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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 6060384" data-attributes="member: 6669384">So what I'm getting is a rule that says some checks are group checks, where everyone needs to succeed.  That would apply to things like endurance checks, climb checks, etc.  Call those a Group Check.Other skills, such as tracking/survival and some (but not all) knowledge checks would allow for one individual to make them and that would be enough.  Call those Individual checks.Oddly, things like Spot or Search would need a special rule:  I don't care how many people fail to Spot the needed clue or sign, as long as one of them does that's enough.  It's kind of the opposite of the group check.  Call that one a Collective check.Failures in Individual checks may or may not accumulate.  Miss a roll by more than five and you've followed a false trail, recalled some misinformation or otherwise added confusion to the effort.  Simple failure, meaning that you don't have a clue, doesn't detract from the group efforts.So the new mechanic would be to set a Challenge Rating for the skill challenge, then decide what Group checks are called for, which Individual checks are called for, and which Collective checks are needed.  Plot your story line to determine how many of which."Okay, they need to climb the castle walls, sneak past the guards without raising an alarm, disarm the trap, make a copy of the map, then get out.  Oh, don't forget swimming the moat.  So that's a Group check for swim, one for Climb and one for Move Silently each way.  The Move Silently can be bypassed with an Individual Spot and either a Search or Sense Motive to find the guards and identify the lazy or sleepy ones, or spot a hole in their patrol pattern.  Then another Climb for anyone entering the Tower room, and they need an Individual check for Search/Find Trap and Disable Device.  Then reverse the process, with easier DCs on the climb checks, and they're home."I can see that working, though the granularity might be a bit much.</blockquote>

Verification