A house rule for one time skill checks (D&D 3.5)

[aVENGER]

Disclaimer: this rule was primarily designed for use in a cRPG environment (more specifically in a NWN2 module) but I suppose it could also be used in PnP games so I'm posting it here. Anyway, I've never been a fan of "randomness" in games, particularly when it comes to important one time skill checks conveyed through dialogue (i.e. a Diplomacy or an Intimidate check). The "roll 1d20 and add your skill to the score vs. a fixed DC" approach irritates me because with lower DC's (i.e. < 20) almost anyone has a chance to succeed no matter if he's a CHA 16 Diplomatic Half-Elf Bard or a CHA 6 Half-Orc Barbarian who never bathed since he was born. :D That method simply offers way too much randomness in this matter for my tastes.

 

 

Increasing the DC above 20 solves some of the problems but it also makes it much more difficult for diplomatically oriented characters to succeed at lower levels. IMO, it's unfair for a character who focuses entirely on diplomacy to fail a moderately difficult check just because he rolled a 2 and needed a 3 to succeed. <_< So, in order to eliminate such and similar annoyances I first thought about resorting to fixed skill checks i.e. the games checks your skill rank and if the value is equal or higher than required you automatically succeed. However, after some more thought this method appeared flawed to me as well since it effectively enforced maximizing skills.

 

 

So, I thought about making a compromise and opted for the following system. I'm thinking of using both fixed checks and rolling vs. DC and this is how it should work out. Let's say we have a Challenging DC 20 Diplomacy check. If the character's Diplomacy rank is equal or higher than 3/4 of the required DC (i.e. Diplomacy rank 15 and higher) he automatically succeeds. If it's lower than 1/4 of the required DC (i.e. Diplomacy rank 4 and lower) he automatically fails. In all other cases he normally rolls vs the DC. The numbers should be rounded down so a DC 15 check would require 11 (from 11.25) or more ranks to auto-succeed, less than 4 (from 3.75) ranks to auto-fail and a roll for the 4-10 range.

 

 

IMO, this system is flexible enough to allow dedicated diplomats to succeed at their preferred task, give characters who invested a few points into Diplomacy a fair chance to succeed while keeping the uncharismatic thugs from making all but the most basic DC checks. I guess another issue would be properly balancing the DC's according to the character's level. As I've already said, this is primarily meant for use in a cRPG environment for one time skill checks conveyed through dialogue. Other checks which are used out of dialogue and can be retried freely (i.e. Listen, Search and Spot) should still use the regular roll vs. the DC method. So anyway, what do you people think, is this method suitable for use in a NWN2 module? Do you see any potential difficulties with the implementation? Fell free to comment. :cool:

[metadigital]

I think having a minimum score is a good idea. A Paladin, for example, usually has a negative "To Hide" score, so it is quite reasonable to not check if a Paladin is hiding.

 

If you are worried about low level characters failing a difficult roll, then another option is to have more opportunities to succeed.

 

[Walsingham]

I think Meta's view is correct. Don't fudge the one roll. Make them take a 'recovery' roll. If they fail twice they won't feel so bad about suffering the ill effects.

 

Personally I don't hold with rolling for any kind of diplomacy type stuff, unless it is things which aren't 'mission critical' like library work, or getting across toll bridges, or through militia checkpoints.

 

But I'm not going to pretend like I fidn it easy to deal with stuff like that. I'm lousy at it!

[aVENGER]

Personally I don't hold with rolling for any kind of diplomacy type stuff, unless it is things which aren't 'mission critical' like library work, or getting across toll bridges, or through militia checkpoints.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This's pretty much how I feel as well, and that's precisely why I've proposed no rolls for dedicated diplomats. I think the trick is managing the DC properly so that it is balanced for the player's level. For example, under my system it would be fairly unreasonable to have an important DC20 check for a level 1 player when his absolute maximum diplomacy rank would be 12 (4 ranks +3 from Skill Focus + 5 points bonus from 20 Charisma if Aasimar) under ideal conditions.

