Alternate skill methods....

[Jaymz]

This has had some discussion on the facebook group a while back.

I'd like to get the discussion going here now and continue to add to it.

One system that was suggested was the following:

Instead of rolling under the skill percentage, the skill now becomes the bonus to d100 roll versus 100 to succeed.

For example if you have Radio basic at 74% you would roll d100+74 versus 100. If there are penalties you apply them accordingly. Roll 100 or higher you succeed. Roll below you fail.

The upside is it makes opposed rolls such as camouflage versus detect concealment easier as it you just do opposed skill rolls with each others rolls being the target number to beat. Highest roll succeeds. Another upside is it also keeps a percentile mechanic which is already there.


Another is as follows:

(and the conversion notes for bringing the present skill system over to this)

Each skill has a set target difficulty number.

All skill rolls are rolled against this number using a d20 + OCC bonuses, IQ bonuses and Skill bonuses.

The Target difficulty number is determined by taking the base skill percentage as it is now and dividing it by 5. You then subtract that from 20. This is your set target difficulty number for the skill.

IQ bonuses are determined by comparing your IQ to the exceptional attributes bonus chart using the PP row to determine the actual bonus.

OCC bonuses are determined by dividing the bonus by 5.

Skill bonuses are determined as follows: Skill that increase by 1% per level gain +1 every 5 levels. Skills that increase 2% per level gain +1 every 3 levels. Skills that increase 3% per level gain +1 every 2 levels. Skills that increase 4-6% per level +1 per level.

Penalties can be any number of things. Where there is a set percentage penalty however, divide by 5 to calculate the new penalty to subtract from your skill roll.

Example of a skill and the characters roll versus the Skill.

Skill - Hacking (HU2 page 58)

Base percentage - 30%

New Target Difficulty Number - 14 ((20-(30%/5)

Skill Bonus per Level - +5% per level

New Skill Bonus per Level - +1 per level

5th level Hacker (Normal person with on the job training education page 45)

IQ - 20

IQ Bonus - +3 (using the PP row of the exceptional attribute chart)

Class Bonus - +15%

New Class Bonus - +3 (15%/5)

Skill Level - +5 (based on the new skill bonus per level above)

So the above hacker would roll 1d20+11 (IQ bonus+Class Bonus+Skill bonus) vs 14

If the hacker were trying to hack through a sophisticated security program the penalty would be -8 (-40%/5) (-40% is on page 123) making the roll 1d20+3 vs 14

This makes opposed rolls easier just as the above method does. Another upside is this eliminates the percentile mechanic and uses a d20 mechanic so that skills are more similar to combat rolls. The downside is the work involved to use this method.


Now, discuss, suggest others and comment away

[colonel wolfe]

Dec 1, 2013 0:29:07 GMT Jaymz said:

This has had some discussion on the facebook group a while back.

I'd like to get the discussion going here now and continue to add to it.

One system that was suggested was the following:

Instead of rolling under the skill percentage, the skill now becomes the bonus to d100 roll versus 100 to succeed.

For example if you have Radio basic at 74% you would roll d100+74 versus 100. If there are penalties you apply them accordingly. Roll 100 or higher you succeed. Roll below you fail.

The upside is it makes opposed rolls such as camouflage versus detect concealment easier as it you just do opposed skill rolls with each others rolls being the target number to beat. Highest roll succeeds. Another upside is it also keeps a percentile mechanic which is already there.

I like this method... not a "d20" conversion... and it fixes one problem I have with the system.

[damianmagecraft]

I like the "d20" conversion as it fits in with an experimental design change I have been contemplating....
currently the system is using a linear probability model.
I am thinking of changing that to a 2d10 bell curve.
bonuses would be be given more weight making training and natural ability more important than just luck.

[NMI]

I admit that I kinda like this proposed idea.
Personally, I am fine with the system as is and I am competent enough of my own skills as GM to deal with any discrepancies, but I like this.

[Jaymz]

Dec 1, 2013 17:56:48 GMT NMI said:

I admit that I kinda like this proposed idea.
Personally, I am fine with the system as is and I am competent enough of my own skills as GM to deal with any discrepancies, but I like this.

Which one? The variant percentile or the "d20 like" one?

[NMI]

Dec 1, 2013 18:21:36 GMT Jaymz said:

Dec 1, 2013 17:56:48 GMT NMI said:

I admit that I kinda like this proposed idea.
Personally, I am fine with the system as is and I am competent enough of my own skills as GM to deal with any discrepancies, but I like this.

Which one? The variant percentile or the "d20 like" one?

D20

[Jaymz]

It is one I came up with but never tried out yet so I honestly have no idea how well it would work....

[damianmagecraft]

Dec 1, 2013 19:42:15 GMT Jaymz said:

It is one I came up with but never tried out yet so I honestly have no idea how well it would work....

I am gonna test it out with my 2d10 mechanic and see how well that plays out...
Right now it looks good.

[Jaymz]

Cool *thumbs up*

[colonel wolfe]

The 2d10 method to replace a d20 was detailed in 3.x unearthed arcana... it is an interesting method. Rifts combat works well with it.

