changing ability checks [Archive] - Wizards Community

changing ability checks [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Eightbitmage
09-04-05, 09:28 AM I've noticed something I don't really like. With things like skills, or attacks or anything with a D20, the modifier is usually pretty signifigant. But with things like str. checks the guy with +3 and the guy with +4 can do about the same thing, even though the guy with +4 is much stronger. Even +4 vs +2 doesnt have that much difference. In fact even mid to high levels these numbers don't rise very high unless you play a non-standard race. So my quesion is has anyone experimented with using maybe a D10 for things like break DCs rather than a D20? The DCs would have to be reduced of course. Are there any balance issues that someone could see with something like this?
Thesen
09-04-05, 09:41 AM Perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly, but I don't see any reason why a higher level character would have a better chance of breaking down a door as a lower level one.

I'm probably not getting your point correctly, but it sounds like your comparing skill modifiers (higher bonuses that higher level PCs have) to ability checks. Let me know...
Eightbitmage
09-04-05, 02:53 PM No what I'm saying is that a d20 is too big of a die for the modifier. It just seems odd that there is so little difference between someone who can lift 300lb max over his head and someone who can lift 230 max.

I think a d20 works well for skill checks because right from the start you have +4-+12 to your skills, and it only gets higher. By mid level your modifier to the check is usually signifigant compared to your D20 roll.

Things like ability checks have too much variability for how small they are. At low level you probalby have +1-+4 in an ability, and as you get to mid level you end up with about +2-+8. The roll on the D20 in these cases will count for most of the result, rather than the relavant stat.

I only mention level because until you get to really high level you won't see rediculous str modifiers where they are signifigant compared to a D20.
Lazzmaniandevil
09-04-05, 06:33 PM I think I understand what you mean. The main problem with ability checks is that the difference in the probabilty of success between two characters doesn't seem to reflect the actual ability difference. I agree with you. The best exemple of the problem is that if you have a hill giant (strenght 25) make opposed strenght checks with a kobold (strenght 9), the little kobold will win 17% of the time. In reality, I think the little kobold wouldn't even dare to compare strenght with the hill giant, and would have about 0.001% chance of beating him (and I am being generous).

I don't know what the solution would be. In some cases, you can try to use a serie of ability checks instead of just one, but in other cases, it wouldn't work. I would be hesitant to use a d10 however. I think it would be best to double or even triple the modifier.
MinusInnocence
09-04-05, 09:19 PM If opposed Strength checks came up for whatever reason (maybe an arm wrestling competition?) between two creatures of different sizes, you might consider using the special Size modifiers for Grapple checks. That seems relevant, then the Kobold w/ Str9 is getting -5 and the Hill Giant w/ Str25 is getting +11.

I personally think it makes sense that in ability checks, the most relevant modifier is the die roll. Skills and attack bonus and all that jazz (basically anything in d20 that is added to the ability modifier) all represent things you can train in; things that, over time, you can perfect your craft in. I urge you to be very creative and generous in determining whether what someone is trying to accomplish would be best executed with a skill check rather than a flat ability roll because there are actually relatively few things that are PURELY Strength checks or PURELY Dexterity checks.

For instance (and correct me if I'm wrong, if any of you happen to be members of a circus or something), Krusk has to bend the bars of a sewer grate to escape from the horde of wererats behind the party. Krusk could have been practicing bending bars in his downtime for the last five months in-game, but there is very little, if any, progress he could have made in "perfecting his craft." It's merely a feat of strength.

Another example would be the Dex check made when you're using the optional rule for critical fumbles from the DMG. There isn't really any way to "practice" almost dropping your sword. It just comes naturally, you either succeed or you don't. You might argue people who spend an excessive amount of time bending bars would eventually become strong enough to make a difference, or people who play videogames all day eventually have superb hand-eye coordination... and I would agree with you.

That's why we can raise one of the six stats every four levels. :)

Having said that, if you want to change the DCs for ability checks and start using a lower die value (like a d10 or maybe even a d8), I don't see why not. It would certainly be less gamebreaking than raising ability modifiers, as that would in turn affect EVERYthing in the game. By what degree do you think you want to lower these DCs? The d20 roll allows relatively weak characters to succeed with blind luck. You're really removing the element of randomness from the game, and I'm not sure that's such a good thing.

For instance, a DC20 Strength check can be made 50% of the time by someone with Str30 (+10 mod). If you're using a d10, assuming the same character, it should be DC15. But anyone with lower than Str20 has absolutely no chance to make this roll unless they're being Aided by friends. Maybe that's what you're going for but I'm not so sure it's a great idea. On the other hand, maybe you consider DC20 to represent anyone with average stats having at least a 5% chance to make the roll. In that case, after adustment it would be DC10; but statistically, this means someone with Str10 actually has twice as much chance to make the check as when you were rolling d20s (10% instead of 5%).
Chimera245
09-07-05, 01:33 AM You might be letting characters roll too often.

In one of the core rulebooks (PHB or DMG, can't remember which) it specifically says that two characters armwrestling don't roll strength checks. The stronger character just wins automatically. Nothing affects who wins an armwrestling match except sheer strength. So whoever is stronger wins.

Ability checks are for when you might not always succeed, or when a weaker person might still suceed occasionally. Like breaking down a door. Anyone can break down a door, but a stronger person will do it more often. But there are still times when a strong person just can't get the door open, or when the weaker person gets it on his first try. (he must have "put his back into it" or something.)
weasel fierce
09-07-05, 01:42 AM Rolling too often is a common mistake to make.

But ultimately, the D20 system is written to make rolls largely random, presumably because its more fun that way.