 

 

Instead, I plan on balancing the DC so that it accounts for the player's current level range. I.e. DC5-11 for levels 1-6, DC12-18 for levels 7-12, DC19-25 for levels 12-17, and DC 26-32 for levels 18-20. Note that this is just an example, it's not actually finalized, but that's approximately how I'd like it to work. Under those conditions characters with (nearly) maxed Diplomacy skill and without a negative Charisma modifier will always auto-succeed any Diplomacy check without having to roll, while characters with moderate Diplomacy ranks (possibly those who take it as a cross-class skill) will auto-succeed most of the minor Diplomacy checks and they'll still have an opportunity to roll for the more difficult ones instead of auto-failing, as would be the case with a completely fixed check system. IMO, it's a bit fairer this way.

 

EDIT - I forgot to mention that characters will no longer be rolling a d20 all the time. Instead, they will roll a dice which is equal or slightly lower to than the current DC i.e. for DC5 they would roll a d4, for DC10 a d10, for DC13 a d12...etc.

Edited December 14, 2006 by aVENGER

[Jorian Drake]

I use a "roleplaying modifier", we roleplay a conversation till the decision of opinion comes for the player/NPC.

After the dialogue ended, I give a skill modifier for the player depending on how he talked, what he said, whom he talked to, and in what manners.

Modifier ranges from -10 to +10, usual is +/- 5.

Even an unbathed orc can be persuative if what he says is important, true, ect.

 

With this, I get the player to be better roleplayers, and they try to have REAL conversations instead that they do "I wanna now archieve that the pirate captain gives up, i roll a diplomacy skill check".

 

 

Also, don't forget that average DC is 15, but it modifies via circumstances (on race, mood, ect.), most DC are by me because of those 20-25, sometimes even higher.

[kormesios]

If you're doing PnP, why don't you just double or triple the modifier (vs higher DC), or roll a smaller die (vs lower DC)? Either one does what you want--easier or even guaranteed for skilled players, tougher or impossible for unskilled ones.

[aVENGER]

I use a "roleplaying modifier", we roleplay a conversation till the decision of opinion comes for the player/NPC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think that's a great idea for a PnP session and I've considered implementing a similar (though less refined) method for the module dialogue. For example, if the player has acquired some additional information about the conversation subject, a high INT/WIS score or simply chooses the right lines at the right time the original skill check DC can be lowered a bit.

[Jorian Drake]

If you're doing PnP, why don't you just double or triple the modifier (vs higher DC), or roll a smaller die (vs lower DC)?  Either one does what you want--easier or even guaranteed for skilled players, tougher or impossible for unskilled ones.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because even if the player is unskilled in speech, it can be that his character is a master of diplomacy, because he isn't good in talking he will have a harder time than simply just roll the dice, but still he will have achance to succeed.

I want to encourage roleplay and dialogues, not to banish people who simply can't do it better. Anyone has a chance to accomplish anything.

 

This way its easier for roleplayers, taugher for those people who are not so good in it/or are beginners, but definetly it isn't impossible.

 

I use a "roleplaying modifier", we roleplay a conversation till the decision of opinion comes for the player/NPC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think that's a great idea for a PnP session and I've considered implementing a similar (though less refined) method for the module dialogue. For example, if the player has acquired some additional information about the conversation subject, a high INT/WIS score or simply chooses the right lines at the right time the original skill check DC can be lowered a bit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yep, I use that too, but not just that.

 

Let's say you want something from a towns mayor. Chance to succeed is DC25:

 

15 (average check) + 5 (very bad mood) + 3 (the something is hard to do) + 2 (the mayor is human and the person who asks him is a half-orc)

 

 

The players look around in the town, they get the knowledge that the mayor is upset about something. They roleplay a dialouge with the innkeeper of the Empty Keg, and they now know why: His daugther was kidnaped.

