Ability / Skill Checks

[abk108]

Hi there. I've got the feeling that the curve-like bonuses you get from abilities, while great for keeping the power level down and that old-style feeling to DCC, is somehow bad when it comes to skill checks. I would rather have a d20 roll AGAINST your ability score ( that is, you roll d20 and try to score equal or less than your ability score).

This is also because, especially at level-0, funnel-time, i think this would make a huge difference between PCs own different sets of abilities. The way it is now, you get a 9, you get a 12, there's no difference. You still get the same 50% chance of succeeding on a DC10 check. The other way, you would get only a 45% chance with a score of 9, or a 60% if you've got 12.

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I get frustrated when (being used to 3.x D&D) I get lots of 12 and then remember they're "just as good as" any other 9, 10 or 11.

I don't think this change would modify the balance of the game, since attacks, spell checks, damage, AC, initiative and Saves would still be influenced by bonuses. But it would make each character more unique.

[finarvyn]

I get frustrated when (being used to 3.x D&D) I get lots of 12 and then remember they're "just as good as" any other 9, 10 or 11.

Actually, Joseph's early drafts of the DCC RPG used attribute bonuses straight out of the 3E SRD. This was revised to the current system after folks wanted a more "old school" feel.

I played OD&D from early on and as such am totally used to 9-12 being "average." It's part of the philosophy that high stats are unusual and really mean something since not everyone has them.

And you're going to have a similar problem no matter which scale you use, unless each stat is somehow different from every other stat. Even in 3E you run into the case where stats are identical in pairs.

[abk108]

I get frustrated when (being used to 3.x D&D) I get lots of 12 and then remember they're "just as good as" any other 9, 10 or 11.

Actually, Joseph's early drafts of the DCC RPG used attribute bonuses straight out of the 3E SRD. This was revised to the current system after folks wanted a more "old school" feel.

And i'm totally one of those folks that's why i suggested to get away from 3E checks. If i'm not hugely mistaken (could be!!) i think the "ability checks" were done like i suggested back in the AD&D days, weren't they?

I played OD&D from early on and as such am totally used to 9-12 being "average." It's part of the philosophy that high stats are unusual and really mean something since not everyone has them.

I see your point here. My idea was just to get a little feeling of differentiation between each 0-level pc. They may have the same bonus, but Jack and Joe have a slightly different chance of breaking that door. That may explain why one survived the first dungeon and the other didn't.

And you're going to have a similar problem no matter which scale you use, unless each stat is somehow different from every other stat. Even in 3E you run into the case where stats are identical in pairs.

Yes, but in a system where we are limited (again - i like this) to ability scores 3-18, i think this is felt a LOT more. Especially if those abilities use a bell bonus-distribution system, in which 10/18 results (from 6 to 15) will just mean a -1/0/+1 bonus .... in the same range of ability scores, in 3E SRD you would get much a wider variety of bonuses : -2/-1/0/+1/+2.

Anyway, I will playtest both ways, asking my players for feedback too, and then post back!