Goodman Games

I know the rules say that when you make a "Luck Check" you looking to roll under your current luck score. So when a module sets a DC for a luck roll it that a equal to or higher, or still roll under?

Basically my question is: when making luck rolls do you always want to roll under the number?

If there is a DC, it's always d20+bonus vs DC.

Luck is the same as the other abilities in this regard: There are two ways to roll. The regular roll has a DC, and you gotta roll higher than that (with the possibility of a fumble or critical hit), but the other kind of roll, the low roll, doesn't seem to have a name. In this low roll, there's no DC only your ability score, and no fumbles or critical hits. I don't like assigning a DC to Luck rolls (what are the odds of being lucky?), so I always use the second kind (low roll) for lucky events, but also for any other checks that don't really seem to have a DC or a chance of fumble/critical hit.

Yubacore wrote:Basically my question is: when making luck rolls do you always want to roll under the number?

Nope (see other answers).

brainszine wrote:...but the other kind of roll, the low roll, doesn't seem to have a name...

Lots of folks just call that a "roll-under" check.

I call a roll-under an [Attribute] Check. And if you're trying to hit a DC, that's an [Attribute] Roll.

Thanks for the replies, guys.

I don't remember reading about other attribute checks having a "roll under" way of doing it, at all (although admittedly that is a possibility). I always thought this was very specific to Luck. I've always done it that if I don't have a DC then I follow the guidelines for making an appropriate DC for the situation and go from there.

I'm more curious and confused now. Let me try another question: Why is there a roll low check, for anything? making it harder or easier is arbitrary, especially as a judge, you have control over the DC anyway so you can make it as hard or as easy as need be. The only difference I can see is that there is a certain immediate player knowledge of success or failure with the roll low, as opposed to the DC roll.

Yubacore wrote:I'm more curious and confused now. Let me try another question: Why is there a roll low check, for anything?

For me, it's just easier, all around.

There's a task to be done? Roll under an attribute and it's done. Circumstances that make it trickier? Decide it has to be 'made' by two, or whatever. It's easier? Allow a roll of a bit higher than the stat to still work. Group tasks? "Three of you need to succeed to push that giant, brass door open..."

And I have for many, many years preferred to interpret skill/attribute checks with degrees of success, rather than a simple, binary "success/failure". Make your roll by 10?? That will get you amazing results, if amazing results are to be had... And a Roll Under check makes that an easy read, too.

Hitting a DC is pretty much a simple die roll. Your attribute doesn't actually matter too much. Using a Roll Under and giving it gradations of success/failure can tease out some differences between having a 12 Str and a 10 Str, for example.

GnomeBoy wrote:

Yubacore wrote:I'm more curious and confused now. Let me try another question: Why is there a roll low check, for anything?

Hitting a DC is pretty much a simple die roll. Your attribute doesn't actually matter too much. Using a Roll Under and giving it gradations of success/failure can tease out some differences between having a 12 Str and a 10 Str, for example.

I have found that in my games the higher the levels become for the characters, the easier the DC checks become. If I want to see if someone just happens to be placed in an advantageous position based on charisma, luck, agility, etc., a roll under check can make this a somewhat objective check that the character could still mess up versus what eventually amounts to a "don't fumble" roll that may punish characters with a lack of modifiers and strengths in certain areas.

Because of this feature, players may also try to even out otherwise min-maxed characters, which is also a bonus. There are no "dump stats" (an attribute that is simply irrelevant to a character for most purposes -> like intelligence on a barbarian or charisma on a wizard in 3.5 D&D) when a judge uses roll under checks.

In my games, I use roll under checks to determine if players remembered to do something that they didn't specifically mention they did, etc.

David

Ok, I'm starting to see the use now.

And I have for many, many years preferred to interpret skill/attribute checks with degrees of success, rather than a simple, binary "success/failure". Make your roll by 10?? That will get you amazing results, if amazing results are to be had... And a Roll Under check makes that an easy read, too.

like that.

I have found that in my games the higher the levels become for the characters, the easier the DC checks become. If I want to see if someone just happens to be placed in an advantageous position based on charisma, luck, agility, etc., a roll under check can make this a somewhat objective check that the character could still mess up versus what eventually amounts to a "don't fumble" roll that may punish characters with a lack of modifiers and strengths in certain areas.

Because of this feature, players may also try to even out otherwise min-maxed characters, which is also a bonus. There are no "dump stats" (an attribute that is simply irrelevant to a character for most purposes -> like intelligence on a barbarian or charisma on a wizard in 3.5 D&D) when a judge uses roll under checks.

This makes sense, thank you!

In my games, I use roll under checks to determine if players remembered to do something that they didn't specifically mention they did, etc.

OMG, I love this idea. This seems like more along the lines that make sense to me. Like the part in Sailors on the Starless Sea where everyone makes a luck check to see if the look into the pool. But that one is a DC check if i'm not mistaken. This was the instant I became confused actually.