Okay, I'm looking for feedback. You've got a cleric, he is about to cast Bless on a fighter. The situation dictates that success isn't automatic, so the cleric has to roll. Should this be an opposed roll [even though the fighter is willing] or a difficulty number? If I go opposed roll, what does the fighter use to determine dice?

In the system there is a rule [the fighter just wants to use the least amount of dice possible]:

'Want to try something but don't have the trade? No problem, pick up two dice and add them to the pool. Unfortunately, one of these will be a penalty die so the highest number rolled will have to be dropped.'

This means the fighter would roll 1D + 1P, and drop the highest die. The low score is what the cleric needs to meet or beat for a successful roll.

or the GM could assign a TN for the Bless spell. If the cleric rolls equal to, or higher than, the TN then the spell is successful.

Which method do you prefer, or is there better way to handle it?

Quote from: vgunn;556674Okay, I'm looking for feedback. You've got a cleric, he is about to cast Bless on a fighter. The situation dictates that success isn't automatic, so the cleric has to roll. Should this be an opposed roll [even though the fighter is willing] or a difficulty number? If I go opposed roll, what does the fighter use to determine dice?

In the system there is a rule [the fighter just wants to use the least amount of dice possible]:

'Want to try something but don't have the trade? No problem, pick up two dice and add them to the pool. Unfortunately, one of these will be a penalty die so the highest number rolled will have to be dropped.'

This means the fighter would roll 1D + 1P, and drop the highest die. The low score is what the cleric needs to meet or beat for a successful roll.

or the GM could assign a TN for the Bless spell. If the cleric rolls equal to, or higher than, the TN then the spell is successful.

Which method do you prefer, or is there better way to handle it?

Target number, it's obviously faster.  Keeps the game going.  Alternately, you alter the situation that makes it not automatically successful and make it automatically successful, that way it goes even quicker.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;556707Target number, it's obviously faster.  Keeps the game going.  Alternately, you alter the situation that makes it not automatically successful and make it automatically successful, that way it goes even quicker.

This.

-Frank

Quote from: thedungeondelver;556707Target number, it's obviously faster.  Keeps the game going.  Alternately, you alter the situation that makes it not automatically successful and make it automatically successful, that way it goes even quicker.

Frank beat me to it, but target number (I run White Wolf games so I'm probably biased).

You said the fighter was willing, right?
Opposed rolls only make sense if you are dealing with a subject that is unwilling.

Ok, the Inca's are right! Jeff changed his avatar.

Naturally I'd go with the TN roll, if I had to make that choice blindly. However I'm still stuck with why there needs to be a roll in the first place, as the fighter is a willing target (and thus is assumed to not-contest the spell). Whatever is getting in the way of this rather routine use of the spell needs to be defined.

Is the cleric pressed for time? That's just regular time pressure, use a TN roll. Is the location hostile to the cleric's deity -- possibly even consecrated to an opposing god? That's anywhere from a general TN roll penalty to an active opposed roll. It'd help me why it is so that "the situation dictates that success isn't automatic, so the cleric has to roll" AND why the cleric cannot move himself and the fighter to a safer nearby situation where success would be automatic.

Quote from: Marleycat;556763Ok, the Inca's are right! Jeff changed his avatar.

Quote from: Opaopajr;556769Naturally I'd go with the TN roll, if I had to make that choice blindly. However I'm still stuck with why there needs to be a roll in the first place, as the fighter is a willing target (and thus is assumed to not-contest the spell). Whatever is getting in the way of this rather routine use of the spell needs to be defined.

Is the cleric pressed for time? That's just regular time pressure, use a TN roll. Is the location hostile to the cleric's deity -- possibly even consecrated to an opposing god? That's anywhere from a general TN roll penalty to an active opposed roll. It'd help me why it is so that "the situation dictates that success isn't automatic, so the cleric has to roll" AND why the cleric cannot move himself and the fighter to a safer nearby situation where success would be automatic.

This is pure White Wolf and Warhammer Fantasy or 40k before 3e. It's easy and fun for the GM because the players never know with certainy what will guarantee success, so they take risks and stunt like insane people.  I likey.

Quote from: jeff37923;556752You said the fighter was willing, right?
Opposed rolls only make sense if you are dealing with a subject that is unwilling.

Opposed rolls are just variable target numbers. You don't have to have any specific opposition in order to justify having an opposed roll. An opposed roll does three things:

• Takes more time to resolve.
• Reduces the impact of character skill/power.
• Makes more extreme results more likely.

That's it. Now as I understand it, you're putting a fairly minor buff on another character, and I don't see the benefit of making it more likely that the character will succeed or fail by a lot. The increase in resolution time is bad, and the thing where your base DC is just as likely to be 17 or 3 as it is to be 10 is no advantage at all. So on the balance, a fixed target number would be better.

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;556773Opposed rolls are just variable target numbers. You don't have to have any specific opposition in order to justify having an opposed roll. An opposed roll does three things:

• Takes more time to resolve.
• Reduces the impact of character skill/power.
• Makes more extreme results more likely.

That's it. Now as I understand it, you're putting a fairly minor buff on another character, and I don't see the benefit of making it more likely that the character will succeed or fail by a lot. The increase in resolution time is bad, and the thing where your base DC is just as likely to be 17 or 3 as it is to be 10 is no advantage at all. So on the balance, a fixed target number would be better.

-Frank

Frank, I am agreeing with you.

