Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GSHamster" data-source="post: 5966415" data-attributes="member: 20187">Very interesting discussion. One thought I had is that it might be better if "opposition" in Skill Challenges was independent of the player's action, rather than dependent.If you look at combat, the dragon attacks the paladin even if the paladin does not attack the dragon.  Right now, the situation with Skill Challenges is more like the dragon automatically swipes the paladin for damage if and only if the paladin attacks and misses.This has a lot of ramifications. The cost of failing is so high that a lot of players try to avoid taking an action. As well, you always play the attack that will succeed, rather than the low-percentage chance that might do a lot of damage. In combat, if the wizard is cornered and out of spells, well, the dragon's going to get whacked with a staff. It's unlikely that the dragon will actually get hurt, but by god, the wizard is going to swing for the fences.I wonder if a model like the following might be better:1. Player A takes action.2. DM introduces complication.3. Player B takes action.4. DM introduces complication.The DM complications are independent of the player's action, and force a reaction from a player. If the player fails the reaction, the DM's side scores a success.Then it's like a penalty shootout in hockey or soccer. First side to get to five successes merits the overall success.Example: Wilderness survival challenge1. Player A goes hunting. Makes check and catches a rabbit. (1-0)2. DM Complication - Player D is stung by a scorpion. Needs to make a Con save. Fails it and is poisoned. (1-1)3. Player B attempts to suck the poison out of the wound. Fails. (1-1, notice nothing bad happens.)4. DM Complication - Possible allergic reaction to the poison for Player D. Player D makes his Con save. (1-1)5. Player C spreads some healing salve on the wound. Makes her check and the poison's spread is halted. (2-1).and so on.</blockquote>

Verification