Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="evilbob" data-source="post: 6868916" data-attributes="member: 9789">This is sort of an indirect way to solve the problem:&nbsp; lessen the binary nature of each roll by using multiple skill rolls to affect a single outcome.&nbsp; (Like skill challenges in 4.0, which may have been trying to do exactly the thing we're talking about.)It's a good idea, but it still relies on binary results, even in aggregation.&nbsp; You still pass/fail each check individually.&nbsp; The ultimate result can have degrees of success, though, I agree.&nbsp; It could also work together with the +/- 5 DC &quot;degrees&quot; of success as well, where instead of adding either 0 or 1 to your &quot;success total&quot; you add from 0 to 5.&nbsp; I already like this better; for example, if your target success total is 9 for 3 checks, that means if you get two really spectacular success you're done.Also, forgot to mention:(Unless you count 20s as an automatic major boon in this case.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="evilbob, post: 6868916, member: 9789"] This is sort of an indirect way to solve the problem: lessen the binary nature of each roll by using multiple skill rolls to affect a single outcome. (Like skill challenges in 4.0, which may have been trying to do exactly the thing we're talking about.) It's a good idea, but it still relies on binary results, even in aggregation. You still pass/fail each check individually. The ultimate result can have degrees of success, though, I agree. It could also work together with the +/- 5 DC "degrees" of success as well, where instead of adding either 0 or 1 to your "success total" you add from 0 to 5. I already like this better; for example, if your target success total is 9 for 3 checks, that means if you get two really spectacular success you're done. Also, forgot to mention: (Unless you count 20s as an automatic major boon in this case.) [/QUOTE]

Verification