House Rule: Task Resolution

[Finieous]

I know some people despise the very idea of a "universal" task resolution mechanic. Still, I'm working on one and I thought I'd post it up for feedback and critique.

First thing, I eliminate the thief. Classes are fighter, cleric and magic-user. However, in addition to race and class, you choose a background.

Background
Choose a background for your character. Backgrounds describe the kinds of experiences characters had and the training they received before becoming adventurers. Along with class and race, background may grant proficiency on ability rolls to perform tasks (see below). Your background may also provide a weapon proficiency or two.

Humans may select two backgrounds. Humans, though short-lived, are versatile and fast learners.

Examples: acolyte, barbarian, diplomat, gypsy, hunter, knight, mercenary, merchant, minstrel, noble, nomad, sage, sailor, scout, shaman, soldier, spy, thief, tinker, thug, traveler, watchman, wizard’s apprentice, woodsman.

I've got tinker, soldier and spy in there, I feel like I should have tailor. Okay, on to the task resolution mechanic and proficiency...

Task Resolution
We’ll use ability rolls (Basic Fantasy page 153) for most non-combat task resolution, replacing existing subsystems for tasks such as “thief skills,” finding secret doors, opening doors, bending bars, etc. Write your target number (17 at 1st level) somewhere on your character sheet, as it will come up a lot. You’re proficient on tasks related to your race, background or class. When you’re proficient, you roll two d20s and take the best (highest) result, then add your ability bonus (AB) and any situational modifier, comparing the result to your target number as usual.

That's it. Here's my thinking...

Pros:

• A universal mechanic is easier for new players, and frankly, it's easier for me even after 35 years of play.
• Leverages the existing ability roll mechanic.
• It not only doesn't go down the "skill system" path, compared to the thief it actually backs up a couple steps.
• It solves Chris's "a gnome and a half-ogre open a door" problem, though perhaps it wouldn't be to his satisfaction.
• Gives humans a little buff.
• Creates an added dimension of quick-and-easy character customization. You want to play Conan? Human, fighter, barbarian and thief. Go! Gray Mouser? Human, fighter, wizard's apprentice and thief. Go! Paladin? Cleric, knight (I'll throw in sword and lance proficiency), go!

Cons:

• It's kinda "modern," and it replaces a lot of the classic game's quirkiest bits. Is there any "old-school feel" left?

[Koren_nRhys]

I like it! Very similar to the idea I've been noodling with for my modern/cyberpunk hack of BFRPG. I had planned on using more discrete skills, to quantify things a bit more clearly, but by leaving them looser, it adds flexibility.

Taking the 5E advantage mechanic is simple and convenient, and can be used with the core ability check already in BFRPG. That mechanic is one of the top reasons for using this over S&W, my other OSR game of choice.

My version, rather than using advantage if proficient, is to follow the table for the target number if proficient, but if not, your target # won't improve as you level. It stays at 17. As much as I love the elegance of the 5E Adv/Disadv system, I'm not sure I want to mix it into an old-school game.

[Finieous]

I prefer to compare it to the aptitude mechanic I created for Blue Planet v2 fifteen years ago, rather than 5e's advantage. BP was a d10 system, rather than d20, and there were three levels of aptitude, rather than two, but it was the same idea of "roll X dice based on how good you are in an area and keep the best result."

However, I have been playing a lot of 5e, and the use of background here is the way I've been applying the proficiency bonus, following the variant rule in the DMG. This is really the same approach Over the Edge took to character class, in general, back in 1992.

I see your point about using proficiency to determine whether or not you get better at a task, but I really want to emphasize the, I think, "old school" philosophy that anyone can do anything, while still allowing players to carve out a niche for their characters. I feel like I'd lose that if non-proficient characters are stuck at a 20% to succeed at a task, forever.

But, as I suggested in my OP, I really do take your point about the "fit and finish," so to speak, of this mechanic in a mostly old-school game. I like the way it works, I like the curve (as opposed to just applying a bonus for "proficiency"). But the feel also matters to me, and this mechanic feels rather slick and modern. I dunno.

