Rerolls on d20s from ability score point pools

[JonSetanta]

So, in reading about half a dozen non-D&D RPGs that do different things with the same 6 ability scores, I thought up (might have been done before, but I digress) a new way to do attack rolls, ability checks, saves, skill tests, and similar d20 rolls without breaking the RNG.

The premise is you don't add the ability score mod to these rolls. Bonuses come mostly from class abilities and items, which would work even better if they didn't stack, and... this is a stretch... bigger bonuses at earlier levels.

Instead, each ability score provides a resource pool for failed rolls, once each round as a non-action or maybe an Immediate action if a DM wants to restrict PCs from rerolling both Offense and Defense each round, and once that particular associated stat pool is "empty" the character must take a 10 minute rest to refill all of them again.

Concept 1: Realistic Ability Score Checks
For a Fighter, making a STR check to lift an iron gate with a STR of 18 would have an mostly unmodified (or maybe add character level, competence, circumstance, and similiar bonuses only, I'm still debating) d20 roll. If they fail to hit the DC of the test, they could immediately try again, going down to 3 STR points.
And again.
And again.
The STR 8-10 Wizard would NOT get any retries, stuck with their single roll, ensuring the stronger character has a vastly greater chance to succeed at what they are supposed to do.

With Stealth, a straight out +4 bonus to the roll for having the skill as a class skill rather than investing points each level would be ideal.
A Rogue with DEX 18 gets 4 retries, meaning rather than the single roll +whatever vs. Spot/Listen, failure meaning the entire stealth minigame is a failure, they are pretty much going to be stealthy for that encounter.

When applied to Attack rolls, don't add the ability score to the accuracy. Just reroll on a miss.
Weapon Focus feat could apply instead to all weapon attacks rather than just one type or group, and instead add +3 rerolls for attacks.
.... or create a new feat called "Battle Focus" and just leave WF as it is.


Concept 2: Spend Pools To Add To Results
If reaching those high or "impossible" DCs is truly desired, an ability pool point could be spent to add +5 or maybe even +10 to a particular roll.
Lower level characters, both PC and NPC, would be able to do nonmagical tasks that spellcasters otherwise automatically succeed, but only a few times per encounter.


Concept 3: Skill Benchmarks
I mean, another concept I thought of was "autosuccess skills" that, at every odd level, can allow a PC to say "I'm doing X" if they're high enough level, only necessitating an opposed roll or Save vs. DC if interacting with something or someone, such as using Diplomacy or Bluff on an NPC.
The RNG assumption would be as if the character Take 10 on literally everything, all the time.
No skill points.
Every class skill for the character advances in capability as if they were at-will Extraordinary abilities.
Players wouldn't even have to look at their character sheet to see if they "put in the skill points", they just check their Skill Benchmark and either the DM says they can do it, or they can't, and if they can't... they roll normally as mentioned above, but without the chance of dramatic, story-breaking failure if the check results in anything below their Skill Benchmark.
A Rogue 11 attempting a Jump check would most likely have a pretty heroic distance, but if they push their roll to "epic" distance, they would still be heroic in accomplishment even if they roll a 1.


Concept 4: DPR
Physical damage rolls would not add the ability mod to the result.
By spending an ability pool point, reroll and take the highest result of both, or even maybe maximize the damage result, ALL dice for a single attack that round, meaning that class abilities would be more important to DPR than boosting stats to absurd degrees.
Low level combat would be more survivable.
Stronger or more dextrous characters would still deal more damage, but it wouldn't be Rocket Tag with greatswords and STR 18+ warriors (PC and NPC both).




Is this too far fetched for a D&D 3.X houserule, does it change too much within the game, or does this help with the absurd "have or have not" d20 roll bonuses that skyrocket by mid-to-high levels if invested, yet if the character neglected to, say, improve their Knowledge (History) skill (they boosted Knowledge (Arcana) throughout the campaign, thinking they wouldn't need K History) a smart and/or high level character would still have a greater chance to succeed than a L1 mook with INT 8?

[Dogbert]

The only "get extra re-rolls" method I've ever cared for is M&M's Luck advantage where rolls under 10 on the die get a +10, because otherwise it's not even worth bothering as far as I'm concerned. Fuck swinginess. Also your proposal would need either a full rebalancing of every single monster or a full re-tooling of all classes AND magic items in game. Way more trouble than it's worth.

