"Stat Check" thought

[Finarvyn]

Instead of using skill lists, I've used the "wing it" approach of having players make stat checks. Typically those involve rolling under a stat to see if they succeed, or if it's a real challenge rolling under half the stat to see if they succeed.

The only problem is that I don't like the "roll low" philosophy because I like the notion that a natural 20 is goodness and a natural 1 is really bad.

So ... this popped into my head today. It's probably not that innovative but I'm curious if anyone likes it. (It does borrow some 3E-style terminology via DN or TN, which may turn off some gamers.)

For a stat check, roll a d20 and add the stat to it to beat a difficulty number. (Easy = 20, Average = 25, Hard = 30)

Example: A fighter with 15 STR makes a STR check and rolls an 11. 15+11= 26 so he would succeed at an easy or average task but fail at a hard one.

The advantage of using the actual stat instead of a stat bonus to modify the die roll is that makes each stat number slightly different (e.g. a 10 is better than a 9, even if both would be +0 bonus). The disadvantage is that the numbers to be added together are a little larger.

Thoughts? Do my difficulty numbers seem decent?

[cadriel]

d20s generate broad probability bands of 5% per number. The average roll is 10.5. Any system you do based on rolling 1d20 has to be based around that percentage. On 3d6 the average roll also happens to be 10.5. So for an average person a difficulty of 21 will lead to success 50% of the time. Your "easy" threshold will mean 55% chance for an average person, but less for every point below average that they are in a stat.

I think you're going to have trouble being granular if every single point you have in a stat is a 5% chance of success/failure. Have you thought about using stepped bonuses a la B/X, or adding the stat to a percentile chance rather than a d20 roll?

[darkling]

I think that is a pretty solid way to go about it.

I like the notion that each point counts significantly better than the modern stat bonus system. And it does do away with the low rolling, though I am still undecided whether rolling low is a good or bad thing in itself (part of me kind of likes the idea that you roll high for combat and low for stat checks, but part of me is put off that stat checks would be the only thing you roll low for).

The only thing I think I would miss is giving a sort of critical success when players roll exactly equal to their stat number. Though I get that the nat 20 could supplant this.

Another possibility if you want to roll high is just to invert your current system. Eg. a stat of 16 means roll above a 4 on a d20.

[Zenopus]

The DM of the group I play in (1E/2E hybrid, currently going through T1-4) uses roll-under d6 stat checks. 2d6 if really easy, 3d6 average, 4d6 hard, 5d6 extremely difficult etc. He'll sometimes require a 3d6+1 or 3d6+2 as a modifier to make it a bit harder. As a player, it's fun to roll a handful of dice. Not sure where this system comes from originally.

[Azafuse]

Mar 31, 2012 12:24:52 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

The only problem is that I don't like the "roll low" philosophy because I like the notion that a natural 20 is goodness and a natural 1 is really bad.

There's a simple solution for it: d20 >= 21 - Stat.

Doing this way you have a static threshold to beat, ranging from 3 (90% success) to 18 (15% success).

[Mike]

Mar 31, 2012 13:59:30 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

The DM of the group I play in (1E/2E hybrid, currently going through T1-4) uses roll-under d6 stat checks. 2d6 if really easy, 3d6 average, 4d6 hard, 5d6 extremely difficult etc. He'll sometimes require a 3d6+1 or 3d6+2 as a modifier to make it a bit harder. As a player, it's fun to roll a handful of dice. Not sure where this system comes from originally.

This is the system I like to use. I first saw it in The Fantasy Trip (In The Labyrinth) by Steve Jackson.

[Finarvyn]

Mar 31, 2012 13:06:08 GMT -6 darkling said:

Another possibility if you want to roll high is just to invert your current system. Eg. a stat of 16 means roll above a 4 on a d20.

Mar 31, 2012 15:39:27 GMT -6 Azafuse said:

Mar 31, 2012 12:24:52 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

The only problem is that I don't like the "roll low" philosophy because I like the notion that a natural 20 is goodness and a natural 1 is really bad.

