Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ravenight" data-source="post: 4313491" data-attributes="member: 69229">Well, the purpose of it was to allow the user to fool around with mixing in certain types of bonuses at random. I see that yours gets the exact solution given a progression of particular skills vs. a single DC, but I was trying to just get a sense of the usefulness of applying the DM's Best Friend bonuses and varying the amount of risk-free checks that could be made for the reward of a bonus to a risky check. So each program has its own use, basically (it would be difficult to have the recursive algorithm track a potential cumulative bonus to the next risky check).I do like the idea of spending something to balance more complex challenges with less complex ones. I wonder if the best implementation of that would simply be to make max failures equal to max successes but then add a cost for how long it takes, so winning in 4 checks is significantly better than winning in 7. The cost could be any number of things, from a once-per-round Endurance check to avoid losing a healing surge to a monetary cost for each check, or suffering from an attack after each failure. It actually seems like doing that would keep it pretty close to what they were aiming for: each level of complexity would be about as tough as that many monsters of whatever level the DC was set for.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ravenight, post: 4313491, member: 69229"] Well, the purpose of it was to allow the user to fool around with mixing in certain types of bonuses at random. I see that yours gets the exact solution given a progression of particular skills vs. a single DC, but I was trying to just get a sense of the usefulness of applying the DM's Best Friend bonuses and varying the amount of risk-free checks that could be made for the reward of a bonus to a risky check. So each program has its own use, basically (it would be difficult to have the recursive algorithm track a potential cumulative bonus to the next risky check). I do like the idea of spending something to balance more complex challenges with less complex ones. I wonder if the best implementation of that would simply be to make max failures equal to max successes but then add a cost for how long it takes, so winning in 4 checks is significantly better than winning in 7. The cost could be any number of things, from a once-per-round Endurance check to avoid losing a healing surge to a monetary cost for each check, or suffering from an attack after each failure. It actually seems like doing that would keep it pretty close to what they were aiming for: each level of complexity would be about as tough as that many monsters of whatever level the DC was set for. [/QUOTE]

Verification