Using ability scores to determine success or failure

[slimykuotoan]

Just came across a pretty castles & crusady article by Katherine Kerr in this 82 drag mag:

It's essentially timesing your ability score by 5 to gauge your chance of success to perform an action.

ie.

Str of 18 x 5 = 90%

Int of 8 = 40%

etc.

After the dm calculates the base chance of success, this is then modified by the situation.

The author goes on further to illustrate additional tweaks, including size modifiers and reduced percentages due to low character hit points from damage (ex: 'effective' strength down from original 18 at 2 hps).

[serleran]

Wow, how very BRP of the idea. That's been around since Worlds of Wonder. Also, strangely, its just the exact same thing as the late 1e (and 2e) attribute check, only on percentage and not a d20....

Sorry, but I don't see it as anything other than a "hey maybe I never thought of it like that" because its not original in any way.

[CharlieRock]

It is a useful way to convert things across from AD&D though. If a DM was supposed to modify an attribute check by 50% you know your looking at a CL10.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[serleran]

No you're not. C&C doesn't use attributes like that. It uses the modifier, and whether it is Prime, and level, which is much more important, on the whole.

If a CK is supposed to modify something by 50%, he'd either reduce the existing difficulty (if its a bonus) or increase it by half. And, since difficulty is always equal to either level or HD, attribute never comes into play for determining "CL."

[Omote]

The % aspect could be a great foundation to bring in a basic skills system and disregard the importance of primes. It would take some thinking about, but could work nicely based on how things worked in the older versions of D&D.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[CharlieRock]

serleran wrote:
No you're not. C&C doesn't use attributes like that. It uses the modifier, and whether it is Prime, and level, which is much more important, on the whole.

If a CK is supposed to modify something by 50%, he'd either reduce the existing difficulty (if its a bonus) or increase it by half. And, since difficulty is always equal to either level or HD, attribute never comes into play for determining "CL."

Well, I'm still looking at something that ratchets up difficulty by 10 notches of a d20.

It could also work for a commoner making a farming check which is more success by degree then hit or miss. Say a "hit" with the % means the farmer made 5 barrels of beer that week. Every 5% a missed roll costs one barrel until you roll below 25% which means you made crappy bier.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[Treebore]

That article actually inspired the percentile based skill system I ended up having for my 2E game.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Joe Mac]

I remember that article, and must have the mag buried somewhere in my Dragon box. I recall it was my favorite method of ability checks throughout most of the 80s -- ability x 5 for a common check, or x 4, 3, 2, or 1 for increasingly difficult ones...

(Was the increasing difficulty in the article? I don't remember now...)

[gideon_thorne]

Siege attribute check.

Primes give a +30% (6x 5%) chance to a given roll.

Attribute mods can adjust that anywhere from -15 to +15 %

And a d20 roll modified by level adds to that as well.

The point being, why add different checks to something that is already inherently present?
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[serleran]

Exactly the point, Peter.

5 XP.

[slimykuotoan]

Joe Mac wrote:
(Was the increasing difficulty in the article? I don't remember now...)

No, the author just introduced the idea.

[Joe Mac]

slimykuotoan wrote:
No, the author just introduced the idea.

Maybe I made up the different multiples myself, then -- it's far too long ago to remember and take credit for anything!

[rabindranath72]

Joe Mac wrote:
Maybe I made up the different multiples myself, then -- it's far too long ago to remember and take credit for anything!

It is a mechanic of BRP, anyway