Bizzare Skill Idea...Workable or Not? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Bizzare Skill Idea...Workable or Not? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Gideon_Gideonson
06-05-07, 01:01 PM Looking through my various D&D books, I became a bit disillusioned at the skill system. A 20th level character will NEVER lose to a level...say...3 character with a given skill, since there are no auto-failures or auto-successes. With those in, he'll lose 5% of the time. This makes me a bit irritated, as I enjoy a touch of realism, and nobody is that perfect.

And got me thinking...what if, instead of getting +1 to skills through skill points, you instead got extra dice?

For example...we've got our two characters. Level 3 (Int 15), and level 20 (Int 18). They're competing in a History contest, and both have max ranks in Knowledge (History).

By normal rules, the level 3 rolls 1d20+5, and the level 20 rolls 1d20+27. The level 3 CANNOT WIN.

By the system I'm debating, the level three, with 6 ranks, would roll 4d10 and take the best two, adding his modifier to the result. The level 20 would roll 8d10 and take the best two, adding 4 to the result.

Naturally, given the law of averages, the level 20 has a significantly higher chance of winning, but the level 3 character would skill have a chance.

The big problem is skill/spell/ability DC's, but I think it could easily be balanced.

Here's the breakdown of the number of dice rolled.

0--2
1-4--3
5-8--4
9-12--5
13-16--6
17-20--7
21+--8

Does this idea have merit?
Hugin
06-05-07, 02:35 PM The only down-side that I see immediately is that skills will only improve as maximum ranks hit 5, 9, 13... etc. To simplify the system you could possibly translate the skill point mechanic to reflect the 'every four' improvement scale.

For instance, use the simplified UA max skill point method with gaining points only every fourth level.
Arcade
06-05-07, 03:23 PM It's OK. You are translating the skill ranks into a dice pool, of sorts. It'd be interesting to breakdown the math of it to see how much of a difference it makes on opposed rolls. From what I gather, you are really only interested in changing the odds for people where there is a vast difference in skill levels.

I'm not sure how necessary it is though- level 20's don't interact with level 3's that often. :) And comparatively, it's like having someone who just got their Bachelor's in history competing with someone who is considered the foremost expert in history, studied it intensely their entire lifetime, and who taught all the other professors in the land to their current level with what he considered a "beginner course" (including the professor who taught the level 3).

That being said, I have always liked the idea of dice pools, it just might not be necessary here.
Gideon_Gideonson
06-05-07, 03:46 PM Well, it's not just level 20's competing with level 3's. It's high level charlatan's bluffing their way through vastly powerful empires simply because no-one's got ranks in bluff. It's the entire party being stuck on the ground because only one guy's got a high enough Climb to scale the wall. That's what I'm trying to fix. This is a chance for everyone to have a chance at doing everything...albeit a very small one.

Under this system, anyone can get really, really lucky picking a lock, for example. 1 in 100 tries you'll get it, if it's DC 20 or lower. And for a normal person, that's reasonable (Give me a lockpick and 100 tries with a standard dungeon style lock. I'm pretty sure process of elimination and learning with error will allow me to get it eventually). Skills do become less important, but ranks are a way of ensuring success. The better you become at a skill, the more RELIABLE you become. Currently a master and a beginner both have a 1-20 point window...which is wierd. A master will work much more accurately than an apprentice.
Rhialto
06-05-07, 05:29 PM Isn't a roll of 1 considered an automatic failure on skill checks anyway?

I've seen "critical hit/miss" systems which treat a roll of 20 as "add 20 and roll again" and 1 as "subtract 20 and roll again". That would achieve the same overall effect as your system, and won't require any re-balancing across the entire system either.
Arcade
06-06-07, 09:29 AM Well, it's not just level 20's competing with level 3's. It's high level charlatan's bluffing their way through vastly powerful empires simply because no-one's got ranks in bluff. It's the entire party being stuck on the ground because only one guy's got a high enough Climb to scale the wall. That's what I'm trying to fix. This is a chance for everyone to have a chance at doing everything...albeit a very small one.

Under this system, anyone can get really, really lucky picking a lock, for example. 1 in 100 tries you'll get it, if it's DC 20 or lower. And for a normal person, that's reasonable (Give me a lockpick and 100 tries with a standard dungeon style lock. I'm pretty sure process of elimination and learning with error will allow me to get it eventually). Skills do become less important, but ranks are a way of ensuring success. The better you become at a skill, the more RELIABLE you become. Currently a master and a beginner both have a 1-20 point window...which is wierd. A master will work much more accurately than an apprentice.

