Troll Lord Games

redwullf wrote: Agreed - why bother forcing rolls on "easy" or "typical/average" checks? The PC says their character does it, they do it. Move along.

a +0 check for a 1st level PC is equal to about a 50% chance of success. Arbitrary labels such as "easy" etc., are not relevant to the chance of success when using the Siege Engine. The CL is used by CK's to vary the % chance of success.

Arduin wrote:

redwullf wrote: Agreed - why bother forcing rolls on "easy" or "typical/average" checks? The PC says their character does it, they do it. Move along.

a +0 check for a 1st level PC is equal to about a 50% chance of success. Arbitrary labels such as "easy" etc., are not relevant to the chance of success when using the Siege Engine. The CL is used by CK's to vary the % chance of success.

Agreed. I use the +0 check, but not often. I'm usually a "don't worry about rolling, you succeed (or fail, sometimes)" kind of CK. But I think there's a spot for the middle ground, sometimes. Using an example from another thread, I wouldn't require a check for "finding" or even "following" (not tracking! ) a goblin horde's tracks in the snow. But noticing that one set of horse tracks? I'd probably have them make a +0 check (to see them, at least). A better example, to me, would be listening. Can you hear the battle in the next room? Yes you can. Can you hear the conversation at the next table? To me, that'd be a +0 check. Now, can you hear the conversation at the next table of the two blokes speaking in hushed tones? To me, that would be a Rogue check of his Listen skill and would involve a CL.

Lord Dynel wrote: Agreed. I use the +0 check, but not often. I'm usually a "don't worry about rolling, you succeed (or fail, sometimes)" kind of CK. But I think there's a spot for the middle ground, sometimes. Using an example from another thread, I wouldn't require a check for "finding" or even "following" (not tracking! ) a goblin horde's tracks in the snow. But noticing that one set of horse tracks? I'd probably have them make a +0 check (to see them, at least). A better example, to me, would be listening. Can you hear the battle in the next room? Yes you can. Can you hear the conversation at the next table? To me, that'd be a +0 check. Now, can you hear the conversation at the next table of the two blokes speaking in hushed tones? To me, that would be a Rogue check of his Listen skill and would involve a CL.

Yes and, this same thought process works over into "combat" also. Can I hit the broad side of that barn with my arrow at 50'? Yes, no roll. The large door, (50% chance, CL0 AC 10), 4 sq ft window, (25% chance, CL 5, AC 15), etc.

Arduin wrote:

Lord Dynel wrote: Agreed. I use the +0 check, but not often. I'm usually a "don't worry about rolling, you succeed (or fail, sometimes)" kind of CK. But I think there's a spot for the middle ground, sometimes. Using an example from another thread, I wouldn't require a check for "finding" or even "following" (not tracking! ) a goblin horde's tracks in the snow. But noticing that one set of horse tracks? I'd probably have them make a +0 check (to see them, at least). A better example, to me, would be listening. Can you hear the battle in the next room? Yes you can. Can you hear the conversation at the next table? To me, that'd be a +0 check. Now, can you hear the conversation at the next table of the two blokes speaking in hushed tones? To me, that would be a Rogue check of his Listen skill and would involve a CL.

Yes and, this same thought process works over into "combat" also. Can I hit the broad side of that barn with my arrow at 50'? Yes, no roll. The large door, (50% chance, CL0 AC 10), 4 sq ft window, (25% chance, CL 5, AC 15), etc.

Well said, the both of you.

I'm guessing you are all talking about prime stat based checks.

+0 is a pretty challenging check; 15% success for a level 1 non-prime +0 stat for a non-class skill. Make it a class skill and at 1st level it's still just 20%; for demihumans especially, they won't always have primes for all of their class skills. Elf ranger, I'm looking at you.