# Stalker0's New Skill Challenge System (Version 1.0)



## Stalker0 (Jun 8, 2008)

It is my belief the current skill challenge system doesn't work properly, and so I have done an extensive rework of the system, using a large amount of calculations and mathematical models. The system is presented below, and in the next post I will write down a detailed account of each part of the system and explain how and why it came out as it does.

First, some ground rules:
1) If you don't believe the current system is broken, then please do not mention it in this thread, as this thread is for those who do believe it.
2) This thread is to discuss my system, not for you to talk about yours. If you would like to post your own system, I would be happy to take a look and comment in your own thread. But please keep comments focused on what is presented here.

And without further ado, my system. Assume that any thing I don't mention here is unchanged from the standard skill challenge system.

GOAL: A standard party taking on a challenge equal to their level, where each of the players gets to utilize one of their best skills, should have around an 80% chance of success in accomplishing the challenge.

The skill DC and Complexity tables are the heart of the new system, carefully crafted to provide balanced skill challenges for a party. Note that for most parties, there are only 3 levels of complexity. Complexity 4 and 5 are NOT designed with normal parties in mind.


```
[B]Skill DC Table (For Skill Challenges Only)[/B]
Level	Easy	Med	Hard
1-3	14	17	21
4-6	15	18	23
7-9	17	20	26
10-12	19	22	28
13-15	22	24	30
16-18	23	26	33
19-21	25	28	34
22-24	27	30	37
25-27	29	32	39
28-30	31	34	42
```


```
[B]Complexity Table[/b]
Comp. Success Failure
1	3	3
2	5	4
3	7	5
4*	9	6
5*	11	7
```
*These complexities are only designed for parties that have 1 really strong skill user, not for general parties. The increased number of rolls prevents the one player from overshadowing everyone in the skill challenge while still providing a strong benefit.


*Allowed Skills:*  When a DM sets up a skill challenge, he can choose a number of skills that the players may use for the challenge. These are known as “allowed skills”. He may also allow the players to choose their own skills, provided they can provide a good reason for their use.

*Non-allowed Skills:* A player may wish to use a skill that the DM has decided not to allow for the challenge. If the DM wishes, he can allow the player to use the skill, but only for the purpose of aiding another, and with a hard instead of easy DC (see below).

NOTE: This is a change from the DMG, where the DM can allow a non-allowed skill in with a hard DC. This mechanic replaces that.

*Critical Success:* Any skill check that rolls a natural 20 during a skill challenge automatically counts as a success. In addition, if that roll +modifier would make the DC, you gain a critical success. You can use your critical successes to use the skillful recovery mechanic (see below).

*Aid Another (EASY):*  Instead of rolling a regular skill check, one character in the party per round can choose to aid another. When choosing to aid another, your skill check does not count as a success or failure for the challenge. Instead, a success provides a +2 bonus to the next person’s roll. Once you successfully use aid another, you can only aid again if you use a different skill. You can score critical successes on aid another rolls. Note that aid another rolls with non-allowed skills have a Hard difficulty.

NOTE: This replaces the aid another mechanic present in the DMG when it comes to skill challenges.

*Skillful Recovery (HARD):* You can choose to use skillful recovery as an immediate interrupt whenever you or one of your party members fails a skill check. Make a skill check, using one of the allowed skills for the challenge. If you fail, then the original failure stands. If you succeed, you negate the failure. That skill check neither counts as a failure or a success. You can use skillful recovery a number of times equal to the number of critical successes you have obtained through the challenge. You cannot gain a critical success on a skillful recovery roll.
Ex: In a negotiation with the duke, the fighter makes a comment that angers the duke. The charismatic rogue uses a hard diplomacy check and makes a comment about the duke’s dining hall. The duke, already impressed with the rogue from a previous comment he made (critical success) thanks him kindly, and forgets the fighter’s comment. 

*Daredevil Stunt (Hard):* True skill masters can choose to make hard checks in order to gain more critical successes. Choose any allowed skill that normally has an easy or medium difficulty. You can now gain a critical success if you roll an *18, 19, or 20*. However, only a natural 20 is still an automatic success. A daredevil stunt still counts as a success or failure for the skill challenge.
Ex. The party is climbing a steep cliff. The fighter, with his massive strength, training, and skill focus in athletics, has no trouble climbing the wall. He decides to use a daredevil stunt to climb the wall in half the time. He rolls an 18 and gets a critical success. He can now watch his fellow party members, and offer aid if they have trouble using skillful recovery.

*General Questions:* I’m going to try an answer a few questions I can see popping up with this system.

1)	_I’m running a party of 4, and one of the guys is a skill monkey!! He has everything in bluff, and he simply bluffs his way through everything. How can I handle him with your system?_
First of all, is it really a problem? Afterall, if the guy has thrown a lot of resources into being a skill guy, then there’s no problem with him reaping the benefits. However, if you still feel it’s a problem, you may consider reducing skill items in your game. Magic items that add +4 or +6 to a skill can actually have a very large impact on the math of a skill challenge. Or, use the special complexity 4 or 5 I added in my table. This will reduce that one person’s impact on the skill challenge without greatly increasing the difficulty of the challenge overall.

2)	_I’ve looked at your skill DC table, and it’s a bit more complicated than the standard one. In general I don’t like tables that much. Are those exact DCs really that important?_
The short answer is…often yes. The skill challenge system is intuitive and useful, but it has a problem with wide variance that can’t really be fixed without a drastic change to the math, which few people would like. My updated system curbs a good deal of it, but it still exists. Even a change of +1 can have a decent impact on your party’s chance to win a skill challenge. Whenever building a skill challenge, take half a minute and right down the proper DCs for your party. While as the DM you ultimately know your party far better than I do, these numbers will give you a solid win rate with an average party.

3)	_Hey I like this system and I would like to make it better. What can I do to help?_
The biggest thing people can do to help is to provide me live data from their games. First and foremost, what kind of skill challenges is your party experiencing? What skills are being used? What are the skill modifiers players have as they increase in level? Right now my model is all theoretical, and it won’t be complete until I see it used with actual characters in actual games.

