Good luck and have fun ^^ Things to remember, in case of too much rule bable. By roleplay your carracter can go into the plan of law (mechianus) and modify rules (gears) of d&d. Spell = Plane Shift lv 7, every big city must have a wizard/priest able to do it, it's not too rare. Roleplay is allway more important than gameplay in D&D. You can go play to WH40K (exemple) for peoples who love gameplay instead of roleplay. But every gods and big monster gonna undersand after a moment if you modify too much and change the balance of the universe who risk to break the choérence of d&d univers. ^^ Peoples/monster protecte the choérence and work hard to let it be a middle age fantasy, you must fight hard if you want to change the thématic of d&d forgoten realms univers. ^^ (Be careful to not break again the hourglasse of time, everyone break the clock XD) It's an advice of an old 3.5 player, Have fun ^^.
A nice thing about combat versus skill checks is that combat has HP which allows success to move from pass fail to levels of success (how much damage) and directionality (how much damage to the enemy or to you) and multiple attempts (not just a single skill check but a combat encounter)
Interesting system; for me this sort of thing is too crunchy and would slow the game down too much, but I can see the appeal of having there be more grounded variance in the checks. Videos like this are always useful for a think though, so keep things like this coming when you come across them.
Ability times 5 as a % is a Runequest (1978) rule and guess what, Rolemaster (1980) has a table for that:) It’s so lovely how we are keeping reinventing the steel (⚔) inching ever closer to what works best.
Great topic. I like how dungeon crawl classic has the dice chain for things like this. Proficient roll a d20, not proficient a d10. And I will use the dice in between as well. Dungeon Craft also talks about 8 being the magic number in d20 games. A target number of 8 gives players a 60% chance to succeed which feels good.
Great video Daniel. It made me think of the Mentzer Basic reaction rolls - which is a series of up to three rolls to find out a reaction. It’s a model to be reused perhaps for other outcomes
We have used all sorts of systems and dice for ability checks. From 3d6 to 5d6, percentage chance, multiple rolls for difficult tasks. Using magic items to enhance your chances like a luck stone. There are rules for many things that can easily be adapted such as the strength check for bend bars/lift gates or to bust down a door. Using that as a base for say a dexterity check for something.
I really like using different dice for different task difficulties, but in a simpler manner than that described in the Dragon article. We start with the normal X-in-6 adjudication of things like forcing stuck doors or hearing noise, then modify the size of the die based on difficulty. Lets say a secret door is (relatively) easy to find. Instead of a 1 or 2-in-6 chance, it becomes a 1 or 2-in-4 chance. Or say a door is extra stuck because it is spiked, or maybe you are dealing with the boulder example from the article. Up the d6 to an 8 for a 2-in-8 chance. If we want a bell curve, throw 3d6 against ability score, decrease to 3d4 if it's easy, and increase to 3d8 if it's extra difficult.
I run a lot of 0D&D, OSE, B/E, Cyclopedia etc. I prefer simple and uncomplicated gameplay, a narrative story over needless rules. So If a Player wants to do something that's easily tested with a simple ability score check 1d20 Success = Ability score or less, then that's it. No need to make life harder for my players, they are heroes in the making (hopefully). If they have a background in the thing they want to do then I often won't even bother them with a check, no need to complicate the players flow in this way. They are always going to find ways to make their own lives hard, I just don't see the need to add more complications.
I agree. Codifying rules for minutiae seems to be the only response to issues for TSR and WOTC. You get people building characters to min max and it Seems no one is even asking the questions about “why is this person even adventuring?” Because if you are beating DC35 all the time then it would seem that you should not be wasting your energy camping and killing dragons.
Another advantage to roll under attribute checks (and proficientcies) is that it just reflects the attribute. Jugglers, weight lifters, and sages can all be competent in their roles without being tethered to class levels. Then when you want level to be factored in you can use saving throws.
@@BanditsKeep If it has to be tested for then yes. If a player wants to push the boulder and clear an entrance then it's a strength test. If they have a sturdy pole and good leverage or some other clever idea/use of resources, no test at all. If I don't want them to push the boulder then, 'It's stuck and no force you have at hand can move it.'
@@BanditsKeep hell yeah... bend bars/lift gates...no negotiation. only exception - you allow another attempt next level, just like a thief gets another try at a lock. perhaps this creates a good impetus to level up. The boulder roll can be attempted again now you are older and wiser. But no, it shouldn't get easier. That's the math problem for 5e. Everything is 13 out of 20 regardless of the level, they just create extra stats to give the illusion of complexity, as PDM has stated.
Oh my gosh I had just started watching your actual play series of OD&D with Outdoor Survival and Chainmail before finding this! Thanks a ton for the shout out!! I love the idea of assigning the die based on difficulty. I originally chose to use this mechanic because it felt comical to need to roll three times for a single ability check (I like silly things sometimes), but then I realized that it actually works out really well in play. Still, something has always felt off about it, and I think you've nailed it with the sense of too much randomness. I'm going to try out assigning the die based on the difficulty of the task and perhaps still roll for the die when I'm not quite sure how difficult a task should be.
