Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 9878330" data-attributes="member: 6690965">I think I disagree. I suspect it's got much more to do with how variable the costs and impacts are between the group collective total of actions available. Skill checks (without defined actions connected to them) are either free or set at whatever fixed cost taking any action at all will have (i.e. the risk of accumulating a failure in a 4e skill challenge). You're either paying nothing (the "everyone rolls perception" situation) or the cost to act is fixed (or maybe just not very granular, I'm not sure 2 levels is actually much better), and as I said earlier are often designed around fixed action costs, where every PC has to put in the same action expenditure.When you're looking at more complex cost/impact math, (impact often conveying "how many PCs can overcome the problem per action deployed), then the tactical/strategic depth of decision making is much bigger. What does the rogue risk at 70% chance of success vs. the spell slot? Does the problem remain if we have to retreat? Can we get away with 1 risky swim check vs. everyone doing it easily? Is it worth one or more spells to draw off the dire pike, so we can make the relatively doable swim checks in peace?My experience of the "group huddle" was often players indicating what abilities they had that seemed relevant, maybe some discussion of what we could afford to spend, and so on.</blockquote>