Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Warbringer" data-source="post: 6177400" data-attributes="member: 14391">Agreed. The system needs to support complex checks, attrition, and consequences. Just like combat*. If combat is essentially a number of successes to reduce a challenge to being a non-challenge while risking consequence each round you fail to do that, (ie hit something until it fall over or you fall over), non-combat challenges should likewise in a metagame framework.I think the second effort at SCs, and many houserules, get this. So challenges that are ongoing cause healing surge loss, hit point damage, or increased risk in the next combat encounter (this is my houserule, similar to a doompool). Maybe where skill check DCs are listed, typical consequences should be listed for ongoing risks and outcomes.I don't want all skill checks to be pass/fail. To me that is boring and a reason that combat is not resolved against that type of mechanic ----*A big part of it is that in D&amp;D there is always advanced, detailed combat level rules with targets (AC, Defenses, Damage) and attrition (HPs), while is non-combat challenges they are almost hand waived. When there is an attempt to use more complex systems (eg SC) there simply isn't enough explanation (compared to the rules for combat) or to be honest play testing to ensure balance and fun. This means DMs have to work out how to do it anyway.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Warbringer, post: 6177400, member: 14391"] Agreed. The system needs to support complex checks, attrition, and consequences. Just like combat*. If combat is essentially a number of successes to reduce a challenge to being a non-challenge while risking consequence each round you fail to do that, (ie hit something until it fall over or you fall over), non-combat challenges should likewise in a metagame framework. I think the second effort at SCs, and many houserules, get this. So challenges that are ongoing cause healing surge loss, hit point damage, or increased risk in the next combat encounter (this is my houserule, similar to a doompool). Maybe where skill check DCs are listed, typical consequences should be listed for ongoing risks and outcomes. I don't want all skill checks to be pass/fail. To me that is boring and a reason that combat is not resolved against that type of mechanic ---- [SIZE=2]*A big part of it is that in D&D there is always advanced, detailed combat level rules with targets (AC, Defenses, Damage) and attrition (HPs), while is non-combat challenges they are almost hand waived. When there is an attempt to use more complex systems (eg SC) there simply isn't enough explanation (compared to the rules for combat) or to be honest play testing to ensure balance and fun. This means DMs have to work out how to do it anyway.[/SIZE] [/QUOTE]

Verification