* Skills above 100% basically allow for the possibility of

*multiple successes*.

* For every "hundred" you have in your skill, make a percentile roll. Critical chance is computed off of 100%, so 1-10% is a critical. The typical >95% failure and 00 fumble is in place also.

* For the remainder, make a normal roll as if your skill were the remainder.

* Add up all successes. Criticals count as two. Fumbles count as -1. (Optionally, fumbles could reset success count to -1.)

For single-person skill checks, the number of successes determines how well the person performs the skill. Two high-level successes would equal one critical here, so a person could basically achieve a critical by either rolling a natural critical or accumulating two successes by having a skill greater than 100%. The DM would have to adjudicate what, say, three successes would mean in context, if anything.

For opposed skill checks, the "defender" subtracts his successes from those of the "attacker" to get the final level of success.

This system always gives joe schmo-head a (remote) chance to win a contest against someone with incredible skill. It also allows people with about-the-same-height skills an interesting match.

One thing I like about this mechanic is that it provides a uniform way to hang special "Epic" level effects off of rolls when defining new open rules. More successes = sexier effects. For instance, spells could have extra bonus effects when you get more successes. Magic items could trigger different effects on different numbers of successes.

**Example:**

Joe Schmo has a skill of 56%, and Jane Buff has a skill of 256%.

Joe Schmo rolls once. His critical chance is 5%, and rolls an 03. Critical! He has two successes.

Jane Buff rolls three times. Her first two rolls are based on 100%, so a 10% critical chance on each. She rolls an 08% - critical - and an 00% fumble! The critical counts as two, and the fumble counts as -1, so she has essentially one success. She then rolls her remainder - 56%. She rolls an 87%, a failure. No successes are added for the third roll.

Comparing the two rolls, Joe has two successes to Jane's one. Through an unlikely set of rolls, Joe wins the contest.

If the degree of the win matters, we subtract Joe's successes from Jane's, for a total of 1. Basically a "normal" success, despite the fact that he rolled a natural critical.

**Note:**

This is still approximately compatible with the existing rules if you do it right. For instance, you could reinterpret the parry rules by letting a defender try an opposed parry roll after being successfully attacked:

-1 success : adds one success to the original attack roll (makes normal successful attacks into critical hits, for instance)

0 success: attack succeeds as normal

1 success: attack succeeds, but AP of weapon/shield is deducted from damage

2 successes: attack fails, plus defender may riposte

Not quite as nuanced, but much easier to remember, and opens the door for "epic parries" and such.