# official revision to skill challenge system



## Pseudopsyche (Jul 16, 2008)

WotC just published new errata for the core books: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates .  The DMG errata revises the skill challenge system.  In short, the DCs have been changed so that moderate is about 10 + 1/2 level.  (Target DCs are the same for skills and mere ability checks now.)  The different levels of skill challenge complexity only change the number of successes required to beat the challenge; three strikes and you're out for every level of complexity.  All references to setting an initiative order have been removed, and the DMG now recommends that you limit aid another to one or two helpers per check.

(In case no one else has posted this information yet.)

So, how does the math work out?


----------



## JGulick (Jul 16, 2008)

Somewhat improved.  I mean, the basic math (general shape and pattern) is now sound, but the drop-off between chance of success for a small step in DC is quite drastic.  Maybe workable, with the new lower suggested DCs so it's now far more common to live in the 60%+ chance of success on each roll world, but it moves in VERY sharp steps.

Here's a table, including some unofficial Complexity levels, showing the chance of success if everyone's chance of success on every die roll is the same.


```
Complex	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Success	2	4	6	8	10	12	14	16	18	20	22
Fail	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
5%	1.402%	0.009%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%
10%	5.230%	0.127%	0.002%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%
15%	10.952%	0.589%	0.024%	0.001%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%
20%	18.080%	1.696%	0.123%	0.008%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%
25%	26.172%	3.760%	0.423%	0.042%	0.004%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%
30%	34.830%	7.047%	1.129%	0.159%	0.021%	0.003%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%
35%	43.702%	11.742%	2.532%	0.482%	0.085%	0.014%	0.002%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%	0.000%
40%	52.480%	17.920%	4.981%	1.229%	0.281%	0.061%	0.013%	0.003%	0.001%	0.000%	0.000%
45%	60.902%	25.526%	8.846%	2.739%	0.788%	0.215%	0.056%	0.014%	0.004%	0.001%	0.000%
50%	68.750%	34.375%	14.453%	5.469%	1.929%	0.647%	0.209%	0.066%	0.020%	0.006%	0.002%
55%	75.852%	44.152%	22.013%	9.956%	4.214%	1.701%	0.662%	0.251%	0.093%	0.034%	0.012%
60%	82.080%	54.432%	31.539%	16.729%	8.344%	3.979%	1.834%	0.823%	0.361%	0.156%	0.066%
65%	87.352%	64.709%	42.781%	26.161%	15.129%	8.393%	4.509%	2.362%	1.212%	0.611%	0.304%
70%	91.630%	74.431%	55.177%	38.278%	25.282%	16.084%	9.936%	5.995%	3.548%	2.067%	1.187%
75%	94.922%	83.057%	67.854%	52.559%	39.068%	28.113%	19.711%	13.531%	9.126%	6.065%	3.980%
80%	97.280%	90.112%	79.692%	67.780%	55.835%	44.805%	35.184%	27.134%	20.608%	15.449%	11.452%
85%	98.802%	95.266%	89.479%	82.020%	73.582%	64.791%	56.138%	47.966%	40.490%	33.818%	27.983%
90%	99.630%	98.415%	96.191%	92.981%	88.913%	84.164%	78.925%	73.380%	67.693%	62.004%	56.427%
95%	99.952%	99.777%	99.421%	98.850%	98.043%	96.995%	95.706%	94.187%	92.452%	90.518%	88.406%
```


----------



## Anthony Jackson (Jul 16, 2008)

The difficulty increase is actually +2 per 3 levels, which is somewhat closer to the real curve (without spending any feats or powers, going from 1-30 gets you +16 on a skill linked to a secondary stat, +19 on a skill linked to a primary), though skill enhancement items are a rather obvious application (some are already in the PHB), and if they follow the same curve as other enhancement items, will push the bonus up to +25 by level 30, and power bonuses can easily push it all the way to +30. Given that, it would probably be better to say:
_Easy_: 5 + level/2 (doable by just about any character)
_Average_: 10 + level * 2/3 (doable by a competent non-specialist)
_Hard_: 15 + level (requires a specialist).


----------



## Spatula (Jul 16, 2008)

I think your 2nd column should have 4 successes, not 8, no?


----------



## JGulick (Jul 16, 2008)

Yes, thanks... I know I'd typed that up too quickly.


----------



## Khime (Jul 16, 2008)

I'm new to the whole 'combat challenges are (still?) broken' discussion, but has anyone run the numbers to see how often players succeed/fail at *combat* challenges of similar level/difficulty, and compared that with the skill challenge success rate? Or are there too many variables?


----------



## Anthony Jackson (Jul 17, 2008)

Combat challenges aren't very variable -- one that's 3 levels too low (-2 DC) is a walkover, one that's 3 levels too high (+2 DC) is very hard, one that's 6 levels too high (+4 DC) is a party wipe. However, a PC party is unlikely to have a lot of variance in its ability to beat a combat challenge, whereas skill bonuses can vary enormously (at level 2, anywhere from +0 with an 8 stat to +20 with 20 stat, trained skill, skill focus, racial skill bonus, and a +4 Power bonus from some utility power).


----------



## JGulick (Jul 17, 2008)

Khime said:


> I'm new to the whole 'combat challenges are (still?) broken' discussion, but has anyone run the numbers to see how often players succeed/fail at *combat* challenges of similar level/difficulty, and compared that with the skill challenge success rate? Or are there too many variables?




Vastly too many.

Plus, combat challenges have a much more robust range from total success (monsters bested with no use of anything but At-Will and Encounter powers) to partial success (bested, but several healing surges, daily powers, action points, and/or limited use magic items expended) to partial failure (lost but expended only a limited amount of resources) to total failure (TPK or Retreat with near-total expenditure of resources).  As things currently stand, non-combat challenges are much more binary (with some discussions of enhanced partial *success* and a few Daily powers you can burn to enhance them, but only a few).


----------



## MarkB (Jul 17, 2008)

Khime said:


> I'm new to the whole 'combat challenges are (still?) broken' discussion, but has anyone run the numbers to see how often players succeed/fail at *combat* challenges of similar level/difficulty, and compared that with the skill challenge success rate? Or are there too many variables?




That depends upon your definition of "fail". For a combat challenge, it could be anything from "use more healing surges than expected" right up to "TPK".


----------



## Anthony Jackson (Jul 17, 2008)

A lot of the problems with skill challenges don't have anything to do with the DCs; they have to do with the actual mechanic being somewhat dull.

What makes combat mechanically interesting (as opposed to interesting from a roleplaying standpoint) is the existence of relevant choices (do I try to get around the soldiers and beat on the artillery over there, or do I slug it out with this soldier who's already bloodied and might be easy to finish off). For the most part, skill challenges aren't like that; instead, it's "pick a skill and use it to beat on the target". Adding multiple distinct objectives to a skill challenge which interact in complicated ways might make them more interesting, though it would also make them far more difficult to design.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 17, 2008)

What I find more interesting is that WOTC didn't just alter the skill challenge DCs, they altered all skill check DCs if I'm reading this right. I'm cool with that, as I found the DCs a bit high for all skill checks.


----------



## Amy Kou'ai (Jul 17, 2008)

Stalker0 said:


> What I find more interesting is that WOTC didn't just alter the skill challenge DCs, they altered all skill check DCs if I'm reading this right. I'm cool with that, as I found the DCs a bit high for all skill checks.




I find it interesting that they lowered all skill check DCs but apparently didn't change any DCs for the sample traps and hazards.


----------



## Paul Strack (Jul 17, 2008)

Stalker0 said:


> What I find more interesting is that WOTC didn't just alter the skill challenge DCs, they altered all skill check DCs if I'm reading this right. I'm cool with that, as I found the DCs a bit high for all skill checks.




They did lower the skill DCs, but they lowered them too much. They dropped the footnote from DMG and slashed 5 off the DCs. The net effect for skill checks is 10 off the DCs, at low levels (higher levels are about the same as they used to be).

IMO, that's much too easy. Now that I've looked it more, I like the progression better, but they need to bump the DCs up by 5 more.


----------



## JesterOC (Jul 17, 2008)

Amy Kou'ai said:


> I find it interesting that they lowered all skill check DCs but apparently didn't change any DCs for the sample traps and hazards.




I guess they want the mosnter knowledge checks to be hard also.  Good thing or they would have to change every entry in the monster manual.


JesterOC


----------



## ac_noj (Jul 17, 2008)

To expand on what JGulick did, here's a look at level 1. Remember that under the new system up to two players can use Aid Another to assist a third player with a higher skill, so a level 1 you're getting up to +16 to your skill check.


```
Skill                 
Easy  -1    0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16
1     83%  90%  95%  98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2     68%  80%  89%  96%  99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
3     53%  68%  82%  93%  99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
4     39%  56%  74%  89%  98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
5     28%  45%  65%  84%  97% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
 
Moderate                  
1     34%  44%  54%  65%  74%  83%  90%  95%  98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2     14%  22%  32%  43%  55%  68%  80%  89%  96%  99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
3      5%  10%  17%  26%  38%  53%  68%  82%  93%  99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
4      2%   4%   8%  15%  25%  39%  56%  74%  89%  98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
5      1%   2%   4%   8%  16%  28%  45%  65%  84%  97% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
 
Hard                  
1      4%   7%  12%  18%  26%  34%  44%  54%  65%  74%  83%  90%  95%  98% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2      0%   1%   3%   5%   9%  14%  22%  32%  43%  55%  68%  80%  89%  96%  99% 100% 100% 100%
3      0%   0%   0%   1%   3%   5%  10%  17%  26%  38%  53%  68%  82%  93%  99% 100% 100% 100%
4      0%   0%   0%   0%   1%   2%   4%   8%  15%  25%  39%  56%  74%  89%  98% 100% 100% 100%
5      0%   0%   0%   0%   0%   1%   2%   4%   8%  16%  28%  45%  65%  84%  97% 100% 100% 100%
```


----------



## Scud.NZ (Jul 17, 2008)

It good to see that player feedback has some effect.