There's a simple solution for it: d20 >= 21 - Stat.

Doing this way you have a static threshold to beat, ranging from 3 (90% success) to 18 (15% success).

Yeah, I've done something like this before, but forgot about it when I made my post. It's probably easier than what I was describing.

[Stormcrow]

To get away from the problem of 20 not being good, roll 3d6 instead.

As a bell curve, 3d6 is good both for generating abilities (most people end up average) and for rolling tasks (most actions are performed with average results). Modifiers become much more important, because they change the entire curve, rather than just slap a flat 5% difference to the probability. If you're already really good, a modifier won't make you much better, but if you're only average, a modifier will let you achieve results that were much less likely without it.

[3d6]

Mar 31, 2012 13:59:30 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

The DM of the group I play in (1E/2E hybrid, currently going through T1-4) uses roll-under d6 stat checks. 2d6 if really easy, 3d6 average, 4d6 hard, 5d6 extremely difficult etc. He'll sometimes require a 3d6+1 or 3d6+2 as a modifier to make it a bit harder. As a player, it's fun to roll a handful of dice. Not sure where this system comes from originally.

The first time I saw this was The Dragon magazine, #41, Sept. 1980, in "The Halls of Beoll-Dur" adventure:

"... there is an original procedure for saving throws which is used in some locations... roll 3, 4 or 5d6 (the number of dice varies) and subtract one point from the dice roll for every two levels of experience the character has attained. Compare the resulting number to a specified ability (this also varies), and if the adjusted dice roll is less than the character's score for the ability in question, the saving throw is considered made."

It does say "original." I'm not sure if that means brand new or new to D&D, imported from elsewhere. Even if these authors came up with it originally, on their own, I'm not so sure this wasn't around before then.

[Thorulfr]

I've been poking at the whole "opposed roll" problem, and was thinking about adapting a system from Pendragon: you have to roll under the appropriate stat, but if both of the opponents make their roll, the one that rolled highest is the winner.

For example: an orc with a strength of 17 is trying to force a door to get at the fleeing party - the fighter (STR 16) is trying to hold the door shut long enough for the thief (DEX 15) to get a spike hammered into the door jamb.
On the first round, the DM rolls a 12 for the orc, and the fighter's player rolls a 14. Both are successes, but since the fighter's roll is the higher, he is able to hold the door. The thief, however, muffs his DEX roll getting 16, so he is still struggling to get the door secured.
On the second round, the DM rolls 5 for the orc, but the fighter's player rolls an 18, so the orc wins the opposed roll.
Since the fighter didn't miss by much, and the orc didn't have a particularly good roll, the DM describes how the fighter slowly looses his footing and the thief watches in horror as the door inches slowly open, creaking on its hinges as the fighter starts to frantically scuffle, desperately seeking traction.

[darkling]

That system for opposed rolls isn't a bad one, but honestly I have never had any taste for opposed rolls vs monsters.

The story is about the PCs, why muck things up by giving monsters stats? The fighter should have to hold the door based on his strength alone. You might say that it is easy to hold the door against goblins, and difficult to hold the door against a minotaur, and even impossible against a dragon and modify the roll accordingly. But I think that to actually give those monsters stats moves the focus from where it should be: the fighter. I especially don't like the idea of a PC and an NPC competing for something and robbing the PC of a great roll just because the NPC rolled a little better.

[Anathemata]

Lots of great ideas, as always.

I use 1d10 + modifier, and a lot of opposed rolls.

But I love the idea of using the straight scores. It's about time we used 'em for something at the table.

[nizrad]

I tend to just use 3d6 roll under your stat, no modifiers or anything like that. I feel as though this best represents character ability mechanicaly, in the sense that someone with a high score in any given stat has a better chance at the relative task than someone with an average or low score. I did at one point a long time ago used the d20 for stat checks but realised that if scores do not reach above 18, which is the flat cap there will always be a 10% failure chance which ended up not good for the players.(if i decide that the character is simply destined to fail at a given task or check I make a roll in secret and inform the player of that characters misfortune). Though this is generally the exception not the rule.

