Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8294520" data-attributes="member: 71699">Exactly. Passives can work well: the written design needs further testing and revision.A minor issue is the "If at least half" wording, which can be taken to imply that only one character needs to succeed in a group of three. That's easily corrected (and should be). Another problem is that it serves as a form of minor advantage - take the best two out of four rolls - that can be stacked with advantage. It's another potentially good mechanic that needs to be tightened up.The way I see it, we are both right. On the one hand, as you say help can be exploited to give advantage excessively. On the other hand, that advantage will never matter if the players have already found a way to have advantage. It is this type of opportunity - to reward players for detailing specific and relevant actions - that can benefit from further testing and revision and collectively offer us a stronger out-of-combat system.I don't miss the 4e take on skill challenges. It is a missed opportunity, though, that D&D has undergone such extensive design work and still cannot manage an appealing and streamlined system to deal with common complex challenges. The system is embarrassed by such a commonplace exploration-pillar activity as characters roping themselves together for a long climb. Not to mention chases.Contests are another useful piece of a coherent out-of-combat system. I see it as part of a working whole.It already exists in 5e, in several forms. Alchemical supplies (XGE) and of course relevant to Artificers (TCE). Bardic inspiration. Ki. Flash of Genius. These resources are consumed or exerted to do, and to enhance, stuff. The designers have gotten quite adroit at fitting them in. Maybe as they are - within classes and tools - is the right place for them. It's an opportunity though, to survey competing systems and assay a design.</blockquote>

Verification