However, I think the comments of Jester and Amy reveal something quite important.  The system was stuffed from the beginning. Did they playtest this game at all? How the hell did they not notice?

The skills checks and challenges are such an integral part of the game, yes, they would have to change an awful lot of the products that are currently available and presumably couldn't change the products that are due to come out in the next few months without a huge fuss.


----------



## Center-of-All (Jul 17, 2008)

The playtesters found ways around it? Most gamers aren't willing (or necessarily able) to do the math that Stalker did with the skill challenge system to demonstrate its problems. Most likely, a combination of aid another, ad hoccing with good skills, convincing the DM to use his best friend, etc. were used to make the challenges workable in their original context. Most gamers that I know, at any rate, would be more likely to make these sorts of adjustments to how they play then call the whole system broken.


----------



## ac_noj (Jul 18, 2008)

Looking at the numbers, you've got fairly flat regions at the extremes where skills slowly scale and steep regions in the middle. Also the higher the complexity the steeper the scaling. All up a single point difference in the DC can make for a 20% difference in the party's chance of success, which is way too much.

Also, the moderate challenges are too easy, at least for my party. My group of 4 has an average high score (the highest score anyone has for a particular skill) of 8. So with Aid Another they're 100% likely to succeed on moderate challenges.
For Hard challenges their chance drops to 56%.

Since Hard DC is +2 levels, I might make up a new 'Tough' DC for +1 level and use that. Moderate DC+2 should do the trick.


----------



## Xorn (Jul 18, 2008)

Is it just me, or by those numbers is the new system horribly swingy?

I mean, say you have an average check of +8 at level 2.  97% to complete a complexity 5 challenge.  A "hard" challenge (meaning you bump up the moderate DC to 12) would be like 65%...

But if you have an average untrained check of say... +3 (level 2 remember) and slid the average of trained versus untrained towards trained, let's go with +6 being the average check... a 28% percent chance!?

All I can say is if you aren't trained in a skill, don't you dare Fing participate.

I've looked at this for all of an hour and I can't comprehend how they thought this was an improvement.  Can someone please tell me what I'm not seeing?


----------



## The_Furious_Puffin (Jul 18, 2008)

It is slightly frustrating we are back to the 'everyone sit on their hands/roll stupid aid another actions while the face guy does all the talking.' model of doing things. I thought the idea was not to be there.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 18, 2008)

Xorn said:


> Is it just me, or by those numbers is the new system horribly swingy?
> 
> I mean, say you have an average check of +8 at level 2.  97% to complete a complexity 5 challenge.  A "hard" challenge (meaning you bump up the moderate DC to 12) would be like 65%...
> 
> ...




It's an improvement.  Now, parties can win a skill challenge.  Before, they really could not.  It's not a perfect situation, but it's better.


----------



## Xorn (Jul 18, 2008)

Mistwell said:


> It's an improvement.  Now, parties can win a skill challenge.  Before, they really could not.  It's not a perfect situation, but it's better.




I'll agree that it's better as long as I can qualify that I think it's the same level of improvement as being forced to drink a glass of your own spit instead of a stranger's is an improvement.

So before, it was really hard to beat a skill challenge (especially simpler ones) because the DCs were really too high.

Now, it's either stupidly easy to beat a skill challenge, or almost impossible if anyone not trained in applicable skills tries.  Plus, the bigger a skill challenge is, the faster you approach the abyssal shelf of failure.  With the "opt out" scenario, rolling without being trained in the applicable skill isn't just sub-optimal, it's stupidity.

I think I'll stick with the old system, just dropping the base DCs by 5.


----------



## Chowder (Jul 18, 2008)

Xorn said:


> Now, it's either stupidly easy to beat a skill challenge, or almost impossible if anyone not trained in applicable skills tries. Plus, the bigger a skill challenge is, the faster you approach the abyssal shelf of failure. With the "opt out" scenario, rolling without being trained in the applicable skill isn't just sub-optimal, it's stupidity.




I'd like to see WotC clarify the new rules in an article.  As they're written, they appear to be excessively swingy.  I'm surprised that after realizing that the RAW were broken, and taking some time to prepare a response, they came up with something that's demonstrably worse than what people here at ENWorld had proposed in the interim.

In my opinion, they should modify the errata again.  I realize that doing so would be particularly embarrassing, but it would be very sad to go through the entire lifetime of fourth edition with all skill challenges in official products being broken.

-Chowder


----------



## Anthony Jackson (Jul 18, 2008)

The_Furious_Puffin said:


> It is slightly frustrating we are back to the 'everyone sit on their hands/roll stupid aid another actions while the face guy does all the talking.' model of doing things. I thought the idea was not to be there.



It's an artifact of the fact that everyone's failures count. If you want everyone trying, you either have to count failures separately for each player, or you have to ignore failure counts and make it a timed challenge (i.e. get X successes in Y rounds).


----------



## drothgery (Jul 18, 2008)

ac_noj said:


> To expand on what JGulick did, here's a look at level 1. Remember that under the new system up to two players can use Aid Another to assist a third player with a higher skill, so a level 1 you're getting up to +16 to your skill check.




5 (trained) + 5 (20 in a stat) + 3 (skill focus) + 2 (racial skill bonus) + 4 (two aid anothers) = +19 (not very likely, except possibly for an Eladrin wizard and Arcana, but possible)


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 18, 2008)

Xorn said:


> I'll agree that it's better as long as I can qualify that I think it's the same level of improvement as being forced to drink a glass of your own spit instead of a stranger's is an improvement.




Only if you will agree you are fond of hyperbole, and that you're using said fondness in this thread.


----------



## ac_noj (Jul 18, 2008)

drothgery said:


> 5 (trained) + 5 (20 in a stat) + 3 (skill focus) + 2 (racial skill bonus) + 4 (two aid anothers) = +19 (not very likely, except possibly for an Eladrin wizard and Arcana, but possible)




There's actually a whole host of stat bonuses that line up with skill bonuses, but you're right I didn't count the +3 from Skill Focus.

If you're interested, here's the races that can hit +19 at level 1:
Dragonborn - Intimidate
Dwarf - Endurance
Eladrin - Arcana and History
Elf - Perception and Nature
Half-Elf - Diplomacy
Halfling - Acrobatics and Thievery
Tiefling - Bluff


----------



## MarkB (Jul 18, 2008)

I don't have the maths for this, but what happens if you bump the DCs back up a bit, but only count a serious failure (failure by 5 or more) as a failure, with a simple failure counting toward neither overall success nor overall failure?

Would that make things more swingy, less, or just the same?


----------



## Xorn (Jul 18, 2008)

Mistwell said:


> Only if you will agree you are fond of hyperbole, and that you're using said fondness in this thread.




Agreed.  I would hope no one read what I posted as "I think it's an improvement", as it was meant to illustrate how little I care a complete revision of the _printed_ rules that results in rules that suck, just the other direction.

I should have been clearer, I guess.  If I have to qualify an improvement by saying "technically, it's an improvement" then I don't consider it worth revising in the first place.  I felt that my metaphor was a striking example of the level of improvement I considered it.  I apologize if the humor was lost on you though.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Jul 18, 2008)

Better, but they need to try again, and fast, before they publish it in errated books. (Well, they have already provided a new table to cut and paste--which is a great move--but the system still needs work and I hope they are willing to continue to fix it.)

IMHO:
1) The pendulum swung too far and now the DCs are too low.
2) Letting characters opt to not participate defeats a major purpose of the challenge. (For that matter, I don't think Aid Another is appropriate for skill challenges.)

While I have only read it, I think Stalker0 nailed the correct way to do a skill challenge in his Obsidian system. Every character makes the same number of checks. The # of failures doesn't matter, instead the total number of successes determines the overall level of success.

WotC would do well to adopt that system (or at least the framework) and give him credit (just like they credited the dude who owns the 'Shadowfell' website.)

WotC... (assuming you are reading this thread) please continue to fix the skill challenge system! As it stands, all it does is set a low DC for the best skilled character to achieve X successes before 3 failures. It is no longer a party challenge system.


----------



## vagabundo (Jul 18, 2008)

I might mash the newer DCs with the Obsidian Framework. I'd prefer to use Skill challenges as written in published stuff, just hang a homebrew system from it.

I think we'll get a new system for skill challenges, one with far more playtesting and options, when we get the DMGII. For now I'm going to wing it a little and see how far I get...


----------



## JGulick (Jul 18, 2008)

MarkB said:


> I don't have the maths for this, but what happens if you bump the DCs back up a bit, but only count a serious failure (failure by 5 or more) as a failure, with a simple failure counting toward neither overall success nor overall failure?
> 
> Would that make things more swingy, less, or just the same?




Dramatically less, I believe.  The math is tricky, because there are now 3 possible results of each roll (failure, success, and nothing).  I don't have the time to grind out the numbers, but by both taking good skill characters and making them success or nothing (failure being impossible) and bad skill characters and giving them a reason to participate without killing the group's odds, it would be something of an improvement.  Probably too much of one, though, and it could add dramatic length to contests without adding to their interestingness at the table.

