Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 5073754" data-attributes="member: 20564">If you want to stay close to the existing rules, but want to encourage participation, then don't count failures, count rounds.&nbsp; The only penalty for failure is that you didn't contribute to success and the clock is ticking.&nbsp; This prevents sitting back and letting one expert do everything.I just came up with this based on Saeviomagy's post, we'd have to play to determine the number of rounds to be roughly equivilent. Side effects would be that it could encourage less aid-another teamwork - if you can make that roll, why not have a shot at adding a success.&nbsp; Not sure if that's a problem or not.Also, party size would affect skill challenges more than it does now.&nbsp; Now a large party is usually just extra aid another, or perhaps one extra PC trained in the skill.&nbsp; With this it's more chances per tick.&nbsp; Perhaps it should be -1 round per PC over 5, and +1 round per PC under 4.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blue, post: 5073754, member: 20564"] If you want to stay close to the existing rules, but want to encourage participation, then don't count failures, count rounds. The only penalty for failure is that you didn't contribute to success and the clock is ticking. This prevents sitting back and letting one expert do everything. I just came up with this based on Saeviomagy's post, we'd have to play to determine the number of rounds to be roughly equivilent. Side effects would be that it could encourage less aid-another teamwork - if you can make that roll, why not have a shot at adding a success. Not sure if that's a problem or not. Also, party size would affect skill challenges more than it does now. Now a large party is usually just extra aid another, or perhaps one extra PC trained in the skill. With this it's more chances per tick. Perhaps it should be -1 round per PC over 5, and +1 round per PC under 4. [/QUOTE]

Verification