For assassination and grappling, yes, it was percentages. But Turning Undead was a d20 roll as per Table III on page 75 of my 1979 DMG.
And this entire discussion isn't even about which dice are used. It's about OP being unhappy that he doesn't know in advance what DC he's aiming for. But that's part of the game. None of us know before we attempt something whether we will succeed or fail. That's why we try.
I admit I have a private list of “common Difficulties” I use for my own consistency, but I also have DC categories that are much more expanded. 17, of them, set up by common phrase so if a player asks I can say vague things like “that looks like an extremely hard thing to do” or “ah, piece of cake”.
I adapted it from the one I used in MSHAS, lol.
also, just ask the DM to use more dice for different things. I have charts and tables I use for d16, d24, and d30. And all the regular ones. We like to use our dice, not digital ones, and we have a lot of them.
my oldest die is a d20 I am not allowed to use. It is beat to hell and dates back to 81. All my original set disintegrated, though.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Unfortunately, it is a tough sell for most due to most finding it overwhelming.
the Full Rolemaster is a freaking nightmare, overkill in a jar, but that game also seeks to be ultra realistic.
Even the toned down version for MERP was pretty rough. And they’ve only added to it since my foray into it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The d6 skill checks was a dragon mag element that ultimately influenced JRPG. It was not broadly used because…
in 2nd Edition, it was a d20 for proficiencies.
d6 is used by players for their hit points.
You have moved the goal posts three times in the thread, lol.
Also, is there anything about 5e that you like in a positive way?
2nd ed.? Thief skills were determined with a percentile roll. As were a number of Strength, etc. checks.
I have books and boxed sets on my shelf from both 1st ed. and Moldvay Basic and Cook Expert to prove # in 6 rolls as well as percentile rolls were very much broadly used. # in 6 rolls were used for most perception-based checks. They were core rules.
How have I moved the goalposts? I have explained that I like sub-systems that make use of other dice and that I don't like the arbitrary nature of DCs. Having to repeat myself or reword or rephrase things because some have misread or misunderstood what I am saying isn't shifting the goalposts.
For assassination and grappling, yes, it was percentages. But Turning Undead was a d20 roll as per Table III on page 75 of my 1979 DMG.
And this entire discussion isn't even about which dice are used. It's about OP being unhappy that he doesn't know in advance what DC he's aiming for. But that's part of the game. None of us know before we attempt something whether we will succeed or fail. That's why we try.
That's WHY we try!
Thief skills were also a mix of # in 6 and percentile rolls.
Locating or detecting things was # in 6.
Turning undead used 2d6 to determine success or failure in the Basic and Expert sets from 1981.
There is a difference between not knowing if one is going to succeed or fail because the dice will determine that and never quite knowing because the DM can just arbitrarily decide that whatever you roll didn't meet the target number he pulled out of thin air.
I admit I have a private list of “common Difficulties” I use for my own consistency, but I also have DC categories that are much more expanded. 17, of them, set up by common phrase so if a player asks I can say vague things like “that looks like an extremely hard thing to do” or “ah, piece of cake”.
I adapted it from the one I used in MSHAS, lol.
also, just ask the DM to use more dice for different things. I have charts and tables I use for d16, d24, and d30. And all the regular ones. We like to use our dice, not digital ones, and we have a lot of them.
my oldest die is a d20 I am not allowed to use. It is beat to hell and dates back to 81. All my original set disintegrated, though.
I like this idea of devising one's own sub-systems so other dice get more use.
That d20 from '81 must be quite the treasure! I recently purchased a Cook Expert boxed set from the same year. Kept in pristine condition as the owner wasn't a native English speaker and had instead just used photocopies of the Japanese edition. These were still in the box! Alas the dice and the crayon were not ...
A problem in this thread is that you've conflated two very separate and distinct issues and it's hard to know where it is you're coming from:
The concept that DCs are not completely predetermined but significant discretion is left to the DM.
That the d20 is used in most situations.
Personally, I'd split those concerns into two different threads, since they are not particularly relevant to each other.
DCs set by the DM
Personally, I like the 5e system. It allows for a lot of fine tweaking and adaptation to the particular circumstance. There is a weakness to be abused by DMs ("I'm just.going to up the difficulty and negate your gains") it is true, but it also allows the good DMs to make the game more interesting and be a verisimilitude.
I also play the 2d20 system which effectively has preset DCs...it has its advantages, but it sucks for making a situation unique. No matter the range, so long as the target is within range, the difficulty is the same. No matter what the weapon is, whether you've trained with it for years or just picked it up...the difficulty is the same. Is the enemy a rat running through the bushes or a giant statue out in the open? It's the same. What makes 2d20 good compared to 5e is not in the setting of DCs. Sure, you can easily know the goals ahead of time and it's predictable...but a good DM will give you that same information (if relevant and it makes sense) in 5e too...and if it's a bad DM, then this is probably the least of your problems anyway.
Lack of diversity in dice
In some ways, I agree. It would be nice to use my other dice a bit more often. I sometimes do in my games. On the other hand, the d20 is the most logical die to use as the back bone. It easily converts to percentage while not requiring the throwing of multiple dice like a percentile would (or the horrible d100 alternative). I'm just not sure how they can use the other dice that much more often without introducing tons of complexity.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
For assassination and grappling, yes, it was percentages. But Turning Undead was a d20 roll as per Table III on page 75 of my 1979 DMG.