4)	_No offense, but how can you know the system is broken? After all, the game has barely been out yet. How can you be so sure the system doesn’t work?_
While I obviously love to do theoretical models, I greatly believe in real experience being the final word. So why not this time? The reason is while math can’t tell you everything it can give you a good indicator, and in this case the math is blatantly saying the system is broken. Here’s a quick and powerful example. Take a team of 5 1st level characters through a complexity 5, level 1 skill challenge. Allow them each a +9 to their best skill (+4 mod + skill training) and allow them to use those best skills throughout the challenge. The party’s win rate? 7%.
Now if that win rate was around 50%, I’d still question it, but I would certainly run the system through its paces before making any final judgments. But it’s not even close, its 7%!! That’s just not acceptable, so a replacement system is needed.
If you would like to look at the math for yourself, go to this thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.p...779#post4278779

5)	_My group also thinks the skill challenge system is broken, but we don’t like a lot of houserules. Is it possible to use only some of your system, like the skill table for example?_
If you would like to take only a part of the system, then take the Skill DC Table and the Complexity Table. With those two, your well on your way to a balanced skill challenge system. The other parts of the system help to tighten the numbers up, so without them you might notice a large difference between a complexity 1 and a complexity 3. However, you could run it with just those two parts.

6)	_I was looking at your skill table. Should I use this for all skill checks, or just skill challenges?_
My table is specially designed to handle skill challenges. When dealing with regular skill checks, use the Tables provided in the DMG.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 8, 2008)

In this post I will go into much more detail about the system. This is mainly nuts and bolts stuff, you don't need to read this to use the system.

*Let’s Begin: The Problems with the Skill Challenge system.*
1)	A party handling a skill challenge of their level has a very low chance of succeeding. This is of course the heart of the issue. If a party is handling a skill challenge of their level they should at the bare minimum a 50/50 chance of winning. But in general, players are supposed to win, so even 50/50 would be regarded by many as too low. As currently stands, those numbers stand at around a 10% win rate or lower, which is completely unacceptable.
2)	Skill Challenges have a huge variation in win rate based on DC and complexity. This is a problem hidden in the math of the skill challenge system. For example, let’s say the skill challenge is perfectly balanced at complexity 3 at a set DC. The win rate is exactly where you like it, and everyone is happy. If you add even +1 to the DC you can throw off the win rate by 15-20%. Change the complexity and you can change that number even more. If a party is just slightly weaker in skills than another party, they can literally go from a decent chance of beating the challenge to a very poor chance with the most minor changes in skills. 
3)	Increasing complexity can actually make a challenge easier depending on the skills of your party. This one isn’t necessarily a “problem” as much as it is unintuitive. For example, if your party on average will succeed on each individual skill check of a challenge 70% or more of time, you will actually increase the party’s win rate by increasing the complexity. However, if the party has only a 65% chance, then their win rate will drop by increasingly complexity.

*Tackling the Problem: Our basic assumptions*
Before we can do any math to fix these problems, we need to know what the solution is. In other words, how often should a party beat a skill challenge? I took my own personal intuition, and asked many other people I game with. We each came to around the same conclusion:
We will assume that a party of 5 is facing a skill challenge of their level with complexity 5. All checks for the skill challenge will be medium difficulty (the standard skill challenge). Each player will have the ability to use their best or close to their best skills for this challenge. In other words, we are assuming skill training and a high ability score (probably +4 or more). So at 1st level, each player will roll at a +9 in general.
*With this assumption, we felt that a party should succeed at that challenge 80% of the time. However, at the same time, we thought that each individual check should succeed around 70% of the time.* We all know how it feels when your DM gives you a skill DC, and everyone looks at each other across the table thinking that DC is absolutely crazy. With a standard skill challenge, every check should have a reasonable chance of succeeding, so that players don’t get frustrated.

*Pen and Paper: Our major limitation.*
An important part of this process is to remember that we are playing a pen and paper game. Players are doing math in their heads and looking up charts in books. I could create an absolutely beautiful mathematical model that would run skill challenges perfectly across multiple skill levels, and you would never want to play it because it would simply be too darn complex! So while we are fixing the system, it is important to remember that the end product must be as easy to use as it is clean in its final results.

Now that you all know the goal, our assumptions and limitations, I will go through each section of my rule system and explain in detail how it solves the problems I have outlined above.

*The Complexity Table:*
This table has undergone a large revision. I have change the success and failure numbers, now have a footnote for two of the complexity numbers. So what is going on?

_Curbing the variance:_ As I mentioned, one of the problems with the current system is a change in complexity has a huge change in the win rate. The reason is simple, the more rolls you have, the larger the variance. If a take a 70% chance of succeeding at any 1 roll and multiply it across 4 rolls, then I multiply it across 12 rolls, you’ll see a very large difference in the final number. The reality is that’s a basic property of the math we are working with, and I can’t change it without breaking our pen and paper limitation. But I can limit it.
The first thing is to reduce the variance in total rolls. In the original system, you could roll as many as 5 rolls for complexity 1 and 17 rolls for a complexity 5. That’s just too large a difference to create a consistent system. With my system, the rolls go from 5 to 11, a much tighter fit. We then change the ratio of successes to failures. This helps tighten the gap even further. Now when I set each individual success to 70%, the difference between complexity 1 and 3 is only 4%. That’s much better than 12-15% we experienced before. 

_Fixing the Inversion Problem:_ Fortunately, this is an easy fix. With the new success/failure ratios, this is no longer a problem. At any success rate you set, a higher complexity will equal a harder challenge….but hopefully not too much harder.

