Should some skills give bonuses to ability checks?

[Psychic Robot]

For instance, should Climb give a competence bonus to Strength checks equal to 1/2 one's ranks? Or what about Knowledge skills giving a bonus to Int checks?

[Leress]

For instance, should Climb give a competence bonus to Strength checks equal to 1/2 one's ranks? Or what about Knowledge skills giving a bonus to Int checks?

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse. Why are specific skill giving bonuses to general abilities?

[Crissa]

I dunno...

...Why do we have general checks, though?

-Crissa

[Kaelik]

So in other words, Rogues are actually better trippers the fighters. Because they max out every Str related skill and get check bonuses of:

Str + Size + 1/2 climb + 1/2 jump + 1/2 swim +ect?

[Psychic Robot]

should Climb give a competence bonus to Strength checks equal to 1/2 one's ranks?

My thinking, Crissa, was that there doesn't "feel" as though characters are really that much better when they're higher level. So the fighter is so skilled at swimming that he can swim in full plate for days on end without trouble...but he has trouble breaking handcuffs or holding his breath because his Constitution bonus doesn't increase as quickly as his skill ranks do?

[RandomCasualty2]

This is one reason the 4E skill system is better. Skill ranks for heroic characters are a bad idea. When you get high level, you really should be relatively good at everything.

[Arcane-surge]

I never thought I'd say this RC, but I agree with you, provided the DCs for those skill checks remain static. One of my biggest beefs with 4th ed is that the whole "+1/2 level to everything" is meaningless in most cases because everything else is also adding half its level. But for this, it might work. Rather than making it a specific skill to ability thing, just add half a characters level to any ability check they make. On any opposed checks, like tripping, the odds would still be even (Well, as even as they were before), but against static DCs like breaking chains or holding your breath, higher level characters would have a significant advantage over lower level ones.

The downside of this is that it'd apply to wizards as easily as fighters, so the wizards are also bending bars easier.

[RandomCasualty2]

I never thought I'd say this RC, but I agree with you, provided the DCs for those skill checks remain static. One of my biggest beefs with 4th ed is that the whole "+1/2 level to everything" is meaningless in most cases because everything else is also adding half its level.

Well 4E does much less than other editions did to hide the level creep.

For instance, nobody really argues that monster AC, hp and attack bonuses increase as PC AC, hp and attack bonuses do, because now you fight ogres instead of orcs.

And really, skill challenges are the same way. Instead of climbing a wall with lots of holes, you're climbing a steep smooth wall. When you balance, you're balancing on ultra slippery ice. 4E can be a bit confusing because nowhere does it actually attach the flavor to the mechanics, so it actually seems like your DCs are going up solely because you're higher in level.

In actuality though, the challenge is merely supposed to increase. 3E made this more apparent by making the DC based on the challenge, where as 4E just said "here's the DC, and we assume you're facing an equivalent challenge for you level."

[JonSetanta]

This is one reason the 4E skill system is better. Skill ranks for heroic characters are a bad idea. When you get high level, you really should be relatively good at everything.

Pretty much. I call it the "demigod stage" even if a character isn't actually immortal.
When you get to the end-game levels, you should be pretty much the übermensch to anyone lower level than you.

[baduin]

In order to make a sensible rule, we must first consider what is an ability bonus and ability check. Ability bonuses measure the raw ability. Strength is Strength, and that is all there is to it. In that case "1/2 level to ability" makes no sense, because it makes ability bonuses meaningless. "I have Str 8, you have Str 16, but I am stronger than you, because I am 20 level and you are 1 level".

On the other hand, using ability checks for tests of raw strength makes no sense, either. Either you are strong enough to burst that door, or not. Trying again won't help. (D&D rules here are particulary senseless). Every such test should have merely the minimum level of ability necessary to pass it. To add some exitement, you could allow Extraordinary Effort - eg you add d6 to your bonus, but you become Fatigued afterwards.

On the other hand, most of the so-called ability checks are actually attack rolls or untrained skill checks. In that case, "1/2 level to ability checks" makes a lot of sense.