IMO, I'd like to see the following changes, which use a similar idea but link it to use of daily resources to "buy" the benefit...

1) restore the footnotes.  Skill DCs need to be 5 higher than they are now.

2) add rules for auto-fail (natural 1) so there is NEVER  a situation where, on bonus alone, one character auto-succeeds at a challenge, though the odds of 3 natural 1's aren't all that high.

3) add rules to allow expenditure of limited resources to cancel a close (within 5 and not a 'natural 1') failure.  AP, Healing Surges (representing frustration and lost self-confidence as success eludes you), Daily Powers (I would limit those to Powers from a Class for whom the Skill in question is a Class Skill, though I would allow it even if this character is not personally Trained in it), and even Daily Magic Item Uses if there's some good story why that power could help.  Possibly limit each of these options to once per Challenge (perhaps more Healing Surges).

This would seem to make Skill Challenges more like Combat Encounters, in that they usually end in success but sometimes at a cost in limited resources.


----------



## Nebulous (Jul 18, 2008)

I think i'm just going to wing Skill Challenges like i've been doing in Star Wars and 4e so far.  All of this confusion and rules debate just indicates to me that something is broken, and even if it's not broken, Skill Challenges might not be that much fun anyway if they're just a bunch of skill roles.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 18, 2008)

For all those that are wondering about playtesting, its happening right now. Why pay for playtesting when the public will effectively pay you to do it.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Jul 18, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> For all those that are wondering about playtesting, its happening right now. Why pay for playtesting when the public will effectively pay you to do it.




Uh, I don't think WotC has ever needed to pay for playtesting.  It's not like all the pre-release playtesters were paid.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 18, 2008)

Wolfwood2 said:


> Uh, I don't think WotC has ever needed to pay for playtesting. It's not like all the pre-release playtesters were paid.




I didn't mean directly pay playtesters as it were, more like indirect costs associated with a game being in development for a longer period before its release.


----------



## Verision (Jul 18, 2008)

I think it's absolutely crazy to drop the skill check DCs by 10.

One of my players, the cleric, has a passive perception of 20
{20 = 10 + 5(trained) + 1(1/2 lvl) + 4(18 Wis)}

Before the new errata, that meant he would automatically find a normal secret door (a moderate skill check, which is 20)

Now, he automatically finds a magically hidden door (a hard DC, which is now 15). In fact, he automatically finds a magically hidden door in a dungeon meant for 9th level characters (hard DC = 19). 

I am flabbergasted.


----------



## DM_Blake (Jul 18, 2008)

The_Furious_Puffin said:


> It is slightly frustrating we are back to the 'everyone sit on their hands/roll stupid aid another actions while the face guy does all the talking.' model of doing things. I thought the idea was not to be there.




I agree.

The whole idea was to involve everyone in the action, rather than just the rogue disabling traps, the paladin talking to NPCs, etc.

Which is why I'm fairly certain I will completely disallow any use of Aid Another during a skill challenge.

I also liked the idea of initiatives and everyone acting, and might very well restore that rule, with the added caveat that choosing not to act is a guaranteed failure (not sure how crippling that might be with the new 3-strike rule).


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Jul 18, 2008)

I am very surprised that Wizards chose to go with such a significant revision to the challenge system.  I also wish that rather than suggesting you replace / add / remove words from existing text, that they had just given new text in its entirety.  Errata in this type for format is nearly useless to look up and reference when at the table.

Now, I am not surprised that the skill challenge system still needs work.  I figured the existing system was workable until I read the fine print saying that the listed skill DC's were for ability checks, and should be increased for skill checks.  And what they are trying to create is difficult to get right.

With combat, everyone has hit points, and everyone has a means to attack the enemies, or otherwise affect the outcome of combat.  There is risk, meaningful consequences, and everyone can be kept reasonably involved.

The skill system needs to do much the same, but it has more to account for.  You want everyone at the table to meaningfully interact within the challenge.  You also want the difficulty to reasonably scale at all levels, and you need a way to have success or failure not hinge on a single role or a single player.

The core assumption is that a skill challenge is meant to be just as dangerous as combat encounter.  Going for a 3 strikes setup in the skill challenge means that your players will not want to trust skill rolls for challenges that require a large number of successes to anyone who might fail the skill check.  Lowering the skill DC's will offset this somewhat, but regardless of the situation, players are very risk averse;  They will always take the option that gives the best chance of success.

The skill system is on the right track, compared to previous editions.  Force everyone to make checks, and allow for a limited number of failures before the challenge is considered to end in defeat.  Here are the core problems:

1)  What is a reasonable DC setting which is plausible for an untrained character, but not trivial for an over trained / optimized character?  Since the players always get a 1/2 level bonus, the DC needs to increase at roughly the same rate.  This then boils down to picking a number that an untrained character will typically need to roll on a d20 to succeed.

2)  What is the best mechanism to force the less optimal characters to make any given skill check without making success unattainable, and without punishing a player for having an effective build?

For the first answer, I think that a level appropriate DC scale puts the number needed for a non-optimal character somewhere between 13 and 15 on a d20.  Maybe higher once utility powers come into play.

For the 2nd answer, I really do not know.  Letting the players chose who make any given roll at any time will result in an optimal character always being chosen.  Forcing everyone keeps everyone involved, but will create too many failures.  Random selection?  Maybe.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Anthony Jackson (Jul 18, 2008)

Lord Zardoz said:


> 2)  What is the best mechanism to force the less optimal characters to make any given skill check without making success unattainable, and without punishing a player for having an effective build?



Assuming the task is one that _can_ be done as a collaborative effort, you have to make it so that having the less optimal characters help is still a net plus. That basically has to mean "their successes count, their failures don't". Two basic methods for this:

1) You have X rounds to get Y successes. Failures have no special effect.
2) The effects of failure are personal rather than group -- e.g. after X failures that character is out of the challenge, but the challenge isn't lost until everyone is out.


----------



## Appleseeth (Jul 19, 2008)

I personally like the X rounds to get Y successes. It allows for more "flexibility" in how skill challenges are run, and also forces the untrained characters to do something, or else they may run out of time. The boulder coming towards the PCs isn't gonna exactly wait until the PCs manage to get 3 failures before 8 successes or whatever from a single character. 
Maybe a mashup of the two different kinds of challenges is what is needed.
As far as DCs go, I like the progression, but I think the starting DC for a moderate challenge should be 17-18. Not out of reach of untrained characters, and no guaranteed success for a trained one. I'm not worried about my players min/maxing, because I will cockpunch them if they try anything like getting a +19 skill bonus. If you use a variety of skills in challenges, and allow for the use of a variety, then it shouldn't be a min/max problem, as the PCs will figure out that they suck at 99% of skill challenges.


----------



## napoleonbuff (Jul 19, 2008)

1) I very much agree that in most circumstances time should be the key element for a skill challenge, not failures.

2) I like the idea that it's only a failure if it's 5 or more below, and agree that in most situations a failure should not impact the chance of the group's success but rather be a penalty of some sort (for instance, on a trap, a miss by 5+ could cause a needle to shoot out and stab the player for 1d4 damage, or if the players are on something trying to disable the trap, the something they are on could shake, forcing everyone to check acrobatics).  In some instances I would even do away with the idea of a failure/penalty (just players struggling against the clock, such as trying to disarm a trap during a combat or a trap that is harming some if not all members of the party).

1 & 2 encourage player participation.

3) Why not as a counterpoint to the 5 below failure/penalty idea, have a 5 or 10 above bonus?  Perhaps you'd get two successes, or the ability to counter one failure/penalty by another player, or an additional die roll, or a personal reward, etc (vary it based on the particular challenge, as with failures/penalties).  This would encourage skill training and focus.

4) Would it help to compress the range between easy, moderate and hard (and you could perhaps add really hard!) -- perhaps base #s such as easy 7+, moderate 10+, hard 13+, really hard 16+ for all checks (this is before +5 for skill checks).

5) I also think skills could be linked sometimes, such as perception underground could be modified by dungeoneering (+1 for training, additional +1 for focus) when appropriate (e.g., use this for detecting secret doors/traps in a stone wall but not for finding a secret compartment in a desk); nature could do the same outdoors, and streetwise in a city; arcana training and focus could help similarly with a magical trap or a magic secret door; on and on.


----------



## Runestar (Jul 19, 2008)

Something came to mind.

While participation in skill challenges was technically mandatory initially, couldn't a player just delay his action indefinitely, effectively removing himself from the skill challenge?


----------



## Rechan (Jul 19, 2008)

So... are the errata'd skill challenges better? Are they worse? Should they be used?

I can't parse this easily.


----------



## MarkB (Jul 19, 2008)

Rechan said:


> So... are the errata'd skill challenges better? Are they worse? Should they be used?
> 
> I can't parse this easily.




The general indication seems to be "somewhat better but still not great, and now they err on the side of success rather than failure, so at the very least you won't ruin your party's day by using one."


----------



## two (Jul 19, 2008)

The whole thing has been a huge boondoggle. 

It's really been a black eye to WOTC, because everyone seems to love the concept of a skill challenge.  It makes sense, it sounds exciting, it should be fun.

We WANT it to be fun, and to work.

They just keep screwing up the execution.

