Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7001354" data-attributes="member: 996">Exactly.&nbsp; Of course, with knowledges, those reasons probably don't change a whole lot.&nbsp; The character who rolls to see what he knows about the nature of incanabula because he's a sagacious librarian will still be a sagacious librarian when he rolls to see what he knows about the history of a ruined castle.&nbsp; Once in a blue moon a PC might have recently come across some source of knowledge and be able to reference /that/.&nbsp; Presumably for a bonus if it's genuinely applicable. &quot;Making sense&quot; is a bar that's not always the same height.&nbsp; And it always applies.&nbsp; While I have no issue with your preferred technique, I don't see it as a solution to the piling-on issue with skills.&nbsp; It may reduce the number of players piling on, just as it may reduce the number of skill checks made by players across the board.&nbsp; So, not saying there'd be no impact on the issue, just that it's not an 'upstream solution.'...Elfcrusher's general idea though, addresses another player motivation in making or not making a skill check - consequences for failure.&nbsp;&nbsp; Piling-on is most practical when there's no penalty for failure.&nbsp; Group skill checks do make failures meaningful, though only in the mechanical sense of going into determining and overall pass/fail.&nbsp; Elfcrusher's possible mechanics, though, in generating uncertainty about answers might result in a more interesting set of consequences...&nbsp; It's not even 'handwaving' in the case of 5e, 'narrating success' like that is a 100% legit part of the basic resolution mechanic.&nbsp; Nod.&nbsp; I think it's an important point.&nbsp; If a player declares an action where success/failure will be obvious, there's no need to resort to such a variant.&nbsp; The player will know if his character jumped the chasm or not.&nbsp; He may not know if he disarmed the trap or not, until he takes the action that will trigger it.&nbsp; &nbsp;'Realistically' (ick), better-trained people perform tasks more consistently.&nbsp; Also, more obscurely, less-knowledgeable people tend to overestimate their understanding of a subject.&nbsp; So if you really have no idea what you're doing, you may well have no idea when you're really screwed up.&nbsp;&nbsp; So it might make sense to vary the die size inversely with proficiency bonus, maybe:+0&nbsp; ... d12+2 ...&nbsp; d8+3-4 .. d6+5-6 .. d4</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7001354, member: 996"] Exactly. Of course, with knowledges, those reasons probably don't change a whole lot. The character who rolls to see what he knows about the nature of incanabula because he's a sagacious librarian will still be a sagacious librarian when he rolls to see what he knows about the history of a ruined castle. Once in a blue moon a PC might have recently come across some source of knowledge and be able to reference /that/. Presumably for a bonus if it's genuinely applicable. "Making sense" is a bar that's not always the same height. And it always applies. While I have no issue with your preferred technique, I don't see it as a solution to the piling-on issue with skills. It may reduce the number of players piling on, just as it may reduce the number of skill checks made by players across the board. So, not saying there'd be no impact on the issue, just that it's not an 'upstream solution.' ... Elfcrusher's general idea though, addresses another player motivation in making or not making a skill check - consequences for failure. Piling-on is most practical when there's no penalty for failure. Group skill checks do make failures meaningful, though only in the mechanical sense of going into determining and overall pass/fail. Elfcrusher's possible mechanics, though, in generating uncertainty about answers might result in a more interesting set of consequences... It's not even 'handwaving' in the case of 5e, 'narrating success' like that is a 100% legit part of the basic resolution mechanic. Nod. I think it's an important point. If a player declares an action where success/failure will be obvious, there's no need to resort to such a variant. The player will know if his character jumped the chasm or not. He may not know if he disarmed the trap or not, until he takes the action that will trigger it. 'Realistically' (ick), better-trained people perform tasks more consistently. Also, more obscurely, less-knowledgeable people tend to overestimate their understanding of a subject. So if you really have no idea what you're doing, you may well have no idea when you're really screwed up. So it might make sense to vary the die size inversely with proficiency bonus, maybe: +0 ... d12 +2 ... d8 +3-4 .. d6 +5-6 .. d4 [/QUOTE]

Verification