Need opinions on skills mechanics for homebrew

[Mechanize]

I am in the process of writing both my own gaming system and world, and would like some opinions for a skills system.

I despise the d20 skills system. Notice I say skills and not combat. Combat is chaotic and so I don't mind the swingy nature. Skills, however, are generally every day mundane things that don't waver from one second to the next by 20points. I think if you know something you know it, and you chances of failing should be extremely slim. I also think your PC knows if he/she can complete the tast. Meaning if I was on the roof of a building, and had to make a 20ft jump to another roof. I should know whether im going to clear it, barely make it, or not have a chance, but based on d20 the die says I over jump the gap by a mile or some how make it 5 feet and die.

Now, if I am roll playing a big fatty with no jumping ability and I am dumb enough to test my chances and fail, thats just poor play. I just feel like out of games skill challenges should be more fun, less drastic, less random, and focus more on roll playing yoru PC and how you built him. Not a gamble.

Is my solution for the d20 system just a matter of using a smaller die so that training has a bigger impact? Is there something out there that is more fun? Even an idea you had?

Ultimately I would like to keep things simple, quick, and fun.

[Glimbur]

How much variability do you want? You could cut out the die roll entirely and compare static bonuses to static difficulties.

You could give 'skill tokens' for each of a broad set of skills/traits (sneaky, athletic, knowledgeable, people skills) based on how many ranks a character has in a given trait. Then, to do something easy with that trait requires you to have a certain number of tokens, and doing something hard requires spending a certain number of tokens. This way you have an expert mountaineer who can climb hills all day but has difficulty scaling Mount Death.

You could use smaller/more dice to reduce variability. Each number on a d20 is equally likely, but an 18 on 3d6 happens 1/216 times. This is what GURPS is based on.

[Amechra]

I saw a homebrew system where everyone had a Coast value; in essence, if you had, say, a Coast of 10, and you could apply your Coast to Climb checks, any result below a 10 is treated as a 10. The highest the system let your Coast go was 13, iirc.

[Mechanize]

How much variability do you want? You could cut out the die roll entirely and compare static bonuses to static difficulties.

You could give 'skill tokens' for each of a broad set of skills/traits (sneaky, athletic, knowledgeable, people skills) based on how many ranks a character has in a given trait. Then, to do something easy with that trait requires you to have a certain number of tokens, and doing something hard requires spending a certain number of tokens. This way you have an expert mountaineer who can climb hills all day but has difficulty scaling Mount Death.

You could use smaller/more dice to reduce variability. Each number on a d20 is equally likely, but an 18 on 3d6 happens 1/216 times. This is what GURPS is based on.

I want little or no variability when people know what they are doing, and a good bit of variability when they are not good at it, or are under a ton of stress. For instance, I really dislike athletic checks because if you are a long jumper and you know you can run and jump 20ft, well, even on a bad day, you are probably going to still jump 18/19 feet. But if meteors are falling from the sky then I am sure you are going to have a hard time with that.

I suppose that a DC check compensates for stress, and that taking 10 and 20 are supposed to take care of the random nature, but they only work with certain checks.

I was trying to figure out some sort of chaos system in which you rolled a lower die during low stress situations and a higher die under high stress situations. I didn't like that though because that gave someone with no skill the chance to do what even a skilled man couldn't. Unless you guys have some ideas on ways to work that out.

I was definitely thinking of using multiple dice too in order to have a bell curve. I think I was just trying to be overly creative with the choas idea haha.

[Grod_The_Giant]

You could (I think?) combine the chaos die idea-- which I really like-- with a roll under system, maybe?


The DC is your skill. Roll the default die, and if it comes up less than your skill, you succeed at what you were trying to do. It could also be a static number modified by your skill, I supposed-- for a DC of X and a skill of Y, you have to roll under X+Y. You might also modulate difficulty by what the default die is-- a really easy task might be a d6 difficulty (verses a skill of 5), while a hard one might be d10. Degrees of success can give you the requisite "how well did I do?" when relevant.
Chaos dice get added in when things get messy. Normally, there aren't any, but as the situation gets worse, you start adding more and more chaos dice. The result of the chaos die gets added directly to your skill roll, so the final thing is d20+d6 (say) < X + Y.

[Mechanize]

You could (I think?) combine the chaos die idea-- which I really like-- with a roll under system, maybe?


The DC is your skill. Roll the default die, and if it comes up less than your skill, you succeed at what you were trying to do. It could also be a static number modified by your skill, I supposed-- for a DC of X and a skill of Y, you have to roll under X+Y. You might also modulate difficulty by what the default die is-- a really easy task might be a d6 difficulty (verses a skill of 5), while a hard one might be d10. Degrees of success can give you the requisite "how well did I do?" when relevant.
Chaos dice get added in when things get messy. Normally, there aren't any, but as the situation gets worse, you start adding more and more chaos dice. The result of the chaos die gets added directly to your skill roll, so the final thing is d20+d6 (say) < X + Y.


The roll under idea may not be bad. I suck with math and probability though to know the pros and cons of these things.

I know with the roll + skill mod has undesired effects. For example, in a choatic situation, a pro may roll a 1 on a d20 plus 10 for an 11, while a noob could roll a 20+1 and smoke the pro at his own game. That I don't like.

Roll under or equal might be good. someone with a score of 1 has a 25% chance at a calm easy situation, or a 5% chance at a hard chaotic situation, while a pro with 10 points has a free pass on d4 d6 d8 d10 skills.

Another question though....

Telling player to roll a certain die gives away the difficulty. D&D avoids this, keeping DC hidden. In a way, I kind of agree with knowing the difficulty because in real life, you would know if you could make that jump or not. But what do you guys feel about knowing the DC vs not?

[Zman]

I am a huge fan of changing the d20 into 2d10 for situations like this. Characters can take 10 like normal, can take 15 for the normal take 20 time, or take 20, requiring a very long time.

Alternatively you can use the 3d6 variant for less variability.

I also like a tiering skill cost.