And this entire discussion isn't even about which dice are used. It's about OP being unhappy that he doesn't know in advance what DC he's aiming for. But that's part of the game. None of us know before we attempt something whether we will succeed or fail. That's why we try.
That's WHY we try!
Thief skills were also a mix of # in 6 and percentile rolls.
Locating or detecting things was # in 6.
Turning undead used 2d6 to determine success or failure in the Basic and Expert sets from 1981.
There is a difference between not knowing if one is going to succeed or fail because the dice will determine that and never quite knowing because the DM can just arbitrarily decide that whatever you roll didn't meet the target number he pulled out of thin air.
Even back then, the DM still chose what level undead you were facing. If you feel the DM is choosing target numbers arbitrarily, then you should figure out if that is really the case, in which case you should find a DM who puts more thought into it, or, on talking it through with your DM, realize they do put thought into it and that perhaps it is you wanting an arbitrary target.
I don't want an arbitrary target. It's why I prefer the use of tables that tell me what a character is capable of given its class and level.
It's just a matter of preference and really comes down to players having a different mindset and approaching skills from different directions.
You ever play Call of Cthulhu? Imagine if it kept the percentile system but instead of having a fixed percentage for each skill to which the player might be required to add or subtract something depending on certain conditions it was just a percentile then to be added to or subtracted from a percentile roll. So instead of having a Research skill of, say, 80% that Antiquarian now just gets to add this or that percentage to a percentile roll but the GM ultimately decides what the player must roll under. Both are perfectly reasonable systems. Both leave it up to the dice to determine success or failure. But I know which I'd rather use. I think a fixed number instead of having the DM just decide what must be rolled makes things more concrete and less abstract. In my view.
A problem in this thread is that you've conflated two very separate and distinct issues and it's hard to know where it is you're coming from:
The concept that DCs are not completely predetermined but significant discretion is left to the DM.
That the d20 is used in most situations.
Personally, I'd split those concerns into two different threads, since they are not particularly relevant to each other.
DCs set by the DM
Personally, I like the 5e system. It allows for a lot of fine tweaking and adaptation to the particular circumstance. There is a weakness to be abused by DMs ("I'm just.going to up the difficulty and negate your gains") it is true, but it also allows the good DMs to make the game more interesting and be a verisimilitude.
I also play the 2d20 system which effectively has preset DCs...it has its advantages, but it sucks for making a situation unique. No matter the range, so long as the target is within range, the difficulty is the same. No matter what the weapon is, whether you've trained with it for years or just picked it up...the difficulty is the same. Is the enemy a rat running through the bushes or a giant statue out in the open? It's the same. What makes 2d20 good compared to 5e is not in the setting of DCs. Sure, you can easily know the goals ahead of time and it's predictable...but a good DM will give you that same information (if relevant and it makes sense) in 5e too...and if it's a bad DM, then this is probably the least of your problems anyway.
Lack of diversity in dice
In some ways, I agree. It would be nice to use my other dice a bit more often. I sometimes do in my games. On the other hand, the d20 is the most logical die to use as the back bone. It easily converts to percentage while not requiring the throwing of multiple dice like a percentile would (or the horrible d100 alternative). I'm just not sure how they can use the other dice that much more often without introducing tons of complexity.
I appreciate the feedback and advice you've provided there.
I will say that while they are separate issues they're not entirely unrelated. It was when it was decided that skill checks would use the same system as that used to resolve combat, with DC replacing AC for non-combat situations, that percentile and # in 6 rolls got the boot.
For assassination and grappling, yes, it was percentages. But Turning Undead was a d20 roll as per Table III on page 75 of my 1979 DMG.
And this entire discussion isn't even about which dice are used. It's about OP being unhappy that he doesn't know in advance what DC he's aiming for. But that's part of the game. None of us know before we attempt something whether we will succeed or fail. That's why we try.
That's WHY we try!
Thief skills were also a mix of # in 6 and percentile rolls.
Locating or detecting things was # in 6.
Turning undead used 2d6 to determine success or failure in the Basic and Expert sets from 1981.
There is a difference between not knowing if one is going to succeed or fail because the dice will determine that and never quite knowing because the DM can just arbitrarily decide that whatever you roll didn't meet the target number he pulled out of thin air.
Even back then, the DM still chose what level undead you were facing. If you feel the DM is choosing target numbers arbitrarily, then you should figure out if that is really the case, in which case you should find a DM who puts more thought into it, or, on talking it through with your DM, realize they do put thought into it and that perhaps it is you wanting an arbitrary target.
I don't want an arbitrary target. It's why I prefer the use of tables that tell me what a character is capable of given its class and level.
It's just a matter of preference and really comes down to players having a different mindset and approaching skills from different directions.
You ever play Call of Cthulhu? Imagine if it kept the percentile system but instead of having a fixed percentage for each skill to which the player might be required to add or subtract something depending on certain conditions it was just a percentile then to be added to or subtracted from a percentile roll. So instead of having a Research skill of, say, 80% that Antiquarian now just gets to add this or that percentage to a percentile roll but the GM ultimately decides what the player must roll under. Both are perfectly reasonable systems. Both leave it up to the dice to determine success or failure. But I know which I'd rather use. I think a fixed number instead of having the DM just decide what must be rolled makes things more concrete and less abstract. In my view.
And in CoC, who determines those certain conditions? Who determines whether they apply to any given roll? Whether they exist at all in that situation?
