] - Wizards Community

Ability Checks too Random [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Talmariel
06-27-05, 03:18 PM Anyone else agree that straight ability checks need some degree of weight to them, besides being practically a naked d20 roll (at least at low levels)? I was thinking it'd be a nice house rule to add the ability score, rather than modifier, as a bonus on straight ability checks. This would not apply to ability checks made for a skill that the character has no ranks in. The only thing I can think of it applying to is Strength checks to break things, Strength or Dexterity checks to avoid being tripped, Strength checks for bull rush attempts, and Constitution checks for endurance-related things. All ability check DCs would probably need to be raised by 10 to maintain balance, but that'd put them in line with skill check DCs anyway. Am I missing anything else? Is this a good idea?
duppencf
06-27-05, 06:59 PM The mechanic of a stat check is that it is on of the few rolls in the game that is not easily modified as the charactor gains levels. This is the factor that creates the randomness you are talking about. Purhaps adding half the charactor level to the roll would be a potential fix?

The counter argument is that a 20th level wizard is no better at arm restling than a 1st level thug. Everything has its problems. Game what fits.
srkingdavy
06-27-05, 08:26 PM I agree that stat checks are too random. 1-2nd ed. had, in effect, what you are suggesting...

for raw ability checks, maybe rather than use an ability modifier, you use (stat-10) as a modifier to the d20 roll...
weasel fierce
06-27-05, 10:09 PM Maybe switch the D20 roll to 3D6 ?
srkingdavy
06-28-05, 02:50 AM Heresy
BelZoradon
06-28-05, 12:05 PM 3d6 > d20
Talmariel
06-28-05, 01:24 PM duppencf, adding character level would go against the purpose of the ability check as you described it (which I agree with), since it's supposed to be relatively fixed throughout the life of a character.

srkingdavy, ability score - 10 comes out to the same as what I had suggested, DC + 10; it's just going about the same thing from the other direction.

weasel fierce and BelZoradon, 3d6 does three things I think are contrary to the intent of ability checks. First, 3d6 has a bell-curve probability, so that the most likely rolled numbers are 10 and 11, with all others in decending probability the further you move towards the extremes. A d20, on the other hand, has equal chances of rolling a 1 as a 20, or any other number. Second, 3d6 removes the lowest and uppermost two possible numbers, since you can't roll a 1, 2, 19, or 20. Third, this is the d20 System for crying out loud! I agree with srkingdavy - heresy. :)

Thanks for the feedback from everyone. I take it at least most of you sympathize that ability checks are too random?
J Milburn
06-28-05, 01:45 PM Well, i have started, when it would be appropriate, adding two ability score modifiers together. For example, to resist a bull rush, strength and dex mods are added together, and for perception (which i use on occasion) I add togethe the int and wis mods. This generally gives a modifier worth bothjering with.

I dont use it loads, but ability checks are not that common anyways.
Drachasor
06-28-05, 02:14 PM Maybe switch the D20 roll to 3D6 ?

I don't think we really need to make Wall of Thorns even more powerful.

-Drachasor
BelZoradon
06-28-05, 05:26 PM your indeed right about the three things that 3d6 does... but i dont think i would call them bad things... you want ablity scores and skill ranks to mean more make the dice roll mean less and as for the loss of those four numbers... the bell curve makes that a little less noticed... and deals with that play that CRITS EVERY FREAKING DAY!! and my sliding the crit ranges down you dont loss anything AND it allows for the stacking of keen and improved crit again due to the lack of crits even with the system save on the raiper which in my mind should crit alot anyway... ill post the break down one of my players gave me when we switched to 3d6 if anyone is interested in the % changes
Talmariel
06-28-05, 05:58 PM You can't automatically succeed or fail (i.e., "crit") on ability checks. I've seen the section in Unearthed Arcana that discusses using 3d6 instead of 1d20 for all task resolution, but it doesn't very much interest me. There's something very compelling and pure about the level playing field a d20 offers in its perfectly linear probability.
BelZoradon
06-28-05, 08:49 PM no you cant... but if you use 3d6 for everything you kill two birds with one stone
RaspK FOG
06-28-05, 09:09 PM The problem lies in the fact that the DCs should be as they are, but it is too difficult to accept what we see: a venerable human commoner with a Strength score of 1 can actually succeed on a Strength check against an ogre with a Strength score of 30!
CryoSilver
06-28-05, 09:54 PM I believe that's contestable, about the peasant and the ogre. It staes that certain things don't need checks, that in an arm-wrestling contest, for example, the stronger character just wins.

