Outdoor Retreat Probability

[seandon4]

It come up in games. I've meant to add one to the Adventuring sup for some time: http://basicfantasy.org/showcase.cgi?sid=66

The trouble is, CoE tables are notoriously difficult to understand. The original table in Moldvay B/X always gave me dyslexia because it assumes party evasion. And the one in the DMG is nice but lengthy.

I've attached a proposal; it's more true to the original B/X "Chance of Evasion" table; but I still hanker for a more *basic* approach.

One idea I had was instead of adding/subtracting percentages, just make it a Save vs Death Ray with mods; this would also make "DEX check" compatible. This would eliminate the whole first table, but one would have to assume to save as the lowest HD creature in the evading group. Or better yet, maybe not even mention probability and just suggest criteria: that way it could work with d6 roll also.

• Terrain is Familiar or Low Visibility (save +4) (+2 on d6)
  Terrain is Unfamiliar, Featureless, or Rough (save -2) (-1 on d6))
  Pursuers are twice as fast (save -4)(-2 on d6)
  Evaders are twice as fast (save +4) (+2 on d6)
  Pursuers have Scouts in place (save -2) (-1 on d6)

(Attachment Below: any objections?)

EDIT: BTW the goal here is not to codify these guideline in stone, but to provide a "sit and play" "batteries included" supplement for those who do not have original texts.

[chiisu81]

Let's say someone, like me, is mathmatically stupid. Seeing percentages and then having to figure out how that works with a d20 or d6 roll just doesn't click. Why not stick with the d20 roll and then change the table to tell me how much to add or subtract from a d20 roll, not percentage.

[seandon4]

Let's say someone, like me, is mathmatically stupid. Seeing percentages and then having to figure out how that works with a d20 or d6 roll just doesn't click. Why not stick with the d20 roll and then change the table to tell me how much to add or subtract from a d20 roll, not percentage.

Thanks. It would be all one method (die) or the other, whichever is simpler. The original Expert set and DMG used percentage for this, but I'm partial to the idea of keeping to the old save mechanic or d6 roll.

However, lately I've been rethinking the whole concept. I still find the original two tables method to be "too much." I'm thinking the whole concept of tracking someone down in the wild, could just as well be played out with a couple duration (con), hide (dex) and/or ranger tracking skill checks, etc, which is what usually what winds up happening.

Though I suspect the point of the original Chance of Evasion was to combine all that into a single roll; also it acts as an objective and quick way to handle wilderness encounters
gm: "you see hostile wild board coming your way", players "ok change direction and avoid them" gm: rolls chance of evasion "they follow, catch up to you and attack" OR "ok you out run them."

However, when a group first flees from combat, then it is typically played out until "the fleeing group is out of sight" as the Core Rules put it. At that point, simply comparing movement rate and distance and a dex check (like how it's done in 3.5), doesn't factor in lighting, terrain and other factors, like the older rules did.

My current thinking is that these factors could be discussed as general concepts rather than some new table, as they could impact combat as well:
For example, a GM might decide that low light and dense forest might put some sort of limit on missile fire range, even _before_ a group is "out of sight" and evaded.

I'm working on a way to factor these ideas into the Adventuring Supplement: at the very least I will mention them for GM's consideration, in lieu of a confusing table.