What I am getting out of this is that you seem to want to tell the DM what that fixed number should be. You want to be able to set your own targets.
Not sure if that is what you mean or if you realize that is what you seem to be saying,
What? I don't want to set my own targets. I want a set of tables to set those targets for me.
Do you really believe players playing earlier editions when one consulted a table to see what one's character's class and level meant they had to roll to determine success or failure just ignored what these said and made it up for themselves?
I know exactly what I'm saying. I suspect you do too provided you were replying to a post in which I said, "I don't want an arbitrary target. It's why I prefer the use of tables that tell me what a character is capable of given its class and level." Am I to believe you just missed that? That your saying what you claim it sounds like I'm saying is just an honest misunderstanding? Sure.
What? I don't want to set my own targets. I want a set of tables to set those targets for me.
Do you really believe players playing earlier editions when one consulted a table to see what one's character's class and level meant they had to roll to determine success or failure just ignored what these said and made it up for themselves?
I know exactly what I'm saying. I suspect you do too provided you were replying to a post in which I said, "I don't want an arbitrary target. It's why I prefer the use of tables that tell me what a character is capable of given its class and level," but you've a tendency to say people are saying things they're not saying. Stop it.
Cooking a simple stew vs cooking a souffle. Same table?
Jumping from a balcony and landing on an empty table safely vs landing safely on a lightly cluttered table vs landing safely on a heavily cluttered table vs doing so in a burning building. All the same chart? And who determines how cluttered that table was? Also just rolled randomly?
Either you have separate tables for literally every possibility, which is impractical, arguably impossible, or you have one table per skill with everything treated identical difficulty, or you have a table with modifiers based on situation. But since the situation will rarely be exactly the same, those modifiers are going to have to be decided by someone.
Now, a good DM will give you some idea in advance of how difficult any given suggested task is, since your character would presumably have at least some clue, but even then, they would not always know all the variables.
You've never played an edition that used such tables? A bonus or penalty was simply applied to the roll to reflect the ease or difficulty provided under certain conditions. So no. An infinite number of tables is no more necessary than an infinite number of circumstances need to be listed to help a DM determine a DC.
This was even mentioned when someone else tried to argue the point you have tried to argue here suggesting that fixed numbers means there is no room for situational factors:
The rules from 1981 allow for your examples with poisons of different potency because a player would be asked to add or subtract from their roll to reflect such conditions.
It is getting tiresome having to repeat myself. And you couldn't bring yourself to say sorry for having grossly misrepresented what I said when you claimed it sounded like I wanted to decide my own target numbers, could you? That brings to an end any further exchange between you and me, I'm afraid.
Predicting what I can only imagine the reply to be to my point about adding or subtracting something from a roll to reflect ease or difficulty ... Yes. Any modifiers need to be decided by someone. That someone is the DM. But then I've never suggested I see it as a problem for the DM to determine whether something is easier or more difficult. I just prefer that target numbers be fixed numbers determined by class and level, then with any applicable bonus or penalty applied to the roll, than they be arbitrarily decided by the DM when the situation arises. It's just a matter of preference. I think it makes skills more concrete and less abstract. And it avoids situations in which the DM is just fudging target numbers because they'd rather a character succeed or fail.
If Call of Cthulhu stopped using fixed percentages for roll-under percentile skill checks and instead made it so that skills were ranked with just smaller amounts of percentages that were then added to or subtracted from a roll (mimicking proficiency), and target percentages were only decided when the situation arises (mimicking those DCs), it wouldn't be the worst system, but it would be one that I would call backwards, and one that I think would be needlessly complicated compared to just knowing what a character's chances are of succeeding or failing at doing something in most situations.
Knowing a character has a # in 6 chance or a # percent chance of doing something in most situations? This is very different than only knowing that character's 'rank' in something with any real chance of success or failure ultimately being arbitrarily decided by the DM when the situation arises.
I'm not saying one system is better than the other. I just prefer how things were before all skill checks came to be determined with the roll of a d20.
Unfortunately, it is a tough sell for most due to most finding it overwhelming.
the Full Rolemaster is a freaking nightmare, overkill in a jar, but that game also seeks to be ultra realistic.
Even the toned down version for MERP was pretty rough. And they’ve only added to it since my foray into it.
Added to it? Re-added, then. You likely have not seen it in its full glory with all supplements. Personally, I love it, but it is truly a hard sell :)
Oh, no, they expanded it sometime in the early aughts -- I still have the first edition books, the complete thing, but I never picked up the expansion in the rewrite and all that and my understanding is they went way further, lol.
I think of the birth of Rolemaster whenever I see arguments about the way that hit points and the weapons choices and combat don't seem "accurate" or "real" in D&D. Because that was how it got its start.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The d6 skill checks was a dragon mag element that ultimately influenced JRPG. It was not broadly used because…
in 2nd Edition, it was a d20 for proficiencies.
d6 is used by players for their hit points.
You have moved the goal posts three times in the thread, lol.
Also, is there anything about 5e that you like in a positive way?
2nd ed.? Thief skills were determined with a percentile roll. As were a number of Strength, etc. checks.
I have books and boxed sets on my shelf from both 1st ed. and Moldvay Basic and Cook Expert to prove # in 6 rolls as well as percentile rolls were very much broadly used. # in 6 rolls were used for most perception-based checks. They were core rules.
How have I moved the goalposts? I have explained that I like sub-systems that make use of other dice and that I don't like the arbitrary nature of DCs. Having to repeat myself or reword or rephrase things because some have misread or misunderstood what I am saying isn't shifting the goalposts.
