Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 4340233" data-attributes="member: 5889">You'll get your way on number 2. I was already looking for some tweaks to fix a few trouble spots in the system, and ran the model with a 2 success critical idea. It actually came out very well, it smooths some of scaling even more, and allowed me to change the 2 player victory/p.victory numbers which were always a little off for my taste. This has been added to version 1.1, which is now up!As for aid another and leadership ideas, I am doing work on a variety of variants for those who "want more". However, I'm only going to officially add variants that are very solid and that work well with the system as a whole. For example, aid another as normally written does not work. However, I have a new idea for it that might, we shall see what the number reveal!!For multiple challenges, a +1/-1 DC is actually a decent change, +10/-10% overall. Considering it is to every single person's roll, that can be a fairly big impact.As the DM, you are free to work with partial successes however you please. They are a backbone mechanic to give the DM the ability to give his players a win but keep the adventure moving in that direction. How the DM decides the bonuses for victory and partial victory are up to him. Your idea is a perfect one for some partial successes. Let your imagination run free!Hehe, I can never win. People said my last system was too complex, and this one too simple. I am working on a few additional options, but just so you know I have no plans to add a huge list of player abilities. The point of this system is that it is simple, the mechanics are secondary to the actions of the player.I would never beat around the bush Doc Hook. Here is a general comparison between the two systems:Original1) More gradual length to the system, able to accommodate slightly larger or shorter skill challenges.2) More player options3) More in line with original system, good for those who don't want a significant change from the original.4) Players are encouraged to use their best skills in nearly every encounter, and to use aid another.*5) More mechanicalObsidian1) Sturdier math, able to take DM's tweaking on the fly better.2) Cleaner and easier to learn overall.3) Players are encouraged to use certain skills for certain challenges, even if they aren't very good in that skill.*3) Mechanics are further in the background, more "invisible".You'll note I (*) one point on each list. This is the core philosophy difference between the two systems.From a mechanical point of view, Obsidian is better. Its math is sturdier, scales better, and can take the occasional DM, "what the heck, let's try...THIS" more than the original. But as you'll note, many people in this thread want more options with Obsidian, because they like that in the original. Its hard to get the rock solid math and provide more options, they tend to work against each other. Also, the other disadvantage to Obsidian is that its length is "set". For a 5 player group, its 15 rolls everytime. That's a fair number of rolls, which doesn't support the quicky skill challenge as well.The bottom line is what system would fit your party's playstyle better. If they prefer a skill challenge to be more "roleplaying", then use Obsidian. If they prefer it to be more like combat with tactical options and the like, use the original.</blockquote>

Verification