Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 6865750" data-attributes="member: 6775031">The major barrier here is in coming up with five significantly different outcomes for every possible task. If you're trying to swim across a lake, for example, then success and failure are easy to figure out; but the difference between a &quot;poor success&quot; and an &quot;impressive success&quot; is a bit more nebulous. If all you care about is getting across, then it doesn't matter if you do it well or poorly, and the DM spends a lot of extra time and effort in trying to figure out what each grade of success means for every possible die roll (or just says that any amount of success counts as success, so you can keep the game moving).Mechanically, it's not much of an issue. Success or failure by 5 or 10 could easily set the boundaries. And if someone is rolling at +9 against a DC 13, then that character never needs to worry about getting a critical failure (let alone a super critical failure). That part isn't really an issue.Edit: Just for the record, it should be noted that a lot of DMs use the check result as a guide for determining how well you did, even if success/failure is the only thing that matters. If you fail a check by more than 10, the DM is usually going to describe how you didn't even come close; and if you beat it by 10, the DM is usually going to describe how you did it effortlessly. That's all just inference from how the rules are written, though, and is never actually stated anywhere outright (as far as I know).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Crimson Binome, post: 6865750, member: 6775031"] The major barrier here is in coming up with five significantly different outcomes for every possible task. If you're trying to swim across a lake, for example, then success and failure are easy to figure out; but the difference between a "poor success" and an "impressive success" is a bit more nebulous. If all you care about is getting across, then it doesn't matter if you do it well or poorly, and the DM spends a lot of extra time and effort in trying to figure out what each grade of success means for every possible die roll (or just says that any amount of success counts as success, so you can keep the game moving). Mechanically, it's not much of an issue. Success or failure by 5 or 10 could easily set the boundaries. And if someone is rolling at +9 against a DC 13, then that character never needs to worry about getting a critical failure (let alone a [I]super[/I] critical failure). That part isn't really an issue. Edit: Just for the record, it should be noted that a [I]lot[/I] of DMs use the check result as a guide for determining how well you did, even if success/failure is the only thing that matters. If you fail a check by more than 10, the DM is [I]usually[/I] going to describe how you didn't even come close; and if you beat it by 10, the DM is [I]usually[/I] going to describe how you did it effortlessly. That's all just inference from how the rules are written, though, and is never actually stated anywhere outright (as far as I know). [/QUOTE]

Verification