Awesome! I’m really enjoying your channel - I’ve had Mythic for many years but could never wrap my head around it - your gaming has helped me immensely.
I've been considering gutting Skill Checks completely from my 5e game. It is an optional rule/way of running the game as featured in the 5e DMG; instead just suggesting allowing the PC to use their proficiency bonus when an Ability Check would be for something their character would be good at. I do love your idea of rolling 3d6 (adding d6's for increasing difficulty) and rolling under the Ability Score. But I'm also a sucker for various dice mechanics in my D&D
I think your skill system would work great as a stand-alone game! Maybe fewer attributes, but still have an ability score of 3d6. Could be a cool mystery/investigation system that's really rules light
My ABILITY TESTS house rule: When you try to do something challenging that seems to have no rule covering it, I might call for a roll based on an ability score. I will judge which of five difficulty categories it falls under-Tricky, Difficult, Very Difficult, Almost Impossible, or Need a Miracle-based on how hard it would be for an average commoner to perform. You will attempt to roll low. For an average ability score, the target range is just 1. However, if you have a bonus for the score, you add it to the success range (a +2 bonus would be a success range of 1-3). Tricky Tests are rolled on 1d4, which yields a base chance of 25%. Difficult Tests use 1d6, which yields a base chance of 17%. Very Difficult Tests use 1d10, which yields a base chance of 10%. Almost Impossible Tests use 1d20, which is a base chance of 5%. Need a Miracle Tests use 1d100, which is a base chance of 1%. If you have a negative ability modifier, the task automatically becomes the next highest difficulty, and you must roll a 1 to succeed.
I like your idea of having them roll ability checks with various numbers of d6 instead of a d20 to let you adjust the difficulty. Simple, elegant, and no futzing around with math.
There was a system that I learned from somewhere that was created because a person with say a strength of 10 could lift something that a character with a strength of 18 could not. This also applied to all other attributes as well. It was originally used for 2nd edition AD&D but I find myself using it from time to time even with pathfinder 1e for anything not covered in skills. Here it is for anyone interested; Use a d10 then just add your relevant attribute score to the die you rolled and if it meets or surpasses that roll you succeed. So, if you have 4 characters with strengths of 10, 12, 14, and 16 and the DM says it requires a total str of 20 and is considered easy, everyone rolls a d10. The first player has a very low chance, the second slightly better, the third only has to roll a 6 or better while the character with a 16 only has to roll a 4 or better. In this way characters with the higher attributes are always more likely to achieve success and you don't get the gross anomalies of a low attribute character beating a high attribute character. Keep in mind, had the DM said it required a total str of 21 the character with a str of 10 could not even affect the object.
Hey Daniel, love your content. This subject interests me in its ability to add flavor of actions to non specialized abilities among classes. I can see something like this giving that extra potential of flair to a character, in the attempt to try something novel or unique in the way of effort. Fun for the players and the Gm. Way to go, interesting thoughts on the subject.
So thank you so much for this video. I'm not going to use the skill tests that you are talking about but I am totally going to steal the way you increase difficulty with adding D6s per difficulty. I can easily add that into my BECMI game I'm just about to run.
Love that right before you said it my mind went to the same place..."Just assign a polyhedral die to each difficulty to use as the ability score multiplier!" I think I might be using this.
One thing we often accept as given is that characters have randomized stats to start, including money and other things depending on edition. I'm thinking through something inspired by what you've talked about today where it's like... attributes are skill containers, the bigger an attribute is the more potential a character has, but since that potential is unrealized, when they're tasked with something they haven't tried before, the player can choose to roll a bunch of d6s, up to three, say, and they have to equal or beat with the roll of any one die a number the DM says is the difficulty, 1-6. If they meet or beat the difficulty with at least one die, they have to take that amount and subtract from their attribute's potential (the attribute stays the same but the potential that is equal to that stat goes down). They can then use that skill later on if they need to at the rating they selected from the dice they rolled (maybe have the rating act as a minimum roll, with higher difficulties requiring rolling 3d6 again, with successes marking the skill for increase when leveling, al a CoC). If they failed maybe they can still pick a die if they like and have that be their skill, even if it's a lowly 1. The character's abilities are revealed in that moment, and character building is ongoing, like the initial roll-up, with surprises that help flesh the character out. The usual trick is how to determine what attribute governs the attempt, and what challenges would need rolls.
I'm not a fan of roll under, so I suggested to my OSE (B/X) group that as a house rule we could roll a d20 + Ability Score vs a DC of 21. It's mathematically the same... if you have an 18 stat, instead of rolling 18 or less (only 2 numbers fail on the die), you roll a 3 or better. Well, they looked at me like I'd completely lost my mind.