 

Now they can:

 

a. find his daughter and hope for his aid then

b. go to him and offer their aid and then go to rescue her

c. find his daughter and kidnap her for themselves

d. go to the mayor and lie about having his girl and demand help for the 'something'

e. do something else

 

the easiest variable change is when they decide to aid without asking the mayor about it, if they succeed, the 'bad mood' DC becomes a 'good mood' DC , thus the overall DC is 15, even as the task isn't easy to accomplish (the mayor will tryto help if posssible)

 

 

It's not so easy if they asked the mayor before helping his daughter, because they now know the mayor is evil, and that the kidnaper is actually the stepbrother of the girl, and they are in love...

 

 

Anyway, DC changes and roleplay modifiers together create a very realistic and enjoyable game session.

[metadigital]

If you're doing PnP, why don't you just double or triple the modifier (vs higher DC), or roll a smaller die (vs lower DC)?  Either one does what you want--easier or even guaranteed for skilled players, tougher or impossible for unskilled ones.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because even if the player is unskilled in speech, it can be that his character is a master of diplomacy, because he isn't good in talking he will have a harder time than simply just roll the dice, but still he will have achance to succeed.

I want to encourage roleplay and dialogues, not to banish people who simply can't do it better. Anyone has a chance to accomplish anything.

 

This way its easier for roleplayers, taugher for those people who are not so good in it/or are beginners, but definetly it isn't impossible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As long as the players who are not so good in person are able to succeed with characters that are excellent diplomats (for example).

[metadigital]

I think Meta's view is correct. Don't fudge the one roll. Make them take a 'recovery' roll. If they fail twice they won't feel so bad about suffering the ill effects.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Further to this, one could roll for all the various parts that make up the whole conversation / plan. For example, if there are 20 dialogue diplomacy checks, passing more than eleven (10.5 is the average roll of a 20-sided die) would be successful to a lesser or greater extent. The perpetrator might agree to come down the station and even tell you his name, but disagree to tell you his address or known associates, say.

[SamuraiGaijin]

I'm not familiar with 3.5, but in 3.0 there was a provision for a player to "take 10" for routine skill checks, and "take 20" (with a time penalty) if they wanted to be especially thorough and careful.

 

Big picture, the game is about role-playing, not random mechanics - I preferred to roll most checks myself when DM'ing, so that I could fudge the results when appropriate.

[Jorian Drake]

Big picture, the game is about role-playing, not random mechanics - I preferred to roll most checks myself when DM'ing, so that I could fudge the results when appropriate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Same here

 

 

Sometimes i create dramatic encounter moments, or make a monster so hard that they can defeat it only at the last moment, with their last strenght. I never 'fudge the results' to kill someone or similar, just to get more out of some events.

[Deraldin]

I'm not familiar with 3.5, but in 3.0 there was a provision for a player to "take 10" for routine skill checks, and "take 20" (with a time penalty) if they wanted to be especially thorough and careful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You can only "Take 10/20" on checks that don't have a penalty for failure.

[Jorian Drake]

I'm not familiar with 3.5, but in 3.0 there was a provision for a player to "take 10" for routine skill checks, and "take 20" (with a time penalty) if they wanted to be especially thorough and careful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You can only "Take 10/20" on checks that don't have a penalty for failure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here comes: 'define failure' and 'penalty'

[Sofaking]

I'm not familiar with 3.5, but in 3.0 there was a provision for a player to "take 10" for routine skill checks, and "take 20" (with a time penalty) if they wanted to be especially thorough and careful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You can only "Take 10/20" on checks that don't have a penalty for failure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here comes: 'define failure' and 'penalty'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

*Half-Orc male talking to Elf female* Hey baby wanna see the green eyed cyclops.

 

Failure.

 

*Elf female casts poweword kill*

 

Penalty.

