I was reading through my rule book again today and I came accross page 197, Combining Difficulties.

The sidebar basically states that the greatest minus you can get is -30 and the highest plus you can get is +30. Now I could have sworn that some where also in the book it says its -60/+60 for combat.

Can anyone help me out here? Which is it and what page is it on because I can't find what I thought I read originally..

The max modifier you can have in combat is -60/+60. I believe that it's still -30/+30 for non-combat tasks, though.

Can you tell me what page it states it on? I believe you but I just wanna know where it is >.>

The errata states that it's +/-60, reprints have the first errata (there are three) so in some books it says +/-30 in others +/-60, the latter is correct.

As snidesworth says, the errata only refers to combat actions, the original sidebar (located in the combat section) does not indicate a specific kind of action it applies to. My interpretation however has been that the sidebar has been erratad (or clarified) to only apply to combat and then at +/-60. There's some leeway to read either way.

Top right on the first page of the errata.

I was reading that as the maximum was +60/-60 in total per action summed, but that no specific modifier could be more than +30/-30.

So, say, being in the dark is a -30 to use BS, and using a rifle one handed is -20. On this moment you happen to be drunk, really drunk, so another -20. Since you've been taking the time to aim your gun while talking to the ruffian beside you you get a +30, though! For a total of -40. If you hadn't aimed it would be -60, though.

The errata may refer to combat specifically, but why not use it for non-combat checks as well? I often use +60 skill checks for tests that I feel the PCs or anyone else should have a fairly easy time of doing but not so easy as automatic. And yes, the PCs sometimes fail these as well

+30 I use for easy rolls that are still pretty hard for unskilled people.

Friend of the Dork said:

If they are unskilled, an 'easy' test should be difficult for them. The difficulty system in DH, IMO, is based on whether they have the skill. I.E.. +30 is Very Easy for someone with the skill, but not to the point where it is automatic, this whole notion that characters should always have a great chance of succceeding is appaling. If its something the character should be able to do,

1 they will have the skill for it thus making it easier

or

2 Dont make them roll

Emprah_Horus said:

Thats already built into the system. If you are unskilled you roll at half the stat for that skill. The modifiers relate to the task at hand which may be a normally easy task but your lack of skill makes it still rather tough for you. Most of the time your stat + bonus will still be under 50 which makes it less then a 50% chance of success which is still diffuclt to succeed on. Your picture of how skill tests should work is by far to simple, leaving no room for any small modifiers because a task is slightly or much harder or easier.

Also where are you getting this "great chance of succeeding" from? You seem to just hate this system judging by your other posts and apparent contempt.

Actually I love this system, I just don't see why there are so many complaints about easy tasks being too difficult. My group has never had these difficulties yet, maybe we are doing something wrong. Do we fail the rolls sometimes? Of course, but even the most skilled person occasionally fails at something. To me this system represents that better than other systems I've played.

Even in the stories the main characters occasionally fail, Eisenhorn wasn't successful at everything he did. I am also indifferent to the whole +/-30 vs +/-60 for non-combat. But, I do believe for any modifiers after the +30 for Very Easy would have to be situational. ie an Intimidation Check could be very easy, but you could also have the biggest gun, or play the Inquisition card for another +10. I just disagree that characters should have an overwhelming chance of succeeding.

I think it's a question of where you draw the line between "might fail" and "automatically succeeds".

If you limit the maximum bonus to +30, then the easiest thing you can do that doesn't auto-succeed has a 20% chance of failure, which I think is quite high. If you limit it to +60 then you can take in the full range from auto-success through 99% success down to 1% success or auto-failure. Then again, the same argument will apply to a less competent character (say, stat 40 using a basic skill untrained) - but I think that's less of an issue because after all they're not that competent.

So I prefer a maximum of +/- 60 but in most situations don't go higher than +/- 30.

Cardinalsin said:

The narrative value of failure should be a significant deciding factor, alongside external pressure upon the character. A character should be able to haul himself over a rough stone wall with no difficulty if he's got time and breathing room to accomplish the task - there's no pressure on him to succeed, nor is there any noteworthy consequence of failure. If that wall is the only thing between him and escape from pursuing enemies, however, then that's a different matter - failure gives his enemies one more round to close the distance, and the character is under pressue to succeed, so while the test might still be Easy (+30) or better, a test should still be required.

As for maximum modifiers - the rulebook does actually say that GM's can grant bigger than +/-30 modifiers at their discretion, so clearly the limit is not a hard-and-fast one, but rather a guideline for the majority of tasks and (after accounting for the errata) a limiter for combat (where every failure is in a pressured situation and has a noteworthy consequence).

Cardinalsin said:

The system is already set... its not a question of where do you draw the line on 30 vs 60 because its already set. Combate modifiers can stack up to -/+60 and difficulty ratings at +/-30. Im not sure what your really talking about now man, sounds like you got confused.

He's talking about outside of combat I believe, the errata states +/-60 for Combat modifiers but does not specify a min/max for non-combat.

Page 2 of the V3 errata:

"The maximum situational modifi ers in combat should be +60/–60, instead of +30/–30 as described in the Combining Difficulties sidebar on page 197."

Don't have my DH book handy as its at my roleplaying host's house at the moment does the sidebar discuss both combat and non combat?

Halloween Jack said:

No, this side bar only pertains to combat situations. Non-combat is somehwere else in the book but I can never remember where.