Reimagining Ability Checks (mostly compatable with 5e)

[Jakinbandw]

So I'm working on re-imaging DnD, and I'm working on ability checks. This is mostly compatible with 5e, though wounds would need to be converted to damage. That said there is a whole set of filled out ability examples that could be fairly fun.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RYH58w27q757ifjxRVjVi_ldYF-UjwD9ipdZekQuFvo/edit?usp=sharing

I still need to give examples mental ability checks and give some examples of opposed rolls.
The planned mental checks are as follows:

Disable Device
Craft Object
Knowledge
Decipher Meaning
Draw Conclusion
Search
Heal
Gather Information
Notice
Discern Outcome
Etiquette
Organize others
Handle Animals
Perform
First Impression


I'm also hoping to give about 10 examples of opposed abilities.

[Edited with updated link!]

[Zman]

Wow, that is a lot of txt. I like what you've got going on, but there are a couple things to work on.

1. You're a bit of a wordy writer. that is 12 pages of full txt. It's a bit tough to get through, not in a disorganized or poorly written way, just in a lot of information way.

2. You might want to explain what a Fact is earlier, even just a line earlier. Something like "must use a Fact, a background justification for their competence, to..."

3. Math. Does the current setup let character reach too far. I mean, a 15 Dex, former drunken bar dancer(+5), could balance on a cloud(DC40) 5% of the time. Or a moderately strong, 15 Str, farmhand, could lift a 5000lb Portcullis. I'm wondering if the d20 isn't overweighing the fact, or what qualifies as training. It's a problem that 5e in general has and this still exists. I feel like your almost overly lenient ruling on facts opens up a wide range of potential reaches by characters that breach verimisilitude. What if the higher DCs has more stringent requirements for Facts?

[Jakinbandw]

Wow, that is a lot of txt. I like what you've got going on, but there are a couple things to work on.

1. You're a bit of a wordy writer. that is 12 pages of full txt. It's a bit tough to get through, not in a disorganized or poorly written way, just in a lot of information way.

Yeah, I know. This actual cut out a bit of rules that pushed the basic outline to 5 pages which I felt was too much. In the end, this is meant to be a play aid for gms and players, and not necessary something to be memorized. Do you feel that stripping down the ability checks to 3 or so per attribute would help make it easier on the reader, or is the total coverage worth the price in density?


2. You might want to explain what a Fact is earlier, even just a line earlier. Something like "must use a Fact, a background justification for their competence, to..."
Yeah, sorry about that. This chapter is going to come after the facts chapter in my book, (and even right now facts are described in character creation), but that's why I said mostly compatible. You can use it with a few tweaks. I'll double check this in the final play test version for sure though.


3. Math. Does the current setup let character reach too far. I mean, a 15 Dex, former drunken bar dancer(+5), could balance on a cloud(DC40) 5% of the time. Or a moderately strong, 15 Str, farmhand, could lift a 5000lb Portcullis. I'm wondering if the d20 isn't overweighing the fact, or what qualifies as training. It's a problem that 5e in general has and this still exists. I feel like your almost overly lenient ruling on facts opens up a wide range of potential reaches by characters that breach verimisilitude. What if the higher DCs has more stringent requirements for Facts?

So two things: First of all, I need to make it more clear I think that normal people in the setting cap out their attribute at 13 (or probably 14 in dnd terms). I want the players to feel better than their peers. I've played around a bit with changing the way facts work, but I think for 5e I would have facts add the characters proficiency bonus instead of a flat +5. This means that the best a starting character could roll with point buy would be a d20+17+2. It would smooth things out a bit. That said, this system does allow characters to achieve blatantly superhuman things, and that was a bit of the goal. You can't always succeed, so you shouldn't rely on it, but when bad things are happening you have a chance to pull off something amazing (a 10% chance after all isn't really that great. If you're trying to jump onto a cloud, it means you're going to fall through 90% of the time and take fall damage, usually not worth the risk).