I have all those books and such as well -- plus a rather deep collection of Dragon Magazines.
Your point? You said that clerics used d6 for turning -- they didn't. But you never specified the edition you referred to, and 5e is a version of AD&D (1e) not Basic, so of course folks will default to the AD&D 1e, 2e stuff when you are talking about he 5th iteration of that game.
I pointed out that Proficiency was a d20, yet you say thief skills (which were different from proficiencies) were d% -- though I made no comment about thief skills, nor did I mention the issue around the turning.
Instead, you just took what were pretty innocuous statements in general and made them suddenly into some sort of way of attacking you.
Hence why I asked if there was anything you liked about 5e.
Since you didn't answer, I am left with a presumption that there is not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I admit I have a private list of “common Difficulties” I use for my own consistency, but I also have DC categories that are much more expanded. 17, of them, set up by common phrase so if a player asks I can say vague things like “that looks like an extremely hard thing to do” or “ah, piece of cake”.
I adapted it from the one I used in MSHAS, lol.
also, just ask the DM to use more dice for different things. I have charts and tables I use for d16, d24, and d30. And all the regular ones. We like to use our dice, not digital ones, and we have a lot of them.
my oldest die is a d20 I am not allowed to use. It is beat to hell and dates back to 81. All my original set disintegrated, though.
I like this idea of devising one's own sub-systems so other dice get more use.
That d20 from '81 must be quite the treasure! I recently purchased a Cook Expert boxed set from the same year. Kept in pristine condition as the owner wasn't a native English speaker and had instead just used photocopies of the Japanese edition. These were still in the box! Alas the dice and the crayon were not ...
That is how I see the role of a DM, though. I am moderator, guide, judge, jury, and that means I have a duty to find a way to be impartial and fair. But also, like I said, we hae a lot of dice and we really like them.
I am no longer allowed to use that die because it rolls pretty much the same four numbers: 1, 8, 16, and 20. The opposite faces are the only ones still smooth enough, lol. It sits among them rest of them and I smile every time I see it.
Collectible game stuff! i am not a collector of the usual sort (I like to play with my toys too much, lol), but I can appreciate that -- and yeah, the original dice were not made of the most durable materials, lol.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
All dice are a percentile. d20 gives a nice clean 5%. People learned their 5 multiplication chart young and learned it well (seriously, it is the fastest of all of them for people to recite, even faster than 10's).
They also have different weightings, statistically, and those are able to be played (the 9 to 12 range on a d20, the 5 to 8 on a d12, etc). There is a reason that we have a term for "natural 1 and natural 20" that has to do with the probability, not percentile.
It is the probability aspect that the DC system uses, not the straight percentage.
Let me give an example. A door has a series of 4 locks on it. Each of the locks was made by a different locksmith who had varying degrees of skill in making them.
Variables: the quality of the lock, the skill of the locksmith, the skill of the lockpick, the number of locks.
A straight percentage would be the 1e version for this: you have blank percentage to pick each lock.
A straight probability is the 5e way to do it -- the more masterful locks are harder than the simpler ones.
even in 1e, if you were to make a roll for each lock (which is the norm there) the only modifier for it is where you would increase the percentage as a reflection of the difficulty, but in 5e you increase the difficulty as a reflection of probability influenced by difficulty.
But also, while you can make a single roll in both games, in 5e it is easier to make a single roll, which means fewer dice and more roleplaying which is the underlying focus of 5e -- a focus they got from the players.
That is, in the mid 2010's, the probability model is what players wanted to go with more than a percentile model. Because love it or hate it, the truth is players had immense input on 5e (and it appears DMs did not, I say, with a single tear rolling down my cheek).
Now, if you really want to get into some fun stuff (and I do not), then we could talk about how probability systems are different depending not only on chipset but on the underlying code the drives the chipset, in combination with the top level code and decorative effects that create the random number generators of digital dice. That matters because digital dice do not operate under the exact same probability systems that physical dice do (fewer variables), thus changing over time the overall outcome parameter's.
and damn, I did not mean to go that long, sorry, I enjoy game design stuff too much.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
It allows a DM to impede a character's attempt to do something so the DM can railroad things. It removes what might be even just the remotest possibility of doing something and leaves it to the whims of the DM. The DM has the final word in the game. But that's too arbitrary and likely to be abused by even the least cruel or DMs.
Any DM can do whatever they want and abuse any dice system in whatever way seems fit. The 20 sided die allows for more variety, and this is the fault of bad Dungeon Masters, not the system. Honestly, a DM who wants to railroad a party can do so regardless of what dice you roll and what tables (if any) are used.
Firstly, there was a time when saving throws and skill checks were rolled against fixed numbers determined by one's class and level. Need to make a save against something? Roll over #. Want to try to do something? Roll under the relevant stat. Or # in 6 or the provided percentage.
There is a reason this somewhat terrible system is no longer in place anymore. Different checks and challenges have drastically different chances of succeeding, and some will never work no matter how hard you try. Setting a standard for successes and failures only makes it so you can't account for variety and the differences in saving throws and certain stats.
These systems work slightly better when the DM can provide penalties and bonuses to the rolls. However, this also has problems with bad DMs rail-roading players (all dice systems do), and it still puts stress on the Dungeon Master to quickly think up modifiers, and that erases one of the benefits people like of tables for how every roll succeeds or not.