Ranks 1-5 cost 1 skill point.
Ranks 6-10 cost 2 skill points.
Ranks 11-15 cost 3 skill points.
Ranks 16+ cost 4 skill points.

Also, no cross class skill penalty, but max ranks still are in affect.

[Synovia]

I am in the process of writing both my own gaming system and world, and would like some opinions for a skills system.

I despise the d20 skills system. Notice I say skills and not combat. Combat is chaotic and so I don't mind the swingy nature. Skills, however, are generally every day mundane things that don't waver from one second to the next by 20points. I think if you know something you know it, and you chances of failing should be extremely slim. I also think your PC knows if he/she can complete the tast. Meaning if I was on the roof of a building, and had to make a 20ft jump to another roof. I should know whether im going to clear it, barely make it, or not have a chance, but based on d20 the die says I over jump the gap by a mile or some how make it 5 feet and die.

Now, if I am roll playing a big fatty with no jumping ability and I am dumb enough to test my chances and fail, thats just poor play. I just feel like out of games skill challenges should be more fun, less drastic, less random, and focus more on roll playing yoru PC and how you built him. Not a gamble.

Is my solution for the d20 system just a matter of using a smaller die so that training has a bigger impact? Is there something out there that is more fun? Even an idea you had?

Ultimately I would like to keep things simple, quick, and fun.

Almost all of your situations are covered by the "Take 10" rules. In normal situations the character should be taking 10 on skill attempts he thinks he can succeed on. You should only really be rolling if there's something distracting the character, or hes trying to do something ridiculous.

[Glimbur]

Check out FUDGE. If I recall correctly, the mechanic I want is 'FUDGE dice'. They are dice that have only three results: -1, 0, and +1. They let you add a bit of variability without going too crazy.

[Mechanize]

Almost all of your situations are covered by the "Take 10" rules. In normal situations the character should be taking 10 on skill attempts he thinks he can succeed on. You should only really be rolling if there's something distracting the character, or hes trying to do something ridiculous.

I agree mostly, but what if you are being chased by a monster and need to make that jump? An athlete is still going to make that jump, probably even better because hes scared ****less and has a ton of adrenaline going through him. However, in D&D you would have to roll for that because you are being distracted, and your chances of success just dwindled while the chances for the rolly polly may miraculously roll in his favor. There are just some situations that still shouldn't have that much of a wavering effect.

I'll also add that I don't like knowledge checks. Roll religion against the Ghast and 1 encounter you know absolutely nothing, and the next you know everything about it.

I will say that having the random dice rolls makes for a more comedical game, but I'm definitely going for a more hardcore, gritty and realistic feel.

[Mechanize]

Check out FUDGE. If I recall correctly, the mechanic I want is 'FUDGE dice'. They are dice that have only three results: -1, 0, and +1. They let you add a bit of variability without going too crazy.

Never saw those before. I'll have to keep them in mind. I'm trying to avoid a system that uses a ton of multi dice rules (like shadowrun) just to speed the game up, but its not like adding and subtracting 1s is hard lol.

I guess skill points using those dice would have to be few and far between though right? Even if using a handful of those FUDGE dice, there is a huge bell curve around -1,0 and 1 so even 2 skill points makes a drastic difference in your roll.

[Synovia]

I agree mostly, but what if you are being chased by a monster and need to make that jump? An athlete is still going to make that jump, probably even better because hes scared ****less and has a ton of adrenaline going through him. However, in D&D you would have to roll for that because you are being distracted, and your chances of success just dwindled while the chances for the rolly polly may miraculously roll in his favor. There are just some situations that still shouldn't have that much of a wavering effect.


Then set the DC accordingly.

Some of the DCs I see in games are a bit absurd. In the 3.5 PHB, swimming in the ocean during a storm is given as a DC20 example.


Jump is a little different because its straight distance.

A 1st level strength based character is going to be awfully close to making that 20' jump more than 50% of the time, and thats with no synergy bonuses, no items, etc.

For a 20' jump, a first level character (+4 Jump, +4 Str) with 30' movement, he's got a 40% chance of clearing it just fine, and a 25% chance of landing short but catching the edge. At 2nd level, if hes got some tumble ranks, we're already up to a 55% chance of clearing it outright with 25% chance of catch the edge.

That 2nd level character has a 15% chance of breaking the current world long jump record.


The idea of the check and roll isn't that he can't jump as far, its that while hes being chased he's more likely to not time his stride right, and jump early, or get touched by the animal as he leaps, or whatever. Its not that hes just suddenly going to not be able to jump far. I don't know that I'd even count being chased as not being able to take 10 though... being chased and shot at? yeah.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Never saw those before. I'll have to keep them in mind. I'm trying to avoid a system that uses a ton of multi dice rules (like shadowrun) just to speed the game up, but its not like adding and subtracting 1s is hard lol.

I guess skill points using those dice would have to be few and far between though right? Even if using a handful of those FUDGE dice, there is a huge bell curve around -1,0 and 1 so even 2 skill points makes a drastic difference in your roll.

Yeah. I play FATE, which uses the same dice, and skills cap out at around 4-5. A +2 bonus is a big deal. It doesn't really take any more time to get the results than a d20, due to simpler math, but you do have to go chasing dice a lot more.

[Mechanize]

A 1st level strength based character is going to be awfully close to making that 20' jump more than 50% of the time, and thats with no synergy bonuses, no items, etc.

For a 20' jump, a first level character (+4 Jump, +4 Str) with 30' movement, he's got a 40% chance of clearing it just fine, and a 25% chance of landing short but catching the edge. At 2nd level, if hes got some tumble ranks, we're already up to a 55% chance of clearing it outright with 25% chance of catch the edge.



Still, its those percentages you just mentioned that erked me. Even an untrained child is going to have a consistant result with his jump attempt. Not placing your stride correctly will lessen your jump by a few feet at most.

And yes, many DCs are absurd.

I feel like if someone has a 18 str or dex that +4 alone would make all the world of difference in an activity yet its still mostly the die roll and skill points that determine it. Its just a system that is based too much on luck and point distribution for me to enjoy.