But the roll represents more than just the ability attribute; it also represents circumstance, such as footing and angle for resisting a bull rush, proper grip, particular reactions to resist a disarm, etc.

I think that the use of a d20 roll more accurately represents the inherently chaotic nature of CQB, the most common breeding ground of ability checks; just because you can keep back one bull rush doesn't mean you'll be in a such a good stance next time; you might just get unlucky.
minowicz
06-28-05, 10:10 PM I argee it seems a little unbalanced a character Large size with a 24 Strength +7 to strength check 1d20 +7 = average of 18
now the dc to break down the locked strong wooden door 2 inch thick is 25

he weighs around 1600 lbs what wooden door could hold 1600lbs hitting it

Above Character can carry 2802 lbs as a heavy load
A character can push 5 times their heavy load along the ground so
Thats around 7 tons (14,010lbs)
he has absolutly no problem pushing a small shed over a cliff but he can not just rip the door off? I am not sure how to fix it but I know the size effects really show the difference as you get larger and larger.
Yabanjin
06-28-05, 10:40 PM Perhaps you could expand the take 10, take 20 rules. Just consider the time allowance and stress level of the situation a bit more casually....(personally I like the way things are now - but I'm a big fan of tweaking rules).

The 'take' rules are basically for non-stressful situations - so, when does 'lock picking' become less stressful for an advanced, nimble rogue that's done it a hundred times with foes at her back? As I recall there is/are feat(s) or prestige abilities that accomodate this sort of adjustment.

Perhaps there could be a reroll allowance on occasion. e.g. she missed by points equal to her attribute modifier.... (that's a bit much in my opinion actually - but go on and tweak).

I guess the question might be: How often have the current rules failed you as a DM and/or as Player? If the answer is too often, change something. If it's just kinda bothering you.... consider not changing anything.
XrP-Leon The Second
07-03-05, 05:23 PM Yes, it's a very random thing. It's supposed to be. As someone stated, just becasue you're able to see something once, doesn't mean you're as good at seeing everything exactly the same. It's much more fiar, and in the long run, better. While the game has flaws, we need to work with what they give us, not revamp it. With one of these sugestions, a character with 20 wisdom will have a will save of 25 + base + other. First off, this makes him close enough to immune from save allowing spells for a Will save. Second, is a Cloak of resitsance worth anything now? No, it's not.

By changing this to make it a static, larger numger, you would have to change all the spells, DCs, magical items effects and costs, and anything else that uses a variable D20 roll, to keep things even. Thusly, you are now on to a coin flipping game. I advise the D02 System (http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rdeese/RPG/D02/D02.htm) to be used by you.
Talmariel
07-04-05, 12:50 AM Re-read my original post regarding what the house rule I proposed would apply to.
XrP-Leon The Second
07-04-05, 01:52 AM Again, this aspect of the game is as close to as ballanced as it will get. I don't see how raising the modified roll by 5-14 is ballanced if you're also raising the DC by a fixed amount of 10, if anything this worsens your situation. Yes it's less random in the "naked" d20 aspect, but, now, what use would your base save be worth? Why should you be rewarded a +6 bonus for being a frail person with 6 strength? Should you apply the bonus as well, making a character with 20 strngth get a +25, while a character with 6 strength gets 4? I don't see how this works, it's more insanity than anything else, sorry. I'm not going to get into it, as I'm working on my hit point system right now, I'll just answer your question: Yes this is a bad idea.
Millennium
07-04-05, 02:55 AM The thing is, ability checks aren't based on your level. They are, in fact, based on your stats, which is part of the point. Level is not, after all, the only measure of how powerful your character is. To use the arm-wrestling metaphor, why should a 20th-level mage with Strength 11 be better than a 1st-level thug with Strength 16?
Talmariel
07-04-05, 11:11 AM XrP-Leon The Second, I asked you to re-read my original post because I don't intend to apply the ability check house rule to everything related to ability scores. It doesn't apply to skill checks, saves, attack rolls, AC, Initiative... anything that's already got a bonus to it. It only applies to ability checks. I just didn't want to have to re-write it. And "[w]hile the game has flaws, we need to work with what they give us"? If the game is admittedly flawed, why exactly do we have to just deal with it? It was made by a bunch of talented people, not handed down by the gods of roleplaying on adamantine tablets. :P

