Ability Checks are modified by negative values

[theWizardsBaker]

Rolling a base ability check (INT, WIS, etc) subtracts the ability score from the d20 roll but I believe it should be adding it.

[n0q]

I think the check is correct, but the way it's presented to the user is outrageous.

An ability check mean you roll a d20, and succeed if your die roll is equal or less than your ability score. It's not an additive check, but a comparison. Saves, on the other hand, are additive and are probably what you wanted, here.

That is to say, that a successful check means the final result is a 0 or less. This is not intuitive at all, as presented. It's literally the oldest chat card in the system and needs replacing. I'll prioritize this, as it's long overdue.

Does that match your understanding? It gets confusing because the PHB is ambiguous on this matter.

• PHB223 describes a critical failure as rolling the minimum score on a check, and specifies that as a natural 1 on, say, a con check.
• PHB152 again describes a natural 1 as a critical failure.
• PHB153 provides an example (and finally specifies the formula as d20p versus Con) and calls a result of 1 a success!
• PHB137 introduces a flaw which causes an ability check to fumble on a 19 or 20.
• This same flaw causes the player to fumble in combat on a 1 or a 2.

The inference to me is that in a check, higher is bad (and this flaw doubles the 'threat range'), and the sidebar on PHB223 is wrong. Otherwise, how do you fail a con check?

GMG69 mentions a con check as being d20 vs. CON, which is surprisingly the first (and only) time it's ever outright states this. I am more than willing to be wrong about all of this if you can show me otherwise. I also think Hackmaster sometimes uses words like 'save' and 'check' interchangeably and leaves it up to the reader to interpret what they actually want you to do.

EDIT: Just to be more clear, after reading yet again... In the Combat chapter, for Death and Dying, it mentions Wisdom and Constitution checks, but these are additive. The GMG mentions con checks in a way that is more in line with my original thinking. I'm going to look this stuff over later and may have to re-evaluate how I'm handling all of this. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

[theWizardsBaker]

@n0q thank you for your thorough feedback! I've only been running Hackmaster for about a year so i'm not overly confident in all of the rulings. Last night my players were confused by the results when i had them roll a CON check (and consulted the chapter on Death and Dying).

We really appreciate all the work you've put into this module, it makes running Hackmaster so much more managable

[n0q]

I really appreciate that people enjoy using the system. Comments like that mean a lot to me.

As you can see, the problem is that the rules are inconsistent on what a check is. I believe in most cases it matches your definition, but other times it doesn't. I'm not entirely sure this is a problem to be fixed. The output itself is bad, of course. The player shouldn't be left to figure out that less than 1 is good. That has to get fixed. But I am beginning to think that "Save" and "Check" is a losing proposition.

Would you be less confused if the two buttons were more literal? Something like:

Roll Under Ability vs d20p + Ability?

[theWizardsBaker]

I've re-read some of the sections and i'm still confused about the design intentions:

For example, Delray is a fighter possessing 13/22 Con- stitution. A troll bites him with such savagery as to knock him to -5 hit points. If he possessed the Resolute Talent, he would have the opportunity to roll a d20p and, should he roll 1-13 (the CON check), he would immediately revive. Upon reviving, he has d8 hit points. He rolls 7 thus tem- porarily gains 12 hit points (5 to bring him up to zero plus d8 additional hit points). At the end of 30+5d12p seconds, these extra hit points vanish leaving him again at -5 hit points.

The passage above suggests what you have explained: the player rolls a penetrating d20 for a CON check, attempting to roll between 1 and 13. I find this odd because, firstly, in the case of a penetrating dice, it is detrimental to the player (since a 'good' roll would probably put them well above their ability score). This does seem in line with hackmaster though, so maybe that's intended. Secondly, as you mentioned, rolling a '1' is considered an auto failure? Perhaps this isn't supposed to apply to Ability Checks.

I can only guess that GMG69 is mean to refer to an "opposed" check? Re-reading and trying to understand, i think i'm learning that:

• checks are attempting to roll between 1 and Ability Score. natural 20's are actually crit failures
• opposed checks are additive, rolling for the higher value against the GM's roll
• saves are meant to be additive as well (mental saving throw modifiers, for example, are all positive numbers) since there is usually a threshold to beat

I think that changing the buttons, adding another "Opposed Check" button or maybe a description along with the roll explaining why it succeeded or failed might be helpful?