As to the example of holding your breath. In reality this is a skill, which can be trained. In that case, 1/2 level to skill could apply. I myself would simply use Swim skill for that.

[CatharzGodfoot]

On the other hand, using ability checks for tests of raw strength makes no sense, either. Either you are strong enough to burst that door, or not. Trying again won't help. (D&D rules here are particulary senseless).

Yeah, nobody ever tries to perform a feat of strength multiple times before she succeeds.

[Cynic]

On the other hand, using ability checks for tests of raw strength makes no sense, either. Either you are strong enough to burst that door, or not. Trying again won't help. (D&D rules here are particulary senseless).

Yeah, nobody ever tries to perform a feat of strength multiple times before she succeeds. :rolleyes:

Donan the Barbarian: *after the first push at the chains that bind him* OH, my god, these chains are too strong, I should give up.

[JonSetanta]

Donan the Barbarian: *after the first push at the chains that bind him* OH, my god, these chains are too strong, I should give up.

Ah, one of the most painful failures of the "single d20 roll" system.

It's all do-or-do-not, there is no try, or even "You loosen the chains slightly" although it quite possibly could be re-mechanic'd to do such a thing.

Say for instance "You need 5 successes to slip free of or break your chains. The DC is 35. Every time you fail it adds another minute. The guards come back in half an hour. Start rolling!"

[Koumei]

Also known as "One of the 874 reasons why 4E is complete balls".

I'm happy with your average skill check being a single roll. You attempt it, then it either works or it doesn't, and the game moves on. Usually, if failing means the game *doesn't* move on, then it does let you try again repeatedly, or the DM gets to bail you out just to continue the game.

Rolling the number needed to break the chains means that, after some straining, you manage to stretch, then break the links and you're free. It probably wasn't a walk in the park - especially if you needed a 17+ and happened to get an 18. If you fail the check, it probably means you tried for quite some time, grunted, maybe they started to creak, suggesting some progress, but you got worn out/dislocated your shoulder.

It's really fine the way it is - in that respect. There are other reasons to hate the current system, but that one is fine. Fewer rolls is good for something like that. 4E skill challenges can suck it.

[baduin]

On the other hand, using ability checks for tests of raw strength makes no sense, either. Either you are strong enough to burst that door, or not. Trying again won't help. (D&D rules here are particulary senseless).

Yeah, nobody ever tries to perform a feat of strength multiple times before she succeeds. :rolleyes:

Donan the Barbarian: *after the first push at the chains that bind him* OH, my god, these chains are too strong, I should give up.

You know, after considering it better I think you are right. The repeated rolls can represent either loosening the chains bit by bit or warming up and trying for the best position to lift the portcullis. If you have a lot of time, you take 20.

The only thing I would change would be to use Strength score, not strength modifier, for feats of strength. The formula to convert D&D DC would be

New DC=OldDC*2-10

[Judging__Eagle]

Yeah, nobody ever tries to perform a feat of strength multiple times before she succeeds.

Donan the Barbarian: *after the first push at the chains that bind him* OH, my god, these chains are too strong, I should give up.

You know, after considering it better I think you are right. The repeated rolls can represent either loosening the chains bit by bit or warming up and trying for the best position to lift the portcullis. If you have a lot of time, you take 20.

The only thing I would change would be to use Strength score, not strength modifier, for feats of strength. The formula to convert D&D DC would be

New DC=OldDC*2-10

Why reinvent the wheel regardign ability checks?

Also, the initial idea is sort of annoying. Why are skills, which benefit from natural abilites, now being used to enhance the very abilities that made them better?

It just looks like an infinite loop, but for no reason.

As is the whole "minimum" skill ranks based on level idea.

Mostly b/c they're hard to adjucate; what do you do when a character has a large spread of Knowledge skills (with a large modifier to them all due to either 1) being a Frank Bard or 2) Having ricokulous Int or 3) Being char with a dip of Bard and having rickoculous int)?

What about if they never put any points into climb, but 1 point into perform? Are they suddenly better climbers than performers?

What about skills that the character has maxed out? Do those skills get a bonus as well?