_Questions you may have:_
1)	_I understand the new table, but the highest complexity feels like too few rolls to me. Is there a way I can keep the length of the old complexity 5 but still get the good math of the new system?_
The best way to do this is to do a big skill challenge in parts. For example, run a complexity 3 skill challenge for your party, and then a little later run a new complexity 3. Give them rewards or failures at the end of each one. This will give you added length, but allows the math to “reset” which will provide you a better challenge system over all. Remember that complexities 4 and 5 are designed for special circumstances, and are NOT recommended for most groups.
2)	_Complexity 3 has 7 successes and 5 failures. Couldn’t I just make a challenge with 14 successes and 10 failures and get the same results but have a longer challenge?_
The answer is no. Probability doesn’t work that way. Even though the ratio of success/failure is the same, the actual results would be very different.
3)	_I don’t understand the footnotes in the table. What about complexity 4 and 5 is so special?_
In general, I don’t recommend these complexities for a standard party. The reason is the average party’s win rate drops greatly with these systems. Their purpose is for a party that has players of general aptitude in skills but has one very very strong skill user. Some DMs may find this skill user takes too much of the spotlight in their skill challenges. By adding more rolls, the big skill user will contribute a smaller portion to the party’s success, but will still have a big impact. In addition, while the win rate drops with these complexities, the big skill power of the one character brings the number back up.

*The Aid Another System:*
One thing I decided had to be in my system was a way for a player with weaker skills to still make a solid contribution to a skill challenge. The reasons are many:
1)	The variance in the skill challenge system is so high, that even 1 player with -2 to his best skills compared to the party average can actually drop the parties’ win rate by near 10%. This number gets higher in smaller parties, and if the bad skill player has initiative and goes more often.
2)	No player wants to feel like they are dragging the team down. Part of the problem with a cooperative skill challenge is if a player doesn’t seem to be contributing as much as other players.
3)	A self-correcting system. I can only make a system so good without breaking the pen and paper limit. I can only account for so many variables in characters, and my system will never be perfect for any party. Aid another allows the players to take charge of their weaknesses in a teamwork manner, which helps keep the skill challenge system consistent without a crazy ton of math.
So you may be wondering why I went with the system I did. After all, there are a 20 or more ways to do aid another (I know, I tried most of them). Here are the nuts and bolts of the system.

_Infinite Retries, but only one success:_ One obvious flaw with allowing infinite aid another’s  is that players with really high skill checks could simply aid another all the time, providing a permanent +2 to people’s rolls. However, I wanted infinite retries in there for an important reason…it scales with complexity. Any time I add a single +2 bonus to a roll a limited number of times that helps a system with fewer rolls. For example, if I added +2 to one roll out of 10 rolls, I helped 10% of the rolls. If I add +2 to 1 roll out of 20, that’s only 5%. Basically if I limit aid another, I give preference to complexity 1 over complexity 3, because complexity 1 has fewer rolls. This is a problem I struggled with in putting in an aid another system. However, with infinite retries the chances of a successful aid another roll increase with complexity, because there can be more attempts made (and more players have a chance to try it). So while it doesn’t scale completely, it doesn’t affect the variance too much.

_No penalty for failure:_ To me this is a very important feature. If you are forced to roll a bad skill, your actually hurting the party by participating in the skill challenge. We never want that. With aid another, the worst that can happen is that you get frustrated for failing the check, but you won’t hurt the party’s chances.
Only one aid another per round: This one probably seems odd. There are a couple of reasons. One, I want to prevent the abuse where 1 player makes all of the “real” skill checks with their very high skill roll while the rest of the party sits back without a chance to fail. Two, because I’ve mentioned the skill challenge system is very sensitive to changes in skill checks. Allowing a party to acquire +4 to +8 bonus on most of its skill challenge rolls will greatly alter the win rate of the challenge.

*Nonallowed Skills:* In the DMG, the basic rule for nonallowed skills is that DM may allow you to make a skill check with a nonallowed skill but the difficulty becomes hard. This is a bad rule for two reasons:
1)	If the character has ultra specialized in that skill, he may be able to make even hard DCs fairly easily. In that case, that skill just became the ultimate catch all skill, able to be used in any situation.
2)	If the player has an average modifier to that skill, allowing him to make a hard Dc check is actually very harmful to your parties win rate for a skill challenge! The DM would actually be kinder to the party as a whole if the player got to skip without rolling.
In my system, I have rolled nonallowed skills into the aid another system. The DC is still hard, meaning a character is encouraged to use skills that relate to the challenge. But if he wants to press on, he won’t penalize the party. Further, if you do want to use your uber catch all skill, the most it will net is a +2 for someone else, and then you have to use a different skill to aid another. You get the benefit of your uber skill, but in a much more limiting manner.

*Critical Successes, Daredevil Stunt, and Skillful Recovery:*
A common house rule, a natural 20 is a big win, even in a skill roll. I have adapted it to my system for a couple of purposes:
1)	Its fun! Let’s face it, everyone loves to roll a 20. And if a skill challenge is supposed to have the drama of a combat in many cases, why shouldn’t the natural 20 love fall along as well.
2)	It helps curb the gap between different complexities. I’ve mentioned several times how the win rate between a complexity 1 and a complexity 3 can vary pretty wildly. Adding this rule actually helps that. The reason is the more rolls you have in a skill challenge the more likely 20’s will come up, which helps higher complexity skill challenges. While all complexities benefit from this rule, higher ones benefit more, which bridges the gap.

Daredevil stunt rose out of my skillful recovery system. I wanted my system to have a benefit for big skill users. Aid Another tends to help skill users with poor skills for a challenge, and the system is designed around the normal skill users. But what about the people with a racial bonus, skill focus, and magic items to help their skills…where’s the love for them? The answer is daredevil stunt. Hard checks in a skill challenge are just that…hard. They aren’t made for just anyone, they’re made for people who auto make medium difficulties and still have bonuses to burn. This system allows those people to get some extra benefit to their high bonuses in the form of better chances for critical successes. This further allows them to bail out their lesser skilled brothers in the party, while looking heroic at the same time.

Skillful Recovery was actually my favorite idea out of all of this. I tried all sorts of natural 20 rules and nothing worked the way I wanted. I tried adding a +2 bonus to the next skill roll, I tried +5. The actual effect on the math was either non-existent or too strong. I tried adding a +1 bonus to all skill checks for the encounter. That was too swingy, or just outright too strong. Plus those ideas are pretty boring in general, skill challenges should be as exciting as a combat if possible. Skillful Recovery is my solution. One it provides a significant bonus, but not as high as other less exciting ideas. It has more impact on higher skilled players, which I felt was important. Yet it still allows lower skilled people to get use out of critical successes. And who doesn’t love bailing out a friend by making a good check and saving the party from failing the challenge? The overall effect of SR did what I wanted, it narrowed the gap between complexities. Further, it provides benefit to higher skilled players while protecting the party from lower skilled players.