[Koren n'Rhys]

I also use the xd6 system described by Zenopus, with a roll equal/under stat required, but I like the Target 20 bit, so I'm going to steal a modded version of your idea Fin.

xd6 + STAT >= 20
2d6 if really easy, 3d6 average, 4d6 hard, 5d6 extremely difficult

[talysman]

Apr 30, 2012 12:25:55 GMT -6 Koren n'Rhys said:

I also use the xd6 system described by Zenopus, with a roll equal/under stat required, but I like the Target 20 bit, so I'm going to steal a modded version of your idea Fin.

xd6 + STAT >= 20
2d6 if really easy, 3d6 average, 4d6 hard, 5d6 extremely difficult

I think you got those backwards. 3d6 + STAT is an average roll of 10.5 plus an average stat of 10.5, so it fits. 4d6 is an average of 14, though, so it's easier than a 3d6 roll.

You might want to change it to 3d6 average, 2d6 tricky, 1d6 hard, 1d6/2 extremely difficult.

[premmy]

My problem with stat checks is that they go in the face of one of D&D's fundamental notions: your character improves, gets better, levels up, gains power, etc..

Barring the extremely rare and limited-scope event of gaining some points by magical books, loads of Wishes, etc., stats are static, and that just doesn't sit well with me. An extremely bright (INT 18) wizard with decades of experience and research (17th level) should be significantly more likely to figure out a summoning circle or recall the details of some obscure demonological book (INT check) than an equally bright adept who's barely finished his initial studies (1st level).

[cooper]

. An extremely bright (INT 18) wizard with decades of experience and research (17th level) should be significantly more likely to figure out a summoning circle or recall the details of some obscure demonological book (INT check) than an equally bright adept who's barely finished his initial studies (1st level).

this is where I have a problem with the entire system. Instead of a stat check, I would tell the player to consult a sage, cast contact other plane etc. take Gandalf in LoTR, how many times did he have to go consult with others? The liberary of minas tirith, meetings with elrond etc.

It's like players expect their PC to br know it alls who don't need to interact with the world around them (ha! Too close to home for some of us.)

[llenlleawg]

May 7, 2012 7:21:22 GMT -6 premmy said:

My problem with stat checks is that they go in the face of one of D&D's fundamental notions: your character improves, gets better, levels up, gains power, etc..

Barring the extremely rare and limited-scope event of gaining some points by magical books, loads of Wishes, etc., stats are static, and that just doesn't sit well with me. An extremely bright (INT 18) wizard with decades of experience and research (17th level) should be significantly more likely to figure out a summoning circle or recall the details of some obscure demonological book (INT check) than an equally bright adept who's barely finished his initial studies (1st level).

I agree with this. While at one time the stat check seemed to me a plausible way to do things, it does tend to (a) undermine the essentially level- and class-based structure of D&D and (b) make differences in stats far more mechanically significant than they would otherwise be, esp. in the original books.

Perhaps another idea would be to use one of three probabilities: 1/6, 2/6, and 4/6. The first would be the chance for a non-expert, non-skilled but otherwise competent person to accomplish a task, 1/2 for someone who is skilled, or otherwise more naturally prone for a given task, and 4/6 for those who are exceptionally skilled or likely to succeed. This maps onto, e.g. the chance to hear noise as well as elven chances to find secret doors, so it meshes with what is in place. A DM could decide that in a given case, a high stat would place a PC in the 2/6 or even 4/6 zone, but he might also reserve these for higher level characters.

In the example of the demonological book, the average PC may have only a 1/6 chance to make heads or tails of it, a high-Int PC or an MU would have a 2/6 chance, while a high-Int, high-level MU would have a 4/6 chance.

[Azafuse]

May 7, 2012 7:21:22 GMT -6 premmy said:

An extremely bright (INT 18) wizard with decades of experience and research (17th level) should be significantly more likely to figure out a summoning circle or recall the details of some obscure demonological book (INT check) than an equally bright adept who's barely finished his initial studies (1st level).

