16 réponses à ce sujet

[M. Rieder]

Until now I have been simply checking skill rank to see if you can use a skill.  For example, I will check if you have 9 ranks in spellcraft.  If you have 9, you're in, if not, you're out.  No dice rolling.

I also have seen DC's used.  I have not employed this before but I am open to it. 

What do you think?

[Dann-J]

I tend to use a raw rank check in one-time conversation branches. So for an intimidation check, for instance, you might have several fall-back levels of responses. Failing a high rank check ("Take the gold - just don't hurt me!") gives options of partial success ("Fine. I'll give you half."), and falls through to absolute failure ("Run along peewee. Baby gets nothing.").

For repeatable conversation options I sometimes use a dice roll. That way a player with a low skill rank might still get lucky if they're really persistent (or if the conversation owner just gets sick of them asking over and over and over... ).

For spot, search or listen checks from heartbeat scripts, I always use a DC roll.

Modifié par DannJ, 09 décembre 2010 - 03:51 .

[Haplose]

I prefer checks of absolute (modified) skills . The d20 spread is just far too large. Especially at low levels where the random factor is much larger then the actual skill level... so someone maxing skills can fail a lot of checks while someone with 0 ranks can pass them, depending on luck.

Modifié par Haplose, 09 décembre 2010 - 06:38 .

[Arkalezth]

I suppose this is for your Wizard module? If so, I'd do as Haplose suggested. Wizards have few class skills, so no much difference between a "maxed" (read: cross-class at low levels) skill and one with 0 points invested on it.

[Hoegbo]

In my mod I did a mix of what dannj said , static checks and random checks. and this is to my preference



the random ones are only for minor spot, search and other checks in which the result did not affect a story part or quest ina gerat way.



the static is to open up other conversation options etc based that you are skilled in a field.



and the fallthrough like dannj described for alchemical checks. where you can partly identify something, or lore where you get half the story, for example.

[manageri]

I just wanna point out for consideration that simply checking rank to see if the char has trained the skill or not makes feats/spells/whatever that raise skills useless. You could also sometimes use a system where you do a rank check for basic success, then do a roll and if you score really high you get something more and maybe an xp bonus. Like making a craft alchemy rank check gives you whatever you were trying to make, and then a high DC roll lets you make something else for free with leftover materials.

[Arkalezth]

And how many times do you take feats like Skill Focus? Plus, no one said the DC has to be equal to the max unmodified rank. For example, since the OP's module is Wizard based, the DCs for Craft Alchemy could be pretty high (max ranks + INT bonus).

[manageri]

Arkalezth wrote...

And how many times do you take feats like Skill Focus?

Never since I already know I won't gain almost anything? You have the problem backwards here. People don't take skill focus because they know it's not worth it. If you had big DC skill checks with big rewards, that could change. Skill focus isn't the only thing either, you have spells like heroism and the attribute buffs.

Plus, no one said the DC has to be equal to the max unmodified rank. For example, since the OP's module is Wizard based, the DCs for Craft Alchemy could be pretty high (max ranks + INT bonus).

So instead of assuming a 1st level wizard has 4 in an INT based skill you assume 7 or 8? How is that avoiding the problem of buffs being useless?

[Arkalezth]

People don't take Skill Focus simply because it has no use in combat (except for Feint). And I mentioned Skill Focus because you mentioned feats. Heroism and attributes have other (more important) uses than bonuses to skills.

manageri wrote...

So instead of assuming a 1st level wizard has 4 in an INT based skill you assume 7 or 8? How is that avoiding the problem of buffs being useless?

Unbuffed/no stat modifier = fails the check. Buffed/positive modifier/Skill Focus = passes the check.

I'm not saying it's my preferred method, but it'd make buffs useful.

Modifié par Arkalezth, 09 décembre 2010 - 01:54 .

[manageri]

Arkalezth wrote...

People don't take Skill Focus simply because it has no use in combat

Correct, but you can fix that indirectly by making succesful skill checks offer you stuff that IS useful in combat.

Unbuffed/no stat modifier = fails the check. Buffed/positive modifier/Skill Focus = passes the check.

I'm not saying it's my preferred method, but it'd make buffs useful.

Yea that would work too.

[dunniteowl]

Okay fellas, all fine and good, I don't think we're looking for a discussion on this particular matter. The question was and still is: Do you prefer a Static Skill check to see if you have the required ranks in a skill or do you prefer a DC and roll for success?



I think the split house method is what I would find most preferable. I like the idea that having a specific Skill Rank (or level) qualifies you to make a check for some things, while having a DC roll on others alone is probably fine. There's no reason folks shouldn't, on occasion, get lucky.