*The Skill DC Table*
First presented, yet the last thing I worked on. Once all of the subsystems were in place then came time to set the DCs across levels to ensure the win rate stayed consistent for all parties across all levels. What I did was create 3 template characters. One character was standard, I assumed a starting 18 in a stat with skill training. He put 1 of his two ability points in his main stat (for skill purposes) at each interval. Then I took a bad skill character. Starts with a 14, no skill training, doesn’t put any points in that ability score, except for the ones he gets at 11th and 21st. Lastly, the golden boy of skills. Starts with a 20, skill training, skill focus, and a racial +2 to the skill. Takes every bonus in that stat, and picks up a +1 to +6 magic item for that skill when he can.
I then calibrated the numbers around these templates. I focused on the standard character, making sure the medium DCs provided that 80% party win rate I wanted. I tailored the easy DCS to the bad character, but bumped them up a bit to ensure they weren’t too easy for a standard character. Then I created the hard DCs to be a challenge to the golden boy, then pulled them down a bit so they were in reach of the standard character. 
The result? Take a standard party, let them use their good skills for a challenge of their level. They’ll succeed around 75-80% of the time, and each roll has a 65-70% chance of success. Parties with high skill guys can have fun with daredevil stunts and more critical successes, while teams with lower skill guys can be helpful with aid another.


----------



## Alweth (Jun 8, 2008)

Excellent system!  Thanks for doing this!  I'll probably use it.


----------



## hcm (Jun 8, 2008)

In both the original system and in what you present here, there is a lack of tactical choice. There is no risk involved in choosing the different approaches. The skillful recovery and the daredevil stunt, for instance, should involve significant risks that make it a difficult (and hence interesting) *choice* to use them or not.

This is because true choices involve the players more than no choices or false choices. (A false choice is either a too obvious one or one that makes no significant difference.) True tactical choices in a skill challenge system of this kind give the same support to roleplaying (i e they structure scenes and help the players describe what their characters do), but they also challenge the players more. This is because the RP space is more confined when you have (or think you've found) a best tactical choice instead of having multiple choices that are  are tactically equivalent (i e are false tactical choices). The question becomes "How can I RP the best tactical choice?" instead of just "How do I RP any of these skill uses?". Restrains force creativity and involve the players more.

I think you should add more risk to your approaches. It would make your system more fun and would involve the players more.


----------



## Samurai (Jun 8, 2008)

Very nice work, I think I'll use many of the ideas here.

What do you think of these changes?:

*Critical Failure: * Any skill check that results in a natural 1 is a Critical Failure.  Not only does it count as an automatic failure in the challenge (if it had been for a skill check, not Aid Another), it cannot be countered by a Skillful Recovery, and it causes a -2 penalty on the next skill check.

*Daredevil Stunts:*  You can now gain a critical success if you roll an *18, 19, or 20 if the skill check had been Easy, or 19 or 20 if it had been Medium*.


----------



## Thasmodious (Jun 8, 2008)

I would like to see the math that has you arriving at a 7-10% success rate for standard equal level skill challenges in the core system.


----------



## Samurai (Jun 8, 2008)

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> I would like to see the math that has you arriving at a 7-10% success rate for standard equal level skill challenges in the core system.



Stalker will have to do that himself, but just looking at it, if 1st level characters have an average bonus of +9 on their best skills (Trained +5, Stat +4), and the Medium DC is 20, you'll need to roll an 11+ to succeed on an individual check.  That's a 50% chance.  (If any characters use skills they are not Trained in, or that have a lower Stat bonus, the chance goes down from there).

Now, with 50/50 rolls, you'd expect that if the number of successes or failures are equal, you should have a 50/50 shot at succeeding or failing the challenge.  (If you flip a coin 6 times, overall you should average out to 3 heads and 3 tails, if you do it enough times.)  However, skill challenges only need half as many failures as successes.  So, back to the coin tosses, it is easy to see that the chance of getting 2 tails before you get 4 heads is significantly higher.  And the more times you toss the coin, the less random chance and variance, and more likely to get the average result, a 50/50 split, which = failure because you only need half as many of them.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (Jun 8, 2008)

You can use [*pre] or [*code] I believe to format your tables with spaced text to make them easier to read, Stalker.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 8, 2008)

hcm said:
			
		

> In both the original system and in what you present here, there is a lack of tactical choice. There is no risk involved in choosing the different approaches. The skillful recovery and the daredevil stunt, for instance, should involve significant risks that make it a difficult (and hence interesting) *choice* to use them or not.




The skillful recovery mechanic is not a tactical choice as you say, nor is it designed to be. It is a reward for people who get critical successes.

However, daredevil stunt DOES have a cost. It bumps the difficulty of the skill your using to a hard difficulty, that could be a net +4 to +7 in difficulty. And it counts as a success or a failure as normal, so if a player attempts a DD stunt and fails, that's a failure for the skill challenge.



			
				Samurai said:
			
		

> Critical Failure:  Any skill check that results in a natural 1 is a Critical Failure. Not only does it count as an automatic failure in the challenge (if it had been for a skill check, not Aid Another), it cannot be countered by a Skillful Recovery, and it causes a -2 penalty on the next skill check.
> 
> Daredevil Stunts: You can now gain a critical success if you roll an 18, 19, or 20 if the skill check had been Easy, or 19 or 20 if it had been Medium.




I wouldn't recommend critical failures in the game, as the math doesn't account for them. For DD stunt, in general the people who are going to use them have a very high modifier in teh skill, so to them an easy or medium skill is probably an autosuccess or close to it. However, if you do want to use this rule, I would make easy 17-20 and medium 18-20, as I mainly based the math around medium challenges.



> I would like to see the math that has you arriving at a 7-10% success rate for standard equal level skill challenges in the core system.