Millennium, I'm not following your point. :confused:

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Talmariel 06-27-05, 03:18 PM	Anyone else agree that straight ability checks need some degree of weight to them, besides being practically a naked d20 roll (at least at low levels)? I was thinking it'd be a nice house rule to add the ability score, rather than modifier, as a bonus on straight ability checks. This would not apply to ability checks made for a skill that the character has no ranks in. The only thing I can think of it applying to is Strength checks to break things, Strength or Dexterity checks to avoid being tripped, Strength checks for bull rush attempts, and Constitution checks for endurance-related things. All ability check DCs would probably need to be raised by 10 to maintain balance, but that'd put them in line with skill check DCs anyway. Am I missing anything else? Is this a good idea?
duppencf 06-27-05, 06:59 PM	The mechanic of a stat check is that it is on of the few rolls in the game that is not easily modified as the charactor gains levels. This is the factor that creates the randomness you are talking about. Purhaps adding half the charactor level to the roll would be a potential fix? The counter argument is that a 20th level wizard is no better at arm restling than a 1st level thug. Everything has its problems. Game what fits.
srkingdavy 06-27-05, 08:26 PM	I agree that stat checks are too random. 1-2nd ed. had, in effect, what you are suggesting... for raw ability checks, maybe rather than use an ability modifier, you use (stat-10) as a modifier to the d20 roll...
weasel fierce 06-27-05, 10:09 PM	Maybe switch the D20 roll to 3D6 ?
srkingdavy 06-28-05, 02:50 AM	Heresy
BelZoradon 06-28-05, 12:05 PM	3d6 > d20
Talmariel 06-28-05, 01:24 PM	duppencf, adding character level would go against the purpose of the ability check as you described it (which I agree with), since it's supposed to be relatively fixed throughout the life of a character. srkingdavy, ability score - 10 comes out to the same as what I had suggested, DC + 10; it's just going about the same thing from the other direction. weasel fierce and BelZoradon, 3d6 does three things I think are contrary to the intent of ability checks. First, 3d6 has a bell-curve probability, so that the most likely rolled numbers are 10 and 11, with all others in decending probability the further you move towards the extremes. A d20, on the other hand, has equal chances of rolling a 1 as a 20, or any other number. Second, 3d6 removes the lowest and uppermost two possible numbers, since you can't roll a 1, 2, 19, or 20. Third, this is the d20 System for crying out loud! I agree with srkingdavy - heresy. :) Thanks for the feedback from everyone. I take it at least most of you sympathize that ability checks are too random?
J Milburn 06-28-05, 01:45 PM	Well, i have started, when it would be appropriate, adding two ability score modifiers together. For example, to resist a bull rush, strength and dex mods are added together, and for perception (which i use on occasion) I add togethe the int and wis mods. This generally gives a modifier worth bothjering with. I dont use it loads, but ability checks are not that common anyways.
Drachasor 06-28-05, 02:14 PM	Maybe switch the D20 roll to 3D6 ? I don't think we really need to make Wall of Thorns even more powerful. -Drachasor
BelZoradon 06-28-05, 05:26 PM	your indeed right about the three things that 3d6 does... but i dont think i would call them bad things... you want ablity scores and skill ranks to mean more make the dice roll mean less and as for the loss of those four numbers... the bell curve makes that a little less noticed... and deals with that play that CRITS EVERY FREAKING DAY!! and my sliding the crit ranges down you dont loss anything AND it allows for the stacking of keen and improved crit again due to the lack of crits even with the system save on the raiper which in my mind should crit alot anyway... ill post the break down one of my players gave me when we switched to 3d6 if anyone is interested in the % changes
Talmariel 06-28-05, 05:58 PM	You can't automatically succeed or fail (i.e., "crit") on ability checks. I've seen the section in Unearthed Arcana that discusses using 3d6 instead of 1d20 for all task resolution, but it doesn't very much interest me. There's something very compelling and pure about the level playing field a d20 offers in its perfectly linear probability.
BelZoradon 06-28-05, 08:49 PM	no you cant... but if you use 3d6 for everything you kill two birds with one stone
RaspK FOG 06-28-05, 09:09 PM	The problem lies in the fact that the DCs should be as they are, but it is too difficult to accept what we see: a venerable human commoner with a Strength score of 1 can actually succeed on a Strength check against an ogre with a Strength score of 30!
