***Note: I've made a few edits.***

Like rolling D20's?

Like the basic idea of UTEML from Pathfinder 2?

Like having Simplified Target Numbers for Task Resolution?

5 equals Fairly Easy
10 equals Moderately Difficult
15 equals Very Difficult
20 equals Extremely Difficult

The DM / GM determines difficulty, and therefore Target Numbers; as appropriate for each task.

No Stat Based Modifiers.  None.

Only Training and Experience increase your odds of success.

Untrained (Neophyte), roll One D12
Trained (Apprentice), roll Two D20's
Expert (Skilled), roll Three D20's
Master (Highly Skilled), roll Four D20's
Legendary (The Chosen One), roll Five D20's

An Untrained Neophyte is incapable of succeeding at Very Difficult, or Extremely Difficult tasks.

This is essentially a D20 Dice Pool mechanic.

Opinions???

So if you are Strong you dont get any bonus to a Strength check?

That seems counter-intuitive.

I dislike rolling more than one or two d20s.

Quote from: Shasarak;1123479So if you are Strong you dont get any bonus to a Strength check?

That seems counter-intuitive.

Excellent question!!!  You become Strong, through Strength Training and Hard Work.  Your player character develops and grows and learns over time.  Reality Simulation in action; plus Magic.....  

Perhaps there might be things in your character's Background, which would explain your character's strength?

Quote from: Razor 007;11234415 equals Fairly Easy
10 equals Moderately Difficult
15 equals Very Difficult
20 equals Extremely Difficult

Untrained (Neophyte), roll One D12
Trained (Apprentice), roll Two D20's
Expert (Skilled), roll Three D20's
Master (Highly Skilled), roll Four D20's
Legendary (The Chosen One), roll Five D20's

I assume the number of dice which match or beat the difficulty equals successes?  Looks simple enough.

Assuming you only need one success for baseline results, a Trained character has a 96% chance of succeeding at Fairly Easy tasks, about an 80% chance of succeeding at Moderately Difficult, about a 50% chance to succeed at Very Difficult and about a 10% chance to succeed at Extremely Difficult.  At the other extreme, a Legendary character has about an 85% chance of succeeding at Very Difficult, but only about 23% chance of succeeding at Extremely Difficult. Is this the kind of probability progression you were looking for?

Quote from: Bren;1123483I dislike rolling more than one or two d20s.

I bet it wouldn't bother the average teenager a bit, though.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1123485I assume the number of dice which match or beat the difficulty equals successes?  Looks simple enough.

Assuming you only need one success for baseline results, a Trained character has a 96% chance of succeeding at Fairly Easy tasks, about an 80% chance of succeeding at Moderately Difficult, about a 50% chance to succeed at Very Difficult and about a 10% chance to succeed at Extremely Difficult.  At the other extreme, a Legendary character has about an 85% chance of succeeding at Very Difficult, but only about 23% chance of succeeding at Extremely Difficult. Is this the kind of probability progression you were looking for?

Only one successful die result is needed for successful completion of a task.  The number of D20's rolled by each character skill level, can of course be adjusted to tailor the percentages accordingly.  I am pitching an overall approach concept here.  I don't want Extremely Difficult tasks to become an Easy Button, even for Legendary characters.  There must still be a chance of failure.

Quote from: Razor 007;1123487I bet it wouldn't bother the average teenager a bit, though.

I wouldn't know. I'm even farther from being an average teenager now than I was when I was a teenager.

Quote from: Razor 007;1123490I don't want Extremely Difficult tasks to become an Easy Button, even for Legendary characters.  There must still be a chance of failure.

Agreed; the one thing I might note here is that you don't have a lot of granularity to play with, unless difficulty isn't fixed to those four benchmarks. If you can set your target number between 15 and 20 in practice, then you don't get that sharp drop off between difficulty levels.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1123494Agreed; the one thing I might note here is that you don't have a lot of granularity to play with, unless difficulty isn't fixed to those four benchmarks. If you can set your target number between 15 and 20 in practice, then you don't get that sharp drop off between difficulty levels.

