NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="chaochou" data-source="post: 6044633" data-attributes="member: 99817">A couple more thoughts.Firstly, I think skills either have to be more granular, or broad skills have to combine in interesting ways.For example, sneaking through woodland can either be its own thing (say 'hunting') or you could have a mechanic where a skill is capped by another skill. So sneaking in woodland is Sneak, but capped by Nature.You could have a mechanic where a skill is enhanced (or not) by another skill - although I think advantage manages this quite well. So you could risk throwing a stone with a thrown weapon skill to distract a guard to get advantage on sneak (or disadvantage if you fail and simply put him on alert).If you combine those mechanics... Well, a ranger trying to sneak past a goblin lookout is likely to have the sneak and nature to do it. Whereas an urban rogue is more likely to need to risk the distraction. Those differences are what create characters, for me.Second, I think it's important that the rules emphasise interesting consequences for failure. Failing forward. This was supposed to be a property of skill challenges. So a failed sneak past the goblin doesn't necessarily proceed inevitably into 'raised alarm and combat'.Whether its SCs or something else, once GMs are empowered to interpret rolls broadly rather than narrowly, and in interesting ways rather than predictable ones, players are more free to explore and take risks - less constrained by not having the exact skills for the situation. If that failed sneak roll might mean tumbing into an old mineshaft the cleric is more likely to try it. Failure is great - a new thing to explore.</blockquote>

Verification