Of course. http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=4278779#post4278779
I have detailed the math in that thread for you. Any further questions about that, please submit them to that thread.



> You can use [*pre] or [*code] I believe to format your tables with spaced text to make them easier to read, Stalker.




If someone could tell me how to do that in detail I would really appreciate it. I have no idea how to use code for enworld.


----------



## Dave Turner (Jun 8, 2008)

Great system, Stalker0.  I much prefer it over WotC's basic system.  One question, however.

One of your assumptions is that you'd like to see PCs succeeding around 80% of the time with a skill challenge.  I'd like to set the baseline slightly lower, closer to 65%.  Could that be achieved in a rough way by just adding +1 to all the DCs you provide for the Skill DC Table?


----------



## hcm (Jun 8, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> However, daredevil stunt DOES have a cost. It bumps the difficulty of the skill your using to a hard difficulty, that could be a net +4 to +7 in difficulty. And it counts as a success or a failure as normal, so if a player attempts a DD stunt and fails, that's a failure for the skill challenge.




You're right -- I misread, sorry. I'd like to see more of that kind of choice .


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 8, 2008)

Dave Turner said:
			
		

> Great system, Stalker0.  I much prefer it over WotC's basic system.  One question, however.
> 
> One of your assumptions is that you'd like to see PCs succeeding around 80% of the time with a skill challenge.  I'd like to set the baseline slightly lower, closer to 65%.  Could that be achieved in a rough way by just adding +1 to all the DCs you provide for the Skill DC Table?




Sure. As a very rough gauge, adding +1 to the DC will drop the players win rate by 8% for a complexity 1, 10% for a complexity 2 and around 12% for a complexity 3. Be cautious though, a +1/-1 here or there should be fine, but even a +2 can make quite a difference. 

Also, keep in mind that my tables average a party's skill number through 1-3 level, 4-6th, etc. There 1st level numbers will be lower than the average, and there 3rd level slightly above. With that in mind, what I would do is use the system as is at 1st level (as the win rate will drop a bit and be more into your desired range). Then by 2nd level it will jump up a bit. By 3rd level, add in your +1 to DC to get the win rate back the way you like it. Then at 4th and 5th level drop your +1 to DC, and add it back in at 6th level, etc etc.

In addition, if you want just bump up the complexity 1 notch to make the challenge harder. One advantage of my system over the base system is that higher complexity ALWAYS equal a harder challenge. Using a complexity 3 instead of a complexity 1 will lower the win rate by about 10% using your standard numbers.


----------



## BarkingDeathSquirrel (Jun 8, 2008)

> If someone could tell me how to do that in detail I would really appreciate it. I have no idea how to use code for enworld.




The [*code] tag just preserves extra whitespace (tabs and extra spaces), as well as having all characters take up the same amount of space.

So you could have something like this:


```
Level      Easy     Med      Hard
 1-3        14       17       21
 4-6        15       18       23
 7-9        17       20       26
```

Use something like Notepad to design it in, then just copy and paste it into a code block.

As for the system itself, I really haven't gotten a good chance to look over the skill challenge system, but the chance to succeed bit does kind of worry me.


----------



## Dave Turner (Jun 8, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Sure. As a very rough gauge, adding +1 to the DC will drop the players win rate by 10% for a complexity 1 and around 15% for a complexity 3. Be cautious though, a +1/-1 here or there should be fine, but even a +2 can make quite a difference.
> 
> Also, keep in mind that my tables average a party's skill number through 1-3 level, 4-6th, etc. There 1st level numbers will be lower than the average, and there 3rd level slightly above. With that in mind, what I would do is use the system as is at 1st level (as the win rate will drop a bit and be more into your desired range). Then by 2nd level it will jump up a bit. By 3rd level, add in your +1 to DC to get the win rate back the way you like it. Then at 4th and 5th level drop your +1 to DC, and add it back in at 6th level, etc etc.
> 
> In addition, if you want just bump up the complexity 1 notch to make the challenge harder. One advantage of my system over the base system is that higher complexity ALWAYS equal a harder challenge. Using a complexity 3 instead of a complexity 1 will lower the win rate by about 10% using your standard numbers.



Excellent news and a nice, nuanced tweak.  Stellar work, Stalker0.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 8, 2008)

I appreciate it all the comments so far. Just to let you all know, this system is not done yet.

I've mentioned the variance problem several times, and it remains the biggest unsolved one yet. However, I have just had a brainstorm, and I hope to run the numbers and see if it works out. I may be able to tighten the variance between complexities and when changing individual roles with a single, simple rule. Stay tuned!!


----------



## Angellis_ater (Jun 8, 2008)

I might be a moron when it comes to math, but how well would this system translate to a 3.5 model?


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 9, 2008)

Angellis_ater said:
			
		

> I might be a moron when it comes to math, but how well would this system translate to a 3.5 model?




The short answer is....no

The long answer is that 3.5's skill system has a HUGE variance compared to 4e's. The number of skill bonuses and differences are vast. WOTC's current system is very intolerable of variance, even a +2 difference to a skill can have a large impact. Unfortunately, while I've curbed some of that, my system still has a variance problem. So no, this would not be a good system to import to 3.5.


----------



## The Eye (Jun 9, 2008)

Stalker,

Thanks for putting this together. I didn't think about the problems with the RAW skill challenges, but once you point them out they seem obvious. I'm glad someone took the time to come up with an alternate system that gives the PCs a much better chance to overcome skills challenges. It leaves plenty of room for disastrous failure, but focuses mainly on player creativity and success. I dig it.


----------



## Terramotus (Jun 9, 2008)

The Eye said:
			
		

> Stalker,
> 
> Thanks for putting this together. I didn't think about the problems with the RAW skill challenges, but once you point them out they seem obvious. I'm glad someone took the time to come up with an alternate system that gives the PCs a much better chance to overcome skills challenges. It leaves plenty of room for disastrous failure, but focuses mainly on player creativity and success. I dig it.