If you want something more regular, the 3D6 roll works pretty well.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Eightbitmage 09-04-05, 09:28 AM	I've noticed something I don't really like. With things like skills, or attacks or anything with a D20, the modifier is usually pretty signifigant. But with things like str. checks the guy with +3 and the guy with +4 can do about the same thing, even though the guy with +4 is much stronger. Even +4 vs +2 doesnt have that much difference. In fact even mid to high levels these numbers don't rise very high unless you play a non-standard race. So my quesion is has anyone experimented with using maybe a D10 for things like break DCs rather than a D20? The DCs would have to be reduced of course. Are there any balance issues that someone could see with something like this?
Thesen 09-04-05, 09:41 AM	Perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly, but I don't see any reason why a higher level character would have a better chance of breaking down a door as a lower level one. I'm probably not getting your point correctly, but it sounds like your comparing skill modifiers (higher bonuses that higher level PCs have) to ability checks. Let me know...
Eightbitmage 09-04-05, 02:53 PM	No what I'm saying is that a d20 is too big of a die for the modifier. It just seems odd that there is so little difference between someone who can lift 300lb max over his head and someone who can lift 230 max. I think a d20 works well for skill checks because right from the start you have +4-+12 to your skills, and it only gets higher. By mid level your modifier to the check is usually signifigant compared to your D20 roll. Things like ability checks have too much variability for how small they are. At low level you probalby have +1-+4 in an ability, and as you get to mid level you end up with about +2-+8. The roll on the D20 in these cases will count for most of the result, rather than the relavant stat. I only mention level because until you get to really high level you won't see rediculous str modifiers where they are signifigant compared to a D20.
Lazzmaniandevil 09-04-05, 06:33 PM	I think I understand what you mean. The main problem with ability checks is that the difference in the probabilty of success between two characters doesn't seem to reflect the actual ability difference. I agree with you. The best exemple of the problem is that if you have a hill giant (strenght 25) make opposed strenght checks with a kobold (strenght 9), the little kobold will win 17% of the time. In reality, I think the little kobold wouldn't even dare to compare strenght with the hill giant, and would have about 0.001% chance of beating him (and I am being generous). I don't know what the solution would be. In some cases, you can try to use a serie of ability checks instead of just one, but in other cases, it wouldn't work. I would be hesitant to use a d10 however. I think it would be best to double or even triple the modifier.
MinusInnocence 09-04-05, 09:19 PM	If opposed Strength checks came up for whatever reason (maybe an arm wrestling competition?) between two creatures of different sizes, you might consider using the special Size modifiers for Grapple checks. That seems relevant, then the Kobold w/ Str9 is getting -5 and the Hill Giant w/ Str25 is getting +11. I personally think it makes sense that in ability checks, the most relevant modifier is the die roll. Skills and attack bonus and all that jazz (basically anything in d20 that is added to the ability modifier) all represent things you can train in; things that, over time, you can perfect your craft in. I urge you to be very creative and generous in determining whether what someone is trying to accomplish would be best executed with a skill check rather than a flat ability roll because there are actually relatively few things that are PURELY Strength checks or PURELY Dexterity checks. For instance (and correct me if I'm wrong, if any of you happen to be members of a circus or something), Krusk has to bend the bars of a sewer grate to escape from the horde of wererats behind the party. Krusk could have been practicing bending bars in his downtime for the last five months in-game, but there is very little, if any, progress he could have made in "perfecting his craft." It's merely a feat of strength. Another example would be the Dex check made when you're using the optional rule for critical fumbles from the DMG. There isn't really any way to "practice" almost dropping your sword. It just comes naturally, you either succeed or you don't. You might argue people who spend an excessive amount of time bending bars would eventually become strong enough to make a difference, or people who play videogames all day eventually have superb hand-eye coordination... and I would agree with you. That's why we can raise one of the six stats every four levels. :) Having said that, if you want to change the DCs for ability checks and start using a lower die value (like a d10 or maybe even a d8), I don't see why not. It would certainly be less gamebreaking than raising ability modifiers, as that would in turn affect EVERYthing in the game. By what degree do you think you want to lower these DCs? The d20 roll allows relatively weak characters to succeed with blind luck. You're really removing the element of randomness from the game, and I'm not sure that's such a good thing. For instance, a DC20 Strength check can be made 50% of the time by someone with Str30 (+10 mod). If you're using a d10, assuming the same character, it should be DC15. But anyone with lower than Str20 has absolutely no chance to make this roll unless they're being Aided by friends. Maybe that's what you're going for but I'm not so sure it's a great idea. On the other hand, maybe you consider DC20 to represent anyone with average stats having at least a 5% chance to make the roll. In that case, after adustment it would be DC10; but statistically, this means someone with Str10 actually has twice as much chance to make the check as when you were rolling d20s (10% instead of 5%).
Chimera245 09-07-05, 01:33 AM	You might be letting characters roll too often. In one of the core rulebooks (PHB or DMG, can't remember which) it specifically says that two characters armwrestling don't roll strength checks. The stronger character just wins automatically. Nothing affects who wins an armwrestling match except sheer strength. So whoever is stronger wins. Ability checks are for when you might not always succeed, or when a weaker person might still suceed occasionally. Like breaking down a door. Anyone can break down a door, but a stronger person will do it more often. But there are still times when a strong person just can't get the door open, or when the weaker person gets it on his first try. (he must have "put his back into it" or something.)
weasel fierce 09-07-05, 01:42 AM	Rolling too often is a common mistake to make. But ultimately, the D20 system is written to make rolls largely random, presumably because its more fun that way. If you want something more regular, the 3D6 roll works pretty well.