If it was a small company, well, that's one thing.  For a multi-million dollar company to fail so egregiously at one of the major "improvements" to the game (which they proudly promoted pre-release)... that's just weak.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 19, 2008)

Well, looking at the theoretical range of skill modifiers shows, where the problem lies:
Worst case: Paladin with Dex 8 trying to be stealthy while wearing plate and a heavy shield:
At level 1: -5; at level 30: +11
Best case: Halfling with Dex 20 and Skill Focus (Stealth) trying to be stealthy:
At level 1: +15; at level 30: +34
In other words skill modifiers at any given level vary by as much as 20 to 23! Imho, that makes it pretty obvious why it's not really possible choose balanced DCs for skill checks.

To arrive at a more realistic range, I decided to create what I'd consider to be an average party:
[sblock]
	
	



```
Race		Class	Str	Con	Dex	Int	Wis	Cha	Trained	Skills											Armor Penalty:
Dwarf		Cleric	14	14	10	11	18	13	Diplomacy	Heal		Insight		Religion	-		-		Chain		-1
Dragonborn	Fighter	18	13	14	10	11	14	Athletics	Endurance	Intimidate	-		-		-		Hvy. Shield	-1
Halfling	Rogue	13	12	18	10	11	16	Acrobatics	Bluff		Intimidate	Stealth		Streetwise	Thievery	Leather	
Eladrin		Wizard	10	12	15	18	14	11	Arcana		History		Insight		Perception	Religion	-		Cloth	
Elf		Ranger	14	12	18	11	15	10	Acrobatics	Dungeons	Heal		Nature		Perception	-		Hide		-1
```
[/sblock]Note that these aren't really optimized. The only thing I made sure was that every skill is trained for at least a single character.

For a skill challenge it is safe to assume that only those character that are best at a given skill will participate (the rest will probably use Aid Another).
So, the next table shows this party's best skill modifier over 30 levels:
[sblock]
	
	



```
Trained		Level								
Skills		2	5	8	11	14	17	20	23	26	29
Acrobatics	12	13	16	17	20	21	23	25	27	29
Arcana		12	13	16	17	20	21	23	25	27	29
Athletics	 9	10	13	14	17	18	20	22	24	26
Bluff		 9	10	13	14	17	18	20	22	24	26
Diplomacy	 7	 8	10	12	14	15	17	18	20	21
Dungeons	 8	 9	11	13	15	16	18	20	22	24
Endurance	 6	 7	 9	11	13	14	16	17	19	20
Heal		10	11	14	15	18	19	21	23	25	27
History		12	13	16	17	20	21	23	25	27	29
Insight		10	11	14	15	18	19	21	23	25	27
Intimidate	10	11	13	15	17	18	20	22	24	26
Nature		10	11	13	15	17	18	20	21	23	24
Perception	10	11	13	14	16	17	19	21	23	25
Religion	10	11	14	15	18	19	21	23	25	27
Stealth		10	11	14	15	18	19	21	23	25	27
Streetwise	 9	10	13	14	17	18	20	22	24	26
Thievery	12	13	16	17	20	21	23	25	27	29
Average		9,88	11,06	13,88	15,35	18,18	19,35	21,53	23,53	25,71	27,71
```
[/sblock]Note that these skill modifiers don't include bonuses from feats, powers or items.

Compared to the suggested skill DCs, you'll get the following probabilities to succeed in a single skill check:
[sblock]
	
	



```
%	2	5	8	11	14	17	20	23	26	29	Average
Easy	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%
Medium	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%
Hard	79,41%	75,29%	79,41%	76,76%	80,88%	76,76%	77,65%	77,65%	78,53%	78,53%	78,09%
```
[/sblock]

If all of the DCs are increased by 5, you'll get this:
[sblock]
	
	



```
%	2	5	8	11	14	17	20	23	26	29	Average
Easy	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%	100,00%
Medium	79,41%	75,29%	79,41%	76,76%	80,88%	76,76%	77,65%	77,65%	78,53%	78,53%	78,09%
Hard	54,41%	50,29%	54,41%	51,76%	55,88%	51,76%	52,65%	52,65%	53,53%	53,53%	53,09%
```
[/sblock]

If all of the DCs are increased by 10 you'll get this:
[sblock]
	
	



```
%	2	5	8	11	14	17	20	23	26	29	Average
Easy	79,41%	75,29%	84,41%	81,76%	90,88%	86,76%	92,65%	92,65%	98,53%	98,53%	88,09%
Medium	54,41%	50,29%	54,41%	51,76%	55,88%	51,76%	52,65%	52,65%	53,53%	53,53%	53,09%
Hard	29,41%	25,29%	29,41%	26,76%	30,88%	26,76%	27,65%	27,65%	28,53%	28,53%	28,09%
```
[/sblock]It's now fairly easy to compare these results to the chances to succeed at a given skill challenge (taking Aid Another into account as appropriate).

To me, it seems the new DCs have been chosen to allow everyone to have a chance to succeed with every skill at every level:
- Easy DC:
   Someone untrained will have an above average chance to succeed (even if handicapped).
   Someone trained will succeed automatically (unless handicapped).
- Medium DC:
   Someone untrained will have an average chance to succeed (lower if handicapped).
   Someone trained will have a very good chance to succeed (above average, if handicapped).
- Hard DC:
   Someone untrained will have a low chance to succeed (no chance if handicapped).
   Someone trained will have an above average chance to succeed (even if handicapped).

If you agree with this intention the DCs are okay to use for single skill checks.

For skill challenges to be meaningful, however, it's not possible to use the same DCs:
- Even if every skill check is using the Hard DC and noone is using Aid Another, a Complexitiy 5 skill challenge will succeed with an average chance of 48,86%.
- If every skill check is assisted by one character, the chance goes up to 83,33%
- If every skill check is assisted by two characters, the chance goes up to 99,85%


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 19, 2008)

In your analysis, keep in mind as well that for a skill challenge, players are expected to use their best skills. So while the paladin has a nasty stealth check, he probably won't be using it for the challenge. Which makes the challenge much easier....in fact it jumps it into the 95% range in many cases.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 19, 2008)

two said:


> If it was a small company, well, that's one thing.  For a multi-million dollar company to fail so egregiously at one of the major "improvements" to the game (which they proudly promoted pre-release)... that's just weak.




*Hasbro* is a multi-billion dollar company (market cap is ~$5 billion). WotC is a very, very small part of Hasbro, and the tabletop RPG business is maybe a third of WotC. On its own it is a small to mid-sized company (as opposed to the typical RPG company, which is a one or two person operation).


----------



## two (Jul 19, 2008)

drothgery said:


> *Hasbro* is a multi-billion dollar company (market cap is ~$5 billion). WotC is a very, very small part of Hasbro, and the tabletop RPG business is maybe a third of WotC. On its own it is a small to mid-sized company (as opposed to the typical RPG company, which is a one or two person operation).




Right.  1-2 person (or 5) vs. a small to mid sized company.  A huge disparity.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 19, 2008)

JGulick said:


> IMO, I'd like to see the following changes, which use a similar idea but link it to use of daily resources to "buy" the benefit...
> 
> 3) add rules to allow expenditure of limited resources to cancel a close (within 5 and not a 'natural 1') failure. AP, Healing Surges (representing frustration and lost self-confidence as success eludes you), Daily Powers (I would limit those to Powers from a Class for whom the Skill in question is a Class Skill, though I would allow it even if this character is not personally Trained in it), and even Daily Magic Item Uses if there's some good story why that power could help. Possibly limit each of these options to once per Challenge (perhaps more Healing Surges).
> 
> This would seem to make Skill Challenges more like Combat Encounters, in that they usually end in success but sometimes at a cost in limited resources.




I quite like this. To me the issue is the mechanics, not the numbers. They're extremely crude.

The templates break down into about 8 distinct mechanisms.

*Counts* toward successes or fails needed
*Required* must be used Nx/round of the challenge
*One-shot* can be used once
*Costs* either for use or for failure, costs a resource
*Modifier* roll against this skill instead of the main skill to aid another
*Hidden* that this skill counts is revealed when you use another skill
*Auto-fails*
*Effect* triggers an effect off the first N successes or failures

The core mechanism is then a linear rocker. It's not even as detailed as Tennis, which includes the interest-adding Deuce mechanism.

Any numbers plugged into this structure will not mitigate its intrinsic poverty. The minimum intervention necessary is to detail the rocker, possibly adding one dimension or featuring it interestingly, and to detail the risks-pay-offs.

Even simple systems, well engineered, can be engaging; as many Parlour games attest. The pages spent on Skill Challenges were wasted on pointless exemplars that could have been summarised in one page of crunch.

Anyway, enough scathing criticism; suffice to say it's deplorable and the designer ought to be ashamed. To fix it, we need to know some things.

The first I can think of is whether it will work to let players up the stakes by committing a power to the challenge, that power not to be usable for the next encounter or next day if it is burnt by the challenge?

What do you think?

-vk


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 19, 2008)

Stalker0 said:


> In your analysis, keep in mind as well that for a skill challenge, players are expected to use their best skills. So while the paladin has a nasty stealth check, he probably won't be using it for the challenge. Which makes the challenge much easier....in fact it jumps it into the 95% range in many cases.



I've already figured that in. That's why I wrote: 







> For a skill challenge it is safe to assume that only those character that are best at a given skill will participate (the rest will probably use Aid Another).



The numbers I arrived at in the last three lines assume the average probability of success if every skill check is made by the one with the best chance, i.e. 78%, 88%, and 98%, respectively.

The introductory comparison was just meant to demonstrate how big the variance can be. It's why I assume the DC numbers were chosen with a single skill check in mind, not a skill challenge involving several checks.

What WotC seems to keep overlooking is that you _cannot_ use the same DC numbers for single skill checks and skill challenges; especially since you're longer required to participate in the latter.