I also tend to agree that if it's not plot or story line related, a DC only roll is a) Less overall work and More apropos to the situation of random finds and such. This does not negate skill ranks or buffs or feats and so, the more 'experienced' a character is, the higher the base chance of success anyways, while the lower end clientele still have a shot at finding something useful, new or surprising.



When it comes to important moments, like an intimidate check to get a person to talk, I think checking Skill Ranks based on the general nature/level of that part of the story is wholly proper as a first method and then a DC check based on all useful qualifiers to determine overall level of success and direction of intimidation. Someone posted just recently about having an opportunity through conversation to use other skills in something like this, where, if a Wizard has the spell Enlarge, or Charm Person, they could opt to use one of those spells and continue the intimidation and increase their odds of success (or decrease their chances altogether through spell failure) during the intimidation check.

These things, especially for a Wizard, should allow you to open up varied pathways to success without having to do more than ensure that the options are there, then allow the ranks, skill levels and to determine if they get to go Route A or Route B and use DCs (where more applicable devices come into play) and, for those with greater experience or luck, get an overall better result and those with lower skills or really bad luck, may actually make the situation worse in that moment.



All other portions of the discussion of just how and which skills, feats, abilities make a difference I think is best left for another topic on the whole.



regards,

dunniteowl

[Dorateen]

For Party Chat style conversations, I use the absolute skill rank in the conditional for when I want to assign a line to a specific archetype character. To me, there is a difference between one who has 4 ranks in diplomacy and a party member who has 8 ranks. This says something about that character and helps define who they are. In fact, I've come to appreciate all the skill sets that are part of 3rd edition as more of a role-play enhancement rather than just a game mechanic.

I do still like dc checks for out of conversation situations like serach/ spot to find random trreasure or clues. And of course, rogues still have to make dc checks to open locks or disarm traps.

Generally speaking, I would say that I prefer dice rolls for skill checks because it has more of a Pen and Paper feel. However, I think this is one of the areas where a computer role playing game like NWN2 falls short. In a live tabletop session, you could roll the dice... or perhaps the DM would be secretly rolling dice behind his fearsome Dungeon master screen... and let the results play out. You roll the dice, and let the chips fall where they will. But in a game like NWN2, there is often the chance the player sees they have failed a skill check. This alerts them that something is up, and will keep trying to beat the skill check dc. Unless this is properly scripted, of course.

Harumph!

[M. Rieder]

dunniteowl wrote...

I think the split house method is what I would find most preferable. I like the idea that having a specific Skill Rank (or level) qualifies you to make a check for some things, while having a DC roll on others alone is probably fine. There's no reason folks shouldn't, on occasion, get lucky.

dunniteowl

I think everyone should get lucky at least once in their life.  You know, if that was a D20 system, It may not be too bad....  You know, for those of us who may not have maxed out that skill slot....

[M. Rieder]

Thanks for the responses. They have been very helpful. Based on your recommendations, I am lening toward the mixed bag approach. I also really appreciate the suggestions about using spells to assist and to have fall-throughs for lesser skill ranks.

[Lugaid of the Red Stripes]

I'm a bit late to the party, but I've been messing around with gratuitous skill checks lately for my WiP, and had some thoughts.

I think the absolute check is best for one-off events, just because they're less frustrating. If you're gonna use dice rolls, you need to make the check repetitive, so that the player can try again if they get a bad roll.

For example, I have this guard that you're supposed to bluff/bribe/intimidate your way past. He starts asking you a series of questions, and as you fail your checks, he gets more suspicious and the DC gets higher. If you pass a check, he likewise warms up to you and the DC gets easier. Five rounds or so of this and he waves you on past.

In practice, the added DC really makes skill ranks important, as it becomes less likely that a d20 alone will be enough to succeed. An unskilled character facing a DC of 10 will succeed 50% of the time, but the same character facing a DC of 15 will only succeed 25% of the time. A few skill ranks can dramatically change those probabilities, and so change the way the game plays out.

[PJ156]

Sorry, late too.

I ahve been playing with this of recent and have taken the line that I use skill checks to see if an attempt is posible and DC to see if sucessful. For instance in a convo there may be a diplomatic response hoswever the situation calls for a good diplomat so I might put a skill check of 10 on that. Then there is a passed or failed response.

I like the idea of a fall through on the skill ckeck so lesser skill level is rewarded with some, but less, information. Frankly though that is a lot more work. I am not a great fan of convo writing.

PJ

Edit - I got this idea from another thread on this subject but can't remember where to credit it. So if anyone out there is screaming hey, that's my idea ... it probaly was

Modifié par PJ156, 10 décembre 2010 - 09:39 .

[M. Rieder]

Two very good suggestions, thanks. I am still open to suggestions if anyone wants to weigh in.