|
3 months ago ::
Mar 10, 2013 - 9:10PM
#91
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
To get this back on track....
Just for discussion purposes, how wide a variation are you willing to accept amongest party members for single skill check?
For example... the party needs to traverse a narrow ledge. There are four PCs, but the most capable of traversing the bridge is the rogue, while the least capable is the heavily armored fighter. What is the largest disparity in skill bonus that you would accept between the two?
A. Rogue's bonus is less than 5 higher than the fighters
B. Rogue's bonus is less than 10 higher than the fighters
C. Rogue's bonus is less than 15 higher than the fighters
D. Rogue's bonus is less than 20 higher than the fighters
E. I would accept any variation in skill.
F. None of the above.
G. Stop asking these stupid poll questions.
H. Yay! I'm participating. Sort of.
I would go with 5 points or a and/or skill reroll/advantage. Much higher and you may as well be doing different things.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 10, 2013 - 10:24PM
#92
|
|
|
To get this back on track....
Just for discussion purposes, how wide a variation are you willing to accept amongest party members for single skill check?
For example... the party needs to traverse a narrow ledge. There are four PCs, but the most capable of traversing the bridge is the rogue, while the least capable is the heavily armored fighter. What is the largest disparity in skill bonus that you would accept between the two?
A. Rogue's bonus is less than 5 higher than the fighters
B. Rogue's bonus is less than 10 higher than the fighters
C. Rogue's bonus is less than 15 higher than the fighters
D. Rogue's bonus is less than 20 higher than the fighters
E. I would accept any variation in skill.
F. None of the above.
G. Stop asking these stupid poll questions.
H. Yay! I'm participating. Sort of.
For the gven test, we want everybody to pass it. We can allow for some degree of failure. Say everybody is roped together so that if one fails, the others can pull him to safety. But we still want a substantial chance the worst PC will pass. Since we also want some degree of challenge, we are pretty much limited to A or B, and probably just A. Now a 4e test can be 10 or so by allowing the PC a choice of skills to use. Maybe acrobatics or endurance. [A has great balance while B just clings to the rock.] That allows for a greater range on an individual skill, but the range would be much smaller between the skills actually used.
To have greater ranges, we need skill tests where Rogue [or fighter] is rolling for the entire party. [Party is confronted by a locked door and clearly only one needs to pick the lock.]
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 11, 2013 - 12:06AM
#93
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
For wrecan's given test, I would want the heavily armoured fighter to be unable to do it without help. If the fighter was willing to remove his armour then he should have a chance of success but even then I would want the chance to be small enough to make the party want to send the better climbers over first and put climbing aids in place (rope spiked into the cliff face or some such). The heavily armoured fighter should have a decent chance at success once the party has done something to help him. For the rogue, the narrow ledge without climbing aids should be an easy task. If they want to spike ropes into the wall as they go, that increases the difficulty to a moderate task. If they're able to get a rope somewhere useful without the rogue (say with a grappling hook), then the rogue's task becomes as close to an automatic success as anything can unless they want to put something else in place for the fighter (or, if he's got the strength, carry the fighter over). For the fighter, the task should be very difficult in full armour without help. If they're willing to take their armour off, it would become a difficult task. If he's got help and takes his armour off then the task becomes an easy one. So that means an unarmoured fighter next to an unarmoured rogue should have a check difference of +10 right out of the gate. The armour should impose the equivalent of a -5 penalty, as should attempting to place aids along the ledge. A climbing aid should be the equivalent of a +10 bonus. Assuming the fighter has no climbing skill (not looking at attribute bonuses here), that means the ledge is assumed to be a hard obstacle (DC 20) that's made very hard by trying to do something else while you're climbing or wearing armour (DC 25). EDIT: I strongly disagree with having one party member roll for everyone using thieir best bonus. Those sorts of things totally destroy the impact of neglecting a stat, discourage teamwork in play and glosses over things that could end up being quite interesting (such as a narrow ledge that the fighter needs help to get across). Of course, in the case of things like a locked door that's totally appropriate but in the example given it isn't.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 11, 2013 - 12:28AM
#94
|
Date Joined:
Feb 15, 2013
|
@Wrecan's proposed example
I would prefer that the differences were qualitative rather than necessarily attached to the binary pass-fail system.
The rogue with a high dex, trained in acrobatics can elegantly move at speed across the ledge. If arrows start flying at the party, the rogue is not penalized because he is right at home on the unstable surface like an old salt on a swaying ship.
The fighter, in his heavy armor has to move more slowly, and if attacked he is likely to grant advantage.
The lightly armored wizard who is not trained in acrobatics and has a modest dexterity becomes the average. He will grant advantage to attackers and move much slower than usual, but not as slow as the fighter.
I have been saying for a while now that skill usages should be gated. There should be rewards for training outside of just the pass-fail system. These can be ad-libbed, but they really should be used as part of the base system. There are many places where you want all players to succeed as a DM. Bounded accuracy is trying to achieve this for the sort of scenario described. The loss, however, is that once you reach a place of dependable success, you gain nothing more for lower DC actions.