The d6 skill checks was a dragon mag element that ultimately influenced JRPG. It was not broadly used because…
in 2nd Edition, it was a d20 for proficiencies.
d6 is used by players for their hit points.
You have moved the goal posts three times in the thread, lol.
Also, is there anything about 5e that you like in a positive way?
2nd ed.? Thief skills were determined with a percentile roll. As were a number of Strength, etc. checks.
I have books and boxed sets on my shelf from both 1st ed. and Moldvay Basic and Cook Expert to prove # in 6 rolls as well as percentile rolls were very much broadly used. # in 6 rolls were used for most perception-based checks. They were core rules.
How have I moved the goalposts? I have explained that I like sub-systems that make use of other dice and that I don't like the arbitrary nature of DCs. Having to repeat myself or reword or rephrase things because some have misread or misunderstood what I am saying isn't shifting the goalposts.
I have all those books and such as well -- plus a rather deep collection of Dragon Magazines.
Your point? You said that clerics used d6 for turning -- they didn't. But you never specified the edition you referred to, and 5e is a version of AD&D (1e) not Basic, so of course folks will default to the AD&D 1e, 2e stuff when you are talking about he 5th iteration of that game.
I pointed out that Proficiency was a d20, yet you say thief skills (which were different from proficiencies) were d% -- though I made no comment about thief skills, nor did I mention the issue around the turning.
Instead, you just took what were pretty innocuous statements in general and made them suddenly into some sort of way of attacking you.
Hence why I asked if there was anything you liked about 5e.
Since you didn't answer, I am left with a presumption that there is not.
I mentioned the way thief skills were resolved in 2nd ed. as you seemed to be implying with your point about proficiencies that percentile rolls for skills were gone by 2nd ed. I mentioned the way turning (in Basic and Expert) was resolved using 2d6 as well as the way some thief skills and locating or detecting things were resolved using # in 6 in some editions because you seemed to be implying the d6 was never used to resolve anything other than in some article in Dragon magazine. Whether or not a d20 was used to resolve other things is moot, really. As my complaint is that the percentile dice and others are used less and less, if at all. Why even have percentile dice? How often does a player roll percentile dice? How often will a player with more or less than a d6 to determine hit points and delivering more or less than d6 damage ever roll a d6? I like your idea of house rules for sub-systems so other dice get more use. This is something I'd do were I to run 5th ed.
I do like Advantage/Disadvantage as this does away with needless bonuses and penalties and streamlines simulation of conditions that make things easier or more difficult. But then this was an innovation that wasn't the design team's.
I admit I have a private list of “common Difficulties” I use for my own consistency, but I also have DC categories that are much more expanded. 17, of them, set up by common phrase so if a player asks I can say vague things like “that looks like an extremely hard thing to do” or “ah, piece of cake”.
I adapted it from the one I used in MSHAS, lol.
also, just ask the DM to use more dice for different things. I have charts and tables I use for d16, d24, and d30. And all the regular ones. We like to use our dice, not digital ones, and we have a lot of them.
my oldest die is a d20 I am not allowed to use. It is beat to hell and dates back to 81. All my original set disintegrated, though.
I like this idea of devising one's own sub-systems so other dice get more use.
That d20 from '81 must be quite the treasure! I recently purchased a Cook Expert boxed set from the same year. Kept in pristine condition as the owner wasn't a native English speaker and had instead just used photocopies of the Japanese edition. These were still in the box! Alas the dice and the crayon were not ...
That is how I see the role of a DM, though. I am moderator, guide, judge, jury, and that means I have a duty to find a way to be impartial and fair. But also, like I said, we hae a lot of dice and we really like them.
I am no longer allowed to use that die because it rolls pretty much the same four numbers: 1, 8, 16, and 20. The opposite faces are the only ones still smooth enough, lol. It sits among them rest of them and I smile every time I see it.
Collectible game stuff! i am not a collector of the usual sort (I like to play with my toys too much, lol), but I can appreciate that -- and yeah, the original dice were not made of the most durable materials, lol.
There's a chain of second-hand hobby stores in Japan called Mandarake. They've a couple of dedicated table-top role-playing game shops, and these come highly recommended if you're ever in the country.
All dice are a percentile. d20 gives a nice clean 5%. People learned their 5 multiplication chart young and learned it well (seriously, it is the fastest of all of them for people to recite, even faster than 10's).
They also have different weightings, statistically, and those are able to be played (the 9 to 12 range on a d20, the 5 to 8 on a d12, etc). There is a reason that we have a term for "natural 1 and natural 20" that has to do with the probability, not percentile.
It is the probability aspect that the DC system uses, not the straight percentage.
Let me give an example. A door has a series of 4 locks on it. Each of the locks was made by a different locksmith who had varying degrees of skill in making them.
Variables: the quality of the lock, the skill of the locksmith, the skill of the lockpick, the number of locks.
A straight percentage would be the 1e version for this: you have blank percentage to pick each lock.
A straight probability is the 5e way to do it -- the more masterful locks are harder than the simpler ones.
even in 1e, if you were to make a roll for each lock (which is the norm there) the only modifier for it is where you would increase the percentage as a reflection of the difficulty, but in 5e you increase the difficulty as a reflection of probability influenced by difficulty.
But also, while you can make a single roll in both games, in 5e it is easier to make a single roll, which means fewer dice and more roleplaying which is the underlying focus of 5e -- a focus they got from the players.