For your example of the boulder, i like what I've seen where it says a combined str of 30 is needed... I hadn't thought if using a lever. Since I am playing with my daughters and friends I'd probably have them figure out the mechanical advantage. I would have them simplify it by getting some variables fixed. D&D is a good way of showing practical math. So, how much does that boulder weigh? How much force can a specific strength move?
Looking forward to seeing you put up your link to this. As it turns out I was just wondering how to, insert mechanic here lol, let a new player group explore information about an adventure location they've heard of. A trio m-u and cleric lvl 1 and thief lvl 3 with a few henchmen. In a brand new B/X campaign/world. This sounds like it would be very useful to add to my collection of Bandits Keep pdf's in the house rules section. We all really appreciate the resources and insights you provide, please don't stop. Thank you sir.
Recent subscriber, but I really got the impression you were jamming on this option and it's potential implications. To that end, yes discuss how this could become a game In and of itself. I feel it was inte ded originally for solo play, which is pretty much all I do currently, so I too was into it. Thanks for the video.
@@risusrulesNot sure if you were asking me to elaborate or Daniel to? As for my part, I decided to go with the OG 1st edition dungeon masters guide information on sages as a basic template to start with. Then I figured up an ability score modifier using either int, wis, or cha depending on which is more logical based off how the players are attempting to gather information. I am currently using it in a huge city setting with a fair number of temples, taverns, and schools of magic. Basically using it to determine time needed to discover the information they seek and the amount of information they can find. Giving bonuses/penalties for high/low ability scores as needed and not worrying so much about the cost like the sages charge. Got the idea from Daniel talking about sages in the DMG. in a video. This guy is a wealth of information and inspiration. I've watched most all of his videos and I always learn a new prospective for looking at the game. I highly encourage you to do the same. Hope this helps you out.
@@BanditsKeepyeah I'm backing them for the new printing. They don't do new Edition just new prints same rules from 2004. I believe They're giving a free copy of the players handbook. Hopefully you'll do a review of the book one day
Hello Daniel, I'm struggling with implementing diseases and sicknesses into my games. Do you have any advice? Since Paladins have a once per week feature to remove disease, there should be a way to contract them semi-regularly. Thanks in advance
As someone who hasn’t played od&d I’m confused on what you do after you have the percentage. Like do you have the character roll again to see if they beat that percentage?
I was using the standard attribute or less on a d20. I think I'll use a modification based on your idea. An average difficulty skill will be 5. 5 times attribute is the same as a d20. For harder things, I can make the difficulty a 4 or 3, and higher for easy things.
6:38 - "Will they fight?" is the wrong question. The real question is, _if_ they decide to break morale and run, what do they think their chances are of actually getting away? Just as the PCs shouldn't get away with using their hirelings as meat shields, random monsters shouldn't be laser-focused on the PCs either. Until the threat is gone, or until someone sees a way out, they're in this together, like it or not. I personally find the entire system way too complicated, especially for old school rules. In my teenage years playing AD&D, I can probably count on one hand, the number of ability checks I had to make. Proficiencies in 2e seemed like a great idea to me, some 30+ years ago, but that was a _huge_ mistake. Today in 5e, players and DMs alike think that literally everything should require a skill check-- from investigating room, to mounting a horse, to that neckbeard at the table, who always wants to seduce the tavern wench. _Baulder's Gate 3_ is a video game based entirely on virtual die rolls. Roleplaying has been thoroughly replaced by _roll-_ playing.
Odd my comment didn't post. Snapshot: discuss ideas on how this could be a game in and of itself. I think you appear pretty stoked on this house rule anyways.
So (in the original article) you roll a die, to determine what die to roll, to multiply by another number, to determine what you need to roll on ANOTHER die?? 🤯
Rather than auto success, how about roll and if fail, loose time, roll again. That way you will get it done, just a matter of how long it is going to take.
Ratner than automatic success, chance of failure, within reason of ability, but also a degree of success based on dice roll, something like 25% or less extreme success, 75% success somewhat low but effective.
I do auto success if there's no pressure. If your fighter is attempting to kick in a stuck door at the end of a long hall with a minotaur barreling toward him, he's fucking rolling. Either way, that door gone open
Commenting at 10:45 so I’m committing the cardinal sin of not waiting until the end…but…I’m going to do it anyway 😬 You’re rapidly approaching just using Savage Worlds here where getting better at something gives you a bigger die. It’s not quite the same, but it’s close.