[JonSetanta]

The only "get extra re-rolls" method I've ever cared for is M&M's Luck advantage where rolls under 10 on the die get a +10, because otherwise it's not even worth bothering as far as I'm concerned. Fuck swinginess. Also your proposal would need either a full rebalancing of every single monster or a full re-tooling of all classes AND magic items in game. Way more trouble than it's worth.

.... Yeah, I considered that too.

Leaving ability mods to rolls as normal, but applying the reroll/+10 might be a better concept. No revisions, only addition.

EDIT: OK, but what about using "rerolls" instead to force a maximized die result, no matter which die?
For attacks, that's an auto crit ( I guess you'd have to roll to confirm too)
For skills, that's most likely a success.
For saves, within level-appropriate encounters, it means you get to reduce damage, negate debuffs, or otherwise continue acting as normal for a little longer.

I'm currently reading about the SPECIAL system with the Luck stat, and it's a lot like this.
But spending stat pools to do a 1-action Take 20 a certain number of times, limited to rolls tied to the ability score, seems reasonable.

[deaddmwalking]

Okay... I've got a gate that's DC 18 to open.

I've got 4 party members; the Warrior (STR 18, 4 re-rolls), the Cleric (STR 12, 1 re-roll), the Wizard (STR 8, 0 re-rolls) and the Rogue (STR 12, 1 re-roll plus he had a crowbar but fuck if I know what that does).

Every one of these characters has a 15% chance of opening the gate (needing an 18-20) on the d20 roll. If they each take a turn making an attempt, they're all equally likely to make it on the first roll. So there's a 75% chance that someone OTHER than the Warrior succeeds.

In my first sequence of 4 rolls (4, 15, 18, 11), it was the Wizard with an 18 . For the warrior, I didn't hit the TN with my next four rolls (5, 2, 8 and 11). While that's only a single case, how would you feel if you were the Warrior in that case? You're supposed to be good at doing Strength based things, and while your overall probability is higher (more rolls means more chances for success), you're only 47% likely to hit that target in 4 tries.

If the TN stayed the same and you get a +4 bonus to your roll & rerolls, you'd be 82% likely to get a 14 or better (which would become an 18). To me that still sounds like a pretty big risk of failure if you think the character OUGHT to be able to succeed. With carrying capacity, you don't make a check to lift something you can carry - you just look at the weight and your Strength and determine whether it's under your max load. Maybe that's too much work - a check is easier - but it might be more accurate if you did something like: If your score is equal to the TN, you auto succeed; if your score is less than the TN you can roll to succeed.

Based on your concern about rolling unnecessary dice, having someone make 4 rolls to succeed at one check seems...unproductive.

[JonSetanta]

If the TN stayed the same and you get a +4 bonus to your roll & rerolls, you'd be 82% likely to get a 14 or better (which would become an 18). To me that still sounds like a pretty big risk of failure if you think the character OUGHT to be able to succeed. With carrying capacity, you don't make a check to lift something you can carry - you just look at the weight and your Strength and determine whether it's under your max load. Maybe that's too much work - a check is easier - but it might be more accurate if you did something like: If your score is equal to the TN, you auto succeed; if your score is less than the TN you can roll to succeed.

Based on your concern about rolling unnecessary dice, having someone make 4 rolls to succeed at one check seems...unproductive.

Keeping the bonus + rerolls does seem better after your example.

What about the Skill Benchmark concept? That could easily apply to ability score checks as well, just subtract the skill bonus.

Or just let everyone Take 10.

[deaddmwalking]

If the gate is TN 18, nobody in the hypothetical party will be able to open it by taking 10.

I wouldn't have an issue with letting someone auto-succeed on a check with a TN up to their attribute (plus some level based bonus possibly) by spending a future re-roll. Ie, if 18 gives you 4 re-rolls, you could spend one of those to auto-succeed on a check up to that TN.

[JonSetanta]

If the gate is TN 18, nobody in the hypothetical party will be able to open it by taking 10.

I wouldn't have an issue with letting someone auto-succeed on a check with a TN up to their attribute (plus some level based bonus possibly) by spending a future re-roll. Ie, if 18 gives you 4 re-rolls, you could spend one of those to auto-succeed on a check up to that TN.

Hmm. Interesting compromise.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Reading that felt like having a stroke. Most of this is too vague and incoherent to even begin to critique. But the basic concept seems like a non-starter. Giving every character six nonfungible metagame currencies to track would create a bookkeeping nightmare.

