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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jasin" data-source="post: 3811530" data-attributes="member: 7531">More or less, yes.If the difference between the best and the worst is somewhere around 10-15 rather than 30-35, this makes it much less likely that a challenge with a DC set to average is still impossible to make for the worst and impossible to fail for the best."Except in terms of flavour"? I'm not sure that should be so easily discounted. There's a big difference between a high level party barely/mostly surviving a shipwreck in a storm even though some of them aren't trained in swimming, and a high level party barely/mostly surviving a shipwreck in absolutely calm water.Yes, someone who is awesome (trained and talented and focused) at balancing with still beat the pants off someone who is crap at balancing (not talented and not trained and hindered by armour). But the difference between a typical rogue (so let's say trained in balance, but not focused) and a lightly armoured fighter will be a lot less.This makes more of the challenges relevant for more of the characters. Isn't this obviously a good thing?Often, it's not possible to turn a group challenge into an individual challenge willingly. Getting tossed overboard, climbing a wall under fire, spotting an ambush, sneaking past guards, answering a question... these often aren't things you can just delegate to someone else.The DM might construct situations where it is possible, because for many characters such a situation without possibility of delegation isn't a challenge but a simple notice of failure, and that's not very interesting.But in my experience, people prefer to actually participate rather than just having the specialist deal with it, unless they know they have no option but to fail.Not really, because the difficulties mostly scale out to keep up with the trained folks. If a spot check is called for, I'd be willing to bet money my wizard will fail.A significant risk of the specialist failing and almost certainly everyone else failing is better than absolutely no risk of the specialist failing and absolute certainty of everyone else failing, isn't it?If the difference is 15, a DC of 18 will make it at least mildly interesting for both the +2 and the +17 guy.What's the DC that makes it interesting for both the +2 guy and the +37 guy?Also bear in mind that a difference of 15 is pretty extreme in Saga. That's very talented and trained and focused compared to someone who is neither talented nor trained.And a lot more drinking than looking for ambushes? Even paladins, monks and wizards?</blockquote>

Verification