While I stand firmly on the side of systems mattering when it comes to roleplay (the rules act as a camera aperture to focus in on a specific genre or set of tropes from the blurry undifferentiated whole of imagination, while also defining the means of interacting with the world to direct the players' energies), this whole world of thought always annoys me. Not that it annoys me to have the discussion about checks and central mechanics. I'm annoyed by my own opinions here. Your mechanics for determining the outcome of some action can kind of tell a story on their own. Combat is just a long drawn out means of determining a single outcome, the state of the combatants when the fight is over. Combat as a means of outcome determination says a lot about the state of the world and the actions between the start and end of the check ie deaths, survivors, health of the survivors, location of all involved, time elapsed, but you could just as easily make a game with a combat skill that is simply rolled against with modifiers depending on the strength of the opponent. Boom, combat in one roll. Obviously this leaves a lot of variables unaccounted for if the mechanics are that simple, but that might be something you want to do. As is though, D&D combat generates the fiction of the game on a fairly granular level, albeit still abstractly. That is a different thing entirely from just rolling to determine success of failure. You could build a game out of interesting little sub-games like D&D combat. Imagine a set of rules that go turn by turn or round by round or segment by segment for picking locks. You might have a bunch of checks to determine the state of each tumbler and then for each one successfully positioned you get a greater and greater chance at a final roll that either succeeds in picking the lock or breaks your pick, starting you back at square one. You could do this for every aspect of a game such that every action accounted for has interesting mechanical play, but you don't typically see that considering how much work is involved in designing the procedures for each little sub-step. Instead you usually just get combat as an involved minigame, and some means of getting a yes or no binary result for pretty much any other action. The thing is, anything that generates a binary pass-fail result is pretty much equivalent to anything else. The only real difference is the relative effect that a +1 bonus has an the chance of success, and the available granularity across the range of outcomes that the GM can choose as the difficulty. At that point, any mechanic is basically as good as any other. There's a way that dice kind of determine feel, but I think that's largely due to association with existing games. 3d6 roll low feels tactical for GURPS reasons, but it's not anymore exact than a d20 if you get to choose what the difficulty numbers are. A d10 dice pool game will feel more cinematic if you've know that that's what White Wolf games do. Having a central core mechanic feels more modern than having a bunch of disparate mechanics, but I don't know that it tells a story in any game-feel way other than "different actions are done in different ways" which is cool, but I'd like there to be a REASON that one thing is rolled with a d6 low and another with 2d10 high and another with a d20 in either direction. The game Deadlands does that kind of thing to my understanding. If you are designing a modern OSR type game and your goal isn't compatibility with existing old school materials, I can't really justify all the mechanical variety. And if you are making that OSR game, any singular resolution method can be adapted for use just as well as another. It's pretty much down to a game aesthetic decision. All of this to say, if you aren't growing your game for decades without ever pruning anything, you just can't capture the essence of old D&D. The best you can make are parodies or facsimiles. And in the end, old school D&D was so many different things to so many different people, then and now, that it can't really even be said to have some singular essence. (The OSR movement has a pretty large contingent of people that deify various aspects of D&D and its creators as something pure and above all else, which is silly. It's just a really good game/s that can still be played and learned from. Rant Over)
Hey Daniel, love your content. This subject interests me in its ability to add flavor of actions to non specialized abilities among classes. I can see something like this giving that extra potential of flair to a character, in the attempt to try something novel or unique in the way of effort. Fun for the players and the Gm. Way to go, interesting thoughts on the subject.
Hey Daniel, love your content. This subject interests me in its ability to add flavor of actions to non specialized abilities among classes. I can see something like this giving that extra potential of flair to a character, in the attempt to try something novel or unique in the way of effort. Fun for the players and the Gm. Way to go, interesting thoughts on the subject.
I’m attempting for the first time 0D&D tonight. Wish me luck. 😅
Good luck and have fun ^^
Things to remember, in case of too much rule bable.
By roleplay your carracter can go into the plan of law (mechianus) and modify rules (gears) of d&d. Spell = Plane Shift lv 7, every big city must have a wizard/priest able to do it, it's not too rare.
Roleplay is allway more important than gameplay in D&D.
You can go play to WH40K (exemple) for peoples who love gameplay instead of roleplay.
But every gods and big monster gonna undersand after a moment if you modify too much and change the balance of the universe who risk to break the choérence of d&d univers. ^^
Peoples/monster protecte the choérence and work hard to let it be a middle age fantasy, you must fight hard if you want to change the thématic of d&d forgoten realms univers. ^^
(Be careful to not break again the hourglasse of time, everyone break the clock XD)
It's an advice of an old 3.5 player, Have fun ^^.
Awesome, let me know how it goes!
Hi! I love all your videos, and I just started to read your blog. I really appreciate all the hard work into making games better for so many
Thank You!
@@BanditsKeep Of course! Happy 4th of July!
A nice thing about combat versus skill checks is that combat has HP which allows success to move from pass fail to levels of success (how much damage) and directionality (how much damage to the enemy or to you) and multiple attempts (not just a single skill check but a combat encounter)
in icrpg this is addressed and taken care of as far as I remember.