What could be done instead is that a character with 5 or more ranks in a skill can show other people how to perform the required task and the shown people then can either gain a bonus to their skill checks or can temporarily have X ranks in their skill checks.

This could be done by either having the main char have to take 10; to give others a chance to even make the skill check or something like that.


Here's a thought:

Instructor: Any character with 4 or more ranks in a skill qualifies to be an instructor for said skill.

With a one hour lesson, an instructor can give the benefits of their own training up to a maximum amount of characters equal to their hit dice and skill ranks in a skill.

The instructed characters gain a bonus to their skill checks with the instructed skill equal to their own hit dice or the instructors highest skill ranks; whichever is lower.

These benefits last the rest of the day and can be renewed with only a 15 minute lesson the next day.


An alternate method would be as follows:

Demonstration: Characters with a skill that they have maxed their skill ranks in can show others how to perform the skill.

The demonstrating character makes a skill check; all characters that want to now make the skill check can use the demonstrating character's skill ranks with a -2 penalty for every character that the skill was demonstrated to that will use the demonstrated character's skill check.


Heck, you could use both methods at the same time; one for skills that a group knows is important (like paying attention to their mountain giant guide when scaling the Spell-Granite Peaks or listening to the rogue when they find a random tightrope across a chasm).

Plus, the second option has the additional option for how a group will perform tasks; will the character giving the demonstration coach each character and quarantee a high check for each (but take more time); or will they make a check and tell the group that climbing a loose brick wall is nothing compared to climbing greased glass.

[Maxus]

Donan the Barbarian: *after the first push at the chains that bind him* OH, my god, these chains are too strong, I should give up.

You know, after considering it better I think you are right. The repeated rolls can represent either loosening the chains bit by bit or warming up and trying for the best position to lift the portcullis. If you have a lot of time, you take 20.

The only thing I would change would be to use Strength score, not strength modifier, for feats of strength. The formula to convert D&D DC would be

New DC=OldDC*2-10

Why reinvent the wheel regardign ability checks?

Also, the initial idea is sort of annoying. Why are skills, which benefit from natural abilites, now being used to enhance the very abilities that made them better?

It just looks like an infinite loop, but for no reason.

I'm pretty sure he was considering it a synergy bonus, just like skills give to each other. Except instead of actually increasing your Strength or whatever, you get a +2 to Str checks to, for example, break stuff as you draw upon your skills to utilize your natural talent more effectively in certain situations.

I do like the ideas of a character being able to give other people a quick lesson in the use of a skill.

[Judging__Eagle]

I know, it just seems like a bit odd; everyone would pick up X ranks in ....


You know what? I like it.

As long as you have 5 ranks in a skill, you get +2 synergy bonus to all checks that involve that same stat.

Appraise helps you evaluate the value of things in general.

Balance teaches you how to move your body without fucking up and slipping. Hell, being able to Hide and Move Silently is actually benefited a lot if you know how centre of gravity works and knowing balancing techniques (yes, there are things you can do to keep yourself balanced on say... one foot, until your supporting leg begins to ache from strain).

Climb helps you leverage your body (strength).

Concentration helps you endure poisons and such. Yes... this would mean that concentration gives itself a synergy bonus since it's the only Con-based skill or it gives nothing except for running or breath-holding a synergy bonus; which is fucked up, but w/e.

Diplomacy teaches you how to be a better lier, intimidate, performer etc.

Being able to spot stuff makes you a better listener.... not really; but being a better listener and noticer of things does help you notice if someone is telling the truth or not.

The question is if X ranks (5?) just gives a general +2 to all related stat checks (Skill Checks, Ability checks, Saving throws etc.) or just to Stat-checks?

[JonSetanta]

The single d20 check mechanic still allows stupidity like feebly Wizards lifting (manageable) iron gates on a natural 20, while 24-STR Barbarians pop a hemorrhage when they flop out a 1 on the same check.
That's just not right and it's been going on since the beginning of D&D.

• One could grant characters a reroll on the same check for every bonus to the relevant stat, but that effectively cuts the DC in half each time (I think) due to probability.
• Another variant would involve some kind of penalty to stamina or pool of resources such as HP for every failure on a check, but allowing a partial success or even full success if one "takes the hit" to this limited but renewable resource.

