Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pbartender" data-source="post: 4312266" data-attributes="member: 7533">Sure, I can see that...&nbsp; The problem I have, at the moment, is that there are fewer failures by half required to fail a challenge, than successes are required to succeed at the challenge.Since, generally, the DC for the &quot;test&quot; is on par with what the PCs are rolling, the bad guys are going to have a much, much easier time foiling the good guys in challenges...&nbsp; You go from the PCs always succeeding to the PCs always failing, and always failing not because of their own mistakes but because the enemy is negating their successes.&nbsp; From a player point of view, that kind of sucks.You could feasibly increase the number of failures required.&nbsp; But I don't think that's a good idea.You could also house rule that players can use a success to negate a failure (you already kind of suggest this in your example). It may seem that using a success to add a success would always be the better choice, putting you closer to victory, but think of it as &quot;social healing&quot;...&nbsp; there are times when its better to delay failure.Hrmm...&nbsp; To take a cue from regular skill checks, what about Opposed Skill Challenges?&nbsp; Both sides have separate, but opposed skill challenges. The first to attain all their successes is the winner, or the first to attain all failures is the loser.&nbsp; That puts both sides on even ground.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pbartender, post: 4312266, member: 7533"] Sure, I can see that... The problem I have, at the moment, is that there are fewer failures by half required to fail a challenge, than successes are required to succeed at the challenge. Since, generally, the DC for the "test" is on par with what the PCs are rolling, the bad guys are going to have a much, much easier time foiling the good guys in challenges... You go from the PCs always succeeding to the PCs always failing, and always failing not because of their own mistakes but because the enemy is negating their successes. From a player point of view, that kind of sucks. You could feasibly increase the number of failures required. But I don't think that's a good idea. You could also house rule that players can use a success to negate a failure (you already kind of suggest this in your example). It may seem that using a success to add a success would always be the better choice, putting you closer to victory, but think of it as "social healing"... there are times when its better to delay failure. Hrmm... To take a cue from regular skill checks, what about Opposed Skill Challenges? Both sides have separate, but opposed skill challenges. The first to attain all their successes is the winner, or the first to attain all failures is the loser. That puts both sides on even ground. [/QUOTE]

Verification