[House Rule]Focus Required Tests

[Zapp]

Some groups might not like how certain tests will result in automatic failure, no matter what they do, because no member of the party has the required focus.

Consider this alternative rule:

Ability Tests
Some tests demand specialized skill or knowledge; and if you don’t have the required focus, you're at a serious disadvantage. Not only do you not get any focus bonus, you also don't get to roll the Dragon Die. That's right: even if you succeed, you do so barely (you cannot generate a spectacular success or any stunt points). These tests note that the focus is required by using this format: Cunning (Navigation required).


This allows great heroes to succeed at every task a commoner can succeed at, though the commoner can still do better.

[PaintOnASign]

I can see this as being an... okay alternative. Although, more often than not, if you're only rolling 2 dice, good luck even passing an Average TN11. At the minimum, you need to roll one 5 and one 6. The commoner is doing it WAY better.

Although the Easy TN is only 7, which would make it much easier with 2 dies, I'd find it rather wasteful for a DM to put such an easy difficulty on a test that would require a focus at all.

[Zapp]

Aren't you forgetting that you get to add your ability score to the test now?

This rule was created with the assumption PC heroes will quickly rise to having 5, 6, 7 or even higher scores in their best abilities.

The rule is intended for those groups who feel it isn't appropriate for a high-level hero to be stopped cold by something as insignificant as a lack of knowledge or experience. It's meant for those who like their game heroic enough that merely being a high-level hero should give you a chance at doing everything a commoner can do. Including stuff only trained craftsmen and grizzled old academics can even attempt.

Do note this rule still doesn't turn the game into D&D - getting to roll only two dice will always remain a hefty set-back. But it at least gives the PC a long-shot of a chance; instead of flatly saying "no".

Some groups might prefer not being told "it's impossible" and this rule is for them

[PaintOnASign]

Ha, I did indeed forget! It does make a lot more sense that way, and wouldn't be so impossible as I had originally thought, but still very challenging.

[77IM]

This seems like a pretty good rule. I, too, prefer systems where any character can attempt any check.

An alternative, would be a simple -4 penalty. On average, that's worse than a missing 1d6, but in the best case it is better. (You would still have the problem of, every success requires a high roll on the Dragon Die, but that could be fixed by a separate house rule.)

-- 77IM

[Zapp]

Sure.

I just thought being denied the Dragon Die would impress the player how important it is to have the focus, while at the same time not merely saying "no it's impossible".

In a much stronger way than a straight-forward penalty will ever manage.

I thought the idea fitted the game engine well. YMMV, of course.