There's several possibilities how to get the DC numbers and probabilities right for skill challenges. I'm not sure yet, which ones to use.

I also dislike that after the errata, 'skill focus' went from a must-have feat to a feat that is completely worthless.

It's further obvious they didn't fix all of the DCs that should have been affected, e.g. the ones for the traps. There's definitely further errata required.

These errata have been a classical case of overcompensation:
It definitely reminded me of 'balance patches' for computer rpgs:
If people are complaining that class X is too strong vs. class Y, they'll typically make class X stronger vs. class Y _AND_ class Y weaker vs. class X, thus reversing the original problem.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 19, 2008)

Jhaelen said:


> There's several possibilities how to get the DC numbers and probabilities right for skill challenges. I'm not sure yet, which ones to use.




In my original system I created "curbing" mechanics to help limit the variance inherent to the system. Even with that however, I still used skill DCs that were different from the regular ones. To me, that's not a big deal. As long as the DM is given a nice clean chart he can easily figure out what DCs to assign skills for a challenge.

Afterall, a challenge tends to have a little more forethought than a casual skill check.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Jul 19, 2008)

Lord Zardoz said:


> 2)  What is the best mechanism to force the less optimal characters to make any given skill check without making success unattainable, and without punishing a player for having an effective build?



I'm considering implementing diminishing returns in my skill challenges.  In short, when a PC achieves a success with a particular skill, the DC for that skill increases for that player for the remainder of the challenge.  A PC optimized for a certain skill can still ensure one success with that skill, but at a certain point it becomes optimal for other players or other skills to come into play.

Since skill challenges seem too easy now, imposing conditional penalties seems the way to go to me.  The justification for these penalties is that doing the same thing over and over the same way shouldn't be quite so effective.  For example, the same person bringing the same diplomatic perspective to a negotiation shouldn't be as effective as multiple people bringing diverse arguments and using other skills.  (The duke gets tired of talking to the same guy, or whatever.)

The question is how large a penalty to impose on subsequent attempts to use the same skill.  I'm going to try -2 then -5 then disallowing more than three successes for the same PC and skill, but of course this question is one of playtesting.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 19, 2008)

So, who has the best "Fix" for Skill Challenges, since there are several ones over in the House Rules/Fan Creation section?


----------



## Hambot (Jul 20, 2008)

Stalker0, could you please do a little write up explaining the ramifications of these changes?  I really enjoyed how clearly you explained your system, so I would love to see you break down how this changed system would affect gameplay.

I've got a concussion so I can't think straight at the moment.

Does anybody know if errata like this will be incorporated into the next printings of the core books?  So people like me whose preorders are now due in August might get books with all the little typos fixed?


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 20, 2008)

Hambot said:


> Stalker0, could you please do a little write up explaining the ramifications of these changes?  I really enjoyed how clearly you explained your system, so I would love to see you break down how this changed system would affect gameplay.




Hehe, there was nothing "little" about that last write up. While we have some good statisticians on the forums, I'm an engineer, so most of the insights I developed last time were from tons of examples, calculations, and trial runs. I will likely do something for the new numbers, but that stuff takes time.


----------



## JGulick (Jul 20, 2008)

vonklaude said:


> I quite like this. To me the issue is the mechanics, not the numbers. They're extremely crude.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...




In general, I agree.  My improvement effort is not to change the underlying numbers so much as to involve more PCs in more ways.  That is, while I'd like a wider reasonable DC range for a given group of PCs, my more significant goal is to keep more of those PCs involved and give them more meaningful choices in the process.

I think by letting them roll and then chose to count the failure or spend some sort of resource to cancel it, they become more engaged in the process.

The exact mechanism isn't nearly as important as the engagement.


----------



## RyvenCedrylle (Jul 20, 2008)

Firelance and Frostmerrow had come up with an alternate system on the homebrew forums that addressed some issues that the current skill system and even Stalker0's Obsidian (which, btw is a solid system - no slight to Stalker0 for all his hard work here ) didn't address directly.  It didn't catch on, and that's fine.  I won't detail it here, but I do want to bring up the theory behind it for public consideration.

In 4e, it's very simple to write up a trap or monster.  The designers have made it very clear how that works.  Why is it that skill challenges don't have statblocks?  Furthermore, half the fun of a combat encounter is that stuff gets to hit back.  If combat counted failures in the same sort of way the current official skill challenge system does, it would be just as boring and would discourage total character involvement in a similar fashion.

The metaphor is obviously not entirely transferrable, but IMHO, an optimal skill challenge would have these components in a standard statblock sort of formula (and I shall keep it short so as to not constitute being on the homebrew forum again):

*"HP":* The number of successes required to defeat the challenge.  If you can "bloody" the challenge before losing, consider it a partial success.

*"Defenses":* Preferably 3 or 4 grouped by type of action attempted - not necessarily Skill. Perhaps Force (for when you attempt to simply overpower or intimidate the challenge), Reason (for when you attempt to think or negotiate) and Awareness (if you attempt to bluff or trick the challenge).  Seems like there should be a fourth, but these are kinda off the top of my head right now.

*"Powers": *Things the challenge gets to actively do to stymie the PCs after each round of PC skill rolls.  Interesting flavor text that sets up the final stat section...

*Failure:* This has no combat equivalent. M'eh.  The condition under which failure occurs, related to the skill challenge's Powers.  It could have a Power which activates once per round of PC skill rolls and if it activates three times, the challenge ends (this is sort of like Obsidian.  Sort of.)  Conversely, the challenge Powers might make specific PCs roll additional skill checks in either single target or 'burst' "attacks" ; the challenge "wins" after a certain number of these checks fail.  (The Powers could alternatively roll, with appropriate bonuses for level, against player's Passive Nature or Passive Diplomacy, whatever.)

I'm not sure how the tactical aspect would carry over, even if it could.  However, I'd like to know why WoTC didn't errata to something that looked more like what 4E already has going for it instead of this bizzare stepchild of a subsystem.


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Jul 20, 2008)

two said:


> The whole thing has been a huge boondoggle.
> 
> It's really been a black eye to WOTC, because everyone seems to love the concept of a skill challenge.  It makes sense, it sounds exciting, it should be fun.
> 
> ...




I agree that the need for any reworking of this system is a huge pain in the ass.

However, the basic upshot is that if you consider 4th edition to be like a car, this problem is no more serious than a broken tail light.  Fixing this problem is not especially intrusive.  Swapping out a broken tail light is pretty simple.  Having to replace the engine / transmission / brakes is not.

We know how to scale the DC's as the players go up in level.  All we need to do is decide which system of checks gives you the desired success / failure rate, and what DC's are reasonable for letting an untrained PC have a reasonable chance without making a challenge trivial given the presence of trained PCs.

At the moment, I am convinced that the Skill Challenge system is going to be the one thing that will get the most custom revisions in this verison of the game.  And I am also convinced that this is not really a bad thing.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Paul Strack (Jul 20, 2008)

Lord Zardoz said:


> I agree that the need for any reworking of this system is a huge pain in the ass.
> 
> However, the basic upshot is that if you consider 4th edition to be like a car, this problem is no more serious than a broken tail light.  Fixing this problem is not especially intrusive.  Swapping out a broken tail light is pretty simple.  Having to replace the engine / transmission / brakes is not.




I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment.

Also, I think even in its broken form, the 4E challenge system has ideas in it that are quite innovative. I've looked at a lot of games, and I've found very few that included a successful non-combat system that will engage the whole group and still be interesting.

Even in its broken form, if you twiddle the DCs right and do a bit of judicious DM intervention with the occasional "roleplaying bonus", you can get the 4E challenges to work. My group has enjoyed the challenges I've put them through quite a bit.

My main fear is that WotC will thrash at the system too much, disgusting everyone to the point where they give up on it completely. There are some nice ideas buried in there if we or they can get the numbers to work.


----------



## grickherder (Jul 20, 2008)

Colour me disappointed with the "revision" of the skill challenge system.  I'm basically chucking the whole DMG section on them in favour of Obsidian.  It does everything I want it to.  It produces non-binary results, it involves everyone at the table, and the DCs work.


----------



## WyzardWhately (Jul 20, 2008)

This does seem like a pretty severe oversight.  I don't have my DMG with me to check, but it seems to indicate that hidden things are no longer going to be a problem for pretty much any party, ever.  I mean, nobody is going to stumble into traps, ever, at those kind of DCs.



Verision said:


> I think it's absolutely crazy to drop the skill check DCs by 10.
> 
> One of my players, the cleric, has a passive perception of 20
> {20 = 10 + 5(trained) + 1(1/2 lvl) + 4(18 Wis)}
> ...


----------



## clearstream (Jul 20, 2008)

Paul Strack said:


> Also, I think even in its broken form, the 4E challenge system has ideas in it that are quite innovative. I've looked at a lot of games, and I've found very few that included a successful non-combat system that will engage the whole group and still be interesting.




The skill challenge system reflects community comments far prior to 4th ed release. The main one being that single throw skill resolution sucked.

No matter how you dial the numbers, the core mechanism is not featured enough to yield interest. Sure, maybe the first couple of challenges you'll be wide-eyed and excited, then they'll grow dull. The strategies are trivially unravelled, the risk/reward structure is vanilla. Insert standard caveat about great DM being great.

_The point of entry into fixing these rules is to identify the requirements, and then engineer the core mechanism. From there you move toward instance features (like costs on skill use, or one-shots), and from there you trial instantiate to dial in final numbers._

Dialling in final numbers only works if you are sure the core mechanism is sound. If you aren't, it costs a lot of effort to find the best values, and then after several plays you realise what a waste of time that was.