[Mortis Nai]

I played a great deal of White-Wolf as well as AD&D and I have always thrown in the idea of "Automatic Success" for easy rolls if the character has the skill for it, but then the only thing that avoids is the chance of getting a Critical Failure or a Critical Success so that seems fair and balanced to me.

 

But if a player needs to Roll a 3+Skill Mod and they get a 2, well that's all apart of the fun of D&D, and that's why we use dice to begin with.

 

If your PC was in combat and needed a 3 to hit a Orc, but only rolled a 2, you more likely than not wouldn't "Just give it to them" you would describe a scene where the PC and Orc clash, going blow for blow, blocking, parrying and ducking out the way, with the action ending with the PC finding an opening in the Orcs defence and taking the opportunity, slashing for the Orcs head, but the Orc looses his footing and staggers back a little, causing the PC's blow to turn from a killing strike to a nasty cut across the cheek that does no real damage but does get the orc rather angry.

 

So if you can make such a wonderful and descriptive scene and round of action from a missed opportunity, then why cant you do the same in social situations?

 

Perhaps the PC meets a foreign noble and rolls his 2 instead of a three, he gets all the curtsies and etiquette down flawlessly... only to mispronounce the nobles last name, which while a little embarrassing would not destroy the PC's chances entirely, it gives you a kink in the scene to work with to make it more interesting and less predictable and the PC can try another roll later in the scene when the opportunity presents itself to see if they can recover from the minor slight.

 

As a DM I see it as my Job to bring the world to life, the dice act as a force of random chance and chaos that stops my games from becoming completely predictable.

[aVENGER]

If your PC was in combat and needed a 3 to hit a Orc, but only rolled a 2, you more likely than not wouldn't "Just give it to them" you would describe a scene where the PC and Orc clash, going blow for blow, blocking, parrying and ducking out the way, with the action ending with the PC finding an opening in the Orcs defence and taking the opportunity, slashing for the Orcs head, but the Orc looses his footing and staggers back a little, causing the PC's blow to turn from a killing strike to a nasty cut across the cheek that does no real damage but does get the orc rather angry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Good point but, as already said, I'm primarily concerned with one time skill checks i.e. when no retries are allowed. A fighter who rolled a 2 and missed because he needed a 3 to hit the Orc can simply try again in the next round, but that doesn't work so well for conversation related skills, IMO.

[Mortis Nai]

Well if its a one time only skill check that is a pivotal point for the plot, then why have the PC's roll at all if you are going to ignore failer?

 

As a DM, it's simply poor planning to put all your eggs in one basket that is based upon random chance, you should Be incontrol of the situation and prepared and ready for all possible outcomes.

 

At the end of the Day, It's a DM's prerogative to fudge dice rolls, but that is always easier to do if you do not tell the PC what they have to roll in order to succeed to begin with, that way the PC feels as if they have succeeded and accomplished something even if you had to fudge the roll for them.

[aVENGER]

Well if its a one time only skill check that is a pivotal point for the plot, then why have the PC's roll at all if you are going to ignore failer?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You misunderstand. A one time Diplomacy check would never be required to advance the plot in my NWN2 module, but it should be the proper way for a diplomatic character to handle the situation. Of course, there would always be plenty of other options to advance the plot in case that fails but I simply want to avoid forcing dedicated diplomats into a task which is unsuitable for them (i.e. combat) so I choose to make them auto-succeed without rolling if they posses a certain degree of skill.

 

Under this system rolling the dice is reserved for the less dedicated players who have invested some points into Diplomacy but not enough to auto-succeed. Instead of automatically failing (as would be the case if I only used a fixed skill check) they get to roll the appropriate dice (once only), add their skill rank to the roll and, if successful, they pass the Diplomacy check otherwise they must follow a different route. That way I make the diplomatic path a sure win for a CHA 16 Half-Elf Bard who maxed his Diplomacy skill but the CHA 12 Dwarf Fighter who put a few spare points into Diplomacy has a (small) chance to succeed as well.