NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scurvy_Platypus" data-source="post: 4359300" data-attributes="member: 43283">Thanks for that bit. Are Stalker0's rules actually hijackable for a 3.x based game? I can't get 4E books until next year, so it's not going to do me much good if it relies too heavily on 4E <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />I didn't take your comment as an elitist comment either. I play plenty of games other than d20 based stuff, so I'm pretty familiar actually with the overall idea required successes vs failures and some other things related to it. So I completely agree that it's not a new idea. I just find it annoying when some people show up and simply post "It's not new" and don't bother giving any kind of actually useful information or suggestions.And speaking of advice/suggestions:What's the guideline you use for determining the number of successes needed vs failures? I'll take a look at Stalker0's system, but I imagine that D&D 4E has a different "level of competence assumption" than 3.x.In other words, 3.x is assuming people are going to be successful in succeeding at a skill approximately how often? D&D is geared much more towards the "zero to hero" kind of play (instead of character simply starting out competent/good), so it's a bit different in terms of deciding how to assign the DC and the number of successes required, compared to other systems I'm more comfortable with.</blockquote>

Verification