Can't say I agree- some things really are impossible even if just a small amount of training makes it seem easy. And you likely could get by a standard dungeon lock- they are only DC 20, so anyone can pick them. Maybe you just want to get rid of the "Trained Only" part of skills.

My personal preference would be to use rolling 20s (every time you roll a 20, you get to roll again). If that is too infrequent, use 2d10 and reroll any 10's that come up. It's a little simpler then your method and accomplishes the same thing.

But, your method should give you the effects you want. I don't see any real issue with it.
Rustmonster
06-06-07, 09:35 AM Isn't a roll of 1 considered an automatic failure on skill checks anyway?

I've seen "critical hit/miss" systems which treat a roll of 20 as "add 20 and roll again" and 1 as "subtract 20 and roll again". That would achieve the same overall effect as your system, and won't require any re-balancing across the entire system either.

Ah, now I like this! That's actually a wonderful system. I beleive it's from the DM's guide, no? It's a nice variant, as it can represent screwing the hell up, or on the other hand it can represent getting really lucky. If a low level got lucky and a high level screwed up, the low level actually has a chance! Of course, I'm guessing you can, say, get lucky twice by getting 20 and 20. That would just be 40. Or getting a 1 and a 1 wouldn't keep going down, it would be a -19.
Werral
06-08-07, 09:05 PM It's a 1 in 400 chance but it might just work...
Ra-Tiel
06-09-07, 06:44 AM Isn't a roll of 1 considered an automatic failure on skill checks anyway? [...]
Sorry to disappoint you, but it isn't. The rule of automatic failure on a natural 1 and automatic success on a natural 20 extend to attack roles and saving throws only. :)

Anyways, why not use the variable modifiers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/variableModifiers.htm) system from Unearthed Arcana? :confused:
ShinoAburame
06-10-07, 04:13 AM I like this system because it panders to the idea of high level does not nesscarly monopolize those lower level.

And encourages die rolls. And die rolling is always good.
Werral
06-10-07, 06:14 AM Did you ever play the old West End Games Star Wars RPG? It worked kinda like that, every stat, skill etc... was a number of D6s, bonuses went +1, +2 then +1D6

Dex 3D, Blaster 2D+1 so meant that when you shoot with a blaster you roll 5d6+1.

Anyway remember that the more dice you roll the closer rolls will tend towards average results - a 20 on 1D20 is a 5% chance, a 20 on 2D10 is a 1% chance
Xavon
06-10-07, 01:51 PM World of Darkness, anyone?

You could rip off a system like that; say you get 1d10 + relavent bonus per skill point, and you need to get a certain number of a certain target.
Gideon_Gideonson
06-10-07, 06:39 PM Anyway remember that the more dice you roll the closer rolls will tend towards average results - a 20 on 1D20 is a 5% chance, a 20 on 2D10 is a 1% chance

Not the case here. You take the two BEST, so the more dice you roll, the more consistantly you perform well. A level 20 character with max ranks/ability score will ALMOST never lose to a level 6 character, but it remains a possibilty. The level 6 still has a chance...just a small one.

World of Darkness, anyone?

You could rip off a system like that; say you get 1d10 + relavent bonus per skill point, and you need to get a certain number of a certain target.

I never really liked the Hit system though...not sure why.
Edymnion
06-10-07, 08:00 PM Looking through my various D&D books, I became a bit disillusioned at the skill system. A 20th level character will NEVER lose to a level...say...3 character with a given skill, since there are no auto-failures or auto-successes.Well, I don't mean to sound rude, but... DUH!

I mean, think about it from a realistic viewpoint. A third level character is probably what we'd call proficient at whatever the skill is. And you're putting him up against someone that is, essentially, the epitome of human perfection in that area.

You're taking the guy that can dabble some apple barrel craft paint on a canvas and get a recognizable person in the end, and you're putting him up against Leonardo DiVinci, and you're surprised that Leo would paint a better picture every single time?

