Valinard's Tower

With regard to #RedHack’s under/over rolls, if we’re setting aside the range 2-7 for particularly difficult skills (such as Thief skills) this implies a division of the non-critical range into three sections of six, and these could be used to correspond to five different levels of success:

1: Unlucky! It happens to the best of us. 2-7: Basic: Almost anyone could do this. The inept occasionally, the skilled routinely. 8-13: Expert: As hard as scaling a sheer wall. A competent person can do it, if they’re lucky. 14-19: Master: Only someone of exceptional ability could achieve a result like this, and not often. 20: Lucky! The fool sometimes prospers.

One area this could be useful is when we need a range of outputs, such as when identifying items, understanding languages or recalling lore. For instance, a basic success on item identification is only possible for a thief, whose discount and bring the difficulty below 7; while a master result is only possible for a character with high INT.

Identifying an Item

What if the basic success provides the value of the item, while the master success tells you what it does? I like the idea that the Thief knows the price of everything and the value of nothing, and the Wizard is the reverse, knows what each item is good for, but when it comes to appraising the price is too high-minded to care.

But these results shouldn’t be limited to only geniuses and thieves, so we can split the middle range between the two, producing a simple line down the middle of the d20:

1: This is definitely poison. 2-10: It’s some kind of potion, you could sell it for 50gp to a wizard. 11-19: This a potion of healing, it restores 1d6+1 HP. 20: Oh, this smells just like a healing potion made with stirge blood! It’s worth 50gp and heals 1d6+1 HP. Failure (under difficulty): This is some kind of curative potion. Failure (over ability): A wizard might buy this.

We could increase the range at which you know both by making 10-11 or 9-12 provide both price and effect, but since PCs frequently take turns rolling to examine an item, I like the idea of not giving them all the same information.

Knowing a Language

In #Red Hack PCs don’t select languages or start with a list of those they know; they have Common and perhaps a language implied by their Background. When they try to understand another language, we roll INT to determine their grasp of it (which can then be recorded for future reference.)

1: Miscommunication. The PC believes they speak the language better than they do, and are likely to give offence or obtain mistaken information. 2-7: Rudimentary. The PC can communicate and understand basic concepts and get the gist of what’s being said. “You think they want you to follow them”; “he wants you to give him a gift.” 8-13: Crude. The PC can communicate using 1000 basic words. 14-19: Fluent. The PC can communicate normally using the language. 20: Like a native. The PC could write good poetry in the language.

Difficulty means the language is obscure; people are less likely to have picked up bits and pieces, and will only know it if they’ve studied it.

I’m treating both written and spoken forms as part of the same knowledge here but they could be divided up on the table, or simply require different rolls – in which case thieves may have some kind of bonus to the ‘written’ roll.

Knowledge of a Monster

1: Dangerously mistaken: This is an osquip, they’re good-natured herbivores. 2-7: Folklore: Rumour has it… they can chew through stone. 8-13: Basic familiarity: A dangerous form of vermin with a powerful bite. 3HD. 14-19: Well studied: Detailed knowledge of strengths and weaknesses. 20: Expert: I did my thesis on Osquips. (Read the whole MM entry.) Failure (under difficulty): Ignorant: What’s an osquip? Failure (over ability): Mere hearsay: I once heard someone say osquips are mean.