Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 7021484" data-attributes="member: 5890">The issue with requiring multiple successful rolls to resolve a single action is that it dramatically reduces the chance of success: as another person pointed out it's the equivalent of applying disadvantage (and potentially to a higher degree) to the check.Combat is a different kettle of fish, because of the way that it's resolved: no single failed combat roll ends the action of &quot;kill the monster&quot; as a failure, nor do you require every roll to pass in order to succeed.Given that, as long as you allow progress with each success that is not negated with the subsequent failure, then multiple rolls to resolve an action is fine. in the given example:&quot;For example, if you have to run along a railing an make a big jump to a balcony, you would roll independently for a dexterity (acrobatics) check to run along the railing and a strength (athletics) check to jump.&quot;the problem is that the impression is given that you require BOTH checks to succeed in order to complete the action, and that failure in either is somewhat final.If the actual situation is that passing one OR the other check results in you making the jump but dangling off the balcony, while making both checks results in you standing on the edge of the balcony and only failing both checks results in failure (falling down the side of the building), then you have something analogous to combat and therefore much more fair.Keeping that in mind leads to what is my answer to the conundrum in general: if multiple skills apply to a situation, then you can eithera) apply only one based on method of approach (assuming that the methods of approach are exclusive)b) apply and roll all of them and use the aggregate to determine degree of success (assuming that they can reasonably be applied concurrently).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Saeviomagy, post: 7021484, member: 5890"] The issue with requiring multiple successful rolls to resolve a single action is that it dramatically reduces the chance of success: as another person pointed out it's the equivalent of applying disadvantage (and potentially to a higher degree) to the check. Combat is a different kettle of fish, because of the way that it's resolved: no single failed combat roll ends the action of "kill the monster" as a failure, nor do you require every roll to pass in order to succeed. Given that, as long as you allow progress with each success that is not negated with the subsequent failure, then multiple rolls to resolve an action is fine. in the given example: "For example, if you have to run along a railing an make a big jump to a balcony, you would roll independently for a dexterity (acrobatics) check to run along the railing and a strength (athletics) check to jump." the problem is that the impression is given that you require BOTH checks to succeed in order to complete the action, and that failure in either is somewhat final. If the actual situation is that passing one OR the other check results in you making the jump but dangling off the balcony, while making both checks results in you standing on the edge of the balcony and only failing both checks results in failure (falling down the side of the building), then you have something analogous to combat and therefore much more fair. Keeping that in mind leads to what is my answer to the conundrum in general: if multiple skills apply to a situation, then you can either a) apply only one based on method of approach (assuming that the methods of approach are exclusive) b) apply and roll all of them and use the aggregate to determine degree of success (assuming that they can reasonably be applied concurrently). [/QUOTE]

Verification