[JonSetanta]

Maybe I was banging out too many d20 variant concepts for one thread, but deaddm did the math on about half of my ideas... and angel, you're correct, 6 stats worth of dice pools is too much.

My goal for these options to adjust the RNG of nonmagical characters began with comparing skill check randomness to the straight-out "I'm invisible" and "I got you" and "you can't hit me" spells.
It didn't work out so well.

[OgreBattle]

A lot of D&Disms aren't Good Design, they're just what was thought up in the 70's and kept for brand recognition. You can develop a clear idea of how your ideal plays, then get the mechanics to support it

[JonSetanta]

Well, I might incorporate some of the "spend resource to cheat the RNG" aspects into an RPG I've been writing, ogrebattle youve seen the second draft.

But as for DnD 3.5e I had been looking at various interactions of skills, opposed rolls between both trained/one side trained/neither trained, and Rogue capabilities that come with a chance of "oops low roll, your Stealth Mini game is over" vs. what spells do without any chance of failure.
Also, trying to find ways for STR warriors to do STR things easily without being outdone by someone that put all their stats into INT and just happened to roll a 20.

Example: high STR fighter vs. Grapplemancer in 1v1.
No contest.
Wizard wins.
They even have Freedom of Movement to grapple-without-being-grappled.
Shit.

... But deaddm suggested something that seems better than ability score pools, so I'll use that.

[Harshax]

Don’t Fighters get a proficiency bonus on Strength checks or something like that?

Why not use 2d10 or 3d6 instead of d20 to resolve checks?

[angelfromanotherpin]

Yep, this sucks.

Addressing this problem doesn't have to be hard. GURPS handles it very well: an action requires X amount of force, and the amount of force a character can output is set by their ST score and most of the time there's no roll involved. And while it wasn't codified, pre-3.x D&D modules were littered with 'moving this thing requires a total of X Strength score' tasks.

The stealth minigame being binary pass/fail isn't really addressed by adding rerolls, or by fiddling with the dice mechanic at all. The rerolls decrease the chance of failure, but so does adding a static bonus, and you could map the number of rerolls to an equivalent bonus with some relatively easy math. But changing the percentage of pass vs fail doesn't change that it's pass/fail. To address that, you'd have to actually introduce intermediate grades and figure out what inputs get you an A, B, C, D, or F (or whatever) on your stealth game, and what each of those grades means as distinct from each other.

[JonSetanta]

Don’t Fighters get a proficiency bonus on Strength checks or something like that?

Why not use 2d10 or 3d6 instead of d20 to resolve checks?

No bonus. A stat roll is a stat roll. DM has to declare plain ol ability check, skill check, or save, and there is no "lift/break/bend" skill, unfortunately it doesn't scale unless you pump the stat.

I've considered additive dice but if you do that for everything, it's like micro amounts of lag that add to doubling the amount of time for everyone's turn.


For the Stealth Minigame I think being unseen and unheard is best left to spell effects.
So, unless Koumei did just that with her Rogue/Ninja creation, I'll make something simple that uses scaling Extraordinary effects emulating spells of the same level.

[Harshax]

Maybe a strength check to bend bars or lift gates should be a Saving Throw instead of an attribute check.

Maybe Attribute checks in general are just dumb a dumb idea all around.

And I wasn’t suggesting more dice, I was suggesting curved probability instead of linear probability.

[Foxwarrior]

Ability score checks are an interesting thing to me... Strength checks both: come up way more often without some sort of skill or other level-based modifier than other ability score checks; and make the world look super stupid about 40% of the time. In 3.5e raising your strength modifier by 5 quadruples your carrying capacity...

[deaddmwalking]

Maybe a strength check to bend bars or lift gates should be a Saving Throw instead of an attribute check.

Maybe Attribute checks in general are just dumb a dumb idea all around.

I think attribute checks have their place. If you and I are trying to squeeze through a narrow passage in a natural cave, size is the most important factor. A child will succeed where I fail. BUT, even among two people of the same size, some people are better at maneuvering. Maybe it's a skill, but maybe it's some type of natural trait.

