Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Graded Checks Errata

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Graded Checks Errata

    There's a bit of confusion in my group about graded. According to the text on page 14, succeeding at all is 1 degree of success, and every full 5 above the DC is another degree. So its 1 (0-4), 2 (5-9), 3 (10-14), 4 (15-19) and so on. The chart agrees with this, and all is well with the world in regards to degrees of success. It's the degrees of failure that are causing the confusion. The text says that failing at all is 1 degree of failure, and every full 5 below the DC is an additional degree of failure. This would indicate ranges of 1 (1-4), 2 (5-9), 3 (10-14), 4 (15-19) and so on. But the chart indicates ranges of 1 (1-5), 2 (6-10), 3 (11-15), 4 (16-20) and so on. So either the chart or the text needs to be fixed.

    Since the chart gives 1 degree of failure the same chance as the other degrees, I assume it's correct to use the chart, but all the same I'd like an official answer: Did you goof on the text or on the chart?

  • #2
    Re: Graded Checks Errata

    Originally posted by cochramd View Post
    There's a bit of confusion in my group about graded. According to the text on page 14, succeeding at all is 1 degree of success, and every full 5 above the DC is another degree. So its 1 (0-4), 2 (5-9), 3 (10-14), 4 (15-19) and so on. The chart agrees with this, and all is well with the world in regards to degrees of success. It's the degrees of failure that are causing the confusion. The text says that failing at all is 1 degree of failure, and every full 5 below the DC is an additional degree of failure. This would indicate ranges of 1 (1-4), 2 (5-9), 3 (10-14), 4 (15-19) and so on. But the chart indicates ranges of 1 (1-5), 2 (6-10), 3 (11-15), 4 (16-20) and so on. So either the chart or the text needs to be fixed.

    Since the chart gives 1 degree of failure the same chance as the other degrees, I assume it's correct to use the chart, but all the same I'd like an official answer: Did you goof on the text or on the chart?
    The table is correct, but I don't see anywhere in the text that contradicts that.

    --JonL

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Graded Checks Errata

      Originally posted by JonL View Post
      The table is correct, but I don't see anywhere in the text that contradicts that.

      --JonL
      It's that 0-4 is not 1-5. Basically if you match the check according to the table that's a zero and thus not 1 degree of success. I think it'd be better to make it 0-5 and continue on like normal.

      -20 to -16, -15 to -11, -10 to -6, -5 to -1, 0, 1 to 5, 6 to 10, 11 to 15, 16 to 20

      There are 9 total degrees (assuming you stop counting after 4) with 0 (matching the check exactly) being the odd one out as fitting in neither successful or failed. Since it says that matching a check means succeeding successful degrees should continue on from 0 to 4 then 5-9 etc.
      [SIZE=2][FONT=comic sans ms][I][URL="https://roninarmy.com/threads/7721-WAIFU-WARZ-Squirrelly-s-Anime-and-Animation-Builds"]I Build Waifus and Waifu Accessories![/URL][/I][/FONT][/SIZE]

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Graded Checks Errata

        I agree with the OP that the text does not match the chart on failures.

        The Graded Degrees text states: "Just rolling a success or failure counts as one degree. Every five full points a check result is over or under the difficulty class adds a degree."

        I bold faced the parts that I think are critical.

        On the chart it states that DC +5 is TWO degrees of success, so it follows the text. Yet on the failure side of the chart it says that DC -5 is one failure. That doesn't follow the text. According to the text, failing by 1 would be one failure and failing by 5 adds a second degree. If the DC of something is 15 and I roll a 14, it is one degree of failure. If I roll a 10 that is five full points under (14,13,12,11,10) and it should be two degrees of failure, not one. Just like if I roll a 20 it is 5 full points over (16,17,18,19,20) and is two successes.

        The DC number is the "0 point value" and it always means success (or at least i've never seen it equal failure in a +/- game system before) and favors the players, since they make a lot more rolls than npcs, so I am happy with that. But it doesn't affect how much you roll under or over it. Beating a DC of 15 by 5 (16,17,18,19,20) or failing it by 5 (14,13,12,11,10) is the same number of points, the actual 15 does not affect the over/under. The DC 15 (or 0 point value) in this case is in the middle and happens to favor success. To use a Star Trek metaphor, the 15 (or whatever DC you use) is the neutral zone.

        Consider a DC of 0. A roll of 5 is two sucesses, a roll of -5 should be two failures. Both rolls are an equal 5 full points (1,2,3,4,5 vs -1,-2,-3,-4,-5) over and under 0. A roll of 0 would be a success, but it didn't roll over OR under the DC of 0 and doesn't affect the second degree of either.

        So on the chart, a DC -5 should be two degrees of failure, not one. just like DC +5 is two successes.

        So the text and the chart don't quite vibe or at the very least creates an anomaly right in the middle of the neutral zone! If you aren't into Star Trek, then I am sure that did not help at all.

        I personally rewrote the chart to fit the text so that DC -5 (or basically 5-9) equals two failures because it makes sense and also makes for quicker math while in game, going by 5, 10, 15, instead of 6, 11, 16 etc - just works smoother, too. I've never had problems using GM Fiat to fix things, especially easy fixes. I've been doing it 35 years now, I don't even think twice about it anymore.

        But I certainly understand the OP's confusion.

        Comment

        Working...
        X