Didn't get much feedback at the Mythmere forums, so I'll repost this here and hope for a wandering mathematician to pass through.

My current preference for a simple skill/profession/universal resolution system for Swords & Wizardry goes like this:

- Roll 1d20
- A score equal to or below the relevant attribute is a success
- PCs receive a bonus of 4 when performing specialist activities (such as tracking for "rangers", lock-picking for "thieves")
- The score is modified in increments of 2 to reflect advantages or hindrances (such as a penalty of 4 for wearing heavy armour, or bonus of 2 for a magic item).

I would, however, like to avoid a "roll under" mechanic, so is there a simple way to turn it into a "roll over" system?

Hrms someone swifter than I with the numbers may need to do it.

Ordinarily it be easy except you have variable target numbers. However, you could set all base target numbers to 20-Attribute or 25-Attribute depending on easy you'd want it to be.

Example: Want to Craft a Horseshoe and that uses Intelligence. An easy roll would be 20-intelligence (I'm assuming of course D&D like ranges)

So a 12 Int fighter has to roll an 8 or higher to craft a horseshoe. If its a harder task like build a horseshoe in the rain from mithral it be say 25-Int and he'd need to roll a 17 or higher on D20. (Of course don't do it in armor, and use magical tools..to bring that down.)

For a d20 roll, 21 - roll-under target number = roll-high target number.

Quote from: FASERIP;368190For a d20 roll, 21 - roll-under target number = roll-high target number.

Ah, that looks like the ticket!  I wonder, though, if that will require less number crunching at the table than keeping it "roll under" and making bonuses a negative value, like armour class.

OTOH, I prefer "roll over" because it makes opposed rolls a lot easier: d20 + attribute + bonuses for each opponent.  Is there a simple way to competitively roll under attributes?

Just have the numbers pre-calculated.  That's what we did when we wanted to make 'ability checks' a roll high mechanic.

  If I were to play a D&D-like game nowadays, I'd prefer rolling against a difficulty number.

Quote from: Hairfoot;368183I would, however, like to avoid a "roll under" mechanic, so is there a simple way to turn it into a "roll over" system?

You search for pleasure in high numbers is invalid. Rearrange your thinking, and all will be well. Let GURPS be your guide, and BRP will be a lamppost unto your feet.

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;368192If I were to play a D&D-like game nowadays, I'd prefer rolling against a difficulty number.

I don't like setting DCs or equivalents.  I'd like the PC's chance of success to be their attribute, +/- appropriate modifiers.

Quote from: The_Shadow;368195You search for pleasure in high numbers is invalid. Rearrange your thinking, and all will be well. Let GURPS be your guide, and BRP will be a lamppost unto your feet.

For verily, my mission is to bring a Pathfinder group unto the revelation that we can be playing faster and lighter.  Such humble works require a touchstone of familiarity.

Quote from: Hairfoot;368199I don't like setting DCs or equivalents.  I'd like the PC's chance of success to be their attribute, +/- appropriate modifiers.

My problem with that is I found that it makes having a high attribute too important. As I like random rolls for attributes, I don't really want them to be as important to character success/survival as this tends to make them. This is something I found out years ago when I decided to make saving throws heavily attribute-based. It was a mistake -- at least for the way I like to play.

Quote from: Hairfoot;368191Ah, that looks like the ticket!  I wonder, though, if that will require less number crunching at the table than keeping it "roll under" and making bonuses a negative value, like armour class.

OTOH, I prefer "roll over" because it makes opposed rolls a lot easier: d20 + attribute + bonuses for each opponent.  Is there a simple way to competitively roll under attributes?

Competitively rolling low is troublesome.  A couple things you could do.

1. The Blackjack method.  The highest roll without going over your attribute.  So you're still rolling high, but higher attribute is better.  If they both go over, then you could reroll or have whoever went over by the least amount wins.

2. The "degree of success method".  Have both roll and whoever gets under their attribute by the most wins.  So if a guy with 12 and 18 both roll 9, the 18 guy wins because he's 9-under while the 12 guy is 3-under.

Quote from: Hairfoot;368199I don't like setting DCs or equivalents.  I'd like the PC's chance of success to be their attribute, +/- appropriate modifiers.

A suggestion, quick and dirty, that may be better received by your Pathfinder group and place great emphasis on attributes like you desire:

Roll:
1d20 plus the whole Attribute +/- situational modifiers


Target Numbers:

• 20 for "in-class" use (e.g. ranger tracking, mages recalling)

• 25 for "non-class" use (e.g. thieves bench pressing)

Example:
Ranger Bob is tracking goblins through light forest.  As an in-class use, his Target Number is 20.  Bob rolls 1d20 with a (-2) because it snowed last night then adds his whole Wisdom.

I think this is pretty reasonable assuming you're using 3d6 Attribute generation.  You'll notice the compounding difficulty of using a "cross-class" skill with the fact that a PC will also likely have a lower appropriate attribute, as it probably should be.

If I were to use such a system, I would probably want to clarify for my players which social skills (assuming you're allowing any rolls for such a thing) would apply for each class.

Quote from: CRKrueger2. The "degree of success method". Have both roll and whoever gets under their attribute by the most wins. So if a guy with 12 and 18 both roll 9, the 18 guy wins because he's 9-under while the 12 guy is 3-under.

That's nice.  I'd like to keep the margins low on the dice.

Quote from: winkingbishop;368220A suggestion, quick and dirty, that may be better received by your Pathfinder group and place great emphasis on attributes like you desire:

Roll:
1d20 plus the whole Attribute +/- situational modifiers


Target Numbers:

• 20 for "in-class" use (e.g. ranger tracking, mages recalling)

• 25 for "non-class" use (e.g. thieves bench pressing)

If I were to use such a system, I would probably want to clarify for my players which social skills (assuming you're allowing any rolls for such a thing) would apply for each class.