That is, in the mid 2010's, the probability model is what players wanted to go with more than a percentile model. Because love it or hate it, the truth is players had immense input on 5e (and it appears DMs did not, I say, with a single tear rolling down my cheek).
Now, if you really want to get into some fun stuff (and I do not), then we could talk about how probability systems are different depending not only on chipset but on the underlying code the drives the chipset, in combination with the top level code and decorative effects that create the random number generators of digital dice. That matters because digital dice do not operate under the exact same probability systems that physical dice do (fewer variables), thus changing over time the overall outcome parameter's.
and damn, I did not mean to go that long, sorry, I enjoy game design stuff too much.
This was an interesting read. Though I'm not so sure I'd say 5th ed. is about less rolling and more role-playing. One of the biggest criticisms leveled against 5th ed. is that players are too often compelled to look at their character sheets to see what they can do (or, roll) instead of innovating.
Having a whole inventory of skills is vastly different to most classes having just a few class-specific skills or adjustments to things like perception-based skills with everything else to be resolved using role-playing. Persuasion? Deception? Intimidation? There was a time when such skills didn't exist. When they weren't determined by a roll. Now any effort to role-play these things will in most cases just grant the player Advantage or Disadvantage on the roll. Again, it's a matter of preference. But a player putting in a lot of effort to come up with something, delivering a cinematic monologue at the table that would be enough for a Roman senator to have persuaded, deceived, or intimidated in a manner that would go down in the annals of history, even maybe getting to roll two of those d20s, and still failing? And that's not even to get me started on the inventory of spells now at a caster's disposal.
To be fair, experiences from table to table are going to be different, and it's probably unfair to blame the system entirely. But I think players love rolling those d20s and this is why it has established dominance at the table and why it is rolled for almost every thing a player might do or say.
I've had good experiences with 5th ed. but the rules governing advancement and the skill and spell systems were overhauled to the point they'd no longer be recognizable among most players.
And that I would say is the system's real strength: It is easily and highly customizable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For assassination and grappling, yes, it was percentages. But Turning Undead was a d20 roll as per Table III on page 75 of my 1979 DMG.
And this entire discussion isn't even about which dice are used. It's about OP being unhappy that he doesn't know in advance what DC he's aiming for. But that's part of the game. None of us know before we attempt something whether we will succeed or fail. That's why we try.
That's WHY we try!
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Wrangler of cats.
I admit I have a private list of “common Difficulties” I use for my own consistency, but I also have DC categories that are much more expanded. 17, of them, set up by common phrase so if a player asks I can say vague things like “that looks like an extremely hard thing to do” or “ah, piece of cake”.
I adapted it from the one I used in MSHAS, lol.
also, just ask the DM to use more dice for different things. I have charts and tables I use for d16, d24, and d30. And all the regular ones. We like to use our dice, not digital ones, and we have a lot of them.
my oldest die is a d20 I am not allowed to use. It is beat to hell and dates back to 81. All my original set disintegrated, though.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
the Full Rolemaster is a freaking nightmare, overkill in a jar, but that game also seeks to be ultra realistic.
Even the toned down version for MERP was pretty rough. And they’ve only added to it since my foray into it.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
2nd ed.? Thief skills were determined with a percentile roll. As were a number of Strength, etc. checks.
I have books and boxed sets on my shelf from both 1st ed. and Moldvay Basic and Cook Expert to prove # in 6 rolls as well as percentile rolls were very much broadly used. # in 6 rolls were used for most perception-based checks. They were core rules.
How have I moved the goalposts? I have explained that I like sub-systems that make use of other dice and that I don't like the arbitrary nature of DCs. Having to repeat myself or reword or rephrase things because some have misread or misunderstood what I am saying isn't shifting the goalposts.
Thief skills were also a mix of # in 6 and percentile rolls.
Locating or detecting things was # in 6.
Turning undead used 2d6 to determine success or failure in the Basic and Expert sets from 1981.
There is a difference between not knowing if one is going to succeed or fail because the dice will determine that and never quite knowing because the DM can just arbitrarily decide that whatever you roll didn't meet the target number he pulled out of thin air.
I like this idea of devising one's own sub-systems so other dice get more use.
That d20 from '81 must be quite the treasure! I recently purchased a Cook Expert boxed set from the same year. Kept in pristine condition as the owner wasn't a native English speaker and had instead just used photocopies of the Japanese edition. These were still in the box! Alas the dice and the crayon were not ...
OP:
A problem in this thread is that you've conflated two very separate and distinct issues and it's hard to know where it is you're coming from:
Personally, I'd split those concerns into two different threads, since they are not particularly relevant to each other.
DCs set by the DM
Personally, I like the 5e system. It allows for a lot of fine tweaking and adaptation to the particular circumstance. There is a weakness to be abused by DMs ("I'm just.going to up the difficulty and negate your gains") it is true, but it also allows the good DMs to make the game more interesting and be a verisimilitude.
I also play the 2d20 system which effectively has preset DCs...it has its advantages, but it sucks for making a situation unique. No matter the range, so long as the target is within range, the difficulty is the same. No matter what the weapon is, whether you've trained with it for years or just picked it up...the difficulty is the same. Is the enemy a rat running through the bushes or a giant statue out in the open? It's the same. What makes 2d20 good compared to 5e is not in the setting of DCs. Sure, you can easily know the goals ahead of time and it's predictable...but a good DM will give you that same information (if relevant and it makes sense) in 5e too...and if it's a bad DM, then this is probably the least of your problems anyway.
