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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5632966" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, you know what brings flies! <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devil.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":devil:" title="Devil    :devil:" data-shortname=":devil:" /> Maybe we could use some more deep change to the rules to make a resource that is 'like' AP say that worked with SCs, but I doubt 4e will go that way anyhow.I know what you mean about better advice. There are a lot of little meta-gaming, pacing, etc issues with SCs that could be explained. I figure the WotC guys are probably about the same place on the learning curve we are, so maybe they'll come out with a 'Worlds of Intrigue' or something. Hard to say. The biggest flaw with the 3 strikes thing is pretty much exactly what you're talking about. While it is easy enough to measure out strikes, it is often harder to see how different partial failures 'add up' to create a fail of the whole SC. It is also hard for the DM to pace the SC when he doesn't know how many checks will happen before it ends. You can use Obsidian, which avoids that problem. It does have advantages for a lot of challenges.One way to deal with it might be to just get rid of failures like Obsidian does, but have a failed check create a penalty for another check. Then you could allow someone a chance to make a recovery instead of a regular check. It would erase the penalty. It can also obviously be on a different skill, like the acrobatics check in your example. Winning the challenge would then be like Obsidian as well, where you just have to pass N successes and the challenge has some number bigger than N checks. You can leave out the 'everyone makes a check each round' part though if you want. That's about the level of real mechanical changes that might be good.</blockquote>

Verification