|
1 year ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 9:34AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
I think the problem is not the difference between the skilled and expert. The problem is the misunderstanding of the concept of DCs. A DC of 21 is supposed to be impossible for a normal with +0. Only experts are supposed to even succeed at 21+ DCs unaided. Same with opposed checks. A trained thief sneaks by average joes at a high percentage. In online multiplayer games, the experts beat the new players at a high rate of success. The problem is the misunderstanding of DCs. DCs are not relative to the attempter. An easy Search check is easy for a normal and automatic for a expert. A hard spot check is difficult for a normal and easy for an expert. An impossible search check is impossible for a normal and difficult for the expert. DMs just have to understand DCs better.
True, and I think the DMG in Next needs to be very explicit about this. They neglected to include this detail in 4e on the assumption that it was obvious and... well, we see how well that worked out for them.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 9:41AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
True, and I think the DMG in Next needs to be very explicit about this. They neglected to include this detail in 4e on the assumption that it was obvious and... well, we see how well that worked out for them.
I agree. 4e was misleading (not intentionally I'm sure) for many people with their adjustable DCs by level. DCs for a particular task should remain fixed no matter anyone's level. I'm sure their intent was provide challenging tasks that equate out to these DCs when you want to provide a challenge. I'm also sure they didn't mean for the same wood door to get a higher DC over time. But some DMs interpreted it that way and I personally think they brought it on themselves with their wording.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 9:58AM
#13
|
|
|
I was thinking of something simple that allows someone who is good enough at a skill but not able to take 10, due to being in a stressful situation, to be able to mitigate a skill failure. The rule would be something like this:
If your Passive Score (just 10+skill check bonuses) equals or exceeds the DC of a check (so you would succeed if you could take 10), and you fail that check, you may instead make the check a success but suffer Disadvantage on your next d20 roll (this represents your loss of focus while you attempted to recover from your skill check so as not to fail) or grant Advantage to the next d20 roll used against you, whichever comes first.
If you want to make this more of an ahead of time thing, give all PCs the ablity to take 10 even if they cannot, but if they choose to take 10, they suffer Disadvantage on their next d20 roll or grant Advantage to the next d20 roll against them, whichever is first. If you use this option, they cannot use this (as the above rule) if they fail, they would need to make that choice before the roll, and if they risk it because they do not want the Disadvantage, they suffer the failure if they roll low.
Allows you to focus on a skill at the expense of something else.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 10:02AM
#14
|
|
|
One of the reasons I came up with this idea is due to how a skill challenge ended up with the most trained player rolling poorly.
Here is an example of how I see the difference between this working vs 4e.
4e: the party has to cross a river of average difficulty (15). Mr athletic has a +8 and joe has a +0. Mr athletic succeeds 70% of the time while joe only success 30% of the time. Mr athletic has a decent chance to fail even though he is a trained athlete, and joe has a pretty good chance to start drowning.
Advantage: the river now only has a DC 10 because numbers are lower. Mr athletic has +3 but has advantage. Joe is still +0. Mr athletic has a 91% chance to cross the river and joe now has a 55% chance to. This means mr athletic has a great chance to succeed at the tasks he is trained for, but the rest of the party does not have to fear for their lives at the thought of attempting the same task as someone who is trained.
Now, I am open to the possibility of additional levels of training to increase the top end of skills, but bonuses to skills for a feat tend neglected for more interesting options. Having to spend 3 feats just to have a +8 (as is the current proposed model for next) seems excessive.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 10:07AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Having to spend 3 feats just to have a +8 (as is the current proposed model for next) seems excessive.
Where are you getting this from? I see nothing of the sort in the available material.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 11:20AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Apr 26, 2012
|
Remember also that skill DCs are going to scale much differently in D&DN than they have in previous editions, if what we see in the playtest packet is any indicator. You're not going to have anymore DC 40 checks because we're using ability mods rather than skill training + 1/2 level + mod 1 + mod 2 etc. Also, the vaguery involved with skill usage is most likely going to help rather than hinder in D&DN, provided your DM is reasonable.
I don't know if advantage/disadvantage would be a good idea for replacing skill bonuses, simply because it is too easy to cancel someone's advantage, whereas a bonus to the d20 roll is always there (presumably).
Eh. My 2 cents, anyway.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 1:06PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2008
|
The issue with novice/expert is more to do with party dynamics. In 3e especially, but also 4e, it was common for some players to have a bonus 10+ points above other party members. This caused two problems. One, DCs were hard to create that could present an appropriate challenge for the group. Two, the specialist so fat outclassed the rest of the group that it was hard to include everyone during some phases of task resolution. Now if DCs were along these lines: 5 easy, 10 average, 15 hard, 20 very hard, 25 legendary, then being trained has a big benefit. As you said someone with focus and a high score can almost auto succeed an average task, while someone with an average score and no training only has a 55% chance. The difference is the person with no training can still attempt the task and contribute to the groups success even at difficulties that the trained person auto succeeds. Because the variance is lower between highest skill and lowest, it takes longer for those who aren't trained to be pushed into the "why bother rolling" category. This tends to happen around level 8 in 4e and as early as 1st level in 3e.
I tend to play in Living campaigns, and it's not uncommon for me to have an entirely different group of players from adventure to adventure. This gives a different perspective on skills. A real problem with many "pick up" groups in Living Forgotten Realms is that players will attempt and fail skill checks despite the knowledge that there is an expert in the group. It's a symptom of being selfish in my opinion (based on personal experience) in most cases.
When you reduce the DC into the manageable range, you can run into the problem of certain selfish characters taking over skill checks. It doesn't solve the lack of participation; it just shifts it to where a selfish player does not have to invest into a skill to successfully take away participation from others.
Now, an experienced DM can usually handle this situation (most of the time; I did see one situation that ended badly - I mean real badly - in the last ten years); however, an inexperienced DM is at risk. The goal of the game should be to provide a fun game "out of the box." A flatten system, while it does promote participation, does give less than ideal players tools they shouldn't have. The more traditional system, while still abused to a degree, gives the other players more of a right to exclaim "WTH!" and regulate themselves. This along with DM mediaton tends to reduce overparticipation.
I tend to be alittle cynical on how successful this part of the system will end up due to those experiences...
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 8:59PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2009
|
One way to do this would be to say that all skills cost 1 point but the first time you buy it you get a +5, the second time a +3, and the third time and after a +1. This would accurately reflect how hard it is to improve into the master ranges.
+1
I suggested something similar in another post (only with a +3, +2, +1 progression).
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 9:27PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2003
|
Hmm, if taking 10 doesn't retun, then I think you should still be able to take 10 if you are trained in a skill. Though, I guess if we went with auto-success, then if you are trained you should auto-succeed if the DC is equal to your ability score or less, rather than the DC+5 being equal to your ability score or less (remember +3 bonus is like +6 to the ability score). That could be done instead of taking 10. (I suspect the auto-success shall be tweaked a great deal, and this should be tweaked accordingly).
I also think that if you are trained, then you ignore any penalty an ability modifier might give you to your check.
|
|
|