Lack of diversity in dice
In some ways, I agree. It would be nice to use my other dice a bit more often. I sometimes do in my games. On the other hand, the d20 is the most logical die to use as the back bone. It easily converts to percentage while not requiring the throwing of multiple dice like a percentile would (or the horrible d100 alternative). I'm just not sure how they can use the other dice that much more often without introducing tons of complexity.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I don't want an arbitrary target. It's why I prefer the use of tables that tell me what a character is capable of given its class and level.
It's just a matter of preference and really comes down to players having a different mindset and approaching skills from different directions.
You ever play Call of Cthulhu? Imagine if it kept the percentile system but instead of having a fixed percentage for each skill to which the player might be required to add or subtract something depending on certain conditions it was just a percentile then to be added to or subtracted from a percentile roll. So instead of having a Research skill of, say, 80% that Antiquarian now just gets to add this or that percentage to a percentile roll but the GM ultimately decides what the player must roll under. Both are perfectly reasonable systems. Both leave it up to the dice to determine success or failure. But I know which I'd rather use. I think a fixed number instead of having the DM just decide what must be rolled makes things more concrete and less abstract. In my view.
I appreciate the feedback and advice you've provided there.
I will say that while they are separate issues they're not entirely unrelated. It was when it was decided that skill checks would use the same system as that used to resolve combat, with DC replacing AC for non-combat situations, that percentile and # in 6 rolls got the boot.
What? I don't want to set my own targets. I want a set of tables to set those targets for me.
Do you really believe players playing earlier editions when one consulted a table to see what one's character's class and level meant they had to roll to determine success or failure just ignored what these said and made it up for themselves?
I know exactly what I'm saying. I suspect you do too provided you were replying to a post in which I said, "I don't want an arbitrary target. It's why I prefer the use of tables that tell me what a character is capable of given its class and level." Am I to believe you just missed that? That your saying what you claim it sounds like I'm saying is just an honest misunderstanding? Sure.
You've never played an edition that used such tables? A bonus or penalty was simply applied to the roll to reflect the ease or difficulty provided under certain conditions. So no. An infinite number of tables is no more necessary than an infinite number of circumstances need to be listed to help a DM determine a DC.
This was even mentioned when someone else tried to argue the point you have tried to argue here suggesting that fixed numbers means there is no room for situational factors:
The rules from 1981 allow for your examples with poisons of different potency because a player would be asked to add or subtract from their roll to reflect such conditions.
It is getting tiresome having to repeat myself. And you couldn't bring yourself to say sorry for having grossly misrepresented what I said when you claimed it sounded like I wanted to decide my own target numbers, could you? That brings to an end any further exchange between you and me, I'm afraid.
Predicting what I can only imagine the reply to be to my point about adding or subtracting something from a roll to reflect ease or difficulty ... Yes. Any modifiers need to be decided by someone. That someone is the DM. But then I've never suggested I see it as a problem for the DM to determine whether something is easier or more difficult. I just prefer that target numbers be fixed numbers determined by class and level, then with any applicable bonus or penalty applied to the roll, than they be arbitrarily decided by the DM when the situation arises. It's just a matter of preference. I think it makes skills more concrete and less abstract. And it avoids situations in which the DM is just fudging target numbers because they'd rather a character succeed or fail.
If Call of Cthulhu stopped using fixed percentages for roll-under percentile skill checks and instead made it so that skills were ranked with just smaller amounts of percentages that were then added to or subtracted from a roll (mimicking proficiency), and target percentages were only decided when the situation arises (mimicking those DCs), it wouldn't be the worst system, but it would be one that I would call backwards, and one that I think would be needlessly complicated compared to just knowing what a character's chances are of succeeding or failing at doing something in most situations.
Knowing a character has a # in 6 chance or a # percent chance of doing something in most situations? This is very different than only knowing that character's 'rank' in something with any real chance of success or failure ultimately being arbitrarily decided by the DM when the situation arises.
I'm not saying one system is better than the other. I just prefer how things were before all skill checks came to be determined with the roll of a d20.
Oh, no, they expanded it sometime in the early aughts -- I still have the first edition books, the complete thing, but I never picked up the expansion in the rewrite and all that and my understanding is they went way further, lol.
I think of the birth of Rolemaster whenever I see arguments about the way that hit points and the weapons choices and combat don't seem "accurate" or "real" in D&D. Because that was how it got its start.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I have all those books and such as well -- plus a rather deep collection of Dragon Magazines.
Your point? You said that clerics used d6 for turning -- they didn't. But you never specified the edition you referred to, and 5e is a version of AD&D (1e) not Basic, so of course folks will default to the AD&D 1e, 2e stuff when you are talking about he 5th iteration of that game.
I pointed out that Proficiency was a d20, yet you say thief skills (which were different from proficiencies) were d% -- though I made no comment about thief skills, nor did I mention the issue around the turning.
Instead, you just took what were pretty innocuous statements in general and made them suddenly into some sort of way of attacking you.
Hence why I asked if there was anything you liked about 5e.
Since you didn't answer, I am left with a presumption that there is not.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
That is how I see the role of a DM, though. I am moderator, guide, judge, jury, and that means I have a duty to find a way to be impartial and fair. But also, like I said, we hae a lot of dice and we really like them.
I am no longer allowed to use that die because it rolls pretty much the same four numbers: 1, 8, 16, and 20. The opposite faces are the only ones still smooth enough, lol. It sits among them rest of them and I smile every time I see it.
