Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 5605301" data-attributes="member: 5890">I think that in most games, if the can-only-miss-on-a-2 fighter says "I stab the mook with my sword", the DM will most likely point out every possible scenario where that d20 roll may be vetoed, and will probably allow the player to correct it, and in general a DM who wouldn't allow an inept player to correct those things might be viewed as unfair. Furthermore the failure of a single attack isn't likely to immediately end the party's course of action.ie:"I stab the goblin with my sword.""Sorry, you don't have a sword marked on your sheet and you didn't say that you moved next to the goblin. Your attack fails and the goblin beats you all unconscious."is not how most of us envision a reasonable game being played. Most DMs would either allow the character to have a sword (within reason) or choose a different weapon (again within reason). Most would suggest that the player should use his move to get adjacent to the goblin, and it's a rare DM indeed that would immediately declare that a failed attack resulted in the defeat of the PCs.And yet that's pretty much how skills work, and doubly so with a DM who isn't willing to advise his players when they misstep.I think the solution is to treat skill use somewhat more like combat. Everyone should have a baseline that allows for the possibility of success. Adeptness in the field should help. Failures should not doom the party, simply mean a lack of progress. The success of the opposition should be what slowly brings the party closer to defeat. There should be some resource expenditure.Just to be clear, I don't advocate a game of "I hit him with my diplomacy, 1d4+8 contriteness damage!", just that some of the things which make combat a complete and enjoyable system be brought over to the use of skills.Even if there's not a system in place to do this, I think it behooves a DM to write up skill encounters with these points in mind.In the stubborn guard scenario, I think the encounter would actually be all the way from the guarded door to the objective: otherwise it's the equivalent of a fight against a single mook.You need some number of successes to win (ie - get to the throne room) and the guards need some number of successes to make you lose (ie - throw you in the dungeon). Each party member could be taken out of the action by some number of guard successes (arrested, ignored, told to go fetch someone etc) and rehabilitated by some party member's action ("No, he's not a spy, he's just an idiot!"). You can probably leave the encounter in some way before it's conclusion (escape or start a combat).To broaden the number of skills that can come into play, I would probably allow some rolls to backdate actions (ie - "forgery: I already made a pass" "streetwise: I already know this guard has a kid called larry").I think the key is not just having a single roll resolve the action one way or another. The more satifying method is to treat it as if it's as important as combat.</blockquote>

Verification