Quote from: RandallS;513884This is why I cap the total modifiers to a D20 attack/skill/etc. roll to +30 in Microlite74. The suggested DCs are: Easy - 8, Normal - 12, Difficult - 16, Hard - 20, Very Hard - 24, Legendary - 28, Unbelievable - 32.  Even with a +30 a one of 1 on the die still fails. In theory you could be so good at higher levels in skills directly related to your class or background that with magic and positive circumstantial bonuses you total might add up to higher than +30, but those are few and far between. The GM is still advised to limit the total add to +30 no matter what.

This seems like a pretty good solution, and coming from you, I assume it has been thoroughly tested.  I am not familiar enough with all the nuances and dark corners of d20 to confidently state how easy or difficult it is to get a +30 to begin with, but I am guessing Microlite74 doesn't use all the 3.x splats and Dragon articles that are out there.  So, pretty difficult, I would have to guess.

Quote from: Fiasco;513882The only thing that the diplomancer proves is that common sense is a key ingredient in any well run game. Even if you accepted a) all the assumptions made for building Fred b) a DM lame enough to allow a skill to trump any challenge you would still have to find c) a real life player actually willng to pull that shit and play such a fucking boring character. I mean how can you have fun playing an autowin character and who would play with you? Talk about edge cases...

Because when you game with adults wankers are rarely tolerated and  cool, at least occasionally, trumps 'I win'.

Exactly.  I find the CharOp arguments interesting not because I am worried about that kind of thing coming up routinely, but more because they show what is possible with the rules.

As I mentioned before, the 'quadratic wizard, linear fighter' argument at TGD hinges almost entirely on a player completely optimizing their Magic User to be better than everyone else at the table at everything.  Why would they do that?  How can that possibly be fun?  And as you mention, who the hell would put up with that?  And yet, it can demonstrate a flaw that seems large at the extremes, but may still exist on a small level much earlier on.  If you can catch it when it starts, even if the player isn't doing it intentionally, you can fix it before it becomes a major problem.

Quote from: StormBringer;513928Capping DCs isn't the problem.  It's not capping the modifiers.  Allowing modifiers to increase without limit means you are forced to increase the DCs without limit.  You have not changed anything.  Rolling 10 or better with no modifiers at 1st level is absolutely no different than rolling 90 or better with +80 total modifiers at 20th level.  You are "always fighting orcs".
.

This touches on the big problem with 3e, as opposed to earlier editions of D&D.

A level 1 lockpicker in 3e D&D might have, say, a +5 to pick a lock, and a standard lock would be DC 21. So, a 25% chance to pick the lock. (Yes, I know you can easily minmax to different percents, bear with me).

A level 1 thief in AD&D could also easily have a 25% chance to pick a lock. Of course, it didn't matter if the lock was on an orc's chest, or the gates of the City of Brass on the Elemental Plane of Fire, the chance was still 25% (there were *some* locks that had a penalty, but very few, once every half dozen modules, perhaps).

In 3e, of course, the City of Brass would have much higher DCs, and thus begins the 'always fighting orcs' treadmill, a feeling you don't get nearly so much in AD&D.

Still, quite playable, but what kills things is the "take 10" or "take 20" rule. Now the 3e thief has a 100% chance....and the non-specialist has a 0% chance. The "take X" rules really reward specialists, forcing the DM to take it into account and make his DCs appropriately  (always deciding whether the ultimate chance of success should be 0% or 100%), and screw over any generalists (for whom the ultimate chance is always 0%).

Thus is a 4/4 thief/fighter in AD&D not totally screwed in that game, while doing so in 3e is basically a messed up character (above and beyond what 3e base multiclassing did to spellcasters), as the treadmill and take 20 design forces incredible focus on mechanical optimisation.

Let it be known that this is the first time ever I think Stormbringer is being himself.

Quote from: StormBringer;513928It is just an arms race or infinite inflation.

A treadmill?

Quote from: Windjammer;513878I kid you not - that is the use to which your concept is put to use on these boards, and the transition from (D) drawing general ridicule (p. 2 in the IH thread) to it receiving something gravitating to general acclaim (in this thread) is maybe indicative of a change in this board's readership.

Indeed.  I have tried on numerous occasions to explain why this is wrong to the common offenders.

Quote from: StormBringer;513932Hmmm...  That is an interesting point.  I do see a problem, though, in that players will certainly want a much greater result for a DC 90 than for a DC 30.

They probably also want a to-hit roll of 90 (vs AC 20) to mean a much greater result than a to-hit roll of 30 vs the same AC.

Doesn't mean they're gonna get it.

The d20 system, IME, *only* works for binary pass/fail, hit/miss results.  Trying to use it for gradated results (eg exact distance jumped) gives terrible results.