Most importantly though is that I am making my own game/system so I'm not going to just steal D&D's system and do what they do. I'm not saying its horrible as a fact, its just an opinion that I don't like it. I like d20 for combat because combat is pretty damned random and a battle of inches. Your PCs life in the hands of a swingy skill check though just isn't a fun way to die in my opinion.

[Mechanize]

Yeah. I play FATE, which uses the same dice, and skills cap out at around 4-5. A +2 bonus is a big deal. It doesn't really take any more time to get the results than a d20, due to simpler math, but you do have to go chasing dice a lot more.

How does that play out and feel compared to the d20 skill point system?

[Conor77]

I know frustration at lack of reasonableness is...well.. reasonable. But can I interject that your description of your problem with the original D20 system shows a lack of understanding of it? Its supposed to be an abstraction. As in: An athlete runs up to the cliff and jumps across. If he is not rushed, he takes ten, and clears it. If he is being chased by a monster, he rolls d20.

What does NOT happen is:

20: Takes two bouncing steps and then majestically clears the canyon with tons of room to spare, leaving the monster gibbering behind it.
15: Jumps across, still leaving lots of room to spare.
10: Bounds across the canyon, solidly landing on the other side.
5: Jumps across, not making it and slamming into the cliff-face.
1: Jumps right off into the void. The monster laughs.

What happens is:

20: Okay, got good footing, good adrenaline, heart-rate fine, monster behind me, lets goooooooyyyYYESS! Perfect footwork, my muscles expanded like oiled clockwork! You look stupid now, monster.
15: Hoo-yeah! Really good jump! All that adrenaline sure does a lot.
10: Oh man, I'm so glad I'm good at jumping, otherwise I wouldn't have made that.
5: *trips over own feet on the jump* Wauuh! *grabs desperately at cliffside*
1: *skid on grit while attempting jump* "****!" *tumbles into void feet-first*

Do you see the difference? The difference is that one isn't magically sometimes better at jumping: Its external factors (the grit, the tripping), and the fact that sometimes everything lines up just right (the coordinated adrenaline release). The things that make even a pro screw up are stuff that comes up in combat and life in general. I would say that a pro athlete competing in an event is actually taking 20, because they're practiced that exact jump easily more than 20 times, practicing each and every time. Likewise, sometimes a complete newb can get lucky. And that tubby guy you keep mentioning? I find it doubtful he's tackling the jump with a full Strength score, unless you disconnect body-type from ability scores entirely, in which case I doubt you'd care about the abstractions of die-rolls.

Same with Knowledge checks. Its what you remember. If you don't know anything about Ghasts in one encounter, maybe you just forgot, and after combat, the smell of ghast-blood brought it all back to you.

Maybe these rationalizations sound weak to you, and I think bell-curve die rolls are more realistic anyways, but the die-roll doesn't exist in a vacuum: Its supposed to represent external factors that cannot be put into concrete rules.


Even an untrained child is going to have a consistant result with his jump attempt.

I seeeeeeeriously doubt the veracity of this statement, given a very stressful situation (i.e. every one in which you have to roll).

Anyways. You said you were making your own system, and this is the kind of thing I think you should be thinking about when you make your random system: the purpose of the randomness. You said you liked swingy combat but disliked swingy skills because you thought it was an unfun way to die. So, I don't know whether you specifically dislike the unreality of the skill checks or just the possibility of failing at something that isn't pitched combat, leading to an unsatisfying demise. Either way, its good to keep cognizant while designing a system, so it doesn't end up with serious random imbalances, ala 3.0

[JoshuaZ]

Possibly use multiple dice for some skill checks? You can for example use say 3d6 to get a decent bell curve which might handle some of the issues.

[TuggyNE]

The difference is that one isn't magically sometimes better at jumping: Its external factors (the grit, the tripping), and the fact that sometimes everything lines up just right (the coordinated adrenaline release). The things that make even a pro screw up are stuff that comes up in combat and life in general. I would say that a pro athlete competing in an event is actually taking 20, because they're practiced that exact jump easily more than 20 times, practicing each and every time.

The problem is that a) taking 20 takes longer at the actual time of the attempt (the practice is done, generally, right then; separating them creates other problems) and b) the idea that random weirdo external factors can mess you up at least half the time (maybe 85% of the time, depending on how you look at it) is bizarro in the extreme. Think about it: if you use a DC formula of "DC = feet jumped, long" (as 3.5 does), someone with +5 jumps 6 feet as often as they do 25 feet under stress… and if they deliberately try to even it out, they only jump 15 feet.

Also, using the same DC formula and assuming world record long jumpers have taken 20 leads to odd results, since the world record has gone from about 24' to about 29' over the last century: apparently the best long jumpers in the early 1900s had only a +4 total Jump modifier, and the best today have only +9?

[Mechanize]

I know frustration at lack of reasonableness is...well.. reasonable. But can I interject that your description of your problem with the original D20 system shows a lack of understanding of it? Its supposed to be an abstraction. As in: An athlete runs up to the cliff and jumps across. If he is not rushed, he takes ten, and clears it. If he is being chased by a monster, he rolls d20.

What does NOT happen is:

20: Takes two bouncing steps and then majestically clears the canyon with tons of room to spare, leaving the monster gibbering behind it.
15: Jumps across, still leaving lots of room to spare.
10: Bounds across the canyon, solidly landing on the other side.
5: Jumps across, not making it and slamming into the cliff-face.
1: Jumps right off into the void. The monster laughs.

What happens is:

20: Okay, got good footing, good adrenaline, heart-rate fine, monster behind me, lets goooooooyyyYYESS! Perfect footwork, my muscles expanded like oiled clockwork! You look stupid now, monster.
15: Hoo-yeah! Really good jump! All that adrenaline sure does a lot.
10: Oh man, I'm so glad I'm good at jumping, otherwise I wouldn't have made that.
5: *trips over own feet on the jump* Wauuh! *grabs desperately at cliffside*
1: *skid on grit while attempting jump* "****!" *tumbles into void feet-first*

Do you see the difference? The difference is that one isn't magically sometimes better at jumping: Its external factors (the grit, the tripping), and the fact that sometimes everything lines up just right (the coordinated adrenaline release). The things that make even a pro screw up are stuff that comes up in combat and life in general. I would say that a pro athlete competing in an event is actually taking 20, because they're practiced that exact jump easily more than 20 times, practicing each and every time. Likewise, sometimes a complete newb can get lucky. And that tubby guy you keep mentioning? I find it doubtful he's tackling the jump with a full Strength score, unless you disconnect body-type from ability scores entirely, in which case I doubt you'd care about the abstractions of die-rolls.