Agreed.  Stalker, when you're satisfied with the system, I think you would be doing the entire community a favor by collecting your new system, the FAQ, and the math behind why the existing system is broken into a PDF.  It's not hard, and I'm sure you could find a number of individuals ready to help you, including myself, if you needed any assistance in that.


----------



## Angellis_ater (Jun 9, 2008)

I would have to second the above, get this into a PDF, I will offer up DSP to both host it, post it and help you design it (once the GSL is out so we know what we can do, legally).

However, referring back to 3.5, if one would assume a smaller variance (no skill boosting items, only Skill Focus as a "skill boosting feat" and normal ranks?) - does it translate better?


----------



## Samurai (Jun 9, 2008)

Stalker, I included much of your system (with some of my own tweaks) in my house rules pdf here:  http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=230016, and I made sure to give you credit.


----------



## FireLance (Jun 9, 2008)

I had my concerns about the skill system too, especially seeing the high skill checks needed to disable a trap in the Worldwide Game Day module (the two groups that I ran it for yesterday failed them all, by the way). Your system looks much better than the one in the books. Kudos! 

A couple of issues about Aid Another, though: would it break the system very much if the following changes are made:

1. If the character could choose who to give the skill check bonus to instead of being required to give it to the next character?

2. If instead of only one character per round being able to attempt an Aid Another action, the rule was that a character could only benefit from one Aid Another action in a round? This would prevent the possibility of stacking large bonuses on to a single character, while removing the (somewhat artificial, IMO ) limitation of only one Aid Another action per party per round.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Jun 9, 2008)

Nice job Stalker, but I'd suggest two changes:

1. Remove the Daredevil Stunt mechanic and change the Critical Success text as follows :



> Great Success: Any time you roll a natural 20 during a skill challenge, *or beat the check DC by 10 or more*, you gain a Great Success. You can use your critical successes to use the skillful recovery mechanic (see below).




The reasoning here is that you want skill specialists to be able to "win big" without always forcing them to take bigger risks to do so. Also, if you're going to stick in a whole "super-success" mechanic, you might as well let it happen more than 5% of the time.

I renamed it because I was rolling the natural 20 component in with something else, so the "critical" nomenclature might be misleading. 

I also simplified the mechanics a bit because the "if the roll would have been a success" thing seemed a needless complication, given that I'd already abandoned the "critical" symmetry.

2. Roll back the change on non-allowed skills. Those skills are only good for one success per challenge anyway, so I don't see it becoming a huge problem for skill monkeys trying to "game the system" (especially since the DM can just tell them "no" if that becomes a problem). I get that the original non-allowed skills system can harm the party's chance of success, but the added creative possibilities more than make up for it, I'd say. If the wizard's player can think of a way to apply his arcane lore to the diplomatic negotiations, more power to him.

Obviously these are my opinions, more based on the "feel" of skill challenges than on the cold hard math, but there it is.


----------



## mrphoenix (Jun 9, 2008)

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> 1. Remove the Daredevil Stunt mechanic and change the Critical Success text as follows :.....



I like this!


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 9, 2008)

a) I approve.  This does sound like a much better system, and if I was ever going to run 4e - and if I was ever going to run 4e and limit myself with the stupid restrictions implied by the skill challenge system - then I'd definately be using your house rules.

b) I love your table of DC's and complexities.  The reason I love it is because it so eloquently illustrates why, when they started promoting 4e and said that they had 'fixed the math', that it was 'simple', and 'it just worked', it immediately offended me to the point that I lost all interest in 4e.  Quite obviously, looking at your table, fixing the math such that it is easy and intuitive isn't in fact easy.  Intuitive numbers end up having very counter intuitive effects.  Actually fixing the math often has 'ugly' results from a design perspective, but I think everyone would agree that it is better to have elegant gameplay than elegant design.

c) That said, identifying and fixing the problem (or if not fixing it then at least improving it compared to what was printed) took all of like 3 days?  Maybe a week or two tops?   Like I said, with no extensive open play test, 'the 4.5 edition' was pretty much gauranteed to be just around the corner.  By the end of next year, they are going to be marketing 'new and improved D&D 4e, don't be left out'.  By the end of next year, they are going to be saying how '4e made big improvements in the game, but let's face it, there was alot of it that was just ugly.  Well, 4.5 edition fixes all that.  It really fixes the math, and we mean it this time.'


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 9, 2008)

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> Nice job Stalker, but I'd suggest two changes:
> 
> 1. Remove the Daredevil Stunt mechanic and change the Critical Success text as follows :
> 
> 2. Roll back the change on non-allowed skills.




The first is an elegant suggestion, the question is of course how much it affects the math. I am currently working on my new version which is incorporating a brand new rule. Once that is complete, I will run models and simulations on your idea, and see if I can make it work, because I do like the concept.

To the second, if I can get the variance down to where one roll at a high DC doesn't mess with the win rate as much, I may do this. Right now, the model is still too sensitive.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jun 10, 2008)

Stalker said:
			
		

> Skillful Recovery...



I like this concept, altho the requirement to have a critical success seems to be a bit weird to me. Bascially this rule would be used so infrequently that no-one would remember it!

I suggest changing to to something like:

Skillful Recovery: As an immediate reaction you may attempt to negate a failed skill check. Attempt an approved skill versus the failed checks DC +4. If you succeed, the failed check does not count. If you fail, *both* your check and the failed check count as failures.
_special_ Each time beyond the first that you attempt a skillful recovery in a given skill challenge, you gain a -4 penalty to your roll.

This gives the party a reasoin to be glad the skill money is around, but the choice carries danger. 


And.. I like the system and will probably adapt for my game.. and talk to my DM about adapting in his 

Any chance of posting a pdf/word version once you finish looking at it the second time?


----------



## Magus Coeruleus (Jun 10, 2008)

Awesome possum.  I have zero idea if/how it could work with your model, but I agree with above post that it would be great if skillful recovery worked differently for logical/roleplaying purposes.  That is, right now you have it as something you can "purchase" only with potentially unrelated and purely random critical successes, with no drawback if you fail in the recovery attempt.  I would much prefer something you can attempt if it seems viable to the DM regardless of critical successes and that there are negative consequences for failure and something to discourage attempting recovery every time.