Seriously, 20th level is where we're talking epic "they will be studying stories about you in school thousands of years from now" type characters. Hercules, Jason (of the Argonaughts), Odysseus, Moses, etc. One of, if not the most skilled human beings to ever live, and you're putting them up against a street performer? Honestly, how can you expect the gimp to do anything *BUT* lose, and lose spectacularly?
Gideon_Gideonson
06-11-07, 11:55 AM I'll admit that in Craft and Profession, it should work like that.

But Bluffing? Tumbling? Climbing? Riding? Diplomacy? People get lucky, people mess up, people have bad days. The current rules don't really explain that...sure, you mess up 1 out of 20 times, but that's unrealistic. This system makes anyone have the potential to get lucky, while skilled people do reliably excellently.
Ra-Tiel
06-11-07, 12:23 PM I'll admit that in Craft and Profession, it should work like that.

But Bluffing? Tumbling? Climbing? Riding? Diplomacy? People get lucky, people mess up, people have bad days. The current rules don't really explain that...sure, you mess up 1 out of 20 times, but that's unrealistic. This system makes anyone have the potential to get lucky, while skilled people do reliably excellently.
Which is why I - again - recommend the Variable Modifiers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/variableModifiers.htm) from UA for that purpose. With variable modifiers, a person that would usually have a +3 bonus has the - although very minor - chance to beat a person that would normally have a +40 bonus. ;)
DreadArchon
06-12-07, 02:55 PM So what about the other direction? A level 30 Cleric, having traversed the vastness of the multiverse, wrestled Balors, flipped off various evil deities to their faces, witnessed the births and deaths of stars and galaxies, etc., is all but guaranteed to fall comedically if he tries to walk along a narrow ledge (say 6 inches), wheres a level 1 Rogue can take ten and make it without a second thought. Does this not bother you?
Gideon_Gideonson
06-12-07, 10:57 PM Yes. Which is where my system helps again. The level 1 Rogue has about 3d10 to roll. Maybe more, if I have ability scores add extra dice. The cleric (0 ranks in Balance) is using a skill that does not require training, so he rolls 2d10. He's got a worse chance, but he could still make it, as the highest DCs would be 20 (unless I decide that rolling a 10 grants another roll added, which I might).