Same with Knowledge checks. Its what you remember. If you don't know anything about Ghasts in one encounter, maybe you just forgot, and after combat, the smell of ghast-blood brought it all back to you.

Maybe these rationalizations sound weak to you, and I think bell-curve die rolls are more realistic anyways, but the die-roll doesn't exist in a vacuum: Its supposed to represent external factors that cannot be put into concrete rules.



I seeeeeeeriously doubt the veracity of this statement, given a very stressful situation (i.e. every one in which you have to roll).

Anyways. You said you were making your own system, and this is the kind of thing I think you should be thinking about when you make your random system: the purpose of the randomness. You said you liked swingy combat but disliked swingy skills because you thought it was an unfun way to die. So, I don't know whether you specifically dislike the unreality of the skill checks or just the possibility of failing at something that isn't pitched combat, leading to an unsatisfying demise. Either way, its good to keep cognizant while designing a system, so it doesn't end up with serious random imbalances, ala 3.0

I understand what you are saying as far as what really happens based on the die roll, I'm just being dramatic when I explain things haha. But let me give you a little story.

There once was a little boy (me) who was doing something bad and ran from the cops. lol... I bolted about 200 yards across a rock strewn field, down through brush, plants and other obstacles. I climbed up a chainlink fence like it was nothing and then ran across a road to a hill that was probably a 45 degree incline of dirt, mud, and small trees. It may have been adrenaline that skewed my sense of time, but this hill was somewhere around 50-75 feet high and i could swear I made it to the top in the matter of seconds without a slip. Climbed another chain link fence and I was gone. Cops didn't have a chance.

This was me at 12 years old. I'm not, and never was, a world class athlete, though I am very nimble. I would say in D&D terms that I may be blessed with a 14 maybe even 16 dexterity. But that is it... im not strong at all. Between the rocks and obstacles, the 2 fences and the crazy muddy hill I climbed, I would say that is 4 skill checks in a D&D situation. I destroyed all of them, and I guarantee you I could do it again, and again. In D&D though, someone stronger, faster, and more trained than I, would have less a chance because of the d20.

Now, someone with a 0 dex and 0 training may have not made those obstacles like I did, but the deciding factor was my +2 dex, not a d20 roll. I suppose I am just trying to do something with skills that is more predictable, that is all. I feel like a person should know his limits and only test them if he has no choice. And again, that has to do with not really having fun dying on a skills challenge.

Though, with all that said, I will admit that there is plenty that a GM can do to skills to make them more interesting rather than just pass fail.

[Zman]

Possibly use multiple dice for some skill checks? You can for example use say 3d6 to get a decent bell curve which might handle some of the issues.

This is exactly what I said earlier. I suggestd a 2d10 or 3d6. Bell curve sounds like the solution.

[Mechanize]

This is exactly what I said earlier. I suggestd a 2d10 or 3d6. Bell curve sounds like the solution.

Yeah, the bell curve is my backup. It does what I want it to do. I guess I am just trying to get creative with something a little different.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The roll under idea may not be bad. I suck with math and probability though to know the pros and cons of these things.

I know with the roll + skill mod has undesired effects. For example, in a choatic situation, a pro may roll a 1 on a d20 plus 10 for an 11, while a noob could roll a 20+1 and smoke the pro at his own game. That I don't like.

Roll under or equal might be good. someone with a score of 1 has a 25% chance at a calm easy situation, or a 5% chance at a hard chaotic situation, while a pro with 10 points has a free pass on d4 d6 d8 d10 skills.

Another question though....

Telling player to roll a certain die gives away the difficulty. D&D avoids this, keeping DC hidden. In a way, I kind of agree with knowing the difficulty because in real life, you would know if you could make that jump or not. But what do you guys feel about knowing the DC vs not?

I don't particularly care about knowing the DC, unless it can somehow reveal important info (unlikely).

Having a simple failure-verses-success roll, rather than a sort of "your jump distance equals the result of your check," also helps with consistency of results, methinks. And most of the time, that's really all you need to know.

[Mechanize]

I don't particularly care about knowing the DC, unless it can somehow reveal important info (unlikely).

Having a simple failure-verses-success roll, rather than a sort of "your jump distance equals the result of your check," also helps with consistency of results, methinks. And most of the time, that's really all you need to know.

Well, I think Knowing the DC should vary depending on the check. If the challenge is something i can visually assess, like a jump, a wild river, a cliff face, disarming a simple trap vs a complex trap. You can tell what you are getting into with these things before you do. Not that you need to know the actuall DC but the GM better be very descriptive and you should know right away if you can handle it. The poblem with the GM describing things is that everyone gets a picture.

Many skills though are based on unknowns... maybe it is worth it to devise a 3 way skills system. Active skills where you know the difficulty based off of training/visual assessment, Opposed skills where you don't know the DC because it depends on the skill of the opposer, and unknown, like passive perception and insight in 4e. I actually liked the GM rolling for those.

[Deepbluediver]

I mostly agree with Conor77's analysis.

Since we are sharing anecdotal stories, I've got one for you. I was a diver on the swim team for many years, and I know how easy it is to screw up when under pressure (aka "choke"). And I've seen it happen to plenty of other people as well.
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/07/24/chelseadive_wideweb__430x299.jpg
[FYI, that's not me. Thats an Olympic diver. Failing (badly). At a dive. In the Olympics.]

