Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 6674246" data-attributes="member: 6775031">One of the problems in letting everyone roll is that it assumes the chances of each character are entirely independent of each other, when the die roll is really meant to encompass a number of variables outside of just your individual skill. The wizard shouldn't get a chance to hunt for food after the ranger fails, because the 2 on the ranger's skill check indicates a scarcity of game (among other things), and the circumstances which cause the ranger to fail would not allow the wizard to succeed. Those circumstances aren't going to change, just because someone else is making the attempt.This method solves that problem. It recognizes that, if anyone succeeds, it's probably going to be one of the two who are most likely to succeed. If anyone can find enough food to feed the party, then it's probably going to be the ranger (or maybe the rogue/scout), but it probably won't be the wizard.The downside of this method is that it prevents anyone but the most likely from ever succeeding. With these rules, the wizard will never succeed in finding food after the ranger and the rogue fail. So it's just a matter of whether anyone considers this to be a worse gameplay issue than letting everyone have an attempt, and virtually guaranteeing success on any check that only needs one success (unless the GM artificially inflates the difficulties). That comes down to personal preference, but I see it as a small price to pay.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Crimson Binome, post: 6674246, member: 6775031"] One of the problems in letting everyone roll is that it assumes the chances of each character are entirely independent of each other, when the die roll is really meant to encompass a number of variables outside of just your individual skill. The wizard shouldn't get a chance to hunt for food after the ranger fails, because the 2 on the ranger's skill check indicates a scarcity of game (among other things), and the circumstances which cause the ranger to fail would not allow the wizard to succeed. Those circumstances aren't going to change, just because someone else is making the attempt. This method solves that problem. It recognizes that, if anyone succeeds, it's probably going to be one of the two who are most [I]likely[/I] to succeed. If [I]anyone[/I] can find enough food to feed the party, then it's probably going to be the ranger (or maybe the rogue/scout), but it probably won't be the wizard. The downside of this method is that it prevents anyone but the most likely from ever succeeding. With these rules, the wizard will [I]never[/I] succeed in finding food after the ranger and the rogue fail. So it's just a matter of whether anyone considers this to be a worse gameplay issue than letting everyone have an attempt, and virtually guaranteeing success on any check that only needs one success (unless the GM artificially inflates the difficulties). That comes down to personal preference, but I see it as a small price to pay. [/QUOTE]

Verification