So the really epic Cleric and the rogue would be on about equal footing, although the rogue, who's had training at that sort of thing, would be slightly better.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gideon_Gideonson 06-05-07, 01:01 PM	Looking through my various D&D books, I became a bit disillusioned at the skill system. A 20th level character will NEVER lose to a level...say...3 character with a given skill, since there are no auto-failures or auto-successes. With those in, he'll lose 5% of the time. This makes me a bit irritated, as I enjoy a touch of realism, and nobody is that perfect. And got me thinking...what if, instead of getting +1 to skills through skill points, you instead got extra dice? For example...we've got our two characters. Level 3 (Int 15), and level 20 (Int 18). They're competing in a History contest, and both have max ranks in Knowledge (History). By normal rules, the level 3 rolls 1d20+5, and the level 20 rolls 1d20+27. The level 3 CANNOT WIN. By the system I'm debating, the level three, with 6 ranks, would roll 4d10 and take the best two, adding his modifier to the result. The level 20 would roll 8d10 and take the best two, adding 4 to the result. Naturally, given the law of averages, the level 20 has a significantly higher chance of winning, but the level 3 character would skill have a chance. The big problem is skill/spell/ability DC's, but I think it could easily be balanced. Here's the breakdown of the number of dice rolled. 0--2 1-4--3 5-8--4 9-12--5 13-16--6 17-20--7 21+--8 Does this idea have merit?
Hugin 06-05-07, 02:35 PM	The only down-side that I see immediately is that skills will only improve as maximum ranks hit 5, 9, 13... etc. To simplify the system you could possibly translate the skill point mechanic to reflect the 'every four' improvement scale. For instance, use the simplified UA max skill point method with gaining points only every fourth level.
Arcade 06-05-07, 03:23 PM	It's OK. You are translating the skill ranks into a dice pool, of sorts. It'd be interesting to breakdown the math of it to see how much of a difference it makes on opposed rolls. From what I gather, you are really only interested in changing the odds for people where there is a vast difference in skill levels. I'm not sure how necessary it is though- level 20's don't interact with level 3's that often. :) And comparatively, it's like having someone who just got their Bachelor's in history competing with someone who is considered the foremost expert in history, studied it intensely their entire lifetime, and who taught all the other professors in the land to their current level with what he considered a "beginner course" (including the professor who taught the level 3). That being said, I have always liked the idea of dice pools, it just might not be necessary here.
Gideon_Gideonson 06-05-07, 03:46 PM	Well, it's not just level 20's competing with level 3's. It's high level charlatan's bluffing their way through vastly powerful empires simply because no-one's got ranks in bluff. It's the entire party being stuck on the ground because only one guy's got a high enough Climb to scale the wall. That's what I'm trying to fix. This is a chance for everyone to have a chance at doing everything...albeit a very small one. Under this system, anyone can get really, really lucky picking a lock, for example. 1 in 100 tries you'll get it, if it's DC 20 or lower. And for a normal person, that's reasonable (Give me a lockpick and 100 tries with a standard dungeon style lock. I'm pretty sure process of elimination and learning with error will allow me to get it eventually). Skills do become less important, but ranks are a way of ensuring success. The better you become at a skill, the more RELIABLE you become. Currently a master and a beginner both have a 1-20 point window...which is wierd. A master will work much more accurately than an apprentice.
Rhialto 06-05-07, 05:29 PM	Isn't a roll of 1 considered an automatic failure on skill checks anyway? I've seen "critical hit/miss" systems which treat a roll of 20 as "add 20 and roll again" and 1 as "subtract 20 and roll again". That would achieve the same overall effect as your system, and won't require any re-balancing across the entire system either.
Arcade 06-06-07, 09:29 AM	Well, it's not just level 20's competing with level 3's. It's high level charlatan's bluffing their way through vastly powerful empires simply because no-one's got ranks in bluff. It's the entire party being stuck on the ground because only one guy's got a high enough Climb to scale the wall. That's what I'm trying to fix. This is a chance for everyone to have a chance at doing everything...albeit a very small one. Under this system, anyone can get really, really lucky picking a lock, for example. 1 in 100 tries you'll get it, if it's DC 20 or lower. And for a normal person, that's reasonable (Give me a lockpick and 100 tries with a standard dungeon style lock. I'm pretty sure process of elimination and learning with error will allow me to get it eventually). Skills do become less important, but ranks are a way of ensuring success. The better you become at a skill, the more RELIABLE you become. Currently a master and a beginner both have a 1-20 point window...which is wierd. A master will work much more accurately than an apprentice. Can't say I agree- some things really are impossible even if just a small amount of training makes it seem easy. And you likely could get by a standard dungeon lock- they are only DC 20, so anyone can pick them. Maybe you just want to get rid of the "Trained Only" part of skills. My personal preference would be to use rolling 20s (every time you roll a 20, you get to roll again). If that is too infrequent, use 2d10 and reroll any 10's that come up. It's a little simpler then your method and accomplishes the same thing. But, your method should give you the effects you want. I don't see any real issue with it.