@@nice-coper2211good call
Interesting system; for me this sort of thing is too crunchy and would slow the game down too much, but I can see the appeal of having there be more grounded variance in the checks. Videos like this are always useful for a think though, so keep things like this coming when you come across them.
Ability times 5 as a % is a Runequest (1978) rule and guess what, Rolemaster (1980) has a table for that:)
It’s so lovely how we are keeping reinventing the steel (⚔) inching ever closer to what works best.
For sure
This was a clever and creative idea that leverages abilities outside of your prime requisite. I love that.
For sure
Great topic. I like how dungeon crawl classic has the dice chain for things like this. Proficient roll a d20, not proficient a d10. And I will use the dice in between as well. Dungeon Craft also talks about 8 being the magic number in d20 games. A target number of 8 gives players a 60% chance to succeed which feels good.
Great video Daniel. It made me think of the Mentzer Basic reaction rolls - which is a series of up to three rolls to find out a reaction. It’s a model to be reused perhaps for other outcomes
For sure
We have used all sorts of systems and dice for ability checks. From 3d6 to 5d6, percentage chance, multiple rolls for difficult tasks. Using magic items to enhance your chances like a luck stone.
There are rules for many things that can easily be adapted such as the strength check for bend bars/lift gates or to bust down a door. Using that as a base for say a dexterity check for something.
For sure
I really like using different dice for different task difficulties, but in a simpler manner than that described in the Dragon article.
We start with the normal X-in-6 adjudication of things like forcing stuck doors or hearing noise, then modify the size of the die based on difficulty.
Lets say a secret door is (relatively) easy to find. Instead of a 1 or 2-in-6 chance, it becomes a 1 or 2-in-4 chance.
Or say a door is extra stuck because it is spiked, or maybe you are dealing with the boulder example from the article. Up the d6 to an 8 for a 2-in-8 chance.
If we want a bell curve, throw 3d6 against ability score, decrease to 3d4 if it's easy, and increase to 3d8 if it's extra difficult.
I run a lot of 0D&D, OSE, B/E, Cyclopedia etc. I prefer simple and uncomplicated gameplay, a narrative story over needless rules. So If a Player wants to do something that's easily tested with a simple ability score check 1d20 Success = Ability score or less, then that's it. No need to make life harder for my players, they are heroes in the making (hopefully). If they have a background in the thing they want to do then I often won't even bother them with a check, no need to complicate the players flow in this way. They are always going to find ways to make their own lives hard, I just don't see the need to add more complications.
I agree. Codifying rules for minutiae seems to be the only response to issues for TSR and WOTC. You get people building characters to min max and it
Seems no one is even asking the questions about “why is this person even adventuring?” Because if you are beating DC35 all the time then it would seem that you should not be wasting your energy camping and killing dragons.
Another advantage to roll under attribute checks (and proficientcies) is that it just reflects the attribute. Jugglers, weight lifters, and sages can all be competent in their roles without being tethered to class levels. Then when you want level to be factored in you can use saving throws.
So a test of strength is the same no matter how difficult the task?
@@BanditsKeep If it has to be tested for then yes. If a player wants to push the boulder and clear an entrance then it's a strength test. If they have a sturdy pole and good leverage or some other clever idea/use of resources, no test at all. If I don't want them to push the boulder then, 'It's stuck and no force you have at hand can move it.'
@@BanditsKeep hell yeah... bend bars/lift gates...no negotiation. only exception - you allow another attempt next level, just like a thief gets another try at a lock.
perhaps this creates a good impetus to level up. The boulder roll can be attempted again now you are older and wiser. But no, it shouldn't get easier. That's the math problem for 5e. Everything is 13 out of 20 regardless of the level, they just create extra stats to give the illusion of complexity, as PDM has stated.
Very interesting article! Not sure I'd adopt the system whole, but using it occasionally could be fun.
That’s what I was thinking
Oh my gosh I had just started watching your actual play series of OD&D with Outdoor Survival and Chainmail before finding this! Thanks a ton for the shout out!!
I love the idea of assigning the die based on difficulty. I originally chose to use this mechanic because it felt comical to need to roll three times for a single ability check (I like silly things sometimes), but then I realized that it actually works out really well in play.
Still, something has always felt off about it, and I think you've nailed it with the sense of too much randomness. I'm going to try out assigning the die based on the difficulty of the task and perhaps still roll for the die when I'm not quite sure how difficult a task should be.
P.S. Have you discovered Wight Box yet? I'd love to hear your thoughts on it if you haven't already shared!
Awesome! I’m really enjoying your channel - I’ve had Mythic for many years but could never wrap my head around it - your gaming has helped me immensely.
