Quote from: Benoist;368246My 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.

That aspect needs some tweaking.  The most appealing option at the moment is granting PCs a bonus of half their level to "class" skills, so that they improve.

Some fiat is involved.  A 17-year-old smith may struggle to make a decent dagger, but when that PC is 30 he'll be setting his sights on superior and heirloom weapons, regardless of the mechanics attached.

Heroic actions are different.  I encourage Indiana Jones-ishness, but I draw the line at X-Men.

So, as for "legendary", that's something I need to discuss with the group.  I enjoy playing sub-legendary characters, at least until very high levels, so the expectations of PC power are something we'll have to negotiate.
 

Quote from: Benoist;368246- 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.

Isn't that standard?  A character has a level of ability that applies in an average situation, and that's modified by circumstances and equipment.

Quote from: Benoist;368246Now, 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+

That's a variation on what Winkingbishop and Claudius proposed.

The maths are sound, but the sticking point for me is using the attribute as the point of reference, rather than judging a DC.

I want to be able to reason, "the pit is jumpable, but flames are spurting out of it, which is -2.  The PC has magic boots (+2) and is an acrobat by training (+4), so the player needs to roll their strength with a +4 bonus on the die".

I just find it easier to apply the numbers to the player's roll than to the number they need to roll.

Quote from: Hairfoot;368267That aspect needs some tweaking.  The most appealing option at the moment is granting PCs a bonus of half their level to "class" skills, so that they improve.

Some fiat is involved.  A 17-year-old smith may struggle to make a decent dagger, but when that PC is 30 he'll be setting his sights on superior and heirloom weapons, regardless of the mechanics attached.

Heroic actions are different.  I encourage Indiana Jones-ishness, but I draw the line at X-Men.

So, as for "legendary", that's something I need to discuss with the group.  I enjoy playing sub-legendary characters, at least until very high levels, so the expectations of PC power are something we'll have to negotiate.

Don't think any of my points here are "criticism" or "things I don't like". These are just choices that are just as valid as others would. They do, however, emulate or do not emulate aspects of the game world, and one should be aware of the consequences of these choices in design.

That's why I was posting there's no "right" and "wrong" answer on this.
 

Quote from: Hairfoot;368267Isn't that standard?  A character has a level of ability that applies in an average situation, and that's modified by circumstances and equipment.



That's a variation on what Winkingbishop and Claudius proposed.

The maths are sound, but the sticking point for me is using the attribute as the point of reference, rather than judging a DC.

I want to be able to reason, "the pit is jumpable, but flames are spurting out of it, which is -2.  The PC has magic boots (+2) and is an acrobat by training (+4), so the player needs to roll their strength with a +4 bonus on the die".

I just find it easier to apply the numbers to the player's roll than to the number they need to roll.

These two points are linked.

OK. The simple way to solve this is to have ONE flat TN that never changes. Then the modifiers do ALL the work on emulating the difficulty of the action. There is no double dip anymore.

Say for instance that you fix the TN at 25 and that's *it*. This number will never change. If you roll above 25, you succeed at your task. Period.

The player rolls d20 + Stat Score. Tells you the result.
You, DM, add/substract from the Roll Result given by the player all relevant modifiers for circumstances and difficulty of the task undertaken (could be Very Easy -10, Easy -6, Average -2 to +2, Hard +6, Very Hard +10, Heroic beyond).
You compare the result to 25. Above = success. Under = failure.

Something like that?

Generally speaking, I do like roll high much better. It just feels more right.

RPGpundit