So, for diplomacy to work:
Player decides what he is trying to achieve.
DM decides if this is possible - no "I talk the moon down from the sky" in a gritty low-fantasy game.
If it is possible, DM sets DC.
Player rolls, pass/fail.

That works fine IME.  Anything else, not so much.

Quote from: Doom;513938Still, quite playable, but what kills things is the "take 10" or "take 20" rule. Now the 3e thief has a 100% chance....and the non-specialist has a 0% chance. The "take X" rules really reward specialists, forcing the DM to take it into account and make his DCs appropriately  (always deciding whether the ultimate chance of success should be 0% or 100%), and screw over any generalists (for whom the ultimate chance is always 0%).

Balls, I didn't even think about take 10 or take 20.  In the Diplomancer example, of course you will be talking for a while.  Take 10 would be almost standard, and take 20 would be nearly so.  Hence, the player would automatically succeed on any DC less than 114, with the +94 in modifiers.

I'm hard pressed to imagine a DC greater than 114 that would map to anything reasonable.  So, a sixth level Frodo would be besties with Sauron in rather short order.  I can't imagine any of Sauron's minions would resist a 114 Diplomacy roll, so Frodo really wouldn't have any problems getting there.

Quote from: S'mon;513948They probably also want a to-hit roll of 90 (vs AC 20) to mean a much greater result than a to-hit roll of 30 vs the same AC.

A fairly natural expectation, however.

QuoteThe d20 system, IME, *only* works for binary pass/fail, hit/miss results.  Trying to use it for gradated results (eg exact distance jumped) gives terrible results.

That works fine IME.  Anything else, not so much.

But that leads to not needing bonuses at all, as any particular roll would just be the results of the d20.

Quote from: StormBringer;513952Balls, I didn't even think about take 10 or take 20.  In the Diplomancer example, of course you will be talking for a while.  Take 10 would be almost standard, and take 20 would be nearly so.  Hence, the player would automatically succeed on any DC less than 114, with the +94 in modifiers.

I'm hard pressed to imagine a DC greater than 114 that would map to anything reasonable.  So, a sixth level Frodo would be besties with Sauron in rather short order.  I can't imagine any of Sauron's minions would resist a 114 Diplomacy roll, so Frodo really wouldn't have any problems getting there.

Only if the DM has no common sense and allows it.

There are plenty of ways to stop the Diplomancer. The most obvious one being the Diplomancer and its target audience not speaking the same language. No communication => no diplomacy. Send in a mook who doesn't speak the language to attack the Diplomancer and see how long it lasts.

This arguement is based upon math and the belief that Players and GMs are nothing but bitches of the rules who cannot think outside of those rules.

Such idiocy gets what it deserves.

Quote from: jeff37923;513957Only if the DM has no common sense and allows it.

There are plenty of ways to stop the Diplomancer. The most obvious one being the Diplomancer and its target audience not speaking the same language. No communication => no diplomacy. Send in a mook who doesn't speak the language to attack the Diplomancer and see how long it lasts.

This arguement is based upon math and the belief that Players and GMs are nothing but bitches of the rules who cannot think outside of those rules.

Such idiocy gets what it deserves.

Actually I think it rather reinforces MY point.

Yes, math nerd-sperging identifies a problem which hasn't or doesn't regularly crop up in games, to whit: Diplomancy.

However, from that we can move into a reasonable discussion of infinite bonuses chasing infinite difficulties vs a limited randomizer, which illustrates a problem.  SB can bring up how this bogs the game down in combat (with increasingly insane AC's requiring squeezing every to-hit bonus out of a fight, meaning that your players are spending far too long chasing bonuses and not enough time screaming "I Rolled a 20, suck it!" or whatever.


As a GM I sit there while one of my players repeatedly 'breaks' the game by having almost 20 points more in Spot and Listen checks than any other player. THings that can 'attempt' to sneak up on her characters are essentially invisible to every other player. Things the others can detect might as well be wearing bells as far as she's concerned.

Obviously this creates a problem in scaling encounters for me. Obviously this suggests something isn't working 'as intended' to me, but generally I'm too busy doing other things.

HEY LOOK!  Some nerd-spergers over at the den are talking about diplomaners, and viola! Here at The Site we are talking about 'always fighting orcs' and now I've got a hypothetical reason why my table keeps breaking down on stealthy monsters....

tl;dr: As I've said, the value of looking at the Diplomancer 'problem' is not looking for solutions for a problem that doesn't exist, its in seeing the problems that lead to diplomancer style issues in the first place clearly.

Quote from: StormBringer;513934This seems like a pretty good solution, and coming from you, I assume it has been thoroughly tested.  I am not familiar enough with all the nuances and dark corners of d20 to confidently state how easy or difficult it is to get a +30 to begin with, but I am guessing Microlite74 doesn't use all the 3.x splats and Dragon articles that are out there.  So, pretty difficult, I would have to guess.