I downloaded it, but haven’t dug into it yet as I’m happy with OD&D as I run it, but always worth looking at other viewpoints
I've been considering gutting Skill Checks completely from my 5e game. It is an optional rule/way of running the game as featured in the 5e DMG; instead just suggesting allowing the PC to use their proficiency bonus when an Ability Check would be for something their character would be good at. I do love your idea of rolling 3d6 (adding d6's for increasing difficulty) and rolling under the Ability Score. But I'm also a sucker for various dice mechanics in my D&D
This is perfect! I was just designing saving throws, so this is going to be great :D
Awesome
I think your skill system would work great as a stand-alone game! Maybe fewer attributes, but still have an ability score of 3d6. Could be a cool mystery/investigation system that's really rules light
My ABILITY TESTS house rule:
When you try to do something challenging that seems to have no rule covering it, I might call for a roll based on an ability score. I will judge which of five difficulty categories it falls under-Tricky, Difficult, Very Difficult, Almost Impossible, or Need a Miracle-based on how hard it would be for an average commoner to perform.
You will attempt to roll low. For an average ability score, the target range is just 1. However, if you have a bonus for the score, you add it to the success range (a +2 bonus would be a success range of 1-3).
Tricky Tests are rolled on 1d4, which yields a base chance of 25%.
Difficult Tests use 1d6, which yields a base chance of 17%.
Very Difficult Tests use 1d10, which yields a base chance of 10%.
Almost Impossible Tests use 1d20, which is a base chance of 5%.
Need a Miracle Tests use 1d100, which is a base chance of 1%.
If you have a negative ability modifier, the task automatically becomes the next highest difficulty, and you must roll a 1 to succeed.
I like your idea of having them roll ability checks with various numbers of d6 instead of a d20 to let you adjust the difficulty.
Simple, elegant, and no futzing around with math.
Thank You!
There was a system that I learned from somewhere that was created because a person with say a strength of 10 could lift something that a character with a strength of 18 could not. This also applied to all other attributes as well. It was originally used for 2nd edition AD&D but I find myself using it from time to time even with pathfinder 1e for anything not covered in skills. Here it is for anyone interested; Use a d10 then just add your relevant attribute score to the die you rolled and if it meets or surpasses that roll you succeed. So, if you have 4 characters with strengths of 10, 12, 14, and 16 and the DM says it requires a total str of 20 and is considered easy, everyone rolls a d10. The first player has a very low chance, the second slightly better, the third only has to roll a 6 or better while the character with a 16 only has to roll a 4 or better. In this way characters with the higher attributes are always more likely to achieve success and you don't get the gross anomalies of a low attribute character beating a high attribute character. Keep in mind, had the DM said it required a total str of 21 the character with a str of 10 could not even affect the object.
Cool
Very cool!
Hey Daniel, love your content. This subject interests me in its ability to add flavor of actions to non specialized abilities among classes. I can see something like this giving that extra potential of flair to a character, in the attempt to try something novel or unique in the way of effort. Fun for the players and the Gm. Way to go, interesting thoughts on the subject.
So thank you so much for this video. I'm not going to use the skill tests that you are talking about but I am totally going to steal the way you increase difficulty with adding D6s per difficulty. I can easily add that into my BECMI game I'm just about to run.
Awesome, let me know how it works for you
Love that right before you said it my mind went to the same place..."Just assign a polyhedral die to each difficulty to use as the ability score multiplier!" I think I might be using this.
Let me know how it works for you!
One thing we often accept as given is that characters have randomized stats to start, including money and other things depending on edition. I'm thinking through something inspired by what you've talked about today where it's like... attributes are skill containers, the bigger an attribute is the more potential a character has, but since that potential is unrealized, when they're tasked with something they haven't tried before, the player can choose to roll a bunch of d6s, up to three, say, and they have to equal or beat with the roll of any one die a number the DM says is the difficulty, 1-6.
If they meet or beat the difficulty with at least one die, they have to take that amount and subtract from their attribute's potential (the attribute stays the same but the potential that is equal to that stat goes down). They can then use that skill later on if they need to at the rating they selected from the dice they rolled (maybe have the rating act as a minimum roll, with higher difficulties requiring rolling 3d6 again, with successes marking the skill for increase when leveling, al a CoC).
If they failed maybe they can still pick a die if they like and have that be their skill, even if it's a lowly 1. The character's abilities are revealed in that moment, and character building is ongoing, like the initial roll-up, with surprises that help flesh the character out. The usual trick is how to determine what attribute governs the attempt, and what challenges would need rolls.
Have you read traveller? Sounds similar
I'm not a fan of roll under, so I suggested to my OSE (B/X) group that as a house rule we could roll a d20 + Ability Score vs a DC of 21. It's mathematically the same... if you have an 18 stat, instead of rolling 18 or less (only 2 numbers fail on the die), you roll a 3 or better. Well, they looked at me like I'd completely lost my mind.
It’s funny how something that is effectively the same can sound more or less complicated.
