If you’re walking in on the middle of this series, there’s an index here.

With Brian’s help I realised I’d miscalculated the mathematics on the last Rules Sketch (I find anydice challenging at any time, let alone on my phone, which is where all my writing is happening right now). I also realised I’d forgotten to implement one stated principle from the read-through which happens to help with the problem, so here are my modifications.

To perform an ability check, roll 1d20. If the result is less than your ability score, you succeed partially or with consequence. If it is not less than your ability score or the result is 20, you do not succeed and face a consequence.

If you have proficiency, roll 2d20. If both dice are a success, you succeed without consequence. If you have a disadvantage, roll 2d20 and only take the lowest score.

This is basically the same rule as before, but it implements the unstated principle from the proficiencies chapter: You can’t do a thing well if you don’t have proficiency in it. But, it limits the utility of dice pools in resolution. How do I fix this?

The option of adding a bonus to the target causes the issue that with a good ability score and a few sources of bonuses, you can’t fail. The “on a 20” rule mitigates this, but not sufficiently. The other option is to subtract a bonus from the roll, which is less intuitive, allows me to remove the “on a 20” rule, and also allows me to add a “critical success” rule if a roll goes below zero, which is appealing to me. However, it reduces intuitive compatibility – still not hard, though, to treat negatives as positives.

If an item, ability or specialisation grants you a numerical bonus, it is subtracted from result of the roll. If your result is less than zero, you get greater effect than intended. You can always trade advantage for special effect or greater effect, by negotiation with the game master.

This corrects the mistakes in my previous post and incorporates more principles I’d pulled from the read-through. Feels more like 2nd Edition, but keeps the interesting choices, drama and clear results. I don’t like 20s are always a miss as a rule, but it’s necessary if I’m using bonuses. It necessitates a more complex differentiation between proficiency and specialisation, which is disappointing, but is still present in the original text.

This has been a part of the Advanced Fantasy Dungeon Series! Let me know your thoughts on this approach, whether I’ve overlooked anything glaring, or anything of the sort!

Idle Cartulary

3rd April 2022