-vk


----------



## two (Jul 20, 2008)

*An obvious idea*

I'm sure this has been tried and put into somebody's home rules skill challenge system.  But I'll throw it out there anyway, just to be redundant.

It's clear to me, at least, that skill challenges should include everyone at the party, whenever possible.  The idea is for the party to pick one PC for the main skill roll; the other PC's can or can not make supporting skill rolls which might or might not give a bonus to this main skill roll.

The mechanics should be plain and up front; the roleplaying and cleverness are associated (generally) with the support roles.

The main skill roll is the one that counts for sucess/failure.  The supporting rolls do not. So a really bad skill PC can try to help the chosen PC make the main skill roll.  If he succeeds, he might grant a +2 to the main skill roll.  If he fails, he grants +0.  If he fumbles, fails really badly, he gives a -1 to the main roll, let's say.  If he succeeds wildly, perhaps +3 or +4.

For example, to use a boring example, the party killed a bunch of goblins and are in a goblin library looking for information about a evil grue.  

It's a skill challenge, which the GM makes clear.

"find information about the evil grue."

One of the PC's has a knowledge check of +10 and will be doing the "main" roll for the first part of the challenge.  Other party members will try to help this PC search for knowledge about the grue.

The fighter PC has crap skills.  He uses his brains a little, though, and goes back and finds a captured goblin who worked in the library.  He intimidates the goblin into supplying some information about grues.  Skill check made, gives a +2 bonus to the skill check.  The Cleric tries to ask his god for advice or something, GM knows this is impossible but lets him roll.  A +0 results. Ranger searches library for tracks; nothing really possible, +0.  Whatever.  

The point is the "aid another" mechanic should be where the other PC's get involved to help the main roll.  You can't just let the PC's help; they have to be clever and justify it and make a skill roll.  But failure does not screw the skill challenge; it just does not help the main skill roll.

So whatever, after the party works on it, the wizard with +10 knowledge has been given an additional +3. He rolls and succeeds.  The party celebrates.  The wizard remembers that grues are also knows as Bints and filed under "b".  They go and find nothing under "B" for bints - strangely.

Part 2 of the skill challenge involves searching/investigating around the B stack for hidden or strangely moved books.  Rogue does the main roll; wizard and everyone else helps.  

Etc. Etc.  yes, a stupid example.  I just wanted to get it out there.

What this allows is the DC's of the skill challenge to be set to the typical "high end" for a party, while at the same time allowing other party members to participate in a real way without leading to insta-failure.

You know? Does this make sense or did I just explain it horribly?


----------



## Rechan (Jul 20, 2008)

RyvenCedrylle said:


> Firelance and Frostmerrow had come up with an alternate system on the homebrew forums



Do you have links to those? Because sifting through 40+ pages of threads is really a pain in the arse.


----------



## RyvenCedrylle (Jul 21, 2008)

*Have a Link*

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=231534
I thought it was a pretty fair system, myself.  Used it in a campaign.


----------



## TerraDave (Jul 21, 2008)

this...is...such...a....huge....mess

I almost regret checking back into this forum. Almost better not to know!


----------



## Paul Strack (Jul 21, 2008)

vonklaude said:


> The skill challenge system reflects community comments far prior to 4th ed release. The main one being that single throw skill resolution sucked.
> 
> No matter how you dial the numbers, the core mechanism is not featured enough to yield interest. Sure, maybe the first couple of challenges you'll be wide-eyed and excited, then they'll grow dull. The strategies are trivially unravelled, the risk/reward structure is vanilla. Insert standard caveat about great DM being great.




The big problem with the skill challenge mechanic is that it is very "swishy" (sensitive to small changes in skill level). But any multi-roll system is going to have that problem to some extent. Any small percentage advantage or penalty in a single roll will grow in significance as you make more rolls.



vonklaude said:


> The point of entry into fixing these rules is to identify the requirements, and then engineer the core mechanism. From there you move toward instance features (like costs on skill use, or one-shots), and from there you trial instantiate to dial in final numbers.
> 
> Dialling in final numbers only works if you are sure the core mechanism is sound. If you aren't, it costs a lot of effort to find the best values, and then after several plays you realise what a waste of time that was.




I happen to think the original core mechanic has a pretty good chance of meeting the requirements. By this core mechanic, I mean "the whole party makes skill checks from a limited set of skills trying to accumulate a certain number of successes before a certain number of failures."

I think any other multi-roll skill system is going to have similar problems with swishy-ness. I also think that the original (non-Errata) challenge system has some features to help swishy-ness that folks are not considering. In particular, by forcing every party member to participate, the skill level per roll is averaged over entire the party, which mitigates the presence of both Skilly McAwesome characters and Lamo McLamerson characters.

I think what the core system lacks is (a) solid base numbers and (b) additional tactical options to make the system interesting enough for long term play. There is nothing preventing us (or WotC) from adding these options to the existing challenge system.

In fact, many of the sample challenges and suggestions in the DMG do include such options, just not in a rigorous way. Examples include one-shot Easy skills, Information Skills that provide data on how best to beat a challenge, failures that cost your resources like healing surges or gold, etc.

My current thinking is to make those and other options for skill challenges more rigorous, assigning complexity modifiers to them when they are added to individual challenges. Each challenge would use the base challenge rules (which should be simple) plus a few challenge options to twist things up and keep it interesting.


----------



## two (Jul 21, 2008)

Paul Strack said:


> The big problem with the skill challenge mechanic is that it is very "swishy" (sensitive to small changes in skill level). But any multi-roll system is going to have that problem to some extent. Any small percentage advantage or penalty in a single roll will grow in significance as you make more rolls.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





This is why my suggestion (above, somewhere) was to allow everyone in the party to contribute, even Lamo McLamerson, but have their skill checks contribute modifiers to the "main skill roll."

So in a 5 member team, one of the members (likely with the highest modifier for the skill in question), will be the "point man" and make the main skill roll.

The other party members make skill rolls, if they want, to try to grant modifiers to the main skill roll (the result of the assisting skill rolls might be bonuses between -1 and +4 for example per PC, with a lot of +0's and +1's in there, with a -1 for skill fumbling)

This means that the lame skill PC's get a chance to do something, and if they fail it's not a "failure" it's just not giving a bonus to the main skill roll.  If a lame skill PC rolls well, is clever, has other useful skills they use in good ways, they could contribute up to +4 or something to the main skill roll.

This means:

1)  All the party is involved, even lame skill PC's. Giving a +1 or +2 to the main skill roll is a big deal.
2)  Party cleverness is rewarded (if PC's use their lame skills in clever ways to help generate modifiers to the main skill).
3)  DC's are much easier to determine and fix, because they will be based on the expected "high skill" bonus for the party.

So if I know a knowledge check will be required, I know the high/maximum range for this check throughout all levels.  So I could set a DC allowing for 50% success if the main skill check gets no help.  If all the party really is on fire, they might contribute +8 to this check, helping a lot.  If the rest of the party isn't able to help, then they might fail.  Or set it to 75%.  Or whatever.  It's a lot less swingy because you can control the maximum amount of "helping" skill modifiers - and assume that the party will always use the highest skill PC for the main roll.  Which is what they do currently.


----------



## Paul Strack (Jul 21, 2008)

two said:


> This is why my suggestion (above, somewhere) was to allow everyone in the party to contribute, even Lamo McLamerson, but have their skill checks contribute modifiers to the "main skill roll."
> 
> So in a 5 member team, one of the members (likely with the highest modifier for the skill in question), will be the "point man" and make the main skill roll.
> 
> ...





This does seem like it is a workable system. I agree that it is less swingy. I have a couple complaints about it, though:

1) It doesn't scale by party size. Larger parties have a better chance of winning against the same DC. It means you have to factor in party size when you pick the DC.

2) Having a point man makes sense for some challenges (opening a lock or negotiating with the Duke) but not for challenges where everyone in the party needs to perform some task: sneaking into the castle or climb the cliff.

3) It seems less "fun" to me. For what I can tell, it is basically like a single check with modified Aid Another for the rest of the party. I as a player would want a bigger role than that in a challenge. It certainly does not feel nearly as meaningful as a combat encounter.

It also means that everyone in the party *except* the point man can roll really well, and then have the point man blow the final roll. That can be really frustrating to the rest of the group. In practice it may not be any different than the last guy in a standard challenge getting a failure instead of a success on the last roll, but it would certainly feel different in play.

4) It has fewer overall rule parameters, making it harder to add tactical options to the challenge.


----------



## Paul Strack (Jul 21, 2008)

*Tactical Options for skill challenges.*

Here is a dump of some of the tactical options I am considering for skill challenges (draft only). To balance them, I give them complexity adjustments. This is what I meant when I said "making challenge options more rigorously defined as part of the rules".

*Extra Primary Skills (-1 complexity per Skill):* A challenge can have more Primary Skills than normal. Each additional primary skill above three reduces the challenge complexity by -1.

*Two Skills (+1 complexity):* A challenge with only two Primary Skills counts as +1 complexity.

*Single Skill (+3 complexity):* A challenge with only one Primary Skill can be very difficult and counts as +3 complexity. A single-skill challenge option should be balanced with something else to reduce the difficulty. Opt-Out or Aid Another are good balancing options.