For your example of the boulder, i like what I've seen where it says a combined str of 30 is needed... I hadn't thought if using a lever. Since I am playing with my daughters and friends I'd probably have them figure out the mechanical advantage. I would have them simplify it by getting some variables fixed. D&D is a good way of showing practical math. So, how much does that boulder weigh? How much force can a specific strength move?
Looking forward to seeing you put up your link to this. As it turns out I was just wondering how to, insert mechanic here lol, let a new player group explore information about an adventure location they've heard of. A trio m-u and cleric lvl 1 and thief lvl 3 with a few henchmen. In a brand new B/X campaign/world. This sounds like it would be very useful to add to my collection of Bandits Keep pdf's in the house rules section. We all really appreciate the resources and insights you provide, please don't stop. Thank you sir.
Your comment showing up as 2 weeks old tripped me up for a moment
Recent subscriber, but I really got the impression you were jamming on this option and it's potential implications. To that end, yes discuss how this could become a game In and of itself. I feel it was inte ded originally for solo play, which is pretty much all I do currently, so I too was into it. Thanks for the video.
@@risusrulesNot sure if you were asking me to elaborate or Daniel to? As for my part, I decided to go with the OG 1st edition dungeon masters guide information on sages as a basic template to start with. Then I figured up an ability score modifier using either int, wis, or cha depending on which is more logical based off how the players are attempting to gather information. I am currently using it in a huge city setting with a fair number of temples, taverns, and schools of magic. Basically using it to determine time needed to discover the information they seek and the amount of information they can find. Giving bonuses/penalties for high/low ability scores as needed and not worrying so much about the cost like the sages charge.
Got the idea from Daniel talking about sages in the DMG. in a video. This guy is a wealth of information and inspiration. I've watched most all of his videos and I always learn a new prospective for looking at the game. I highly encourage you to do the same. Hope this helps you out.
I've recently adopted Scarlet Heroes' 2d8 skill checks.
Cool
Hopefully you'll do a review of Castles and Crusades siege engine system. It does all of this and more with ease.
I believe they are kickstarting a new edition. I’ve looked at it but never played.
@@BanditsKeepyeah I'm backing them for the new printing. They don't do new Edition just new prints same rules from 2004. I believe They're giving a free copy of the players handbook. Hopefully you'll do a review of the book one day
Hello Daniel,
I'm struggling with implementing diseases and sicknesses into my games. Do you have any advice? Since Paladins have a once per week feature to remove disease, there should be a way to contract them semi-regularly.
Thanks in advance
Grey Rolls = roll 1d20 under your ability (your dice represente the danger of course).
That’s a classic from BX for sure
I would love to hear your ideas about that investigative game 😮
I’ll have to start working on that -
Definitely sitting in the back of my mind
As someone who hasn’t played od&d I’m confused on what you do after you have the percentage. Like do you have the character roll again to see if they beat that percentage?
Yes, you’ll roll against the percentage - what the system does is create a target number.
I was using the standard attribute or less on a d20. I think I'll use a modification based on your idea. An average difficulty skill will be 5. 5 times attribute is the same as a d20. For harder things, I can make the difficulty a 4 or 3, and higher for easy things.
I enjoy all of Bandit’s Keep vibes
Thank You!
When you do put up the document, could you mention it in your latest video, so we know to come back? Thanks 🙏🏿
I would say yes, but I have a terrible memory for such things, but I will try!
@@BanditsKeep many thanks 🙏🏿
6:38 - "Will they fight?" is the wrong question. The real question is, _if_ they decide to break morale and run, what do they think their chances are of actually getting away? Just as the PCs shouldn't get away with using their hirelings as meat shields, random monsters shouldn't be laser-focused on the PCs either. Until the threat is gone, or until someone sees a way out, they're in this together, like it or not.
I personally find the entire system way too complicated, especially for old school rules. In my teenage years playing AD&D, I can probably count on one hand, the number of ability checks I had to make. Proficiencies in 2e seemed like a great idea to me, some 30+ years ago, but that was a _huge_ mistake. Today in 5e, players and DMs alike think that literally everything should require a skill check-- from investigating room, to mounting a horse, to that neckbeard at the table, who always wants to seduce the tavern wench. _Baulder's Gate 3_ is a video game based entirely on virtual die rolls. Roleplaying has been thoroughly replaced by _roll-_ playing.
The ability checks are used like a saving throws, arneson and gygax used, and this presumed you use too in OD&D
This would definitely be OD&D
All mechanics this about "tool/dice" +/-/>/
You could do that
Odd my comment didn't post.
Snapshot: discuss ideas on how this could be a game in and of itself. I think you appear pretty stoked on this house rule anyways.
Indeed
I Love ALL Bandit's Keep videos! Because I passed my Loyalty check.
😊
So (in the original article) you roll a die, to determine what die to roll, to multiply by another number, to determine what you need to roll on ANOTHER die?? 🤯
Yes! It’s beautifully old school 😂
Crazy idea, but hear me out... Don't roll if a character is "proficient" with a skill, just have auto success.