There should be an addendum to the Check rules stating that any character that passes a check by 5 or more does it with markedly increased skill. How that applies can be left up to the DM, but there should be examples to help guide them. Justs flip around the DC descriptions and that roll of 25 translates to a success in the style of an "especially talented individual". If he rolls a 30, he moves across the bridge like "the most highly trained and talented individual". If the fighter rolls a 10, he can succeed, but does so with a "minimum level of competence".
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 11, 2013 - 12:42AM
#95
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
There should be an addendum to the Check rules stating that any character that passes a check by 5 or more does it with markedly increased skill. How that applies can be left up to the DM, but there should be examples to help guide them. Justs flip around the DC descriptions and that roll of 25 translates to a success in the style of an "especially talented individual". If he rolls a 30, he moves across the bridge like "the most highly trained and talented individual". If the fighter rolls a 10, he can succeed, but does so with a "minimum level of competence".
I've been doing this sort of thing for years. If they can properly balance the skill system against the universal DC table, something like this would be way easier to implement.
But I've always taken it as read that someone who outstrips the DC by a chunk should produce a result that is notibly better than someone who simply makes their check.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 11, 2013 - 4:15AM
#96
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2008
|
At what level should a human wizard with a Strength of 10 have the same bonus to-hit with a quarterstaff (assuming proficiency) as a 1st level human fighter with Strength of 16?
My problem with this question is that I don't feel that strength should provide any bonus to hit whatsoever. It should only be a bonus to damage.
Larger and stronger creatures might swing harder but may be less likely to hit. Added strength shouldn't add to accuracy.
Dexterity should add to attack rolls for all weapons.
Strength should provide added damage for all weapon (and multiplied by 2 for a 2W attack)
AC should equal 10 + str mod + dex mod assuming that characters have purchased armor that best fits their strength and dexterity needs. (This would also match with the unarmored Monk (10 + Wis mod +
10 Dex) and Barbarian (10 + Con mod + 10 Dex))
Bows, Daggers, and even Crossbows hit harder for stronger characters assuming the are sized and built based on the wielders strength.
All weapons would hit more accurately for a more coordinated person.
If the question was "At what level should a human wizard with a Dexterity of 10 have the same bonus to-hit with a quarterstaff (assuming proficiency) as a 1st level human fighter with Dexterity of 16?", I'd probably answer Never.
An untrained attacker whose coordination is simply average should never be evenly matched in his ability to hit a target with a warrior trained in fighting with an ability score in coordination which is in the 85-90 percentile.
In other words, if I trained at playing darts until I was an adult and had an innate natural ability better than 90% of people prior to training, an untrained dart player should never be able to beat me just because they were older and more mature and had gained much more life experience in a broad array of life's tests. My years of training in this one area combined with my innate ability should succeed regardless of the other individual's vastly greater life experiences in so many other aspects of life.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 11, 2013 - 5:49AM
#97
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Here's something to consider regarding the example: perhaps the fighter simply takes a lot longer than the rogue. Instead of a dex check, it becomes a con check, since it is more about enduring while you slowing make your way across the ledge. Unless there is a time constraint (being chased, the ledge is collapsing, et al), both solutions work the strengths of each character. Note: forgot to cast my vote: B. Rogue's bonus is less than 10 higher than the fighters
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 11, 2013 - 5:52AM
#98
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
At what level should a human wizard with a Strength of 10 have the same bonus to-hit with a quarterstaff (assuming proficiency) as a 1st level human fighter with Strength of 16?
My problem with this question is that I don't feel that strength should provide any bonus to hit whatsoever. It should only be a bonus to damage.
I'm also feeling that ability should not affect accuracy, just the results. Let accuracy be a function of skill (ie character level), with the higher natural ability affecting the results.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 11, 2013 - 6:01AM
#99
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
To get this back on track....
Just for discussion purposes, how wide a variation are you willing to accept amongest party members for single skill check?
For example... the party needs to traverse a narrow ledge. There are four PCs, but the most capable of traversing the bridge is the rogue, while the least capable is the heavily armored fighter. What is the largest disparity in skill bonus that you would accept between the two?
A. Rogue's bonus is less than 5 higher than the fighters
B. Rogue's bonus is less than 10 higher than the fighters
C. Rogue's bonus is less than 15 higher than the fighters
D. Rogue's bonus is less than 20 higher than the fighters
E. I would accept any variation in skill.
F. None of the above.
G. Stop asking these stupid poll questions.
H. Yay! I'm participating. Sort of.
do you asume the gap to get bigger with level if so at what level are you talking about with your choices ?
I assume nothing. What is the largest gap you would accept at any level?
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 11, 2013 - 6:04AM
#100
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
At what level should a human wizard with a Strength of 10 have the same bonus to-hit with a quarterstaff (assuming proficiency) as a 1st level human fighter with Strength of 16?
My problem with this question is that I don't feel that strength should provide any bonus to hit whatsoever. It should only be a bonus to damage.
I don't see how that affects my questions. The answer, with your caveat, would be A. Between levels 1 and 3, since the characters would have the same bonus to hit immediately (unless you think a fighter should begin with a class-based bonus to hit).
|
|
|
