As a totally minor bit of feedback, I'd really like it better if this table had 1 row per level (each level having its own row). I'm perfectly able to read a table 30 rows deep, and it gives me much better confidence that the numbers are accurately balanced for the party's level.Stalker0 said:1) So Stalker, why did you go to 2 levels instead 3? Personally I liked the smaller table.
Giving DCs every 2 levels gave me a bit more precision than the 3 level model. And when you’re working with this kind of math, more precision equals more good. I figured Dms wouldn’t mind a slightly larger table if it led to a more balanced system.
2) Regarding the footnote, why do I need to add +1 DC at those levels?
Simplicity has its price. With those particular levels, I noticed a spike in the party’s win rate. If the table had shown every level, I would have modified the DCs. But I figured that would make the table too large, so I added the footnote. Adding a +1 to the DC at those levels will fix everything very nicely.
Lokathor said:A system so good I registered just to ask about it.
I did a quick survey of the level 1 characters I had around from DMing my own game and from a game I'm playing in (8 characters total), and the average trained skill bonus was only +7.8. This is mostly because my players don't get as many 18s with point buy, they go for more even arrays.
If I'm reading this right, that means I should subtract 1 from all the DCs and it'll all work out. Is this correct?
Harr said:Sorry for double-post, but just finished reading 1.6 and... you seriously took out Critical Success for 1.6? Like, seriously? That's the first change for me right there
Looks really good otherwise! Contrary to CS I'm actually glad Daredevil Stunt is gone, that thing was ic-ky.
77IM said:As a totally minor bit of feedback, I'd really like it better if this table had 1 row per level (each level having its own row). I'm perfectly able to read a table 30 rows deep, and it gives me much better confidence that the numbers are accurately balanced for the party's level.
Stalker0 said:I would love some feedback on how 8 character parties handle with my system. The baseline is 5, and I made allowances for larger and smaller parties but that math gets fuzzier, so feel free to let me know how it goes!
I'll just attach it here then and make clear that this is my suggestion and not a formatting of your approved product.Stalker0 said:I can't PM unfortunately. Feel free to post any updates you would like in a separate thread if you feel that would make things cleaner.
The Eye said:Should the DC for Easy checks go down (from 20 to 19) when the challenge level shifts from 10 to 11? It could be ok mathematically, but it stood out as a possible typo.
Stalker0 said:Its not a typo, though I did notice that as well. For ease and consistency I altered the easy and hard checks at every tier. Although it wouldn't make a huge difference if I changed it to a 20, so if people feel its just too weird I can change it.
dragon_eater said:I suppose the only question I have is what should you do if you want to run complexity 4 or 5 challenges in a party without a really strong skill user?