[Jaymz]

I look forward to Damian's testing then

[colonel wolfe]

The book included rules that were for people who didn't have access to D20s a 3D6 method.

[Jaymz]

That sounds similar to what they did in Fuzion....sort of. 1d10+modifiers or 3d6+modifiers....

[damianmagecraft]

well the bell curve aspect drew my attention.
on 2d10 the average roll is an 11. and both 2 and 20 become rarer rolls (only appearing 1% of the time each). which make both criticals and fumbles rarer and yet could also make them more dangerous at the same time.
Bonuses carry more weight as a +1 could move you from a commonly rolled number into an uncommon or even rare one.
skills and attribute bonuses become more important then.
(was also going to test it with Jaymzs multiple attributes to a skill tweak as well).

[damianmagecraft]

Only issue I have spotted so far is using the pp stat bonus chart grants higher bonuses than the IQ stat bonuses.
I would recommend just dividing the % from the IQ chart by 5 (rounding up) to maintain the paradigm.

[Jaymz]

My reasoning for it being the way it is is that d20 bonuses are worth so much more in palladium which to me is why the games tend to get combat heavy.

Your suggestion would give at best a bonus of +4 max which is only half the bonus any other stat gives.

I went for consistency of bonus type making IQ AS valuable as PP or anything else

[damianmagecraft]

You have made more valuable by at least one order of magnitude.

[Jaymz]

How so?

Without an opposed roll failure on a d20 with no bonuses is 20% (4 or less) to strike

As soon as you reach a pp of 20 you can no longer fail since as written a natural 1 is not an auto fail.

Skills however would have starting numbers 45% or higher to fail in many cases prior to bonuses.

Also for skills there is an auto fail so you must roll at least a 2 on the d20 to succeed regardless of your bonuses not to mention that typically for most skills there are significantly more situational penalties than there are in combat.

So I fail to see how I have suddenly increased its importance by a magnitude more over what is already present for things like pp

[damianmagecraft]

Look at pick lock and the thief...
The bonuses actually go higher faster for skills that hth or wp.

[damianmagecraft]

Skills get bonuses from occ, race, and other skills in addition to IQ.
Orders of magnitude more important if bonuses go that high that fast for a high iq.

[Jaymz]

yet not all skills increase as fast (in fact some may progress slower than combat bonuses depending on the percentage progression it is) as others and many classes also get bonuses equal to anywhere from 5-15% (+1-3) for combat or physical bonuses.

And again I point out that the strike target specifically start significantly lower than pretty much any skill in the game if calculated above prior to bonuses. I still do not see the issue.

[colonel wolfe]

for Melee combat, the threshold for success is always 80% before bonuses and penalties are applied.
so a simple +1 from a high PP is going to reduce you chance to miss by 25%, any other combat bonuses might completely eliminate the chance to miss.

that compared to a Skill which has a 40% base, with a 60% chance of failure.
on a d20 that is rolling above a 12 in every instance... to reduce the Chance of failure the same percentage as the +1 from PP, you'd need at least a bonus of +3... so yes, in many many ways combat bonuses affect combat several times greater then a similar bonus to a skill.
basically if Combat was a Skill, the skill would start at 80%, and each +1 from other bonuses would be a +5%... breaching 100% at a simple +4... that's pretty easy for a level 1 character.

[damianmagecraft]

Using the Pick Locks skill and the Thief OCC from PF for my example...
Pick Locks base 30% converts to a target score of 14
Thief OCC grants a +15% converts to a +3
High IQ (going to the extreme) using current proposed HR +8
That reduces the that target roll to a 3 at level one.
Add in the bonus from palming that is another +1 now its a 2 at level one.
By level 2 the thief is a perfect lock smith and pick pocket (scores are identical).
It removes progression.
The reason the Higher scores work for combat skills is they are opposed rolls.
non-combat skills (as the system is currently written) were never intended to be opposed rolls.
Unopposed skills max out too quickly.
Just converting the percentages over to their equivalent bonuses on a d20 maintains the "balance" already in place.

I understand the reasoning behind wanting to keep a single stat bonus system but it wont work well with Palladiums design.
The reason it works well with 3.x is because every stat affects multiple functions And the scores are lower.
IQ in Pally only affects non-combat skills. But there are Multiple systems that also affect those same non-combat skills.

[colonel wolfe]

I would, in the case of the thief, allow them to Sub their PP score on the IQ line for thief skills (or any skill really)related to dexterity and grace... but using the PP line to give bonuses to a D20 roll for skills is bad news, and yeah it would drastically alter the bonuses.
as the example you give of a 30IQ convert to +3(.4) compared to the +8 PP gives...

[colonel wolfe]

Dec 4, 2013 5:26:51 GMT damianmagecraft said:

I understand the reasoning behind wanting to keep a single stat bonus system but it wont work well with Palladiums design.
The reason it works well with 3.x is because every stat affects multiple functions And the scores are lower.
IQ in Pally only affects non-combat skills. But there are Multiple systems that also affect those same non-combat skills.

unless you changed the bonus progression... maybe to a +1 for every 2 points starting at 12...

[Jaymz]

Yet your thief example would also face more situational penalties where the combat rolls will not. To me that is enough of a mitigating factor to allow the bonuses to stand as is.