Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8385020" data-attributes="member: 29398">Or we have to allow the pillars to overlap, and assume they rather often do.I certainly don't see them as being completely isolated; they're more like three partly-overlapping circles on a Venn diagram. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Interesting example, and a good one; in that in my game whenever you try to break down a door I'll give the door a saving throw.  If you succeed by a lot in your own attempt, door's broken no matter what.  If you succeed only by a little*, or fail**, the door's save will sometimes tell you whether it's worth trying again.  In broader terms, a poor save by the door indiates it's been weakened by your attempt; this is a material change in the situation and thus if you try again you'll get another roll, likely modified in your favour.In searching, the only ways to effect a material change are to either have someone else do the searching or to change your own approach.* - here, the door's broken but a secondary effort might be required to get through e.g. moving the remains of the broken door out of the way; all this costs is a bit of time and maybe more noise.** - if you fail terribly i.e. roll a 1 then I'll skip the door's save and there'll be a secondary roll to see if you hurt yourself. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />To a point, I agree; but I also want to get away from two things: auto-success (and auto-failure) where such is in doubt, and lots of re-rolls.I'm not much of a fan of fail-forward as it's been presented, mostly because it often seems like the intent is to turn a failure into a success-with-complications.  To me, a fail's a fail; success-with-complications can come in on a narrowy-successful roll, rather than a failed one.Not familiar with Doom Pool.  Readers' Digest explanation, please? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />That sounds very much like the 4e approach: you're already heroes before you even start adventuring.Kind of like a rising-tide-lifts-all-boats idea.  Got it.I do a bit of the same thing myself, but I guess I start from a lower tideline.  A 1st-level adventurer isn't much removed from a commoner (I've got a 0th level in between), while a 3rd-level adventurer is - while certainly better - still rather mortal.At the other end, there's always a bigger fish. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I think there's an opening to flatten the power curve significantly by making everyone except commoners less powerful in general, starting right at 1st level (or 1 HD for monsters) by making those be closer to commoners and then scaling back the powers gained through levelling.The problem is that to do this in the current 1-20 environment would necessitate "dead levels", which while being fine with me tend to generate howls of complaint from others.  So, the answer might be to reduce the number of levels - sure, design from 1-20 but make 1-9 or 1-12 the playable range (and thus, those are the only levels shown in the PH) with harsh warnings for DMs that going beyond this will cause things to wobble; the higher levels are presented in the DMG largely for purposes of world, monster, and opponent design.Quick and dirty houserule idea: disallow some things from stacking.</blockquote>

Verification