It depends mainly on the terms of the check, IMHO.
Secondly on the class.


Focusing on the class, I don't understand why a L17 MU should necessarily jump a cliff (STR Check) safely better than a L1 MU could do: it's not his businness.

Same thought for a 6'8'' tall bulky FM trying to hide in shadows.


Focusing on the check, it makes sense what you say about L17 PC vs L1 PC facing the same challenge; on the other hand if a L17 PC faces a L17 challenge he should work hard as much as a L1 PC facing a L1 challenge.

So the entity of the challenge matters: you have a 1st term.

Now, should a L1 PC necessarily have less chances to succeed against a L17 challenge than a L17 PC?
No, if you consider the right terms.


2nd term: TTC (Time to Complete)
L1 MU against summoning circle: approximately 6 hours.
L17 MU against summoning circle: approximately 20 minutes

3rd term: Drawbacks
L1 MU failing his check (summoning circle): he accidentally summons a hostile fiend.
L17 MU failing his check (summoning circle): smoke comes out of the circle, all the material components are gone.


To make a long story short, with the right terms (like the three I've said above) you can keep using the same static roll.


OT: D&D Next is doing something like this (according to the design articles): automatic success for trivial goals and die roll for challenging goals.

[talysman]

May 7, 2012 7:21:22 GMT -6 premmy said:

My problem with stat checks is that they go in the face of one of D&D's fundamental notions: your character improves, gets better, levels up, gains power, etc..

Is that *really* a fundamental assumption of D&D?

The way I see it, the original Fighting-Man and Magic-User only improve one power, their schtick: fighting more opponents or casting more powerful spells. The Cleric is problematic because both the Turn Undead and the spell-casting ability improve, but spell-casting is deliberately reduced in power compared to the M-U to compensate.

As written, the Fighting-Man does not improve at jumping, reading, opening doors, dodging traps, or noticing danger, and neither do the other classes. Elves don't improve at spotting secret doors, Dwarves don't improve at spotting traps; Halflings don't improve, period.

As written, the number of languages a character can learn does not improve, nor does the number of potential henchmen increase, nor does system shock improve. Every mundane ability is static, only phenomenal abilities (fighting multiple opponents, casting spells) improve.

The only exception to this limitation is hit dice, which also govern saving throws and attacks, which improve for everyone, but at different rates. Other than that, D&D assumes that characters are ordinary joes with one extraordinary trick.

So, I can see not allowing stat checks, but I can't see violating the one-schtick rule and allowing mundane abilities governed by stats to improve. *That* goes in the face of D&D's fundamental assumptions.

[premmy]

May 7, 2012 13:04:41 GMT -6 talysman said:

The way I see it, the original Fighting-Man and Magic-User only improve one power, their schtick: fighting more opponents or casting more powerful spells.

AND the ability to take more hits AND an all-around improvement in the ability to avoid a vast range of different types of harm (saving throws). AND the Fighting Man gains the ability to have followers, which is an obvious improvement over the low-level status of "no followers at all".

The Cleric is problematic because both the Turn Undead and the spell-casting ability improve, but spell-casting is deliberately reduced in power compared to the M-U to compensate.

The Cleric's relative casting power compared to the M.U. is irrelevant to the argument at hand. His spell loadout improves as he gains levels. Whether it improves at the same rate as the M.U.'s or not is not germane.

As written, the Fighting-Man does not improve at jumping,

Saving throws applied to situations where the throw represents the character jumping out of harm's way.

dodging traps,

See above for "save or something happens" traps. Triggering a trap than saving for no damage counts as "dodging the trap".

Every mundane ability is static, only phenomenal abilities (fighting multiple opponents, casting spells) improve.

Most saving throws represent mundane abilities: the body's ability to process poison, agility to jump aside, etc.. Hit points, too, are partially mundane: they represent dodging, stamina, grit, and to an extent the ability to just go on despite injuries. These are perfectly mundane, because A, they do not represent anything that, according to the logic of the game world, would be "magical" or "supernatural", and B, even ordinary 0 level mooks have them.

