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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 6164429" data-attributes="member: 5143">I don't know.  I've always used individual skills as a pass/fail, yes.  But I let the narrative take care of the consequences for multiple skill failures.Say the PCs are attempting to break into a castle.  They roll some sort of Sneak/Move Silently roll to not be heard.  They roll poorly and fail.  There is a consequence for this skill.  It is pass/fail.  However, the consequence might be that one guard goes to check out the noise.At this point the PCs might be able to kill the guard quickly and not be discovered by the castle at large.  Or maybe a successful hide check to stay out of sight will cause the guard to wander away and assume the noise was nothing.  Either way, they can continue sneaking into the castle.Each skill might be pass/fail, but failing a skill doesn't mean failing whatever the PCs goal is.However, if we're using the skill challenge rules as presented, the PCs have failed one skill check and succeeded on another if they fail their Sneak check followed by a successful hide check.  One more failure and they fail to sneak into the castle.  Say they use a Perception check to watch for guards and fail that...well, they aren't able to sneak into the castle anymore.Of course you can just make the consequence for failure that the PCs have to fight a combat.  But why arbitrarily decide that 2 failures causes the combat instead of factoring it which side of the building the PCs were trying to get into and whether there were guards over there.It's the structure that's the problem.  Multiple skill checks leading to a larger goal has pretty much been a part of D&D since skill checks existed.</blockquote>

Verification