CryoSilver 06-28-05, 09:54 PM	I believe that's contestable, about the peasant and the ogre. It staes that certain things don't need checks, that in an arm-wrestling contest, for example, the stronger character just wins. But the roll represents more than just the ability attribute; it also represents circumstance, such as footing and angle for resisting a bull rush, proper grip, particular reactions to resist a disarm, etc. I think that the use of a d20 roll more accurately represents the inherently chaotic nature of CQB, the most common breeding ground of ability checks; just because you can keep back one bull rush doesn't mean you'll be in a such a good stance next time; you might just get unlucky.
minowicz 06-28-05, 10:10 PM	I argee it seems a little unbalanced a character Large size with a 24 Strength +7 to strength check 1d20 +7 = average of 18 now the dc to break down the locked strong wooden door 2 inch thick is 25 he weighs around 1600 lbs what wooden door could hold 1600lbs hitting it Above Character can carry 2802 lbs as a heavy load A character can push 5 times their heavy load along the ground so Thats around 7 tons (14,010lbs) he has absolutly no problem pushing a small shed over a cliff but he can not just rip the door off? I am not sure how to fix it but I know the size effects really show the difference as you get larger and larger.
Yabanjin 06-28-05, 10:40 PM	Perhaps you could expand the take 10, take 20 rules. Just consider the time allowance and stress level of the situation a bit more casually....(personally I like the way things are now - but I'm a big fan of tweaking rules). The 'take' rules are basically for non-stressful situations - so, when does 'lock picking' become less stressful for an advanced, nimble rogue that's done it a hundred times with foes at her back? As I recall there is/are feat(s) or prestige abilities that accomodate this sort of adjustment. Perhaps there could be a reroll allowance on occasion. e.g. she missed by points equal to her attribute modifier.... (that's a bit much in my opinion actually - but go on and tweak). I guess the question might be: How often have the current rules failed you as a DM and/or as Player? If the answer is too often, change something. If it's just kinda bothering you.... consider not changing anything.
XrP-Leon The Second 07-03-05, 05:23 PM	Yes, it's a very random thing. It's supposed to be. As someone stated, just becasue you're able to see something once, doesn't mean you're as good at seeing everything exactly the same. It's much more fiar, and in the long run, better. While the game has flaws, we need to work with what they give us, not revamp it. With one of these sugestions, a character with 20 wisdom will have a will save of 25 + base + other. First off, this makes him close enough to immune from save allowing spells for a Will save. Second, is a Cloak of resitsance worth anything now? No, it's not. By changing this to make it a static, larger numger, you would have to change all the spells, DCs, magical items effects and costs, and anything else that uses a variable D20 roll, to keep things even. Thusly, you are now on to a coin flipping game. I advise the D02 System (http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rdeese/RPG/D02/D02.htm) to be used by you.
Talmariel 07-04-05, 12:50 AM	Re-read my original post regarding what the house rule I proposed would apply to.
XrP-Leon The Second 07-04-05, 01:52 AM	Again, this aspect of the game is as close to as ballanced as it will get. I don't see how raising the modified roll by 5-14 is ballanced if you're also raising the DC by a fixed amount of 10, if anything this worsens your situation. Yes it's less random in the "naked" d20 aspect, but, now, what use would your base save be worth? Why should you be rewarded a +6 bonus for being a frail person with 6 strength? Should you apply the bonus as well, making a character with 20 strngth get a +25, while a character with 6 strength gets 4? I don't see how this works, it's more insanity than anything else, sorry. I'm not going to get into it, as I'm working on my hit point system right now, I'll just answer your question: Yes this is a bad idea.
Millennium 07-04-05, 02:55 AM	The thing is, ability checks aren't based on your level. They are, in fact, based on your stats, which is part of the point. Level is not, after all, the only measure of how powerful your character is. To use the arm-wrestling metaphor, why should a 20th-level mage with Strength 11 be better than a 1st-level thug with Strength 16?
Talmariel 07-04-05, 11:11 AM	XrP-Leon The Second, I asked you to re-read my original post because I don't intend to apply the ability check house rule to everything related to ability scores. It doesn't apply to skill checks, saves, attack rolls, AC, Initiative... anything that's already got a bonus to it. It only applies to ability checks. I just didn't want to have to re-write it. And "[w]hile the game has flaws, we need to work with what they give us"? If the game is admittedly flawed, why exactly do we have to just deal with it? It was made by a bunch of talented people, not handed down by the gods of roleplaying on adamantine tablets. :P Millennium, I'm not following your point. :confused: