Handling skill check

[joela]

How are skill checks handled in the DCC RPG? If I remember correctly from that one playtest in Anaheim, CA, certain classes have skills (e.g., thieves/rogues) as part of their abilities while most don't. I do vaguely remember making some sorta skill check where Joseph would give a DC and we'd have to at least it to succeed. Will the DCC RPG be using some sorta unified system ala SEIGE system from Castles & Crusades?

[finarvyn]

Based on Joseph's comments on magic, I suspect there will be some system where you get different dice to roll based on your skill level. That will change your chance of beating a pre-determined target number.

And I suspect it will be a simple system with a few class-based and/or profession-based skills built in as templates, rather than a free-for-all skill build.

But I'm not Joseph.

[goodmangames]

The skill system is very simple: roll d20 and beat the target number.

For many straightforward activities (like listening at doors), there's a basic chance, just like in classic D&D ("2-in-6 chance of hearing noise"...but converted to a d20 roll).

For certain other activities, like climbing, there is a class-based modifier (e.g., for thieves) and the same d20 vs. DC system applies.

For some activities, role-playing substitutes for a skill check. For example, we've all spent years searching for secret doors by rolling a Search check. But -- and I thank Tavis Allison for pointing out this out in a very good, concrete example at a GaryCon playtest last year -- you can also have PCs discover the secret door by specifying that they're "searching the mortar around the stones for loose spots," or "tapping the walls and listening for hollows," or "measuring the depth of the chest against its outer dimensions to see if the bottom is at the right place," and so on. Forcing the players to THINK about their environment and interact with it not only gets us past the abstraction of skill points and back into the game, but is also a lot of fun.

And finally, for many mundane professional activities, like blacksmithing or appraising or astrology, the 0-level profession system determines your ability. All characters start with a 0-level profession. You can choose to actually play a game at 0-level to earn your way to 1st level, or just start at 1st. But even if you start at 1st, your PC has a 0-level profession: farmer, wheelwright, cooper, blacksmith, merchant, whatever. The skill system is based on role playing: "If you can justify a way that your PC would have learned that skill in his time practicing his 0-level profession, you can pull it off." If your PC was a 0-level blacksmith before he took up a sword and entered that dungeon, then yes, he can repair your broken armor. But if he was a farmer, no, he can't. Again, the DM and role playing are important here.

[GnomeBoy]

I should really stop reading these DCC RPG threads. It's becoming increasingly difficult to think of waiting until November to hold this game in my hot, grubby, little hands. Even moreso, for my normal hands.

...The rest of my hands are applauding the creative process of this game...

[joela]

For some activities, role-playing substitutes for a skill check. For example, we've all spent years searching for secret doors by rolling a Search check. But -- and I thank Tavis Allison for pointing out this out in a very good, concrete example at a GaryCon playtest last year -- you can also have PCs discover the secret door by specifying that they're "searching the mortar around the stones for loose spots," or "tapping the walls and listening for hollows," or "measuring the depth of the chest against its outer dimensions to see if the bottom is at the right place," and so on. Forcing the players to THINK about their environment and interact with it not only gets us past the abstraction of skill points and back into the game, but is also a lot of fun.

Huh. That's a major mindswitch from today's games. Do you think it may put off newbies, especially those use to post AD&D systems?

[goodmangames]

Huh. That's a major mindswitch from today's games. Do you think it may put off newbies, especially those use to post AD&D systems?

There are enough bridges that the new* elements of DCC RPG will enter play naturally. Players of 3E will still find it familiar that a thief rolls d20 and tries to beat a DC when he climbs a wall or sneaks stealthily. It's only when he goes to search that something different happens.

* It's funny to call ideas from 1974 "new." I mean "new" in the sense that these ideas weren't as pronounced in some more recent editions and variants of D&D.

[joela]

* It's funny to call ideas from 1974 "new." I mean "new" in the sense that these ideas weren't as pronounced in some more recent editions and variants of D&D.

*Chuckle*. I'm amused how, these days, DJs say Madonna's 80's stuff to be "classic".

[Harley Stroh]

Huh. That's a major mindswitch from today's games. Do you think it may put off newbies, especially those use to post AD&D systems?

I ran into this at a con playtest. A boy had trouble thinking past, "I make a Search check." But I asked him to describe how he was searching and he caught on pretty quick.

//H

[joela]

Huh. That's a major mindswitch from today's games. Do you think it may put off newbies, especially those use to post AD&D systems?

I ran into this at a con playtest. A boy had trouble thinking past, "I make a Search check." But I asked him to describe how he was searching and he caught on pretty quick.

//H

Nice. It has been too long for me.

[finarvyn]

Huh. That's a major mindswitch from today's games. Do you think it may put off newbies, especially those use to post AD&D systems?

I ran into this at a con playtest. A boy had trouble thinking past, "I make a Search check." But I asked him to describe how he was searching and he caught on pretty quick.

Wait ... is this new to today's games? In my games I've always asked the players to tell me how/where they are searching. I just thought that's how everyone did it.

[Fabio.MilitoPagliara]

on skills

one thing I have in mind since the old days is

if my combat skill is tied to my level/class combination why not skills?

obviously there should be 3-5 very broad skills (say Forester, Knowledge, Social) that are differently tied to the level/class of characters

to put it into 3e terms

Ranger: +1/2 level to forester; +1/4 Social, Knowledge;
Mage: +1/2 knowledge, +1/4 social, forester

or something like that

[smathis]

I ran into this at a con playtest. A boy had trouble thinking past, "I make a Search check." But I asked him to describe how he was searching and he caught on pretty quick.

//H

Some of the players in my current group have trouble with this as well. They'd all much prefer to roll a check to see if they find something as opposed to describing it. Which was odd to me. But maybe I'm not asking the right questions. I'll keep this in mind for our next session to see if it can work for my group too.

[smathis]

on skills

one thing I have in mind since the old days is

if my combat skill is tied to my level/class combination why not skills?

obviously there should be 3-5 very broad skills (say Forester, Knowledge, Social) that are differently tied to the level/class of characters

to put it into 3e terms

Ranger: +1/2 level to forester; +1/4 Social, Knowledge;
Mage: +1/2 knowledge, +1/4 social, forester

or something like that

Or just a straight bonus (1/2 level or whatever) and let the GM determine if it's applicable -- similar to how Barbarians of Lemuria handles Backgrounds. The trick with defining -- even broad -- sets of skills and determine better-than-worse-than is that it ignores the context of the game.

So my Ranger has +1/4 Social or +2 Intimidate. That's probably applicable in the king's court but what if he's talking with the Barbarian Chief in the Northlands -- where he's resided his entire life and, moreover, the guy's his uncle. Wouldn't that warrant a better bonus than +1/4?

In the end, the granularity may seem more substantive. But I'd argue it's empty because, given context, it's still just GM fiat.

It might be better to give a straight bonus (like 4e and SWSE) to these checks so that way we don't have a need to inflate DCs over time. Skill points and 1/2 level work okay until you get up past 10th level. Then it all starts to collapse as a character (with stat bonuses and such) easily succeeds at super-heroic tasks. Suddenly, the pressure is on the DM to make things that used to have a TN of 18 harder -- maybe making them 21, then 24, etc. I think C&C did it right (as well as Target20) by setting just a straight DC for the appropriate difficulty level. If any bonuses come from level, perhaps they're meager or maybe it's the ability to roll a d24 instead of a normal d20 or something.

But I don't think a class-based bonus should exceed +5. I think it introduces too much inflation in the process and, really, should a character be able to high-jump higher than an Olympic gold medalist just because they've killed enough monsters or taken enough gold to get to Level 13? Because that's kind of what the skill system of 3e and 4e set into place. I kill ten-thousand kobolds so now I can Take 10 and beat Bobby Fischer at chess without sweating the roll because I'm level 16 or 20.

That's one of the reasons high-level 3e broke down and one of the reasons 4e needs a chart to show inflating difficulty levels (pg. 42 of the DMG) instead of just a straight chart like WEG Star Wars had. I'd much prefer the latter. Knowing that DC 25 is always Heroic is really helpful. Same with knowing DC 5 is always Easy. It could also allow for "Levels of Success" ala Marvel FASERIP (Green/Yellow/Red result) or even Doctor Who RPG ("No/but, Yes/and/but") where getting an Average success (total of 10-14) on a Difficult task (TN 15) could allow for more than just a "You fail". It could be a "No, but..." situation where the character doesn't succeed but maybe gets a positive out of the attempt somehow. A result that's very appropriate to the literature, IMO.

Doing that with vanilla 3e or 4e is overly complex. One has to consider how the bonuses are stacked even at low levels. A first level character can start out with +7s or +8s in a skill. And they only go up from there. I had a 3rd level characters who were routinely in the +10 or +12 range. By 15th level, I had a Halfling who could Take 10, set a World Record and win a gold medal. Sure I was "heroic" but I was also silly. Just plain silly.

Ultimately, 4e abandoned the 3e idea of relatively static DCs and just let the DCs increase willy-nilly with the characters to keep up an appropriate level of challenge.

But what's the point? Isn't advancement of that type negated by ever-increasing DCs? So that I can be 20th level and have no better chance at tying my shoes than a 0-level farmer. So why do I need that +10 again?

Wouldn't it just be simpler to say tying my shoes is always a DC 5 task and I get my Agility bonus plus some straight bonus because I'm a Thief and tying my shoes should be easier for me? Or maybe I get to roll a d24 while the farmer rolls a d20 (or a d16 if under duress) and I get to add my Agility bonus and maybe a +1 for every 5 levels of Thief...

Sorry to ramble, but I guess the idea of numbers that soar ever-higher into the stratosphere is one of the systemic issues I see in d20. It's in AC, BAB, Skills. It's endemic. And it causes real problems in gameplay. Problems that 4e didn't solve, just worked around. But as a result, they created a game where a 1st level party could not reasonably address a 7th level threat. So, according to the rules, the two should never meet. So the world is kind of like this huge grade-school where the 1st level goblins never mingle with the 10th level Dragons. Which is just... dumb.

[Sunsword]

I've toyed with treating Skills like 3E's Saves. They can be Average or Good & progress per the corresponding Save. I try to reduce subsystems in games. I do think that Skills could be placed into the BAB system, although some might prefer 1/4 Level for Average & 1/2 Level for Good Skills.

And while I don't want a rule for everything or clear definition of "game balance", 3E was a response to an audience that wanted rules that clearly defined how to do everything. And D&D's rules have to be able to reach the lowest common denominator for our hobby, & that requires covering an absurd amount of situations. 4E has the same baggage.

Its funny, on some level, if Basic D&D were released today, I see it as the product that has a HUGE page count to be able to give a new player & DM all the answers they seek. While, the Advanced D&D book could be less than 200 pages, because it would cater to the player & DM who just needs a framework.

[Machpants]

Nice words Smathis, massive number inflation can be a curse. It got annoying in 4E everything scaling like Oblivion... you never got better at actually succeeding! So far Dragon Age (current game)seems to avoid that, inflation is slow but still meanimgful, hopefilly DCC will be the same

[smathis]

Nice words Smathis, massive number inflation can be a curse. It got annoying in 4E everything scaling like Oblivion... you never got better at actually succeeding! So far Dragon Age (current game)seems to avoid that, inflation is slow but still meanimgful, hopefilly DCC will be the same

Thanks. I hope for the same.

I wouldn't mind skills improving as the characters level, just as long as it's at a moderate pace, like 1/3, 1/4 or 1/5 level. Getting rid of skill synergies helps a lot, IMO. As does getting rid of skill points.

Still, I'd like to keep the 5/10/15/20/25/30 DCs meaningful. Maybe it could be worked the other way, where a Dwarf would roll a d16 for swimming and a d24 to find a secret door in a dungeon. That way, the bonuses could be moderate (between +5 and +10 overall) and Dwarves could still achieve epic successes (DC 30) with a really lucky roll.

The flipside of the skill bonus system is that it puts some results simply out of a character's reach.

C&C has a really nice skill check system. It's not perfect. But it's a lot cleaner than vanilla 3e. Just roll over a target number and it happens. Maybe DCC can have something like that. That way results on the lower end are still relevant. You don't have characters who's bonuses are so high they'll never fail and you don't have other characters whose "realm of the possible" is limited until they can achieve a high enough bonus to reach the DC.

[geordie racer]

Just roll over a target number and it happens. Maybe DCC can have something like that.

With race and class determining the dice type rather than a list of difficulty numbers.

[smathis]

With race and class determining the dice type rather than a list of difficulty numbers.

Yes!

[Sunsword]

C&C has a really nice skill check system. It's not perfect. But it's a lot cleaner than vanilla 3e. Just roll over a target number and it happens. Maybe DCC can have something like that. That way results on the lower end are still relevant. You don't have characters who's bonuses are so high they'll never fail and you don't have other characters whose "realm of the possible" is limited until they can achieve a high enough bonus to reach the DC.

I'm curious, do you prefer C&C's SIEGE engine to say 1/2 Level for all characters, +5 if trained?

I've also looked at setting Skill DC's generally at 10, simply rolling & adding attribute mods & if your trained in a skill suffer a -4 penalty, just as if you didn't have a weapon proficiency.

[smathis]

I'm curious, do you prefer C&C's SIEGE engine to say 1/2 Level for all characters, +5 if trained?

Yes, and no. What I like about SIEGE is that there's a set Target Number, everyone pretty much knows what it is. It's essentially a TN 18 system with a +6 if you're "trained" in something. I like the Target Number part of it. It doesn't really go up or down. That's handy.

There's not really much improvement. I can kinda sorta live with that. I mean, does Conan get any better at climbing towers following The Tower of the Elephant? Not really. He gets marginally better at not freaking out over stuff. A little better at killing stuff.

But climbing that tower is essentially as good as it gets.

What I don't like about 1/2 level is the rate of advancement. Starting out (assuming rounding down like 4e), you could have people trained in skills with a +6 bonus. Well, that's competent. But by 10th level, they're +11. All of a sudden they're doing Heroic stuff like it doesn't matter. And by 20th level, they're +16. They're pulling off super-heroic stuff 50% of the time. They can Take 10 and set an Olympic world record.

All because they killed some monsters.

I just don't see that reflected in the stories of Appendix N. Elric gets physically weaker as he progresses. Conan gets more "with it" but he doesn't become an Olympic athlete. I mean he doesn't gain the ability to high jump 8 feet just because he killed a Giant Snake.

And that's what the skill system does in 3e and 4e. It says if you kill enough Goblins you can jump a 30' chasm but, if you don't, you'll have a hard time jumping a 14' one. But Conan and Fahrfrd's chance of jumping that chasm is relatively static, no matter how many humanoids they slay.

Couple that with the ironic non-system in 4e -- where difficulty scales as you go up. What's the point in using half-level at all? Why not stay with +5 for trained, + ability mod vs. the static 5/10/15/20? In 4e, the 1/2 level thing is pointless when it comes to skills. It's irrelevant and means nothing. Absolutely nothing. It's just an excuse to put a chart in the DMG.

I could give up improving skills by one-half my level if it means I can have a simple and meaningful set of static Target Numbers. Improvement in skills, IMO, should be relatively slow.

I've also looked at setting Skill DC's generally at 10, simply rolling & adding attribute mods & if your trained in a skill suffer a -4 penalty, just as if you didn't have a weapon proficiency.

That's more like where my head is at. I was thinking more along the lines of a series of Target Numbers that don't change. Conveniently, there's already one in 3e -- (5: Easy, 10: Average, 15: Difficult, 20: Very Difficult, 25: Heroic). Then rolling and adding attribute mods. I'd say if it's something you're "trained" in or fits a class concept, roll a d24. If you're not trained in it or it goes against a class concept, roll a d16. If you're not trained in it (and it matters), roll a d12.

Then there can be more complex results as well. Not just binary pass/fail. If the task was a Difficult task, and you got an 11. Maybe it's a "No, but..." result. With the task ultimately failing, but something good coming out of it. Similarly, if a task was Difficult and you got a 27. That would be a "Yes, and!" Meaning you succeeded and something ELSE happens that's beneficial as well.

It might also be interesting to consider the possibility of SKILLburn. Which would be like Spellburn -- for the other guys. Maybe you missed your roll to outrun the Ghouls by 3. But if you took 3 points of Strength damage you could JUST BARELY get away. Only problem is your character is hella winded and may have pulled a muscle or something.

Maybe the Thief missed by 2 points on finding that trap. But he burns 2 points of Int to realize his mistake. And takes that att damage in the form of a blow to his confidence. He was that close to killing himself or someone in the party. Maybe he'll doubt himself for a couple of weeks and then get back to normal.

I could see some weirdness with the idea of Skillburn. Like a Wizard giving himself an aneurhysm attempting to decipher a scroll or something. But I'm just throwing ideas out there. Sometimes it's hard to say what sticks.

[geordie racer]

Spot-on summation, and skillburn could be fun to use. It's certainly evocative of last-ditch efforts - the hero would have failed to escape through the narrow opening if he had not dislocated his shoulder in order to haul himself through.

[Sunsword]

Smathis, you've got alot of great ideas in your previous post. I think the Die ratings for skills & SKILLburn are excellent. If they're not covered in DCC RPG, you should do a supplement, even if its a small one, like early Brave Halfling PDFs.

I understand your concern about Skill Ranks/Ratings getting too large, but do you fell the same concern for BAB? I've always wanted to add a Base Skill Bonus to each class, let them choose X number of skills they're trained in & the rest they suffer -4. And I think that kind of system could easily map to how BAB works. So far, I've only mapped the Skill system to emulating Saves, but haven't fully decide how I like it.