The only exception to this limitation is hit dice, which also govern saving throws and attacks, which improve for everyone, but at different rates.

"Only exception"? Hardly. To reiterate:

- "THAC0"
- Hit Points
- Saves
- Spell quantity
- Spell quality
- Ability to have followers (binary)
- Turning Undead
- Thief skills (if you use Thieves)

all improve, and these concepts make up a very significant part of a PC's statistics rules-wise.

Over and above game mechanics, the game is also built on the assumption that over time the PC's will also improve in wealth, equipment, achievements and scope of play ("from saving the village to saving the world"). That's all improvement, right there.

It depends mainly on the terms of the check, IMHO.
Secondly on the class.

SNIP

To make a long story short, with the right terms (like the three I've said above) you can keep using the same static roll.

It CAN be done that way, but then for every situation that crops up, you have to make a case-by-case decision considering three different factors all of which are completely subjective and have to be judged on the spot. And at that point, you might as well just pull a vague "X in 6" chance out of your head without pretending that there's some sort of system behind it. Which is fine if you and your players are cool with it, but don't call it "a system for skill (or whatever) use", because "make something up" is not a system but a practice.

[Azafuse]

May 7, 2012 16:08:12 GMT -6 premmy said:

you have to make a case-by-case decision considering three different factors all of which are completely subjective and have to be judged on the spot.

That's why the Golden Rule exists: using it doesn't mean being a tyrant DM.

[talysman]

May 7, 2012 16:08:12 GMT -6 premmy said:

May 7, 2012 13:04:41 GMT -6 talysman said:

The way I see it, the original Fighting-Man and Magic-User only improve one power, their schtick: fighting more opponents or casting more powerful spells.

AND the ability to take more hits AND an all-around improvement in the ability to avoid a vast range of different types of harm (saving throws). AND the Fighting Man gains the ability to have followers, which is an obvious improvement over the low-level status of "no followers at all".

As you saw later in my post, I was taking saving throws into account. My point is that, in OD&D, each class has *one* unique ability and a handful of heroic abilities ("to hit", hit points, saving throws) that can all be subsumed under the concept of "luck". Mundane, trainable abilities are not governed by level at all. Level thus represents how heroic or supernormal a character is, compared to ordinary men.

As for followers, Fighters can have as many normal hirelings, including mercenaries, at any level, as stated in the rules. They can also have henchman at any level, limited in number by Charisma. Level does not affect either of these. What you may be thinking of is that a Lord who builds a keep (or Patriarch who builds a stronghold) attracts a bunch of mercenaries all at once. These are no different from those they can hire at any level; the difference is that building a stronghold acts as advertising. You still have to pay for their upkeep.

May 7, 2012 16:08:12 GMT -6 premmy said:

The Cleric's relative casting power compared to the M.U. is irrelevant to the argument at hand. His spell loadout improves as he gains levels. Whether it improves at the same rate as the M.U.'s or not is not germane.

Both are relative/germane to my point: Clerics appear to have two class abilities instead of one, in contrast to Magic-Users, but that is because one of their abilities (spell-casting) is reduced to compensate for the extra ability (turn undead.)

May 7, 2012 16:08:12 GMT -6 premmy said:

Saving throws applied to situations where the throw represents the character jumping out of harm's way.

Originally, no. The roll to avoid a trap is listed as a simple d6 roll in U&WA. It does not improve with level. Neither does "resist adversity", the M&M precursor to system shock, which is tied to Constitution. Originally, with the exception of poison, all saving throws listed are restricted to supernatural effects: spells, wands, petrification, polymorph, dragon breath. The saving throw doesn't represent an ability to jump, it represents how lucky you were that you jumped at just the right time. The GM can choose to describe a successful save vs. dragon's breath as jumping out of the way, or as cowering behind a shield, or as diving into a pool, or any number of things.

