Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="77IM" data-source="post: 4471864" data-attributes="member: 12377">First, this is awesome.&nbsp; It fixes my major gripe about the unerrata'ed RAW system (the party as their own worst enemy, incenting low-skill characters to sit back and watch).Suggestions and questions:1)&nbsp; I think ability checks should be at -5 to the DC.&nbsp; An ability check is otherwise very much worse than a skill check and almost certainly has fewer modifiers at high levels; skill challenges with Strength as the primary would suffer greatly under the normal DC.&nbsp; Or does your mathematical analysis already account for this?2)&nbsp; You know the +2 bonus for creativity and role-playing?&nbsp; Does your mathematical analysis expect the DM to hand out a certain number of those, and how many?&nbsp; Otherwise, I would expect a group that is role-playing well and getting many +2 bonuses for it to succeed a lot more than a group that isn't -- which seems like a good thing to me.3)&nbsp; A crude solution for Aid Another:&nbsp; If the DM awards you a +2 bonus for creativity/role-playing, you may, if it seems appropriate, give that bonus to someone else for their check.&nbsp; For example, in a Diplomacy encounter, A'Laric the dwarven fighter has no relevant skills and a Charisma penalty.&nbsp; So Miles the Warlord makes a speech about what an awesome dwarven master pimp A'Laric is.&nbsp; The DM is impressed and offers Miles a +2 bonus, but being a team player, Miles passes that off to A'Laric, who needs all the help he can get.4)&nbsp; I agree with the sentiment that the XP should be based somehow on the # of players.&nbsp; I'd make it equal to the XP value of a monster of that level x the number of players.&nbsp; So for a 5-person challenge, it's worth 5 monsters, which is the same as a complexity-5 challenge.&nbsp; Simple and efficient.5)&nbsp; I personally would only award half XP for a partial victory, since in my experience challenge encounters tend to consume fewer party resources than combat encounters and be way less risky (fail a combat challenge and you often get a total party wipe; there's less on the line for failing a skill challenge, especially with partial victories within reach for most groups).6)&nbsp; I understand some people want the system to be more complex.&nbsp; My advice to you is not to do this.&nbsp; Its simplicity is its strength.&nbsp; If anything, wait to see what sort of variations people come up with, and what works, and gradually incorporate them into the system.&nbsp; I would say than any optional rule more complex than Going for Broke is probably not worth it right now.&nbsp;-- 77IM</blockquote>

[QUOTE="77IM, post: 4471864, member: 12377"] First, this is awesome. It fixes my major gripe about the unerrata'ed RAW system (the party as their own worst enemy, incenting low-skill characters to sit back and watch). Suggestions and questions: 1) I think ability checks should be at -5 to the DC. An ability check is otherwise very much worse than a skill check and almost certainly has fewer modifiers at high levels; skill challenges with Strength as the primary would suffer greatly under the normal DC. Or does your mathematical analysis already account for this? 2) You know the +2 bonus for creativity and role-playing? Does your mathematical analysis expect the DM to hand out a certain number of those, and how many? Otherwise, I would expect a group that is role-playing well and getting many +2 bonuses for it to succeed a lot more than a group that isn't -- which seems like a good thing to me. 3) A crude solution for Aid Another: If the DM awards you a +2 bonus for creativity/role-playing, you may, if it seems appropriate, give that bonus to someone else for their check. For example, in a Diplomacy encounter, A'Laric the dwarven fighter has no relevant skills and a Charisma penalty. So Miles the Warlord makes a speech about what an awesome dwarven master pimp A'Laric is. The DM is impressed and offers Miles a +2 bonus, but being a team player, Miles passes that off to A'Laric, who needs all the help he can get. 4) I agree with the sentiment that the XP should be based somehow on the # of players. I'd make it equal to the XP value of a monster of that level x the number of players. So for a 5-person challenge, it's worth 5 monsters, which is the same as a complexity-5 challenge. Simple and efficient. 5) I personally would only award half XP for a partial victory, since in my experience challenge encounters tend to consume fewer party resources than combat encounters and be way less risky (fail a combat challenge and you often get a total party wipe; there's less on the line for failing a skill challenge, especially with partial victories within reach for most groups). 6) I understand some people want the system to be more complex. My advice to you is not to do this. Its simplicity is its strength. If anything, wait to see what sort of variations people come up with, and what works, and gradually incorporate them into the system. I would say than any optional rule more complex than Going for Broke is probably not worth it right now. -- 77IM [/QUOTE]

Verification