I really appreciate this discourse. Your firing up my imagination & helping to make the long wait for the DCC RPG a little more bearable

[smathis]

Smathis, you've got alot of great ideas in your previous post. I think the Die ratings for skills & SKILLburn are excellent. If they're not covered in DCC RPG, you should do a supplement, even if its a small one, like early Brave Halfling PDFs.

I understand your concern about Skill Ranks/Ratings getting too large, but do you fell the same concern for BAB? I've always wanted to add a Base Skill Bonus to each class, let them choose X number of skills they're trained in & the rest they suffer -4. And I think that kind of system could easily map to how BAB works. So far, I've only mapped the Skill system to emulating Saves, but haven't fully decide how I like it.

I really appreciate this discourse. Your firing up my imagination & helping to make the long wait for the DCC RPG a little more bearable

Thanks, Sunsword. Hopefully Joseph and Harley are keeping an eye on the forums because there have been a lot of great ideas coming out around here from a lot of people.

I am concerned about BAB inflation too. In my current LotFP game, I can see a breaking point around 10th level (or 8HD) where Fighters or Monsters practically auto-hit. Honestly, I don't know what to do about it.

I like the idea of static ACs within the range of 12-24 or so. I like the idea of increasing in combat effectiveness as one adventures. But I have no ideas on how to reconcile those two concepts. Older editions of D&D kind of capped BAB at +10 and then started adding "extra attacks". I'm not averse to that idea but I don't care for attacks extending out to 3 or 4 per round. One or two, I'm okay with.

There have been versions of d20 that have treated Melee and Ranged combat as a "skill". I think that's a viable approach. The only reluctance I'd have would be from the standpoint of combat is so much more important. Combat is about the only skill (besides Climb or Swim or Jump) where you could die if you don't perform. So, from that standpoint, it would be hard to imagine anyone not choosing for it to be "trained". Although that's certainly not the case with characters in Appendix N. While most of the main characters are certainly trained in the arts of combat, not all of them are. Think of Frodo or the other Hobbits. Or some of the supporting cast from Howard's stories. So maybe assuming BAB as a "trained" combat skill has a flaw in it? Or maybe not. As Frodo and the Hobbits certainly get better at fighting monsters by, well, fighting monsters.

The way I see it -- knowing absolutely nothing about the DCC rules -- we have a few options as regards BAB increase. First, is the bonus itself -- which I'd keep at +10 or below. Second, is a second attack in a round. That could get us pretty far. And could, conceivably, handle all the classes besides the Fighter. But what else could help represent an improvement in Fighting skill?

Maybe an increase in the damage die?

So as you go up in levels, you get more dice of damage. So a 1st level Thief does 1d4 with a dagger. A 5th level Thief does 1d6. Maybe a 10th level Thief gets to roll two damage dice and take the best one. You get the idea, I'm sure.

Or maybe we can add a damage bonus and alternate it with BAB. So an 9th level Thief has a +3 to hit and a +3 damage across the board, while an 8th level Fighter would have a +4 to hit and +4 damage. Both options would make it so that an 18th level (+6 to hit and +6 damage) Thief could do more damage with a dagger than a first level Fighter with a broadsword (+1 to hit only).

And I whole-heartedly approve of that. I think it's pretty appropriate too. Conan took down quite a few antagonists with little more than a dagger and a loincloth. Difficult to see that happening in 3e.

[geordie racer]

Quoting from the Combat thread:

Rolls of 20 are crits (if they're a combat roll) or maximum results (if they're a spell check roll). There are multiple crit tables, associated with character class and level. Your class/level dictates which table you roll on. Additionally, your level gives you a crit die. A warrior, for example, starts out rolling 1d12 on the crit table at level 1 and is rolling 1d24 on the crit table by level 5, so they have the ability to get higher (and more deadly) results. Meanwhile, a level 5 wizard is still looking at a 1d10 roll, and on a weaker table as well.

Generally speaking the thief crit tables are geared more toward subtlety (paralyze, blind, or hamstring your opponent), the wizard crit tables are geared more toward, um, wimpiness (do a little extra damage), and the warrior and cleric crit tables are geared more toward awesome destruction (significant additional damage, crippling wounds, berzerker rage, additional attacks, and outright kills).

So an improvement in combat skill is represented by an increasing access to the more deadlier crits. But is it only a roll of 20 that is a crit at all levels or does it open up (e.g crit = 17 to 20) at higher levels ?

[DCCfan]

Nice idea! Skillburn sounds like a cool option to me as well.