So having the possibility of failure even on something you've suceeded at dozens or hundreds of times before seems very reasonable to me. Plus, I've always been a fan of the "if you fail by less than 5, you have a chance to redeem yourself" rules. Sort of like, of you fail a jump check by less than 5, make a reflex save to grab the cliff edge instead of falling to your doom.


Frankly, this kind of random outcome is what I love about D&D. If not for the randomness, it would basically just be a series of math equations.
DM: You walk into a room, it contains 5 creatures with an average CR of 5.
Group: Our average level is 4!
DM: Guess you all die then. Oh well, TPKs happen, roll up some new characters.


I think that if your biggest concern about Skill-checks is failing the unfailable, then you should really just expand the number of opportunities to take 10. As I understand it, taking 10 is focusing closely, but just relying on your training, rather than going all out and hoping your latent talent will carry you through. It's sort of a risk/reward tradeoff.

But heres an idea:

Skill Focus [General]
Choose a skill.

Benefit
You get a +1d6 bonus on all checks involving that skill, and you can take 10 even when rushed or in danger.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

I'm still trying to come up with a good skill system for the game I'm building. Right now, all leveling is based on Abilities- you get one Ability per level, which is the equivalent of a good feat, small set of spells or heavy investment in a skill.

Right now, each level of a skill lists three categories - always, sometimes and never. "Always" means you automatically succeed, "Never" means it's beyond you, and "Sometimes" means you flip a coin for it. Since abilities are fairly expensive, skills only go to three levels - at level three, a character is a savant. Level 3 Observation, for instance, is Sherlock Holmes.

Past this, most skills give some additional mechanical benefit. Athletics and Acrobatics (one skill) would improve your base movement speed. Knowledge: Nature would give you a benefit on mind-affecting spells against animals. Manual Dexterity (Combination Sleight of Hand, Lockpick and Disarm Trap) might give a slight bonus to ranged attacks.

[Mechanize]

@deepbluediver

Ouch lol...

I think for the most part I am not talking about extremely difficult challenges, like doing some crazy super monkey triple flip off a diving board lol. The failures that bother me are the ones where I tell that olympic diver to go jump into a pool and swim to the other side yet she drowns. Its the simple or moderate tasks, rolled by a trained individual, and still failing that bother me.

I agree with your ideas though. If I decide to do a skill system like D&D I could use them.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Another idea for your chaos dice-- to add them to a normal system (be it d20, 3d6, or whatever), you roll the main die, add your skill modifier, than subtract the chaos die.

You'd set your main die/dice up to give you a nice bell curve, and let the chaos dice introduce the randomness when you need it.

To get more randomness in combat without using a separate system, simply use opposed rolls.

[Deepbluediver]

Ouch lol...

I think for the most part I am not talking about extremely difficult challenges, like doing some crazy super monkey triple flip off a diving board lol. The failures that bother me are the ones where I tell that olympic diver to go jump into a pool and swim to the other side yet she drowns. Its the simple or moderate tasks, rolled by a trained individual, and still failing that bother me.

I agree with your ideas though. If I decide to do a skill system like D&D I could use them.

Remember that unlike attack rolls and Saves, skill checks don't automatically fail on a roll of 1.

Also, some of the flat DCs for skills might need adjusting, but for the task you mentioned, I imagined it would be pretty easy.

"Jump into the pool" and "Tread water" would likely be a DC of 5 in my book (they should be 1, but YouTube has taught me differently) so some one with minimal training, a not-terrible strength score, and no ACP should pass them just fine. But some one like a small child with low Str and no experience WOULD be in danger of drowning.

[Mechanize]

Another idea for your chaos dice-- to add them to a normal system (be it d20, 3d6, or whatever), you roll the main die, add your skill modifier, than subtract the chaos die.

You'd set your main die/dice up to give you a nice bell curve, and let the chaos dice introduce the randomness when you need it.

To get more randomness in combat without using a separate system, simply use opposed rolls.

Opposed rolls brings up another topic. Probably better for a new thread, but I feel like a jerk posting a bunch of different threads about the same project.

I actually have a combat system figured out. armor and weapon stats are finished and based on a few trial runs, are working out the way I intended which makes me happy lol. I'd like opinions on something with battle though...

I'm doing opposed rolls for combat, and I am trying to make a very realistic system. Evereyone gets defensive reactions. Meaning if you have a sword and shield, you get 2 block chances. Or you get 1 dodge chance will will allow you to move slightly off turn, but you have to be in light armor. If you are surrounded by 8 people, you better have heavy plate on (my system armor is purely DR) or you die. The system is going to rely heavily on armor styles, and tankyness vs mobility. There are no AoO's, which only seem to hinder mobility, so people in light armor will be all over the place and heavies will do what they do best.

The question is this... What is your guys opinion on hitting a target that has no defensive reactions? Right now I have it set up that you just roll damage. Purely a free hit. Though after playing D&D so long, not rolling a d20 to hit feels weird. What do you all think?

[Grod_The_Giant]

The question is this... What is your guys opinion on hitting a target that has no defensive reactions? Right now I have it set up that you just roll damage. Purely a free hit. Though after playing D&D so long, not rolling a d20 to hit feels weird. What do you all think?
I can see arguments for both ways. Certainly the way you have it set up now sounds like it'll result in a very gritty/lethal system, which some may like and some may dislike.

In any case, I'll answer your question with another question: how easy is it to run out of defensive reactions? Is it a "I went all-out on offense this round and now I'm hosed" thing, or is it a "whoops, there are three guys coming after me and I only have two block attempts" thing? Because my answer would depend on how likely the "no defensive reactions" thing is my own fault.

[sreservoir]

This is exactly what I said earlier. I suggestd a 2d10 or 3d6. Bell curve sounds like the solution.

bah, can I, complain about 2d10 being called a bell curve? I mean, quite apart from the fact that multinomial distributions are inherently discrete (we, uh, usually ignore that), look at the graph of a 2d10! it has a corner at 11! it's two straight intersected line segments! people should not be allowed to call that a curve except when talking about the whole family of such functions, and even then I'd say the phrase "bell curve" should be reserved for at least n≥3.

that said, personally, I prefer 3d20, drop high and low, which is not at all a bell curve — it's parabolic, with P_n = 29+3×(n−1)(20−n)/4000 = (−3n²+63n−31)/4000. lovely curve, not too steep, centred at 10.5, still bulges quite a bit.