Ideally it'll be clear whether someone is trained in something or not; but most of the time people will have relevant experience that doesn't map over perfectly. If you speak perfect Spanish, you'll probably be able to glean something written in Portuguese. Trying to make a perfect system of how experiences relate to each other would be prohibitive; an attribute check is a shorthand to say 'yeah, someone who's smart might get something from a language they don't know'. Without it, you have too many situations where it just isn't clear how to move forward. So generally I think it's good to ask if there's a special ability or skill; if not, defaulting to ability scores make sense.

And I wasn’t suggesting more dice, I was suggesting curved probability instead of linear probability.

I'm personally a fan in theory, but adding up 3d6 then modifiers is an extra step compared to rolling a single d20 and adding modifiers.

Ie, 3, 3, 2, +6 versus 8+6.

[Harshax]

Maybe a strength check to bend bars or lift gates should be a Saving Throw instead of an attribute check.

Maybe Attribute checks in general are just dumb a dumb idea all around.

I think attribute checks have their place. If you and I are trying to squeeze through a narrow passage in a natural cave, size is the most important factor. A child will succeed where I fail. BUT, even among two people of the same size, some people are better at maneuvering. Maybe it's a skill, but maybe it's some type of natural trait.

Ideally it'll be clear whether someone is trained in something or not; but most of the time people will have relevant experience that doesn't map over perfectly. If you speak perfect Spanish, you'll probably be able to glean something written in Portuguese. Trying to make a perfect system of how experiences relate to each other would be prohibitive; an attribute check is a shorthand to say 'yeah, someone who's smart might get something from a language they don't know'. Without it, you have too many situations where it just isn't clear how to move forward. So generally I think it's good to ask if there's a special ability or skill; if not, defaulting to ability scores make sense.

I’ll give you a pass this time, but this is a straw man argument. “Size” isn’t really an attribute you ever test. You “are” small or you are “not” small. And even if there is a scenario where you must squeeze through a gap and small characters automatically succeed but medium characters must roll their Dex, how is it not applicable that a thief who trains their whole life sneaking, hiding, balancing and contorting to earn a coin not allowed a proficiency bonus to a Dex roll?

[JonSetanta]

Escape Artist (Dex) check to squeeze into something, with set DCs by RAW for every reasonable space... And some unreasonable, such as a 3-inch hole for epic Rogues.

[JonSetanta]

I was thinking a few hours ago, then thought... Nah it's too ridiculous, but what if there was a feat or low level class ability that simply read as "When performing a physical task of muscle or coordination, add STR or DEX bonus to BAB to a d20 roll."

Situations would limit which of the two stats you're allowed to apply, but it's mostly so warriors and thief types can improvise ability checks without maximizing the related stats.


OR a skill could be imported from 5e: Athletics.
It's a STR skill.
Could be used for everything from grappling to throwing to shoving to jumping to breaking to forcing doors open.

[Harshax]

Escape Artist (Dex) check to squeeze into something, with set DCs by RAW for every reasonable space... And some unreasonable, such as a 3-inch hole for epic Rogues.

RAW skill checks get proficiency bonuses.

[JonSetanta]

Found this thread while perusing related topics. I think this was during my time working/writing so I missed participating, but here it is.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=57642

[Harshax]

The stealth minigame being binary pass/fail isn't really addressed by adding rerolls, or by fiddling with the dice mechanic at all. The rerolls decrease the chance of failure, but so does adding a static bonus, and you could map the number of rerolls to an equivalent bonus with some relatively easy math. But changing the percentage of pass vs fail doesn't change that it's pass/fail. To address that, you'd have to actually introduce intermediate grades and figure out what inputs get you an A, B, C, D, or F (or whatever) on your stealth game, and what each of those grades means as distinct from each other.

I’m a big fan of the clock mechanic that I first saw in Blades in the Dark. If you failed to achieve a perfect stealth roll, the MC can make a clock counter with as many ticks as the MC thinks is necessary. Let’s say, 4 ticks with one filled in already. If the party fails three more checks over the course of the scene or location, then bad things happen like the guard wakes up, the villain escapes, the doom device is triggered early, whatever.

So instead of a check being binary, a failure raises the stakes and leads to dramatic tension. That’s the whole point of checks in the first place, dramatic tension. If a scenario requires the party to stealth and a failure ends the scenario, then that’s bad adventure design and a waste of everyone’s time.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

God, I fucking hate that clock bullshit. Just tell the GM to do whatever they feel is dramatically appropriate instead of pretending otherwise.

[JonSetanta]

A clock like... The Metal Gear series?
4 rounds until the armed guard arrives to investigate?