Collectible game stuff! i am not a collector of the usual sort (I like to play with my toys too much, lol), but I can appreciate that -- and yeah, the original dice were not made of the most durable materials, lol.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Some notes from the rest:
All dice are a percentile. d20 gives a nice clean 5%. People learned their 5 multiplication chart young and learned it well (seriously, it is the fastest of all of them for people to recite, even faster than 10's).
They also have different weightings, statistically, and those are able to be played (the 9 to 12 range on a d20, the 5 to 8 on a d12, etc). There is a reason that we have a term for "natural 1 and natural 20" that has to do with the probability, not percentile.
It is the probability aspect that the DC system uses, not the straight percentage.
Let me give an example. A door has a series of 4 locks on it. Each of the locks was made by a different locksmith who had varying degrees of skill in making them.
Variables: the quality of the lock, the skill of the locksmith, the skill of the lockpick, the number of locks.
A straight percentage would be the 1e version for this: you have blank percentage to pick each lock.
A straight probability is the 5e way to do it -- the more masterful locks are harder than the simpler ones.
even in 1e, if you were to make a roll for each lock (which is the norm there) the only modifier for it is where you would increase the percentage as a reflection of the difficulty, but in 5e you increase the difficulty as a reflection of probability influenced by difficulty.
But also, while you can make a single roll in both games, in 5e it is easier to make a single roll, which means fewer dice and more roleplaying which is the underlying focus of 5e -- a focus they got from the players.
That is, in the mid 2010's, the probability model is what players wanted to go with more than a percentile model. Because love it or hate it, the truth is players had immense input on 5e (and it appears DMs did not, I say, with a single tear rolling down my cheek).
Now, if you really want to get into some fun stuff (and I do not), then we could talk about how probability systems are different depending not only on chipset but on the underlying code the drives the chipset, in combination with the top level code and decorative effects that create the random number generators of digital dice. That matters because digital dice do not operate under the exact same probability systems that physical dice do (fewer variables), thus changing over time the overall outcome parameter's.
and damn, I did not mean to go that long, sorry, I enjoy game design stuff too much.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Any DM can do whatever they want and abuse any dice system in whatever way seems fit. The 20 sided die allows for more variety, and this is the fault of bad Dungeon Masters, not the system. Honestly, a DM who wants to railroad a party can do so regardless of what dice you roll and what tables (if any) are used.
There is a reason this somewhat terrible system is no longer in place anymore. Different checks and challenges have drastically different chances of succeeding, and some will never work no matter how hard you try. Setting a standard for successes and failures only makes it so you can't account for variety and the differences in saving throws and certain stats.
These systems work slightly better when the DM can provide penalties and bonuses to the rolls. However, this also has problems with bad DMs rail-roading players (all dice systems do), and it still puts stress on the Dungeon Master to quickly think up modifiers, and that erases one of the benefits people like of tables for how every roll succeeds or not.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I mentioned the way thief skills were resolved in 2nd ed. as you seemed to be implying with your point about proficiencies that percentile rolls for skills were gone by 2nd ed. I mentioned the way turning (in Basic and Expert) was resolved using 2d6 as well as the way some thief skills and locating or detecting things were resolved using # in 6 in some editions because you seemed to be implying the d6 was never used to resolve anything other than in some article in Dragon magazine. Whether or not a d20 was used to resolve other things is moot, really. As my complaint is that the percentile dice and others are used less and less, if at all. Why even have percentile dice? How often does a player roll percentile dice? How often will a player with more or less than a d6 to determine hit points and delivering more or less than d6 damage ever roll a d6? I like your idea of house rules for sub-systems so other dice get more use. This is something I'd do were I to run 5th ed.
I do like Advantage/Disadvantage as this does away with needless bonuses and penalties and streamlines simulation of conditions that make things easier or more difficult. But then this was an innovation that wasn't the design team's.
There's a chain of second-hand hobby stores in Japan called Mandarake. They've a couple of dedicated table-top role-playing game shops, and these come highly recommended if you're ever in the country.
This was an interesting read. Though I'm not so sure I'd say 5th ed. is about less rolling and more role-playing. One of the biggest criticisms leveled against 5th ed. is that players are too often compelled to look at their character sheets to see what they can do (or, roll) instead of innovating.
Having a whole inventory of skills is vastly different to most classes having just a few class-specific skills or adjustments to things like perception-based skills with everything else to be resolved using role-playing. Persuasion? Deception? Intimidation? There was a time when such skills didn't exist. When they weren't determined by a roll. Now any effort to role-play these things will in most cases just grant the player Advantage or Disadvantage on the roll. Again, it's a matter of preference. But a player putting in a lot of effort to come up with something, delivering a cinematic monologue at the table that would be enough for a Roman senator to have persuaded, deceived, or intimidated in a manner that would go down in the annals of history, even maybe getting to roll two of those d20s, and still failing? And that's not even to get me started on the inventory of spells now at a caster's disposal.
To be fair, experiences from table to table are going to be different, and it's probably unfair to blame the system entirely. But I think players love rolling those d20s and this is why it has established dominance at the table and why it is rolled for almost every thing a player might do or say.
I've had good experiences with 5th ed. but the rules governing advancement and the skill and spell systems were overhauled to the point they'd no longer be recognizable among most players.
And that I would say is the system's real strength: It is easily and highly customizable.