In Microlite74, it would be fairly hard (with one possible exception I'm mention at the end of this post). In combat, for example, the best you can do as a 20th Level fighter would be a total of +25 (+10 from Physical Combat Bonus, +5 from Fighter Bonus, +5 from a magic weapon, +5 from spell buffs/other magic items). You could get an additional GM assigned bonus from environmental/circumstances modifiers, but that's unlikely to be more than +5. Other classes aren't going to do even that well in combat. Of course, like the real 0e, M74 isn't even intended for 20th level play.

The one place were it is relatively easy for a high level to get a +30 bonus is "skill" rolls (when/if the GM decides to use them). A skill directly related to the character's class or background gets +level to the die roll (which is also modified by one's attribute bonus and GM assigned circumstances modifiers). At 20th level you might have a +22 or +23 before circumstances modifiers. However, characters are supposed to be highly competent in things directly related to their class or background so possibility really doesn't hurt anything assuming even a semi-competent GM. The bonus for skills only indirectly related to class or background drops to +level/2 so the issue never really comes up in where the character isn't highly competent. Finally, the dice aren't even rolled if the success or failure is obvious to the GM from the player's description of what his character is doing -- so if CHR 18 Paladin Frodo tries to use diplomacy to to convince Sauron to change sides, the GM can just have Sauron say no.

Quote from: Spike;513960As a GM I sit there while one of my players repeatedly 'breaks' the game by having almost 20 points more in Spot and Listen checks than any other player. THings that can 'attempt' to sneak up on her characters are essentially invisible to every other player. Things the others can detect might as well be wearing bells as far as she's concerned.

Obviously this creates a problem in scaling encounters for me. Obviously this suggests something isn't working 'as intended' to me, but generally I'm too busy doing other things.

HEY LOOK!  Some nerd-spergers over at the den are talking about diplomaners, and viola! Here at The Site we are talking about 'always fighting orcs' and now I've got a hypothetical reason why my table keeps breaking down on stealthy monsters....

Give the sneaky monster some class levels and skill in Move Silently and Sneak. Or just have someone cast Darkness and Silence. Problem character solved.

Quote from: Spike;513960tl;dr: As I've said, the value of looking at the Diplomancer 'problem' is not looking for solutions for a problem that doesn't exist, its in seeing the problems that lead to diplomancer style issues in the first place clearly.

Spike, you had a similar problem with the Vacc Suit skill in Mongoose Traveller. I think the problem isn't in the rules, the problem is that you believe that rules have got you as their bitch when they don't.

Quote from: jeff37923;513965Give the sneaky monster some class levels and skill in Move Silently and Sneak. Or just have someone cast Darkness and Silence. Problem character solved.

I can make sneaky monsters just fine. What I can't do is have sneaky monsters that reasonably challenge more than one segment of the party at a time. Either they OWN every other player to challenge one, or the one can essentially ignore the fact that they are sneaky.

Its the lack of middle ground that is the problem.


But by all means, continue to feel that the problem is actually that I somehow can't figure out how to make a sneaky-critter.

QuoteSpike, you had a similar problem with the Vacc Suit skill in Mongoose Traveller. I think the problem isn't in the rules, the problem is that you believe that rules have got you as their bitch when they don't.

Which goes to show how little you seem to comprehend my points. Fair enough, communication is a two way street, so obviously I can be doing more on my end.

Let me say it slowly then: I should not HAVE to force situations where the 'fighter pilot with Vacc Suit 6 and Pilot 0' can feel like a boss with his bad ass but otherwise probably unrolled skill.  Likewise, I shouldn't HAVE to go around making exceptions to character creation for people who wind up with an idiotic and illogical skill set like that. *





* for those just now tuning in to this rehashed, year+ old argument, I realize that its pretty stastically unlikely, but it is not particularly unlikely that your pilot character not actually rolling any piloting in his career, which was part of the point.  That I also feel like Vacc Suit should not actually be a significant skill (as in: Its a game about people on space ships, can we at least assume they know how the fuck to wear space suits?!, coupled with its shocking prevelance in certain careers where you are more likely than not to roll it several times AND the fact that the game itself suggests that vacc suit is not really rolled so much as used as a 'this high for entry' check that really only goes to 1.... Jeff continues to assume that I can't handle the fact that some guy who really wants to be a fighter pilot will somehow instead wind up a zen master of vacc suits.  I can handle it just fine. I don't want to.

Thanks, Jeff, since that was really useful and/or relevant to wether or not D&D should have characters rolling a d20 with a +90 bonus or not, which is what I was actually talking about. :rolleyes:

If you change the rules, they're not broken anymore!