Rather than auto success, how about roll and if fail, loose time, roll again. That way you will get it done, just a matter of how long it is going to take.
@@Marcus-ki1en at this point just roll for time and deal with the consequences of eventual tardiness
Ratner than automatic success, chance of failure, within reason of ability, but also a degree of success based on dice roll, something like 25% or less extreme success, 75% success somewhat low but effective.
I do auto success if there's no pressure. If your fighter is attempting to kick in a stuck door at the end of a long hall with a minotaur barreling toward him, he's fucking rolling. Either way, that door gone open
For a typical task, sure.
How did the game normally do skill checks?
In OD&D there was not actual rule
Commenting at 10:45 so I’m committing the cardinal sin of not waiting until the end…but…I’m going to do it anyway 😬
You’re rapidly approaching just using Savage Worlds here where getting better at something gives you a bigger die. It’s not quite the same, but it’s close.
Ah yes, true! Add some exploding dice
While I stand firmly on the side of systems mattering when it comes to roleplay (the rules act as a camera aperture to focus in on a specific genre or set of tropes from the blurry undifferentiated whole of imagination, while also defining the means of interacting with the world to direct the players' energies), this whole world of thought always annoys me. Not that it annoys me to have the discussion about checks and central mechanics. I'm annoyed by my own opinions here.
Your mechanics for determining the outcome of some action can kind of tell a story on their own. Combat is just a long drawn out means of determining a single outcome, the state of the combatants when the fight is over. Combat as a means of outcome determination says a lot about the state of the world and the actions between the start and end of the check ie deaths, survivors, health of the survivors, location of all involved, time elapsed, but you could just as easily make a game with a combat skill that is simply rolled against with modifiers depending on the strength of the opponent. Boom, combat in one roll. Obviously this leaves a lot of variables unaccounted for if the mechanics are that simple, but that might be something you want to do. As is though, D&D combat generates the fiction of the game on a fairly granular level, albeit still abstractly. That is a different thing entirely from just rolling to determine success of failure.
You could build a game out of interesting little sub-games like D&D combat. Imagine a set of rules that go turn by turn or round by round or segment by segment for picking locks. You might have a bunch of checks to determine the state of each tumbler and then for each one successfully positioned you get a greater and greater chance at a final roll that either succeeds in picking the lock or breaks your pick, starting you back at square one. You could do this for every aspect of a game such that every action accounted for has interesting mechanical play, but you don't typically see that considering how much work is involved in designing the procedures for each little sub-step. Instead you usually just get combat as an involved minigame, and some means of getting a yes or no binary result for pretty much any other action. The thing is, anything that generates a binary pass-fail result is pretty much equivalent to anything else. The only real difference is the relative effect that a +1 bonus has an the chance of success, and the available granularity across the range of outcomes that the GM can choose as the difficulty. At that point, any mechanic is basically as good as any other.
There's a way that dice kind of determine feel, but I think that's largely due to association with existing games. 3d6 roll low feels tactical for GURPS reasons, but it's not anymore exact than a d20 if you get to choose what the difficulty numbers are. A d10 dice pool game will feel more cinematic if you've know that that's what White Wolf games do. Having a central core mechanic feels more modern than having a bunch of disparate mechanics, but I don't know that it tells a story in any game-feel way other than "different actions are done in different ways" which is cool, but I'd like there to be a REASON that one thing is rolled with a d6 low and another with 2d10 high and another with a d20 in either direction. The game Deadlands does that kind of thing to my understanding.
If you are designing a modern OSR type game and your goal isn't compatibility with existing old school materials, I can't really justify all the mechanical variety. And if you are making that OSR game, any singular resolution method can be adapted for use just as well as another. It's pretty much down to a game aesthetic decision.
All of this to say, if you aren't growing your game for decades without ever pruning anything, you just can't capture the essence of old D&D. The best you can make are parodies or facsimiles. And in the end, old school D&D was so many different things to so many different people, then and now, that it can't really even be said to have some singular essence.
(The OSR movement has a pretty large contingent of people that deify various aspects of D&D and its creators as something pure and above all else, which is silly. It's just a really good game/s that can still be played and learned from. Rant Over)
The algorithm will LOVE this comment!
Hey Daniel, love your content. This subject interests me in its ability to add flavor of actions to non specialized abilities among classes. I can see something like this giving that extra potential of flair to a character, in the attempt to try something novel or unique in the way of effort. Fun for the players and the Gm. Way to go, interesting thoughts on the subject.
Hey Daniel, love your content. This subject interests me in its ability to add flavor of actions to non specialized abilities among classes. I can see something like this giving that extra potential of flair to a character, in the attempt to try something novel or unique in the way of effort. Fun for the players and the Gm. Way to go, interesting thoughts on the subject.