It only makes sense because the target is willing to have the spell cast on him. If the target was unwilling, then an oppossed roll would make sense because the target would be resisting.

Quote from: jeff37923;556786Frank, I am agreeing with you.

It only makes sense because the target is willing to have the spell cast on him. If the target was unwilling, then an oppossed roll would make sense because the target would be resisting.

I don't think we are in agreement. An "opposed roll" doesn't have to represent "the target taking active measures against your action", it represents "the difficulty of the task is a variable function for whatever reason."

The original question is system agnostic. You have to roll dice to determine whether the Bless succeeds in whatever scenario or magic system the OP (vgunn) is envisioning. But we don't know what the flavor is. And the truth is, we could put in flavor that either made Opposed Rolls "make sense" or not as we chose. If the flavor was that you had to slip magical effects past the target's mental defenses or trick them into thinking about your god's name or something in order to get your bless through, then it wouldn't make any sense for a roll to be opposed if the target was trying to help you. On the other hand, if the flavor was that the Tide of Magic™ ebbed and flowed and the relative difficulty of casting spells went up and down, then it would make perfect sense for your Bless roll to be "opposed" whether the target was in favor or against.

The real question is what you're hoping to get mechanically out of opposed vs. static rolls. And what you get for an opposed roll is that:

• It takes longer to resolve the action.
• The player character's bonuses matter less because the TN might be really high or really low.
• The player is more likely to pass or fail by a large amount, because the TN might be really high or really low.

And frankly, I don't see the latter two as advantages for the action "cast a minor buff on the Fighter", and the first is definitely a drawback in virtually all cases.

But not because I can't write flavor text where it would "make sense" to roll an Opposed Check. The opposition could be by anything, so of course you can write flavor text where it would work.

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;556791I don't think we are in agreement. An "opposed roll" doesn't have to represent "the target taking active measures against your action", it represents "the difficulty of the task is a variable function for whatever reason."

The original question is system agnostic. You have to roll dice to determine whether the Bless succeeds in whatever scenario or magic system the OP (vgunn) is envisioning. But we don't know what the flavor is. And the truth is, we could put in flavor that either made Opposed Rolls "make sense" or not as we chose. If the flavor was that you had to slip magical effects past the target's mental defenses or trick them into thinking about your god's name or something in order to get your bless through, then it wouldn't make any sense for a roll to be opposed if the target was trying to help you. On the other hand, if the flavor was that the Tide of Magic™ ebbed and flowed and the relative difficulty of casting spells went up and down, then it would make perfect sense for your Bless roll to be "opposed" whether the target was in favor or against.

The real question is what you're hoping to get mechanically out of opposed vs. static rolls. And what you get for an opposed roll is that:

• It takes longer to resolve the action.
• The player character's bonuses matter less because the TN might be really high or really low.
• The player is more likely to pass or fail by a large amount, because the TN might be really high or really low.

And frankly, I don't see the latter two as advantages for the action "cast a minor buff on the Fighter", and the first is definitely a drawback in virtually all cases.

But not because I can't write flavor text where it would "make sense" to roll an Opposed Check. The opposition could be by anything, so of course you can write flavor text where it would work.

-Frank

Frank, thanks for the detailed response.

I wanted to keep my original post short and sweet and thus no flavor. Yes, if there were perfect conditions than no roll, this only occurs when there is some doubt in the outcome.

[*1] If the rolls occur simultaneously, then the time would be roughly the same as a TN. Maybe a few seconds longer.

[*2] I would think the opposite would be the case, in that the bonuses becomes very important. In this particular system (d6 pool), Cleric gets 1D for Trade, 2D for Tools [Holy Symbol] [True Words], 1D for Trademark [Bless]. 4D total to roll. The fighter (since he's not resisting) would roll would roll 1D + 1P, and drop the highest die. The low die of the fighter is what the cleric needs to meet or beat for a successful roll. So, there's a very good chance the cleric's roll will be successful.

[*3] Yes, I'd agree that the range could be greater.

For myself - the fixed TN.

If the Fighter has to come back from the kitchen where he's getting Doritoes to help me resolve my action, that's actually annoying.  

In 3.5, AC is a great example of an 'opposed issue' resolved with a static TN.  The TN is 10 + benefits.  

There is an option rule where you can roll AC against each attack (changing it from a fixed TN to an opposed roll).  

This means if your 'fixed' AC is 25, your 'opposed roll' could be as low as 16 (you rolled a 1) or as high as 35 (you rolled a 20).  In the long run, attacks probably hit about as often, but in specific situations, the results get a little wonky.  Someone that 'normally' can only miss on a 1 might find themselves missing with an 8 or 9 (if you rolled really well) and someone that normally can only hit on a 20 might end up hitting on a 11 or higher...  The probabilities become difficult to predict - and thus you are more likely to get unintended outcomes.  That's usually a bad thing.  

And it definitely takes longer.  

Even assuming it's 2 seconds (generous) if the roll is used frequently (like attack rolls) it adds up very quickly.  Since it doesn't actually offer a true benefit, it's not worth the extra 2 seconds.

I'd go with a fixed TN too, but not just to make things faster.

While Frank is right that there is no mechanical need for opposed rolls to only be used when there is activation opposition to be overcome, the fact they are called opposed rolls makes it feel damned weird to use them when the 'opposition' is either neutral or actually co-operating. So much so, that if you were writing a rules system and allowed opposed rolls to be used in this way, I'd say that you'd need to change the name of the mechanic to something other than an Opposed Roll in order to avoid confusion.