One concern of this would be that rouges and bards become extra good at skill checks, but considering at best they mimic lvl 1-2 spells, and it would only become reliable at around level 18, I don't think that would necessarily be a massive issue. I could be off on that though.

[Composer99]

I'm guessing from the DCs that ability scores - er, attributes, I mean - are added directly to the d20 roll.

I wonder what was your motivation for having them scale as much as you have? It's resulted in a sort of DC inflation.

I assume that part of the desire is to get rid of the score/modifier distinction, but what is the system getting out of the moar numberz?

[Jakinbandw]

I'm guessing from the DCs that ability scores - er, attributes, I mean - are added directly to the d20 roll.

I wonder what was your motivation for having them scale as much as you have? It's resulted in a sort of DC inflation.

I assume that part of the desire is to get rid of the score/modifier distinction, but what is the system getting out of the moar numberz?

Make Odd Numbers Great Again!

But seriously, while designing I decided that either I would find a use for attributes as they currently exist in dnd, or I would shrink them down like Mutants and Masterminds 2e did. I have a great fondness for 3-18, so I ended up doing this to preserve the old style attributes and give the odd numbered attributes meaning. A 13 in this system is more useful than a 12. Maybe not by a lot, but even a little can be nice.

[Zman]

Make Odd Numbers Great Again!

But seriously, while designing I decided that either I would find a use for attributes as they currently exist in dnd, or I would shrink them down like Mutants and Masterminds 2e did. I have a great fondness for 3-18, so I ended up doing this to preserve the old style attributes and give the odd numbered attributes meaning. A 13 in this system is more useful than a 12. Maybe not by a lot, but even a little can be nice.

One of the ideas I e worked with to use attributes as they currently stand is a roll under mechanic. Roll your score or less on a 20. Add modifiers for difficulty.

[Jakinbandw]

One of the ideas I e worked with to use attributes as they currently stand is a roll under mechanic. Roll your score or less on a 20. Add modifiers for difficulty.

Roll under can work, I just felt that attribute + proficiency + d20 vs DC was easier than difficulty + d20 - proficiency vs Attribute. In the end the probabilities are the same. It's just a question of which you enjoy more.

[Composer99]

Make Odd Numbers Great Again!

But seriously, while designing I decided that either I would find a use for attributes as they currently exist in dnd, or I would shrink them down like Mutants and Masterminds 2e did. I have a great fondness for 3-18, so I ended up doing this to preserve the old style attributes and give the odd numbered attributes meaning. A 13 in this system is more useful than a 12. Maybe not by a lot, but even a little can be nice.

Fair enough - carry on!

(Did I make the minimum character limit?)

[Jakinbandw]

And complete! The rules changed a little, so if you've already read through them, I'd suggest a second look. Other than that, to make it work for 5e the following changes are all that are needed:

1: Instead of adding 5 for having a background or a fact that is relevant, instead add your proficiency modifier.
2: If you would take a point of stress from failing a check take a level of exhaustion for each point of stress.
3: If you would take a wound from failing a check take half that many wounds in levels of exhaustion (rounded up).

With that it should work roughly as intended.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RYH58w27q757ifjxRVjVi_ldYF-UjwD9ipdZekQuFvo/edit?usp=sharing

[Yakk]

If you aren't tied to advantage/disadvantage from 5e, I could suggest stealing fail/partial/full from other RPGs.

1. Always roll 2d20.
2. 0 successes is a failure, you don't get what you want. The DM can be offered a partial success in exchange for a cost.

1. 1 success is a partial; only some of what the player wants. The player is offered the chance to succeed, but with a cost.

2. 2 successes is a pass. It happens, no cost.

3. Pairs are "critical". So a pair + failure is a critical fail: you pay a cost and get nothing. A pair+success is a critical success, you get what you want *and* something else awesome happens.

A partial success shouldn't open the chance to "roll again to finish" at least without a cost; if you partial at climbing a tree, you reach part way and then a branch breaks and you cannot go further.