[Mechanize]

I can see arguments for both ways. Certainly the way you have it set up now sounds like it'll result in a very gritty/lethal system, which some may like and some may dislike.

In any case, I'll answer your question with another question: how easy is it to run out of defensive reactions? Is it a "I went all-out on offense this round and now I'm hosed" thing, or is it a "whoops, there are three guys coming after me and I only have two block attempts" thing? Because my answer would depend on how likely the "no defensive reactions" thing is my own fault.

Everyone will always get their standard choice of 1 block (if wielding a heavy 2 handed weapon, an agile 2handed weapon like a quarterstaff can block 2 times) 2 blocks, or 1 dodge. Dodges allow a small movement and a free attack. Dodging will be near impossible in plate due to mobility restrictions. Lighter fighters will find the dodge and free attack more to their liking where a heavy plate and shield fighter will be very tanky but less mobile.

I am working on implementing special abilities, some offensive and some defensive, and though they will be more bad ass than just a simple block or dodge, they will replace the use of those block or dodge reactions. The limited reactions will indeed place a very gritty feel on the system, but I'm still building it to be more fun than anything. Grit comes from the feel of the system, not just how lethal it is. If people still have options to avoid dying then I think it will be fun.

A lot is going to depend on armor and speed. Someone with plate can afford to get hit a few times, and they will, because they lack mobility and move speed. Someone in light armor will have to play smart, position properly and hit n run. People will be able to move, hit, and finish the remainder of their move.

I'll make sure to balance everything properly and leave every "class" (there will be no classes) many options on how to deal with situations. Still, as for the topic, does "free damage" sound ok, if the system is balanced for it?

[Mechanize]

bah, can I, complain about 2d10 being called a bell curve? I mean, quite apart from the fact that multinomial distributions are inherently discrete (we, uh, usually ignore that), look at the graph of a 2d10! it has a corner at 11! it's two straight intersected line segments! people should not be allowed to call that a curve except when talking about the whole family of such functions, and even then I'd say the phrase "bell curve" should be reserved for at least n≥3.

that said, personally, I prefer 3d20, drop high and low, which is not at all a bell curve — it's parabolic, with P_n = 29+3×(n−1)(20−n)/4000 = (−3n²+63n−31)/4000. lovely curve, not too steep, centred at 10.5, still bulges quite a bit.

Math hurts my brain, show me pictures! lol I never thought of dropping high and low on 3d20

[Deepbluediver]

Still, as for the topic, does "free damage" sound ok, if the system is balanced for it?

Without seeing more of the system mechancis, and figuring out what point it's balanced around (and maybe even playtesting) that question is really too vague to answer. How often this occurs primarily on how easy it is to set up the situation, and how much of an advantage it offers over normal damage. Figuring out where things fall on those 2 axi (whats the plural of "axis" anyway?) will help determine if it's OP or not.

[Siosilvar]

Math hurts my brain, show me pictures! lol I never thought of dropping high and low on 3d20

Here you are (http://anydice.com/program/6d0), and with probability and stdev as well. You can plug in other things to compare - it's quite a nice tool.

[Hanuman]

If I didn't get the players to roll a d20 for a skillcheck I'd roll a d20 for the DC.

It's not about the number or odds, its about the variation. D20 is just satisfying to do it with. I like shadowrun's hit system the best, a fist full of dice means power.

[Siosilvar]

If I didn't get the players to roll a d20 for a skillcheck I'd roll a d20 for the DC.

It's not about the number or odds, its about the variation. D20 is just satisfying to do it with. I like shadowrun's hit system the best, a fist full of dice means power.

I'd like to point out that the OP wants to reduce variance in the skills system, not shift it to the other side of the check.

EDIT:
1d2 monostat

You are a righteous 6 battling the evil 5's looking to destroy the world.

And I assume you win ties as well. :smallannoyed:


(whats the plural of "axis" anyway?)
axes (pronounced with a long "e")

[Hanuman]

1d2 monostat

You are a righteous 6 battling the evil 5's looking to destroy the world.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Everyone will always get their standard choice of 1 block (if wielding a heavy 2 handed weapon, an agile 2handed weapon like a quarterstaff can block 2 times) 2 blocks, or 1 dodge. Dodges allow a small movement and a free attack. Dodging will be near impossible in plate due to mobility restrictions. Lighter fighters will find the dodge and free attack more to their liking where a heavy plate and shield fighter will be very tanky but less mobile.

I am working on implementing special abilities, some offensive and some defensive, and though they will be more bad ass than just a simple block or dodge, they will replace the use of those block or dodge reactions. The limited reactions will indeed place a very gritty feel on the system, but I'm still building it to be more fun than anything. Grit comes from the feel of the system, not just how lethal it is. If people still have options to avoid dying then I think it will be fun.

A lot is going to depend on armor and speed. Someone with plate can afford to get hit a few times, and they will, because they lack mobility and move speed. Someone in light armor will have to play smart, position properly and hit n run. People will be able to move, hit, and finish the remainder of their move.

I'll make sure to balance everything properly and leave every "class" (there will be no classes) many options on how to deal with situations. Still, as for the topic, does "free damage" sound ok, if the system is balanced for it?
Eh. In that case, knowing only what you've said here, I think I'd rather see an unopposed roll go against a passive AC, D&D-style. (Although probably with a better chance of hitting).

[Mechanize]

Without seeing more of the system mechancis, and figuring out what point it's balanced around (and maybe even playtesting) that question is really too vague to answer. How often this occurs primarily on how easy it is to set up the situation, and how much of an advantage it offers over normal damage. Figuring out where things fall on those 2 axi (whats the plural of "axis" anyway?) will help determine if it's OP or not.

Yeah, it's definitely ready to play test simple combat mechanics anyway. I'll just have to play with it to see how well it works out.