Koumei, I agree that it's ideal for d20 to rely on a single roll but it has inherent drawbacks. games like Shadowrun and WoD that rely on multiple success tend to be "fistful of dice" games but I do see the worth in that grey area of "almost successful" checks. It's a matter of a binary check vs. a gradiated check.

Baduin, what's the "2-10" in your DC formula? Good idea in using the score rather than the bonus. It's one of the few choice bits of 4e.

[Leress]

The single d20 check mechanic still allows stupidity like feebly Wizards lifting (manageable) iron gates on a natural 20, while 24-STR Barbarians pop a hemorrhage when they flop out a 1 on the same check.

There isn't an auto win and auto loss with ability checks.

[Judging__Eagle]

Auto-wins and Auto-Fails are balls and should not exist. Ever.

Crits for 20's on attack rolls is okay, but only if you then have to hit again to confirm. Missing on a 1 is stupid, and failing at anything just b/c of a 1 is even more stupid and is just retro-gaming. Retro-gaming and 100-result rolling tables for everything is cool for randomness of events, but also slow and sometimes can take turns for the stupid.

A note on attack rolls and wide crit ranges: The reason that Imp Crit and Keen being unstackable in 3.5 was that everyone was using it wrong and didn't follow the RAW when using the combat rules for critical hits and confirming critical hits; making Imp Crit + Keen weapons overpowered.

Groups and DMs would allow people to roll to confirm a 15+ or 16+; even if the original attack roll was actually a miss. They would also allow a 15 or whatever to confirm a critical hit, even if that was a miss. I saw DMs and players who had been playing since 1st ed fail to use that rule properly at games and cons on a consistent basis.

[RandomCasualty2]

A note on attack rolls and wide crit ranges: The reason that Imp Crit and Keen being unstackable in 3.5 was that everyone was using it wrong and didn't follow the RAW when using the combat rules for critical hits and confirming critical hits; making Imp Crit + Keen weapons overpowered.

Well, I don't know about that. Most of the problem was that in 3.5 at high levels, AC became almost worthless since attack bonuses rapidly beat them out. So pretty much against most monsters you auto hit, at least with your first attack anyway.

[JonSetanta]

There isn't an auto win and auto loss with ability checks.

Indeed. I used 20 and 1 as references for making a Really Good Roll vs. Really Bad Roll, not an auto-win or auto-fail example.
Perhaps if I substitute "19" and "2" in place? It would be the same.

In fact, I pointed that same fact out to a DM months ago that had his girlfriend's changeling rogue "mess up your disguise big time" when making a Disguise check in a crowded tavern.
When it comes to skills, a fail is a fail. There is no 'botch' that gets you killed in, say, crafting a weapon.

[CatharzGodfoot]

There isn't an auto win and auto loss with ability checks.

Indeed. I used 20 and 1 as references for making a Really Good Roll vs. Really Bad Roll, not an auto-win or auto-fail example.
Perhaps if I substitute "19" and "2" in place? It would be the same.

If you want the barbarian to be able to burst the chains and the wizard to come up with some other solution, you set the DC to 20 or 21. Now the barbarian has a 6/20 chance of success and the wizard is at 0/20.

[Maxus]

There isn't an auto win and auto loss with ability checks.

Indeed. I used 20 and 1 as references for making a Really Good Roll vs. Really Bad Roll, not an auto-win or auto-fail example.
Perhaps if I substitute "19" and "2" in place? It would be the same.

If you want the barbarian to be able to burst the chains and the wizard to come up with some other solution, you set the DC to 20 or 21. Now the barbarian has a 6/20 chance of success and the wizard is at 0/20.

What other solution? I mean, technically the wizard has 18 Int, but he's only going to be as creative/inventive as the player.

I've been working on my nasceant DM friend, because he likes the idea of nullifying player powers because "The fighter's still a really strong guy and the Wizard's still intelligent." But if you do that, you have to custom-create things for them to do to get them out of the situation, and the players will probably be more concentrating on how they don't have their usual options.