Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Paul Strack" data-source="post: 4392231" data-attributes="member: 71340">This does seem like it is a workable system. I agree that it is less swingy. I have a couple complaints about it, though:1) It doesn't scale by party size. Larger parties have a better chance of winning against the same DC. It means you have to factor in party size when you pick the DC.2) Having a point man makes sense for some challenges (opening a lock or negotiating with the Duke) but not for challenges where everyone in the party needs to perform some task: sneaking into the castle or climb the cliff.3) It seems less &quot;fun&quot; to me. For what I can tell, it is basically like a single check with modified Aid Another for the rest of the party. I as a player would want a bigger role than that in a challenge. It certainly does not feel nearly as meaningful as a combat encounter.It also means that everyone in the party *except* the point man can roll really well, and then have the point man blow the final roll. That can be really frustrating to the rest of the group. In practice it may not be any different than the last guy in a standard challenge getting a failure instead of a success on the last roll, but it would certainly feel different in play.4) It has fewer overall rule parameters, making it harder to add tactical options to the challenge.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Paul Strack, post: 4392231, member: 71340"] This does seem like it is a workable system. I agree that it is less swingy. I have a couple complaints about it, though: 1) It doesn't scale by party size. Larger parties have a better chance of winning against the same DC. It means you have to factor in party size when you pick the DC. 2) Having a point man makes sense for some challenges (opening a lock or negotiating with the Duke) but not for challenges where everyone in the party needs to perform some task: sneaking into the castle or climb the cliff. 3) It seems less "fun" to me. For what I can tell, it is basically like a single check with modified Aid Another for the rest of the party. I as a player would want a bigger role than that in a challenge. It certainly does not feel nearly as meaningful as a combat encounter. It also means that everyone in the party *except* the point man can roll really well, and then have the point man blow the final roll. That can be really frustrating to the rest of the group. In practice it may not be any different than the last guy in a standard challenge getting a failure instead of a success on the last roll, but it would certainly feel different in play. 4) It has fewer overall rule parameters, making it harder to add tactical options to the challenge. [/QUOTE]

Verification