Eh. In that case, knowing only what you've said here, I think I'd rather see an unopposed roll go against a passive AC, D&D-style. (Although probably with a better chance of hitting).

Why do you feel that way?

I may be a D&D geek, but I'm actually a combat instructor. I teach MMA cage fighting and self defense. Been at it for 21 years. I've also gotten my hands dirty the last year with stick and knife fighting. I'm trying to build a system pulling from my realistic combat knowledge. Static AC is a simple solution as far as defenses go but it is far from realistic. If you are flanked IRL, you dont get what is equivalent to a -2 IRL, you get an asswhoopin lol. Your options are armor, or mobility.

In essense, I suppose the person swinging at your back would still have to hit a moving target so maybe there should be a to hit roll, but rather than the opponent getting an active roll, its just against a really low DC, like a 5 or 8 on a d20. Plus rolling the d20 would still give a chance to crit. *shrug* DeepBlueDiver already said it, its time to play test what I have so far for combat. Too much theory and not enough testing at this point.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Why do you feel that way?
Personally, I play RPGs for escapism. I want to be something in-game that I can't be in real life, and do things that are impossible in real life. In real life, it might be all but impossible to effectively defend yourself against more than two people. But this is a game. We're Big Gorram Heroes. If I get flanked by a pair of guys on my level, sure, I should be in trouble. But if I get flanked by a pair of mooks...

My suggestion was to have your active defenses still be better than the static defenses, but not leave the players totally helpless if there are more than 3 people attacking them.

But, again, not knowing the full extent of the rules in question, I can't really comment in detail.

[Mechanize]

I totally agree with you. It's not that I want a truly realistic game. If that were the case most people would die in the first few battles. I just want a realistic feel to combat in certain aspects that actually aid in that escapism.

For example I think having active defenses makes it feel like you are actually blocking the incoming attack with your sword or shield. Static AC feels like we take turns bashing at eachothers armor and if i score a solid hit, I do damage. Of course its all in how you perceive the mechanics. That is just how they feel to me.

If you are a rogue, light of foot, you should be able to whoop on someone wielding a slow, heavy, 2handed weapon. You should be able to dodge his attacks and pick him apart with your many lighter attacks.

This is how I am setting the system up. A system of hard counters... So in a way it aids in the escapism because if you play strategically, and stick with your niche, you will really be tearing up certain situations, while having to run from others.

Now if you want to be superman and just handle anything anytime I would say that what I am building wouldn't be for you. Evereyone will have a big weakness and a big strength.

Keep in mind too, this is just basic combat, no abilities. I plan on having abilities be more fun and epic to aid in that escapism. I wanted to build them around the basic core combat though.

[Mechanize]

Here you are (http://anydice.com/program/6d0), and with probability and stdev as well. You can plug in other things to compare - it's quite a nice tool.

I actually have that site bookmarked but suck at figuring out how to use it lol.

What you linked me to though shows rolling 3d20 added up right? Or is that drop the high and low?

[Xeratos]

If you want to reduce the variance in skill checks, the simple solution is to make the static modifiers have more weight. This can be done two different ways.

1. Reduce the the range of the dice. Do this either by using a single die (for example, a 1d10 has a range of 1 to 10 instead of 1 to 20 like the d20), or several smaller dice (as stated above, bell curves and all that).

2. Increase the value of skill training or passive bonuses from ability scores. You could do this by granting extra skill points on a level up and increasing the rank cap or by changing the scaling of your ability scores so that an 18 str grants +8 to a skill instead of +4.

[sreservoir]

I actually have that site bookmarked but suck at figuring out how to use it lol.

What you linked me to though shows rolling 3d20 added up right? Or is that drop the high and low?

no, that's correctly second of 3 d20 results, sorted decending from 1.

[Mechanize]

Sorry for flitting from one topic to the next here. If anyone has comments on previous topics, I am still all ears.

Is there any simple way to pull off an initiave system like some turn based roll playing games out there, ones where a slightly faster player may get his initiative bumped by just 1 point every round. Has anyone ever played a pen and paper game that did this? It sounds neat, but it also sounds like a pain in the butt

[Glimbur]

Sorry for flitting from one topic to the next here. If anyone has comments on previous topics, I am still all ears.

Is there any simple way to pull off an initiave system like some turn based roll playing games out there, ones where a slightly faster player may get his initiative bumped by just 1 point every round. Has anyone ever played a pen and paper game that did this? It sounds neat, but it also sounds like a pain in the butt

Scion (and probably other White Wolf games) have an initiative dial. When you take an action, it sets you back a certain number of places on the dial. This lets you do 'big, slow attack' as well as 'weak, fast attack' and 'move' and 'block' and... Of course, abilities that let you act more often become very useful. That's because Get More Actions, the general rule of how to win at games.

It's not really what you are looking for though.

[Mechanize]

Back on topic about skills...

I was giving this some thought and there are just some skills out there that you can't really train yourself at, at least compared to other skills. Evereyone can study hard and learn a lot, yet the worst liar in the world can't just practice his bluffing skills and become a great liar. Maybe not everyone can be a genius if they study hard, but most people can still consistantly learn a lot about a subject. Someone can practice athletic skills and get better, yet tell me, how does one practice perception or sense motive? Those are just inherent abilities...

With that said, I'd like to make a list of skills that are trainable, and ones that are just inherent, untrainable, they are based on your ability scores, or personality or something that you can't build up very easily. Any opinions on this?

[Deepbluediver]

Back on topic about skills...

I was giving this some thought and there are just some skills out there that you can't really train yourself at, at least compared to other skills. Evereyone can study hard and learn a lot, yet the worst liar in the world can't just practice his bluffing skills and become a great liar. Maybe not everyone can be a genius if they study hard, but most people can still consistantly learn a lot about a subject. Someone can practice athletic skills and get better, yet tell me, how does one practice perception or sense motive? Those are just inherent abilities...

Don't get sucked into the "realism" argument. This is a fantasy game where we are allowed to make whatever rules we want, even if that bends the real-world perception of reality somewhat. Perception or Sense Motive is no less of a rule than gravity, which if you notice plenty of players mess around with all the time.
If it helps, think of it as a more subtle form of magic.