*Limited-Use Skills (-1 complexity):* The challenge includes two additional Primary Skill, but those skills can only be used successfully only a limited number of times in the challenge. Once the skills have added successes equal to the basic complexity of the challenge, they cannot be used any more in the challenge. If appropriate, the successes for the limit-used use skill may be required instead of optional. This option should generally be balanced against primary skills than normal. This option is good for defining a "sub-challenge" as part of the main challenge.

*Secret Skills (+1 complexity):* Sometimes the list of Primary Skills for a challenge isn't obvious. The party should always have a general idea of which skills to use (social skills in a social challenge) but they may not know, for example, that the Duke reacts poorly to Intimidation attempts. Using the wrong skill either counts as an automatic failure or increases the DC of the skill check to the Hard skill rating. This option works well in combination with the Information Skills and the Easy Skill option.

*Information Skills (-l or -2 complexity):* Information skills are two extra skills that can be used with the challenge, generally knowledge skills, Perception or Insight. Each success provides information about the challenge. This could reveal which skills are best for the challenge, give knowledge of special bonuses that can be earned or unlock an Easy Skill. There is only so much information that can be gleaned, so information skills can only be used successfully a limited number of times. The number of pieces of information available should equal the base complexity of the challenge.

Successes and failures on the information skill normally still count toward victory or defeat in the challenge. If they do not, this challenge option has a complexity adjustment of -2 instead of -1.

*Easy Skill (+0 or -l complexity):* This options adds another skill that can be used more easily than others in the challenge, using the Easy DC instead of the Moderate DC. An easy skill should only be used with secret-skill challenge. Generally, the characters must guess correctly or succeed at an information skill check before they "unlock" the easy skill. If the easy skill can only be used once, this doesn't modify the complexity of the challenge. If the easy skill can be used multiple times, up to the base complexity of the challenge, this option reduced the complexity by -1.

*Creative Skills (+0 complexity):* Characters can attempt to use any skill with the challenge rather than the listed primary skills, but only if the player can justify using that skill. Each creative skill can only be used once in the challenge, and only if the GM agrees that it is appropriate. Once a player uses Arcana creatively in a challenge, no other player can use that skill, whether the check succeeds or fails. Furthermore, the DC for the check is the Hard DC number, not the easy number. This option just not adjust the challenge complexity, but it entirely up to the DM whether it is allowed.

*Costly Failures (+1 complexity):* Characters lose some limited resource for each failed skill roll in the challenge. This could be gold, healing surges or magical Residuum. Healing surges can be lost to represent exertion or injury in physical challenges. If equipment or gold is lost, it should equal 10% of the value of a magic item of challenge's level for each failure. The resource lost must matter to the characters. Healing surges only count as a costly failure if the party cannot take an extended rest before their next combat encounter. In a challenge with costly failures, the consequences of defeat may simply be the lose of additional resources.

*Extra Exertion (+0 complexity):* The character can expend a resource, either to re-roll failures or buy successes for the challenge. This could be spending an Action Point, a healing surge or a daily power appropriate to the kind of challenges. The resource spent resource should allow a re-roll for a failed check (for action points or healing surges) or to buy a success without making a skill roll. Because the character is expending resources to improve their odds of victory, this doesn't modify the complexity of the challenge. Like costly failures, only resources that matter can be spent.

*Helping Hand (+0 complexity):* The character voluntarily takes a -2 penalty of her skill check to give another character a +2 bonus on his next skill check. Since the bonus and penalty even out, this does not modify the complexity of the challenge. Only one character can give a helping hand to another character at a time. This option is especially appropriate to challenges with costly failures.

*Aid Another (-2 or -1 complexity):* A character can choose to Aid Another by making an Easy Skill check with the skill being aided. Unlike other checks, success or failure on this check does not count towards victory or defeat in the challenge. Instead, a success gives the aided character a +2 bonus and a failure has no effect. Each a party member can only be the recipient of a single Aid Another check each round in the challenge. That party member must make a skill check with that skill on his next turn, whether or not the Aid Another attempt succeed.

Normally Aid Another can be used by any party member to help any other party member and reduced the challenge complexity by -2. If Aid Another can only be used to help a designated party leader once per round, this option only reduces the complexity by -1.

*Opt Out (-3 complexity):* If party members can choose not to participate in the challenge, it becomes much easier, because only those party members with the best skills need to roll. This option should be balanced with other options that make the challenge more difficult, such as a single-skill challenge or making the challenge higher level than the party.

*Total Victory (+0 complexity):* Normally a challenge ends when a party accumulates successes equal to the victory threshold. This option lets the party continue to roll past this threshold to gain some additional benefit. If the party manages to get two more successes above the Victory Threshold, before they reach the defeat threshold, they achieve a total victory and the added benefit. If they reach the defeat threshold before the achieve total victory, they only achieve a normal victory instead.

*Partial Victory (+1 complexity):* This option is similar to total victory above, except that the party suffer some setback if they only achieve a partial victory (an extra complication or some lost resource). The party can push on to achieve a total victory by earning two successes beyond the Victory Threshold if they want to win a clean victory with no side effects. The only difference between this option and the total victory option is that the party is penalized for only earning a partial victory instead of getting a bonus for earning a total victory.

*Fewer Failures (+1 complexity):* This option reduces the number of failures the party can have in a challenge. Each -1 to the failure threshold adds 1 to the complexity. This option should only be used to balance some of the beneficial options that reduce complexities, such as Opt-Out or Aid Another.

*Short Challenge:* Short challenges take less time than normal. Halve the number of successes and failures needed to complete the challenge. Halve adjustments for options like Total Victory, Partial Victory and Fewer Failures as well. This does not adjust the complexity, but the XP earned from winning the challenge is also halved. Challenges with multiple parts can be broken up into a series of short challenges. An opt-out, single-skill short challenge is a good choice for challenges in combat.

_EDIT: In case it isn't clear, I don't think every one one of these options should be applied to every challenge. When the DM designs a challenge, he skills the basic challenge and its complexity and layers on a fewer options to make it interesting and different from other challenges.

This makes challenges more like the core rules, where you have a simple base system to which you can add additional special rules on a case-by-case basis.
_


----------



## Paul Strack (Jul 21, 2008)

An example challenge, based on the above:

*RESCUE FROM A BURNING INN*

*Setup:* The villains have barred the doors to the inn and set it on fire! The party has to rescue the other people trapped in the inn and break free.

*Complexity:* 3 (balanced options)

*Level:* Party level

*Primary Skills (Moderate DC):* Perception (to find people in the smoke), Diplomacy (to keep the crowd calm and organized), Heal (to treat injuries and smoke inhalation).

*Limited Use Skills (-1 Complexity, Moderate DCs):* Athletics (to bash down the door) and Endurance (resisting the flames as you work open the door). Once the party achieves 3 successes on these skills, the door is open and no further check can be made.

*Costly Failure (+1 Complexity):* Each failed skill roll means that party member makes a mistake and is burned, losing a healing surge to represent the injury.

*Victory:* The party escapes and rescues everyone in the inn.

*Failure:* The villagers outside the inn help pull the party free, but some people in the inn are lost to the flames, tarnishing the party's reputation.


----------



## clearstream (Jul 21, 2008)

Paul Strack said:


> The big problem with the skill challenge mechanic is that it is very "swishy" (sensitive to small changes in skill level). But any multi-roll system is going to have that problem to some extent. Any small percentage advantage or penalty in a single roll will grow in significance as you make more rolls.




In trying to de-snafu it, you quickly realise that the first problem is getting all players to roll, which can be handled by needing more successes than one player can generate, leading into the second problem of making it account for how many players are involved.

At that point, you might as well use Stalker's Obsidian, which in my view re-engineers the original system to about as good as it'll get.



Paul Strack said:


> I think what the core system lacks is (a) solid base numbers and (b) additional tactical options to make the system interesting enough for long term play..




I worked up a bunch of powers and feats, and keywords to put on skills, and frankly it's easy to produce stuff that plays around with the mechanics, but I'm getting no feeling from it, there's no spark, no zone.

It's like, choose arbitrary stuff and tell your DM '_Am good at arbitary stuffs_' then DM tells you pack '_kk let's tell a story where arbitrary stuffs are good_' and that's fun and all for RP, but...

...where is my god-fearing, verisimilitudenous, packed-with-interest crunch!

Nowhere, that's where.

-vk


----------



## RyvenCedrylle (Jul 21, 2008)

Let's also acknowledge the elephant in this room - believability.  While a 2nd or 3rd ed (even 1st, for those still playing it) escape from prison was sort of a nebulous thing to DM - what are the rolls?  how good do they have to be? - the completion didn't feel strange.  You escaped when you made it to the door and got out.

Now in 4th ed, we have a (theoretically) well calculated set of DCs and a nice skill check success/failure framework, but now the escape seems off.  I escape after I make 6 successful checks,  no matter where I am in-game reative to the exit.   My thought as a player is no longer really getting out  - it's counting my success ratio.  At least Obsidian pulls the fear of failures out of it for the players but the continuity is still disjointed.  "I need to leave!" versus "I need 6 successes!" or even "How many successes do I need?" is a subtle but important difference.

Perhaps the better solution is not to count successes and failures of individual rolls, but of broader tasks.  In the prison break scenario, the 4/2 success/failure ratio might mean you have to accomplish 4 of the following tasks before you fail 2 (and this is just off the cuff here)

*Pick your cell lock
*Steal a key
*Create a diversion
*Bribe/blackmail a guard
*Obtain disguises
*Petition for pardon
*Arrange for help
*Defeat 3 guards in combat

and then determine the success of each task with one or two skill checks.  Or combat


----------



## clearstream (Jul 21, 2008)

RyvenCedrylle said:


> Let's also acknowledge the elephant in this room - believability.
> 
> ...
> 
> and then determine the success of each task with one or two skill checks. Or combat




Agree, and agree. Let's resolve all skill challenges (swimming to Alaska, flower-arranging, shagging the barman, breeding guinea-pigs, convincing the Storm Trooper you aren't the droids he's looking for) using combat.