That provides a good scale, but I'm wary of pushing numbers into the 20s.  I'm concerned that it will abstract too much from the attribute values, which is what I'm trying to emphasise.  However wonky the original mechanics of D&D are, I think the 3d6 attribute range is great, except that it soon became abstracted to being nothing more than the value of the bonus it provides.  As Philotomy wrote,

Quote from: Philotomy DuramentThe original concept behind ability scores was a 3-18 range with "bell curve probability"; this is easily generated using 3d6. Later versions of the game started making bonuses higher and more common, introducing "bonus inflation." ... However, the nature of the 3-18 bell curve means very high ability scores are much less likely than average ability scores.

I'm hoping that making the attributes more nuanced and relevant in play will reduce some of the feat/skill withdrawal from Pathfinder, so that having a 14 WIS really makes a difference from an 11 WIS.

As for class skills, I really want to get away from that whole notion of speciality, and base it instead on character background.

For example, if a player describes his fighting-man as an anti-social hunter from the Forest of Ugh, that character's "class skills" might include all things hunting-related (tracking, climbing, swimming etc), but he might get a penalty when trying to negotiate with urbanites or perform physical feats in heavy armour.

Similarly, if player wants a traditional D&D thief, the player creates a fighting-man with a bonus to stealth, lock-picking, traps, and sniffing out information in a big city, but penalties for using large weapons, armour heavier than leather, or dealing with authority figures and lawmen.

Obviously, making that work requires a bit of horse trading and reasoning, but that's precisely what I want to introduce into the mix.

Right on.  After reading the goals for your campaign and tone you'd like to present I can only concede that my idea is probably not what you're looking for.  Let us know what you ultimately decide on, I'd like to know how your campaign progresses.

Quote from: Hairfoot;368191Ah, that looks like the ticket!  I wonder, though, if that will require less number crunching at the table than keeping it "roll under" and making bonuses a negative value, like armour class.

OTOH, I prefer "roll over" because it makes opposed rolls a lot easier: d20 + attribute + bonuses for each opponent.  Is there a simple way to competitively roll under attributes?

It's very easy. You roll 1d20 + characteristic + bonuses - penalties, 21 or more is a success, 20 or less a failure. Roll over and roll under are mathematically the same, the only difference is psychological.

Quote from: winkingbishop;368233Right on.  After reading the goals for your campaign and tone you'd like to present I can only concede that my idea is probably not what you're looking for.  Let us know what you ultimately decide on, I'd like to know how your campaign progresses.

Hard to say what will work best until we try it, so thanks for the idea.  I hope to run a campaign journal here if/when we start, so you can watch me implode the group post by post.

Quote from: Claudius;368235It's very easy. You roll 1d20 + characteristic + bonuses - penalties, 21 or more is a success, 20 or less a failure. Roll over and roll under are mathematically the same, the only difference is psychological.

Ah.  Winkingbishop's system but with the skill bonus on the player side.  That's very good.


EDIT:  1000 posts for me.  That's since I joined 11 months ago.  By contrast, it took me six years to rack up a grand at ENWorld.  I love this place.

Quote from: Hairfoot;368183Didn't get much feedback at the Mythmere forums, so I'll repost this here and hope for a wandering mathematician to pass through.

My current preference for a simple skill/profession/universal resolution system for Swords & Wizardry goes like this:

- Roll 1d20
- A score equal to or below the relevant attribute is a success
- PCs receive a bonus of 4 when performing specialist activities (such as tracking for "rangers", lock-picking for "thieves")
- The score is modified in increments of 2 to reflect advantages or hindrances (such as a penalty of 4 for wearing heavy armour, or bonus of 2 for a magic item).

I would, however, like to avoid a "roll under" mechanic, so is there a simple way to turn it into a "roll over" system?

There's nothing inherently "wrong" with this. There are many ways to do skills using the original game, and that's one amongst many, many ways to do it.

My take on what you wrote:

- You take roll under. Alright. This means a few things: that it will be incredibly hard to reach legendary skill at doing things, and pretty much insignificant system wise, aside of this or that occasional modifier, to do so (above 20 in an Attribute etc, like acquiring beyond 100% skills in Basic).

- The flat bonus for specialist activities means that the level of a character in this or that class or profession doesn't have any mechanical impact on said character's chances of success. A level-0 Alchemist will brew potions the same way as a 20-level Magic User, aside from Wealth and Spells requirements. A level-0 Cavalier and a 20th level Fighter will ride a horse with the same skill.

- There's a double-dip in terms of difficulties/target numbers. First, you have the natural capability of the character affecting outcomes (the actual attribute score used), and the circumstantial modifiers added or substracted to it.

Understand here that there's no "right" or "wrong" answer when it comes to your houserules, so long as you are aware of what they translate into at the game table, of course, and the elements they emulate, and do NOT emulate, about the game world.

Now, to turn roll under into roll over, simply roll 1d20 + Attribute SCORE + Circumstantial Modifiers.

The base 50% chance of success target number will be 10 (average result on d20) + 11 (average result on 3d6 for attribute rolls, assuming you roll equal or beyond target number) + 2 (average between specialist/non-specialist) = 23.

Now just modify this target number upwards or downwards for "average difficulty tasks" to reflect how likely a player character should be able to succeed tasks of average challenge. 1 chance in 2? Then use around 23. Easier than this? Use 20. Harder than this? 25.

Then decide further difficulty increments by steps of 4 or 5 (20%/25% increments on a d20). Let's say you pick 20 as the base average difficulty TN. Your resulting array of difficulties could be:

Very Easy - 12
Easy - 16
Average - 20
Hard - 24
Very Hard - 28
Heroic - 30+

For instance.