When was the last time you where playing a game and some one said "ok, we need to take a break at the next town for a week or two so I can practice my long-jump form".
How do you learn some one is lying or being less than fully truthful? I would assume by spending lots of time talking to people, watching and studying them. The way they speak, the words they use, their facial expressions and body language, etc etc etc.

Yes, in the real world trying to "read" some one is kind of bogus, but again, !!!FANTASY GAME!!!

Same thing with perception. Have you ever seen those "Find the Hidden Object" games online? They're kind of like the old "Where's Waldo" books. You study them long enough, and you learn tricks like looking for colors or shapes or movement instead of specific objects, or you train your eyes and brain to be more patient and attentive, instead of just skimming over something and assuming it's not there.

[Mechanize]

Don't get sucked into the "realism" argument. This is a fantasy game where we are allowed to make whatever rules we want, even if that bends the real-world perception of reality somewhat. Perception or Sense Motive is no less of a rule than gravity, which if you notice plenty of players mess around with all the time.
If it helps, think of it as a more subtle form of magic.

When was the last time you where playing a game and some one said "ok, we need to take a break at the next town for a week or two so I can practice my long-jump form".
How do you learn some one is lying or being less than fully truthful? I would assume by spending lots of time talking to people, watching and studying them. The way they speak, the words they use, their facial expressions and body language, etc etc etc.

Yes, in the real world trying to "read" some one is kind of bogus, but again, !!!FANTASY GAME!!!

Same thing with perception. Have you ever seen those "Find the Hidden Object" games online? They're kind of like the old "Where's Waldo" books. You study them long enough, and you learn tricks like looking for colors or shapes or movement instead of specific objects, or you train your eyes and brain to be more patient and attentive, instead of just skimming over something and assuming it's not there.

Ok point taken, but then again, I think that the ultimate immersion lies between a perfect balance between common sense and fantasy. When everything in your brain tells you to stop because this makes no damned sense, it pulls you out of the game and into reality. At least it does for me.

How about this then... has anyone ever compiled a list of skills that are a must have for a fantasy game? I dislike the 3.5 skills list for its length, but also 4e because I feel it is too short. I am also unsure about knowledge checks, what is the general opinion about being able to squeeze a bunch of info from a DM based off of a skill roll? In one hand it does make some sense that a book worm may have read about zombies and know weaknesses but in the other it kind of removes the mysteriousness that a new creature can offer.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I am also unsure about knowledge checks, what is the general opinion about being able to squeeze a bunch of info from a DM based off of a skill roll? In one hand it does make some sense that a book worm may have read about zombies and know weaknesses but in the other it kind of removes the mysteriousness that a new creature can offer.

The DC needs to be modified for the rarity of the creature, agreed, but the infodumps can be quite useful. I see the point about mysterious new creatures; on the other hand, I've played a game where my character invested heavily in intelligence and lore and everything was too mysterious for me to know anything, which was massively frustrating. There's definitely a balance.

[Mechanize]

The DC needs to be modified for the rarity of the creature, agreed, but the infodumps can be quite useful. I see the point about mysterious new creatures; on the other hand, I've played a game where my character invested heavily in intelligence and lore and everything was too mysterious for me to know anything, which was massively frustrating. There's definitely a balance.

I would agree that investing points into something heavily and not being rewarded for it is not cool. However, the question was pertaining more to avoiding the knowledge skill entirely. DMs can give out common knowledge as far as creatures go, maybe a little more to specific PCs with specific backgrounds, but does there really need to be a skill for it?

[Frathe]

Ok point taken, but then again, I think that the ultimate immersion lies between a perfect balance between common sense and fantasy. When everything in your brain tells you to stop because this makes no damned sense, it pulls you out of the game and into reality. At least it does for me.

How about this then... has anyone ever compiled a list of skills that are a must have for a fantasy game? I dislike the 3.5 skills list for its length, but also 4e because I feel it is too short. I am also unsure about knowledge checks, what is the general opinion about being able to squeeze a bunch of info from a DM based off of a skill roll? In one hand it does make some sense that a book worm may have read about zombies and know weaknesses but in the other it kind of removes the mysteriousness that a new creature can offer.

Knowledge rolls can be a useful mechanic for when players are stuck and the GM needs a mechanically legitimate way to help them out. If the large number of separate Knowledge skills bothers you, you could fold many of them (History, Geography, Religion, Science) into a single Academics skill, as I believe the FATE system does.

I don't think there's any specific set of skills that are "must-haves". If you think 3.5 has too many and 4e doesn't have enough, I'd aim for a number in between. Combine different abilities as you think is logical and mechanically useful--Move Silently and Hide could both be part of Stealth, for example, or Disable Device and Open Lock could be combined. You're also going to have to decide how to handle things (and if you're going to include) skills like Perform and Profession, and also Craft.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I would agree that investing points into something heavily and not being rewarded for it is not cool. However, the question was pertaining more to avoiding the knowledge skill entirely. DMs can give out common knowledge as far as creatures go, maybe a little more to specific PCs with specific backgrounds, but does there really need to be a skill for it?
RPGs tend to like quantifying things. It's nice to be able to know how much I can expect to find out, or how much I should tell the player. Maybe look at 3.5's bardic knowledge for a better example of scaling difficulties?


as I believe the FATE system does.
That reminds me, the Dresden Files RPG does one of the coolest things I can think of with knowledge skills. In addition to the usual "roll for answers" and "research for harder answers," there's a trapping for "exposition and knowledge dumping," where you get a fate point in exchange for the DM using your character as a mouthpiece to info-dump.

[Mechanize]

I've been thinking about also doing a skills system that you increase levels in not by leveling or spending points, but by doing. Like 5 attempts gives you a new point. I know this has been done in other systems, has anyone played with something like this? How does it turn out?

I would imagine there needs to be some basic rules on what constitutes as an attempt so that players don't just cheese it up. For example when I played oblivion, I just spammed the jump bar to increase my jump skill lol.