-vk


----------



## RyvenCedrylle (Jul 22, 2008)

vonklaude said:


> Agree, and agree. Let's resolve all skill challenges (swimming to Alaska, flower-arranging, shagging the barman, breeding guinea-pigs, convincing the Storm Trooper you aren't the droids he's looking for) using combat.
> 
> -vk




I smell the sarcasm, but I'm going to assume it's all in good fun 

I'm with you about 4e placing too much emphasis on combat at times - at least we have more standardized and ennumerated XP awards for story and skill uses on this go-round.  That being said, a skill challenge and a combat challenge are both conflicts.  4e has a viable conflict resolution  system for combat that keeps people involved and interested.  Why not port over the concepts to the non-skill challenges to achieve the same end?  I also enjoy putting skill challenges in combat situations as another 'enemy', so to speak.  It would be helpful to either see (or create) a skill challenge statted out like a trap so I could balance it with the rest of the encounter.

On my other comment about the 'believability' factor (maybe not the best wording, but I'm going with it anyway) - this arises from my DM experience with #155 Heathen.  There's a 12/6 Skill Challenge where the PCs have to locate such-and-such thing out in the middle of some random forest.  It became an awful lot of Nature and Endurance checks with no sense of progress other than "we found another random-burnt out hamlet and made two more successes."  I did my best as a DM to flavor each success to keep the narrative going, but how many ways can you really flavor an Endurance check?  It quickly became a nauseating series of team-aided Nature checks by the ranger with no sense of accomplishment except for "wow, I don't want to do that again."  The game really lost its sense of immersion at that point - we no longer felt like adventurers, but people sitting around rolling virtual dice.  My desire with the task-counting system would be to compartmentalize the individual rolls into small chunks that would feel more flavorful, allow for a wider variety of skill usages and alleviate some of the fear of failing an untrained check.


----------



## Paul Strack (Jul 23, 2008)

vonklaude said:


> I worked up a bunch of powers and feats, and keywords to put on skills, and frankly it's easy to produce stuff that plays around with the mechanics, but I'm getting no feeling from it, there's no spark, no zone.




I guess your experience differs from mine. For my group, challenges have been working fairly well, more or less as written, once I massaged the numbers and added a few more options to give the party some choices.



RyvenCedrylle said:


> Perhaps the better solution is not to count successes and failures of individual rolls, but of broader tasks. In the prison break scenario, the 4/2 success/failure ratio might mean you have to accomplish 4 of the following tasks before you fail 2 (and this is just off the cuff here)
> 
> *Pick your cell lock
> *Steal a key
> ...




I think something like this could work just a well in the context of the existing challenge system. You could do a jail-break challenge based on Thievery, Stealth and Bluff, and have the _*players*_ decide what the actual breakdown of tasks is.

When I run challenges, I give the players the general situation, the skills I think are appropriate and then require them to describe how they are using their skills to advance the party towards victory. I lean heavily on the player's creativity, coaching them along only when they are stumped for ideas.

They could begin their jailbreak with a Thievery check to pick the cell door's lock, a Stealth check to hide from the guards bringing them food or a Bluff check to pretend they are sick. Each success would bring them closer to their goal and each failure would be an extra setback. I would describe the results based on how close they are to winning or losing the challenge. All I have to do is arrange it so the last check either gets them free of the jail or has them recaptured.

Deciding all the individual tasks in advance is a lot of extra work, and doesn't account for the clever ideas the players come up with during the game.


----------



## Paul Strack (Jul 23, 2008)

I just realized I didn't respond to this more rules-oriented part of your post.



vonklaude said:


> In trying to de-snafu it, you quickly realise that the first problem is getting all players to roll, which can be handled by needing more successes than one player can generate, leading into the second problem of making it account for how many players are involved.




You get all of your players to roll by *requiring* them all to roll. Just say any character that doesn't roll counts as an automatic failure. I don't have an issue with this: not everyone is going to be good at everything and sometimes the characters have to stretch themselves. After all, your strikers don't decide to sit out a combat with a lot of minions just because they are going to be less effective than the controller.

Once you require full participation, accounting for the number of player is a help rather than a hindrance. The party's success rate is based on the *average* of the party's skill level, which help mitigate the presence of high and low skill characters in the group.

Of course, this only works if you reduce or eliminate the use of Aid Another in skill challenges. This is one area where I think the errata is moving in the right direction.



vonklaude said:


> At that point, you might as well use Stalker's Obsidian, which in my view re-engineers the original system to about as good as it'll get.




I like Obsidian a lot and I check my own numbers against it to see if I am in the right ballpark. It doesn't cover all the cases I want to include, though. The fixed-length challenges don't allow for shorter or longer challenges. Also, the system doesn't work well for including a challenge within a combat.


----------



## RyvenCedrylle (Jul 23, 2008)

Agreed that creating a list of tasks beforehand is tedious and fails to account for player creativity.  It is still a good starting point, though, in the way that current skill checks suggest primary skills.  I would have no problem with a player devising a new task and counting that towards the successes.  The point is not to stifle creativity, but to provide a more solid narrative framework for the challenge and reduce the fear factor for untrained characters.  A failed task has the potential for redemption in certain circumstances.  A failed roll doesn't.

Disagreed about the forced rolls.  I mean, if it works for you and your players - more power to you.  Glad that fixes it.   I would never want to do that, though.  To continue your analogy with the striker and minions, sure he isn't going to be as effective.  But she's not going to hinder the party's progress and it's still *fun.*  That's what a skill challenge should be as well.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 23, 2008)

Paul Strack said:


> I like Obsidian a lot and I check my own numbers against it to see if I am in the right ballpark. It doesn't cover all the cases I want to include, though. The fixed-length challenges don't allow for shorter or longer challenges. Also, the system doesn't work well for including a challenge within a combat.




Paul, I am curious if you have tried the combat section of my system in play? I created rules specifically to tailor Obsidian to a combat encounter, and if people find these rules insufficient, its certainly something I can look at more closely.


----------



## Jack Colby (Jul 23, 2008)

It's really disappointing to see WotC struggle with this.  I agree the skill challenge concept is interesting, but how could this have gotten printed if it's so off?  Why doesn't WotC have someone on staff who understands complex mathematics and probabilities, and whose job it is to go over all the systems and make sure they are sound?

Something tells me that when 5th edition is being hyped-up, they will joke (grapple style) about how bad the old, broken skill challenge system of 4E was...


----------



## Paul Strack (Jul 24, 2008)

Stalker0 said:


> Paul, I am curious if you have tried the combat section of my system in play? I created rules specifically to tailor Obsidian to a combat encounter, and if people find these rules insufficient, its certainly something I can look at more closely.




I am embarrassed to admit that I completely missed that section. I looked it over today and it turns out to be very close to what I intended to (a "short" challenge involving a few of the players).


----------



## Paul Strack (Jul 24, 2008)

RyvenCedrylle said:


> Disagreed about the forced rolls.  I mean, if it works for you and your players - more power to you.  Glad that fixes it.   I would never want to do that, though.  To continue your analogy with the striker and minions, sure he isn't going to be as effective.  But she's not going to hinder the party's progress and it's still *fun.*  That's what a skill challenge should be as well.




I admit that "forced rolls" isn't the right way to do things. So far my players haven't figured out that this is what I am doing, so they don't mind so much.

Hindering the party's progress isn't much fun, but neither is sitting around twiddling your thumbs while somebody else does something cool. So, forced rolls may be bad, but full participation is good. What I am looking for is a system that supports full participation without punishing the players for participating.


----------



## Anthony Jackson (Jul 24, 2008)

To be fair to WoTC, I've yet to see a game system with a robust, complete, and interesting resolution mechanic for non-combat skills. The vast majority of them boil down to "roll your skill, and the GM decides if your roll was good enough". If multiple people try, usually all that matters is the best roll/margin of success. The skill challenge system, even if poorly implemented, is a valiant attempt at solving this problem.


----------



## RyvenCedrylle (Jul 27, 2008)

Anthony - go look up 'Dogs in the Vineyard'  Sweet Mother Mary, now *there's* a non-combat skill resolution system, though it does handle combat as well.  To put it shortly, you start out by rolling a boatload of dice based on your stats and skills and then play sort of a poker variant with the results, "seeing" and "raising" the other characters until only one is left standing (metaphorically).  Depending on how many dice you have to use to "see" the last "raise" you either reverse, block or take the hit and then you get to raise for the next character.. it's quite the piece of work.  And no, I didn't have a hand in it.


----------



## Ferdil (Aug 18, 2008)

The DCs were GOOD (not too high), and the footnote was RIGHT. The only thing they had to change was the complexity table, and they did it well. But THEN THEY SCREWED UP THE SYSTEM.

I'll definitely use Stalker0's Obsidian system, with some modifications.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 18, 2008)

skill challenge sytem was improved:

more complex challenges are now getting harder:

also yo ave to consider tht you nerly get no xp for a single complexity 0 challenge. A challenge where you should actually fail has to be either many levels higher or more complex.

The only change i would suggest is readding the +5 for all DCs... but then use easy checks as default and maybe allow taking 10...

just my 2 cents....


----------