Correct.  I am pitching a basic framework, which could be tweaked by the DM / GM.  A D20 Dice Pool framework, I guess?

If I'm going to do something like this, I'll just go all-in with the Modiphius 2d20 lines.

I like the Target Number scale, it's basically DCC so I'm already a fan. I would instead say roll D10s and keep the two highest (if you have two to roll):

Untrained (Neophyte), roll 1D10
Trained (Apprentice), roll 2D10
Expert (Skilled), roll 3D10
Master (Highly Skilled), roll 4D10
Legendary (The Chosen One), roll 5D10

If you roll two 10s, that's a crit or increased success. No fumbles I guess though.

Quote from: Nihilistic Mind;1123498I like the Target Number scale, it's basically DCC so I'm already a fan. I would instead say roll D10s and keep the two highest (if you have two to roll):

In that case, bumping all the dice pools by 1 makes sense; a Neophyte has a 1% chance of rolling 10/10 on two dice - not technically impossible, but so rare that nobody would count on it.  

Neophyte (2d10)
 TN 5: 94%
 TN 10: 64%
 TN 15: 21%
 TN 20: 1%

Trained (3d10)
 TN 5:99%
 TN 10: 85%
 TN 15: 42%
 TN 20: 3%

Expert (4d10)
 TN 5: 100%
 TN 10: 93%
 TN 15: 60%
 TN 20: 5%

Master (5d10)
 TN 5: 100%
 TN 10: 97%
 TN 15: 72%
 TN 20: 8%

Legendary (6d10)
 TN 5: 100%
 TN 10: 99%
 TN 15: 81%
 TN 20: 11%

Comparing to Legendary  (5d20 keep 1):
 TN 5: 100%
 TN 10: 98%
 TN 15: 83%
 TN 20: 23%

Personally, I like some amount of natural talent to be a factor.  Two equally trained chess players should play competitively, but the more intelligent player should have an advantage.  I don't think that D&D typically handles that well.  While someone with a d20+2 will do better than someone with a d20+0, it may take a few dozen rolls to really see a difference.  

As an example, I just generated two sets of 5 for characters with those bonuses: Player 1 (7,6,7,12,7) and Player 2 (5,6,1,4,17).  In this case, the player with the bonus did win 3/5 (tied 1), but lost by the largest margin.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1123506In that case, bumping all the dice pools by 1 makes sense; a Neophyte has a 1% chance of rolling 10/10 on two dice - not technically impossible, but so rare that nobody would count on it.  

Neophyte (2d10)
 TN 5: 94%
 TN 10: 64%
 TN 15: 21%
 TN 20: 1%

Trained (3d10)
 TN 5:99%
 TN 10: 85%
 TN 15: 42%
 TN 20: 3%

Expert (4d10)
 TN 5: 100%
 TN 10: 93%
 TN 15: 60%
 TN 20: 5%

Master (5d10)
 TN 5: 100%
 TN 10: 97%
 TN 15: 72%
 TN 20: 8%

Legendary (6d10)
 TN 5: 100%
 TN 10: 99%
 TN 15: 81%
 TN 20: 11%

Comparing to Legendary  (5d20 keep 1):
 TN 5: 100%
 TN 10: 98%
 TN 15: 83%
 TN 20: 23%

Personally, I like some amount of natural talent to be a factor.  Two equally trained chess players should play competitively, but the more intelligent player should have an advantage.  I don't think that D&D typically handles that well.  While someone with a d20+2 will do better than someone with a d20+0, it may take a few dozen rolls to really see a difference.  

As an example, I just generated two sets of 5 for characters with those bonuses: Player 1 (7,6,7,12,7) and Player 2 (5,6,1,4,17).  In this case, the player with the bonus did win 3/5 (tied 1), but lost by the largest margin.

That seems to show that 5D20, keep 1; is better for a Legendary character, than 6D10, keep 2?

Quote from: Razor 007;1123441This is essentially a D20 Dice Pool mechanic.

Opinions???

You had me, until the dice pool part.