Thanks very much for reading, and for your comments.

[Koren_nRhys]

Well, I never claimed it was a unique mechanic to 5E - it's certainly been used in other games. Just seems like they've popularized it.

As I said, your approach looks good as-is - my changes to it come down to some of my own personal preferences on skill/ability checks. I agree that anyone should be able to attempt virtually anything with some chance of success. My view simply leans towards the idea that unless you have some training by way of background, race or class, it would be based more on natural ability. That's based on stats alone and does not improve, hence the static target number.

Great discussion!

[Finieous]

My view simply leans towards the idea that unless you have some training by way of background, race or class, it would be based more on natural ability. That's based on stats alone and does not improve, hence the static target number.

I see where you're coming from, but what sorts of things can anyone do but can't get better at with practice and experience? I mean, you can get better at breathing with practice and experience.

Take secret doors. Why are adventurers stuck on a 1-in-6 chance to find a secret door? I'd think high-level adventurers would have as many terms for them as Eskimos have names for snow!

Grizzled Adventurer [walks into room and looks around]: Okay, north wall, mark-four spring-latching swivel mount of the late Stonebridge School with a standard archive-style bookcase façade. Oak, I think.

Loyal Retainer: Oak's nice.

Anyway...there should certainly be specialized skills (e.g. languages) that you can't do without training and won't get any better at. But it's hard for me to think of tasks that anyone can do but that they also can't get better at with practice and experience.

Great discussion!

It's very helpful to me, thank you.

[Longman]

Untitled.jpg (150.34 KiB) Viewed 7523 times

Here's how I do it. Similar to the OP but with the option of DCs built in. And I use a bonus instead of a re-roll. I think both ideas are OK.

Each character starts at level 1 with 1 Background Skill, or 2 if any of Dex, Int or Wis is 16 or higher. This grants a +5 bonus. Skill choices should be chosen according to the appropriate ability. Ability bonuses and penalties apply to these rolls.

Spending an additional skill point on the same skill grants you a +4. You can’t spend 2 skill ranks on something, at 1st level. You can even add a 3rd skill point on to an existing skill. This will gain you +3, for a total bonus of +12. (This will mean in many cases you will only fail on a 1.) You cannot gain any greater expertise than 3 skill points.

1 is always a fail. 20 is not always a success for near impossible tasks. In most cases, the GM should not make characters perform 'easy' or even 'medium' task rolls.

More skill points are obtained at 3rd, 6th, 10th, 15th and 21st level.

[Dimirag]

At first I was going to use a similar rule to the one used by Longman reflecting improvement only in areas in which the character trains, but then I liked the idea of being better at some general stuff but becoming even better at some other, so I jumped to a resolution similar to the one from one of the Supplements. Then I decided on this:

I give a Background-based bonus, dwarves have a +5 as they are long lived and hardworkers, elves have a +4 (long lived but carefree), humans have 3 points to spend on backgrounds as they tend to try different things before setting on a learning.

For skills I use the Attack Bonus table for primary, secondary and tertiary skills, tertiary skills are things that any adventurer can do without specific training, and the other two are reserved for class skills.

I prefer a bonus rather than a secondary roll as it allows for better results and the possibility of overcoming greater obstacles.

For faster playability I use a flat value plus each bonus as a general value to roll under, players add bonus and penalties on the fly to those values.

[Finieous]

I prefer a bonus rather than a secondary roll as it allows for better results and the possibility of overcoming greater obstacles.

I wish I preferred a bonus, because I think it feels less slick and modern. However, I really like the curve produced by the second die. The proficient character not only has a better chance to succeed on a given task, his results are more consistently better. Non-proficient characters can try all the same tasks, but they get all the unreliability and volatility of the linear d20 results.

Good stuff.

[quozl]

I really like what you have here.

[Dimirag]

Using two dice you have better chance of higher results but are limited to the 1-20 scale and won't surpass the top 20 result. With a bonus you get higher lesser and higher values.