----------



## legoman07 (Jun 10, 2008)

Stalker0 - 

I've set up a wiki for some contributors over at the Penny-Arcade boards - we're basically starting a sort of Creative-Commons, open source, non-for-profit game publishing company.

I love your system, and would love your permission to host it on our wiki, with full credit to you.

Send me an e-mail at bartlow.3 <at> osu.edu

Thanks! Great work! I look forward to seeing this new idea, too!


----------



## Harr (Jun 10, 2008)

Wow this is excellent.

My solution to the skill challenge math-woes had gradually eroded into 'just wing it', which has worked well enough, but with this system I can actually get excited about both the general concept of the skill challenge *and* the rules behind it. Will start using it immediately and report back  

I run a twice-weekly game with players who are by now well familiar and warmed-up to the concept of skill challenges, so hopefully we'll be able to contribute some actual-play insights.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 10, 2008)

For people commenting about skillfull recovery and critical success...you have been heard!! My new version is revamping these, I think you'll like the final result.


----------



## bert1000 (Jun 10, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> *Allowed Skills:*  When a DM sets up a skill challenge, he can choose a number of skills that the players may use for the challenge. These are known as “allowed skills”. He may also allow the players to choose their own skills, provided they can provide a good reason for their use.
> 
> *Non-allowed Skills:* A player may wish to use a skill that the DM has decided not to allow for the challenge. If the DM wishes, he can allow the player to use the skill, but only for the purpose of aiding another, and with a hard instead of easy DC (see below).




Can you say a little more about how you are thinking about this for the next version?

If a DM allows a player to choose a skill he has not initially "allowed" (1st paragraph), does that check now become an "allowed check" at moderate DC?  And only if the DM does not think it is relevant and the player does it anyway, it becomes not-allowed?  Or are you saying that any skill not on the initial list is a non-allowed skill at hard DC?

The reason this is important to me, is that I like loose flowing skill challenges.  So, I'd like "allowed skills"/primary skills to have moderate DCs with very good chance of individual roll success for a player with high ability score + training.  And I'd like creative uses of non-primary skills (1x per challenge) to be rewarded with *a good chance of success and it is a better option than aid another*.  IMO, the system should encourage players coming up with uses for their top skills over aid another, and this roll should on average help not hurt the overall success of the challenge.

Thanks for the great work!


----------



## Harr (Jun 10, 2008)

bert1000 said:
			
		

> If a DM allows a player to choose a skill he has not initially "allowed" (1st paragraph), does that check now become an "allowed check" at moderate DC?  And only if the DM does not think it is relevant and the player does it anyway, it becomes not-allowed?  Or are you saying that any skill not on the initial list is a non-allowed skill at hard DC?




I could be wrong here of course, but seems to me that what skills are or aren't allowed and whether they become allowed or not-allowed halfway through or anything like that is the DM's job (in deisgning the actual challenge), that is to say, none of that stuff would make any difference to the system itself. Would it?


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 10, 2008)

bert1000 said:
			
		

> Can you say a little more about how you are thinking about this for the next version?
> 
> If a DM allows a player to choose a skill he has not initially "allowed" (1st paragraph), does that check now become an "allowed check" at moderate DC?  And only if the DM does not think it is relevant and the player does it anyway, it becomes not-allowed?  Or are you saying that any skill not on the initial list is a non-allowed skill at hard DC?




To clarify, normally the DM sets his allowed skills as skill that he feels are appropriate to the challenge. Or, he could simply say any skill could be appropriate if the player convinces him.

The rule on non-allowed skill is when a player asks to use a skill that the DM doesn't really feel is appropriate to the encounter, but would like to say yes to the player. By using aid another, it allows the player to use the skill but not in a direct way.

This is also to prevent a player from trying to "abuse" the system by always using his best skill, for example a rogue with skill focus in bluff, a big magic item to bluff, and utility powers to effect bluff.

However, as the DM, if a player makes a good case for a skill being on the allowed skill list, then certainly let them roll it with a moderate DC. I will make this clearer in my new version.


----------



## mrtomsmith (Jun 11, 2008)

I've been playing around with something that happens to be similar to your Skillful Recovery idea. My thought had been to 'assign' a skill to play this role, rather than tie it to critical successes. It seems like this would normally be linked to a specific skill (generally Bluff for lower-class social situations, Diplomacy for upper-class social situations, and Athletics for physical situations), rather than allowing players to roll any of the allowed skills. The DM assigns which skill as part of creating the challenge. I was going to limit it to once per turn, and possibly have it replace the savior player's next action if it needs a little more cost.

Specifically, I'm going to have characters performing, and allow another character to use Bluff to cover failure up by making the crowd think the failure was part of the act.

Haven't had a chance to try it out yet myself, but I thought I'd mention the parallel thinking. Your idea is similar to my idea, so it must be a good idea .


----------



## Paranoia23 (Jun 11, 2008)

This is great: I'll definitely use it in my game. I agree with earlier posters that an element of risky, real choices is key. I'm also glad to hear that you have each character type's fun in mind as you design the system (e.g. giving the skill monkey a chance to be a hero without ruining the basic mechanic).


----------



## Harr (Jun 12, 2008)

Right, we just got done with our session tonight. We're in the middle of KotS. I've taken massive liberties with the characters and tonight I inserted an original roleplay-intensive extra-long plot scene where players interacted with certain very emotional events happening in Padraig's mansion grounds.

I directed the whole thing through three consecutive complexity 1 (3 win/3 fail) skill challenges from your system, with difficulties 17, 19, and 21 respectively (I progressively wanted them to fail their objectives more and more as they went on, for the sake of the story, but the bastards managed to pull a win out of nowhere in the end).

As for the result, right now all I can say is it worked like a frickin dream. It's 3am here and I gotta sleep but tomorrow I'll be back and post a more in-depth analysis of what happened. There are a couple points of confusion. But overall we could not be happier with it. Out of the many different variations of challenges I've played with this is definitely one of my favorites, if not "the" favorite.


----------



## Lokathor (Jun 12, 2008)

edit: moved to the other 1.6 thread.