Rustmonster 06-06-07, 09:35 AM	Isn't a roll of 1 considered an automatic failure on skill checks anyway? I've seen "critical hit/miss" systems which treat a roll of 20 as "add 20 and roll again" and 1 as "subtract 20 and roll again". That would achieve the same overall effect as your system, and won't require any re-balancing across the entire system either. Ah, now I like this! That's actually a wonderful system. I beleive it's from the DM's guide, no? It's a nice variant, as it can represent screwing the hell up, or on the other hand it can represent getting really lucky. If a low level got lucky and a high level screwed up, the low level actually has a chance! Of course, I'm guessing you can, say, get lucky twice by getting 20 and 20. That would just be 40. Or getting a 1 and a 1 wouldn't keep going down, it would be a -19.
Werral 06-08-07, 09:05 PM	It's a 1 in 400 chance but it might just work...
Ra-Tiel 06-09-07, 06:44 AM	Isn't a roll of 1 considered an automatic failure on skill checks anyway? [...] Sorry to disappoint you, but it isn't. The rule of automatic failure on a natural 1 and automatic success on a natural 20 extend to attack roles and saving throws only. :) Anyways, why not use the variable modifiers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/variableModifiers.htm) system from Unearthed Arcana? :confused:
ShinoAburame 06-10-07, 04:13 AM	I like this system because it panders to the idea of high level does not nesscarly monopolize those lower level. And encourages die rolls. And die rolling is always good.
Werral 06-10-07, 06:14 AM	Did you ever play the old West End Games Star Wars RPG? It worked kinda like that, every stat, skill etc... was a number of D6s, bonuses went +1, +2 then +1D6 Dex 3D, Blaster 2D+1 so meant that when you shoot with a blaster you roll 5d6+1. Anyway remember that the more dice you roll the closer rolls will tend towards average results - a 20 on 1D20 is a 5% chance, a 20 on 2D10 is a 1% chance
Xavon 06-10-07, 01:51 PM	World of Darkness, anyone? You could rip off a system like that; say you get 1d10 + relavent bonus per skill point, and you need to get a certain number of a certain target.
Gideon_Gideonson 06-10-07, 06:39 PM	Anyway remember that the more dice you roll the closer rolls will tend towards average results - a 20 on 1D20 is a 5% chance, a 20 on 2D10 is a 1% chance Not the case here. You take the two BEST, so the more dice you roll, the more consistantly you perform well. A level 20 character with max ranks/ability score will ALMOST never lose to a level 6 character, but it remains a possibilty. The level 6 still has a chance...just a small one. World of Darkness, anyone? You could rip off a system like that; say you get 1d10 + relavent bonus per skill point, and you need to get a certain number of a certain target. I never really liked the Hit system though...not sure why.
Edymnion 06-10-07, 08:00 PM	Looking through my various D&D books, I became a bit disillusioned at the skill system. A 20th level character will NEVER lose to a level...say...3 character with a given skill, since there are no auto-failures or auto-successes.Well, I don't mean to sound rude, but... DUH! I mean, think about it from a realistic viewpoint. A third level character is probably what we'd call proficient at whatever the skill is. And you're putting him up against someone that is, essentially, the epitome of human perfection in that area. You're taking the guy that can dabble some apple barrel craft paint on a canvas and get a recognizable person in the end, and you're putting him up against Leonardo DiVinci, and you're surprised that Leo would paint a better picture every single time? Seriously, 20th level is where we're talking epic "they will be studying stories about you in school thousands of years from now" type characters. Hercules, Jason (of the Argonaughts), Odysseus, Moses, etc. One of, if not the most skilled human beings to ever live, and you're putting them up against a street performer? Honestly, how can you expect the gimp to do anything BUT lose, and lose spectacularly?
Gideon_Gideonson 06-11-07, 11:55 AM	I'll admit that in Craft and Profession, it should work like that. But Bluffing? Tumbling? Climbing? Riding? Diplomacy? People get lucky, people mess up, people have bad days. The current rules don't really explain that...sure, you mess up 1 out of 20 times, but that's unrealistic. This system makes anyone have the potential to get lucky, while skilled people do reliably excellently.
Ra-Tiel 06-11-07, 12:23 PM	I'll admit that in Craft and Profession, it should work like that. But Bluffing? Tumbling? Climbing? Riding? Diplomacy? People get lucky, people mess up, people have bad days. The current rules don't really explain that...sure, you mess up 1 out of 20 times, but that's unrealistic. This system makes anyone have the potential to get lucky, while skilled people do reliably excellently. Which is why I - again - recommend the Variable Modifiers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/variableModifiers.htm) from UA for that purpose. With variable modifiers, a person that would usually have a +3 bonus has the - although very minor - chance to beat a person that would normally have a +40 bonus. ;)
DreadArchon 06-12-07, 02:55 PM	So what about the other direction? A level 30 Cleric, having traversed the vastness of the multiverse, wrestled Balors, flipped off various evil deities to their faces, witnessed the births and deaths of stars and galaxies, etc., is all but guaranteed to fall comedically if he tries to walk along a narrow ledge (say 6 inches), wheres a level 1 Rogue can take ten and make it without a second thought. Does this not bother you?
Gideon_Gideonson 06-12-07, 10:57 PM	Yes. Which is where my system helps again. The level 1 Rogue has about 3d10 to roll. Maybe more, if I have ability scores add extra dice. The cleric (0 ranks in Balance) is using a skill that does not require training, so he rolls 2d10. He's got a worse chance, but he could still make it, as the highest DCs would be 20 (unless I decide that rolling a 10 grants another roll added, which I might). So the really epic Cleric and the rogue would be on about equal footing, although the rogue, who's had training at that sort of thing, would be slightly better.