Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ZombieRoboNinja" data-source="post: 4280856" data-attributes="member: 54843">Nice job Stalker, but I'd suggest two changes:1. Remove the Daredevil Stunt mechanic and change the Critical Success text as follows :The reasoning here is that you want skill specialists to be able to &quot;win big&quot; without always forcing them to take bigger risks to do so. Also, if you're going to stick in a whole &quot;super-success&quot; mechanic, you might as well let it happen more than 5% of the time.I renamed it because I was rolling the natural 20 component in with something else, so the &quot;critical&quot; nomenclature might be misleading. I also simplified the mechanics a bit because the &quot;if the roll would have been a success&quot; thing seemed a needless complication, given that I'd already abandoned the &quot;critical&quot; symmetry.2. Roll back the change on non-allowed skills. Those skills are only good for one success per challenge anyway, so I don't see it becoming a huge problem for skill monkeys trying to &quot;game the system&quot; (especially since the DM can just tell them &quot;no&quot; if that becomes a problem). I get that the original non-allowed skills system can harm the party's chance of success, but the added creative possibilities more than make up for it, I'd say. If the wizard's player can think of a way to apply his arcane lore to the diplomatic negotiations, more power to him.Obviously these are my opinions, more based on the &quot;feel&quot; of skill challenges than on the cold hard math, but there it is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ZombieRoboNinja, post: 4280856, member: 54843"] Nice job Stalker, but I'd suggest two changes: 1. Remove the Daredevil Stunt mechanic and change the Critical Success text as follows : The reasoning here is that you want skill specialists to be able to "win big" without always forcing them to take bigger risks to do so. Also, if you're going to stick in a whole "super-success" mechanic, you might as well let it happen more than 5% of the time. I renamed it because I was rolling the natural 20 component in with something else, so the "critical" nomenclature might be misleading. I also simplified the mechanics a bit because the "if the roll would have been a success" thing seemed a needless complication, given that I'd already abandoned the "critical" symmetry. 2. Roll back the change on non-allowed skills. Those skills are only good for one success per challenge anyway, so I don't see it becoming a huge problem for skill monkeys trying to "game the system" (especially since the DM can just tell them "no" if that becomes a problem). I get that the original non-allowed skills system can harm the party's chance of success, but the added creative possibilities more than make up for it, I'd say. If the wizard's player can think of a way to apply his arcane lore to the diplomatic negotiations, more power to him. Obviously these are my opinions, more based on the "feel" of skill challenges than on the cold hard math, but there it is. [/QUOTE]

Verification