----------



## Harr (Jun 12, 2008)

Well dang, I was all set to write up a detailed roll-by-roll report of our skill-scene when I saw that version 1.6 is already out in another thread. So I'll give highlights of our game. Also excuse any typoes since I'm typing this out in one go, very fast and no time to proof-read.

It also bears mentioning that my games are completely transparent in that the players are aware of every rule and DC in play and I roll every die in the open. There is zero fudging of any kind. Party is level 2 and skill bonuses range from -1 to +13, withthe average being +9.



**** WARNING: THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS IMPLIED SPOILERS FOR KEEP ON THE SHADOWFELL ****



Ok here we go...

(It's been established in our KotS game that Lord Padraig and Ninaran are lovers and engaged, and that Lord Padraig has a daughter, Elisa, from a former marriage. Also the players are well-aware that Ninaran is the spy in Winterhaven, and she has taunted them a few times from her invulnerable position beside Padraig.)

The skill challenges begin when the players hear the soul-tearing scream of Lord Padraig finding his daughter with her throat slit open (this having been done the previous night by Ninaran) and run to the mansion courtyard.

First challenge is given by me: Calm down Lord Padraig and prevent him from going on a rampage (complexity 3/3, DC 17). Ninaran points at the party and accuses them of the deed, but with some diplomacy (+11), streetwise (+8), and bluff (+9) rolls they are able to avert the blame from themselves and onto Ninaran (1 fail, 3 wins, with 1 fail averted thanks to the use of a Critical Success). Lord Padraig is shattered yet again as his confidence in Ninaran crumbles and he orders her arrested.

Ninaran is able to lay her hand on the dead Elisa's forehead before she is grabbed by the guards, and as she is marched off, Elisa opens her eyes and staggers to her knees, whispering that she wants her daddy (she is a wight now). Lord Padraig desperately runs to his daughter and has his life siphoned out from him by her, but the players protest this and thus we retcon a little bit and have our second challenge: Keep Lord Padraig from touching his daughter and convince him of what she is (complexity 3/3, DC 19).

Players roll Athletics (+2), and succeed in restraining the Lord, then Intimidate (+11) Diplomacy (+11) and Bluff (+9)(aiding the diplomacy) to try to convince him that it's not really his daughter, but with the higher DC and a bad streak of luck they are down to 2 fails and only 1 win before Sister Linora bursts in on the scene and proclaims that the only course of action is to kill the little wight. The party's paladin decides to break off the challenge and buries his axe in her little head, prompting the failure of the challenge. 

Padraig goes almost insane with grief once again, believing his daughter dead twice, but still believing Ninaran to be responsible for everything. He orders the guards to release her, grab her and announces that he will deal with her himself, in private. This is according to my plan for Ninaran to kill him and escape so she can appear later in the graveyard combat. But the players aren't having it, and we have the third and final challenge: Prevent Padraig from leaving with Ninaran (complexity 3/3, DC 21 since I really did not want them to make it).

Players roll Diplomacy (+11), Streetwise (+8), Aracana (+6), and Bluff (+9) to make different arguments to Padraig about why he should keep her there in front of everyone. But the higher DC has its effect and the players end up with 2 fails, 2 wins. Only one roll to go. The paladin decides to roll Intimidate (+11) basically saying "Either judge her here in front of us or I'll kill her right now myself", and believe it or not, rolls a 20. Critical Success. The players went fricking wild. I had no idea what to do. Then I got it. Padraig snapped, lost all semblance of control, shoved Ninaran down to the ground, took out his greatsword, and slew her on the spot. And that was that.

***

So! Could it have gone any better? Doubt it. Thanks to the challenges I had a great framework on which to propel the scene, I had excellent waypoints on which moments were important and which were not, and a good handle on when to push for climax. All in all: awesome.

Players were engaged and freely discussed their Critical Successes, stunts, and offered to Aid Another when someone had a low roll. At no point did any kind of hopelessness set in but also at all times there was the real threat of failure. That final roll was so ridiculously exciting I still can't believe it. Picture the paladin's player (a very tall,very heavy-set guy  ) jumping up to his feet and jabbing his finger and shouting at his die "YES!! YES!! THAT'S WHAT YOU GET! THAT'S WHAT YOU #$%@ING GET!!! YES!!" And high-fives all around.

On the negative side, players reported that Daredevil Stunts were particularly  confusing (I get a critical success but it's not an automatic success... whaaa???) and that a Hard DC for a Recovery roll seemed kind of sucky when the only way could get to do it was with a Critical, so you have to get a Critical AND do a Hard roll?? Seems too much.

Sooo anyways, I guess all this is obsolete now  but hopefully you (Stalker0) enjoyed reading how your system was put to actual-play use. On Sunday I'm giving the 1.6 rules a try. We'll see which ones are better received. It's gonna be a tough sell for 1.6 after all this I can assure you


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 12, 2008)

Its wonderful to hear your players had a good time using my system, that's the best kind of praise I could receive.

I hope they enjoy 1.6 as much as 1.0, actually, I hope moreso


----------



## CleverName (Jun 16, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Its wonderful to hear your players had a good time using my system, that's the best kind of praise I could receive.
> 
> I hope they enjoy 1.6 as much as 1.0, actually, I hope moreso





Where is 1.6?


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jun 16, 2008)

Linky: Version 1.8

Page 5 has a pdf that makes printing much easier.


----------



## bardolph (Jun 21, 2008)

First of all, thanks to Stalker0 for the great system.

One quick question: what would be the consequence of counting a critical success as a "double success" instead of banking a skillful recovery?


----------



## jeffhartsell (Jun 21, 2008)

I like the concept of critical successes and the skillful recoveries. I agree there needs to be mechanics to keep the players involved. Have you thought about how to include the use of action points and/or healing surges into the system? Those are resources that the players control that renew and seem to lend themselves to encounters.

A suggestion for critical successes, instead of a natural 20 or +10, try +5 over the states DC. Another simple option is to allow skillful recovery as an option all the time but it adds another failure on a miss. Or a failed recovery imposes a -2 penalty on the next check.


----------