The proof of this is the "natural" exception to the supernatural rule: poison. You can't train or get better at not being poisoned; surviving poison is a matter of luck. This is why it is tied to level, while mundane, physical abilities are static.

In addition: Distance jumped, and movement in general, does not improve with level. Maximum weight does not improve with level. Nothing improves with level except fantastic or cinematic abilities.

The thief seems to be an exception to this, which is why AD&D and later editions drift towards level as mundane improvement. However, there is an argument floating around that thief abilities should be treated as second chance abilities or saving throws, for when mundane abilities fail. One hint in the rules as written that this should be the case is the little-known fact (mentioned in Supplement I, where thieves are introduced) that a thief can open a *magical* lock or closure. Pick Locks works on wizard-locked doors.

So, improvement of mundane abilities is not a fundamental assumption of D&D. It's a choice some people make, but not part of the original rules.

[Necropraxis]

I'm with Talysman here, and I would add that having all attributes not scale is important for sandbox play. If you want PCs to be able to go anywhere, the difficulty variance should not be that high (at least not more than is encoded in the example encounter tables). Conversely, some minor challenges will continue to be interesting to high level characters if you avoid the trap of bonus inflation. This is one of the aspects of OD&D that attracts me the most, in fact.

If you think that level should play a role in the success of a particular action (or at least the avoidance of disaster) you could always allow a saving throw. For the example of a magic-user understanding an ancient grimoire, one could use an intelligence check followed by a save versus spells, or just a save versus spells. But also remember that the increase in a magic-user's power is also modeled by their variety of spells, so I don't think you need to give them extra bonuses just for being higher level. The high level magic user thus already has more tools to bring to bear on the grimoire. Maybe they have a spell they could cast that would solve the problem? Encouraging such solutions also rewards creative play rather than the ability to roll high on a single throw.

[Mushgnome]

I go back and forth on this one.

My personal preference is that dice are only rolled in life-and-death situations (like combat), and mundane situations are hand-waved or resolved in-character based on the players' knowledge/problem solving.

My actual experience is that, I want to be inclusive as a DM, and some of my players are better role-players than others (or different styles). Some of my players are wonderful to have at the table but simply do not have the experience/interest to problem-solve in-character or role-play important interactions with NPCs. This type of player seems to really enjoy quick & easy mechanics like stat checks, reaction rolls, etc. so they can advance the plot and get on to killing monsters (and taking their loot).

[premmy]

May 7, 2012 17:07:50 GMT -6 talysman said:

As you saw later in my post, I was taking saving throws into account. My point is that, in OD&D, each class has *one* unique ability and a handful of heroic abilities ("to hit", hit points, saving throws) that can all be subsumed under the concept of "luck".

You accept this as an axiomatic assumption and plot all the data to support it; as opposed to looking at the data and seeing what it indicates without any preconceptions.

You say that Hit Point increase represents getting lucky while under attack BECAUSE all but the class-schtick increases represent luck. That saves exclusively represent getting lucky BECAUSE all but the class-schtick increases represent luck.

Consequently, you're blind to the possibility that these were originally intended to represent something other than luck (and THEREFORE they render your assumption incorrect).

The GM can choose to describe a successful save vs. dragon's breath as jumping out of the way, or as cowering behind a shield, or as diving into a pool, or any number of things.

None of which is luck. Jumping out of the way is a matter of reflexes and being strong and agile enough to jump far enough. Cowering behind the shield represents the mental and physical hardiness needed to go unfazed by the hot airblast as long as the bulk of the actual flames/napalm/whatever avoids you. Diving into a pool represents the ability to quickly survey the scene and decide on a good course of action under duress. None of this is luck; it's all skill that an experienced adventurer would have to a greater extent than a rookie.

The proof of this is the "natural" exception to the supernatural rule: poison. You can't train or get better at not being poisoned; surviving poison is a matter of luck. This is why it is tied to level, while mundane, physical abilities are static.

Backwards reasoning again. You ASSUME that only magical/lucky things improve (other than the class schtick, obviously), and poison saves improve THEREFORE they must be magical/luck-based. Ignoring the more likely possibility that no, not only magical/lucky things can improve (which also vanishes the difficulty of explaining the poison save.

Oh, and by the way: you CAN improve you poison saves without magic in real life. Not to mention traditional stuff like tourniquets, venom extraction, etc.. So yeah, the improvement of the poison save does NOT necessarily represent supernatural factors at all.

Same deal with varous anti-magic saves that might represent the knowledge of simple charms and counterspells which are not 'cast' in the game system sense but rather factored into the saving throw (IIRC, there's an actual short reference to this in D&D, and it was probably also discussed somewhere around here). Again, that would fall under "knowledge you picked up and are trying to use" rather than sheer dumb luck.

And, again, Hit Points are NOT entirely indicative of luck and divine favour, they're also part mundane.

[talysman]

May 8, 2012 16:41:04 GMT -6 premmy said:

May 7, 2012 17:07:50 GMT -6 talysman said:

As you saw later in my post, I was taking saving throws into account. My point is that, in OD&D, each class has *one* unique ability and a handful of heroic abilities ("to hit", hit points, saving throws) that can all be subsumed under the concept of "luck".

You accept this as an axiomatic assumption and plot all the data to support it; as opposed to looking at the data and seeing what it indicates without any preconceptions.

I would say the same about you, actually. Especially since you are the one espousing the view that mundane abilities should improve with level, when in the rules as written, they don't. And doubly so when several later clarifications of "hit points", including (eventually) what Gygax wrote about them in the AD&D DMG,) state quite plainly that hit points *do* represent luck.

You don't agree with this. You *won't* agree with this. There is nothing I can say to you to change your mind, and none of the arguments you've made in response are the least bit convincing to me. That's OK. Some people choose to interpret the game differently, and play the game with hit points as pure damage capacity and with all abilities scaling with level. But surely, you can see that the evidence in the 3LBBs contradicts your statement that all abilities scaling with level is a fundamental assumption of D&D. Ability scores in the 3LBBs remain static, the chance to surprise, dodge a trap or open a stuck door is given in U&WA as a flat d6 roll, and only a small number of things actually scale with level. The LBBs do not do what you say you want them to do, so your desires can't possibly be a fundamental assumption of the 3LBBs.

[darkling]

Is it just me, or is it getting a little heated in here? What it boils down to is that what some see as a "fundamental notion" isn't shared by some of the rest of us. Doesn't mean it is right or wrong (and barring casting speak with dead we won't know the original intent of the designers). Seeing as that's the case, butting heads seems a little counterproductive!

In my games those sorts of things are static, precisely because of things like the detect secret doors check that talysman cites. But other can and I am sure do use a variety of differing systems. That's the beauty of the LBB...there is room to do things your own way. And at the end of the day the only one who has to like it are your players.

[talysman]

May 8, 2012 18:15:50 GMT -6 darkling said:

Is it just me, or is it getting a little heated in here? What it boils down to is that what some see as a "fundamental notion" isn't shared by some of the rest of us. Doesn't mean it is right or wrong (and barring casting speak with dead we won't know the original intent of the designers). Seeing as that's the case, butting heads seems a little counterproductive!

In my games those sorts of things are static, precisely because of things like the detect secret doors check that talysman cites. But other can and I am sure do use a variety of differing systems. That's the beauty of the LBB...there is room to do things your own way. And at the end of the day the only one who has to like it are your players.

I was actually trying to say in that last post that the fact that I don't agree premmy's preference is "fundamental" doesn't mean it's not a bad way to do it. House rules are the norm. I have a semi-stat check system that is not part of the original rules at all. I have other changes as well. So, the way I play the game isn't "pure". If premmy wants to be "non-pure" in a different way, that's OK.

Thanks for rephrasing it in a better way, darkling.

[bat]

I just use Delta's (of the Delta's D&D Hotspot blog) one die mechanic, it makes any oldschool game a snap.