Stalker0's Obsidian Skill Challenge System (Update: Version 1.1) Now with PDF!!

[Karui_Kage]

For those of us who use a lot of modules, are there any guidelines on conversion from DnD's current 4.0 Skill Challenge system to yours? DC changes, difficulty adjustments, etc.?

[Stalker0]

Originally Posted by Karui_Kage

For those of us who use a lot of modules, are there any guidelines on conversion from DnD's current 4.0 Skill Challenge system to yours? DC changes, difficulty adjustments, etc.?

Use my system for any skill challenges of complexity 3 to 5. Take the skill challenge level, and use the chart in my system to determine the DC. For complexity 1 and 2 challenges, you may want to use a few rolls instead of a skill challenge. My system generally assumes a skill challenge is a bigger deal than a complexity 1 or 2 might indicate.

Take the normal results for succeeding at the challenge, and decide how much of that should be for a total victory or a partial one. Often times modules provide side adventures, feel free to have a partial victory tie in to those side quests.

[Samurai]

Interesting! One point, though:

Why does the relative number of successes needed drop as party size increases? In a 2 person party, you'll have 6 rolls over 3 rounds, and 5 are needed for total success. That's 2/3s of the total number of rolls. But in a 5 person party, you'll have 15 rolls, and yet only 8 of them need to succeed for total success. If you were keeping the chances the same, shouldn't it need 10 successes for a full success, which is 2/3? Are you assuming that only 1 character will be really skilled, and thus lowering the % of successes needed to account for more relatively unskilled characters? If so, that may be a mistake. Depending upon the group and the challenge, you might have almost everyone able to strongly contribute, or you might have no one at all trained in the main skill. It is very possible that in a 2 character group, neither character has the needed skill, so both are rolling untrained...

[bardolph]

Originally Posted by Stalker0

Hey guys, I finalized my own pdf version of the system. Its so much cleaner and easier to read then the forum. Take a look, let me know if you find any errors.

Printed. Thanks for the great work.

[Stalker0]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Interesting! One point, though:

Why does the relative number of successes needed drop as party size increases?

Basically a lot of factors go into choosing the target numbers. For example, its true that a 2 person party is more likely to not have the skills needed for a challenge. On the other hand, that 2 person challenge maybe 2 people out of a 5 person party that is sent on a sub-mission, in which case they are likely to be very good with skills for that challenge.

Further, in order for me to keep the ratios the same throughout, I would have had to greatly increase the target numbers so that everything would scale evenly, and the math tends to get even more variable as that number increases.

In the end, the DM is the final arbiter on what skill challenges are good for his party. Just like two brutes may be a very difficult encounter for a party of 2 controllers, throwing a social challenge at a group with no social characters is going to be very difficult, though the DM can always adjust the DC to help this along.

[Verequus]

Stalker0, can you post your test challenges as examples? It's easier to assess your system with more material to draw from. What I'm wondering is where to draw the line between a skill challenge and normal skill checks. This KotS prequel (beware for spoilers if you haven't played it yet!) has the situation that a goblin guard keeps the gate under surveillance.

I expected that my group would discover the guard and either makes a full attack or sends the rogue to deal with the problem. But a subgroup of two people (the rogue and the wizard) tried to create a diversion and failed because of a bad roll for the wizard (despite giving him a +5 circumstantial bonus which was after later checking the wrong ruling of my part). Considering some other mistakes I made during my DMing I am inclined to repeat this part of the game (we stopped after that because time ran out) if we could work with a skill challenge.

But I am not sure if using a skill challenge is a good idea here. The first problem I see is what the success should be. Can I negotiate with my players the goal while playing? Does doing so take too much time? Makes this choosing the applicable skills more difficult? Are there other problems?

If the goal is defined, how do I know if that one can be reached in three normal skill checks or takes long enough to afford a skill challenge? Can I say that the rogue and wizard can use a skill challenge to sneak on the ground of the mansion, scale the wall and sneak to the guard without being noticed? But how can the group actually silence the guard without alerting the other goblins? Using Ghost Sound to muffle screams? Give them autocrits because the guard doesn't expect an attack?

[Harr]

Loved the system in play. Used it in a physical challenge the other night:


Scene: The party has been alerted to an undead menace coming from the village cemetery; they decide to go to the cemetery during daylight when the undead are asleep and deal with it easily.

Problem: The cemetery is actually built on top of a steep, treacherous mountain which takes hours to climb.

Challenge: Climb the mountain quickly enough to make it to the cemetery before nightfall. Difficulty DC 19 (party's level 3)


Primary skills: Athletics, Endurance, Nature, Acrobatics.

Secondary skills: I allow pretty much any weird or creative use of a skill as long as you keep succeeding at it. Once you fail even once at that secondary skill, you lost your chance can't use it any more.

Synergistic skills: I don't do the +2 for primary skills, but if one skill success logically facilitates the next one, that next one gets a +2 bonus.

(Nobody in the party thought to use Action Points, or didn't think it was worth it I guess)


Round 1

The Wizard uses Perception to try to find a shortcut in the bushes. He fails, and the party sidetracks for a few hours to come to a dead end and have to backtrack. He can't search for any more shortcuts.

The Warlock uses History to see if she knows of a shortcut or a better way to ascend. She also fails, and the party has to backtrack again with zero progress. She doesn't know anything more about the mountain (can't use History any more).

The Rogue uses Acrobatics to determine the best path through the stone, which way to place your feet, where to find easy jumps, etc. He succeeds, and the party is able to make some progress thanks to mimicking his path and his movements.

The Paladin uses Endurance (with +2 thanks to the Rogue's help) to continue push everyone along at a good rate. He fails, and ends up getting tired and having to stop for a rest instead.


Round 2

Since there was more failure in the previous round than success, I introduce a complication: It begins to rain. I describe the water pouring down on the party and the path getting slippery and treacherous (no mechanical effects though, just flavor - though the situation is definitely more dire since a good chunk of the challenge has passed with only 1 success).

The Rogue continues his Acrobatics direction of the party and succeeds again. The party is able to progress some more.

The Warlock tries an Endurance (with +2 thanks to the Rogue) and fails, now she gets out of breath and has to stop.

The Wizard keeps an eye out for any wild animals with a Nature check. He succeeds and warns the Rogue just in time for him to avoid stepping into a snakes nest, saving the party considerable time.

The Paladin decides to pray to his god and ask him to stop the rain with a Religion check. He rolls a 1! Kord, the god of battle and thunder (which coincidentally is the deity that this Paladin worships) get angry at this display of weakness and smites him. With a lightning bolt. Paladin loses a Healing Surge and can't pray any more.


Round 3

Since the last round came out even in success-failure, no more complications, but time is running out, the sun is just starting to set, and it continues to rain. I describe the day getting slowly darker just as the summit of the mountain can be seen.

The Rogue attempts to lead the rest of the way up with Acrobatics, but fails. He slips on a wet rock (by now very wet and slippery from the rain) and goes sprawling face first into the ground.

The party is now aware that they need to step it up, I make them aware of the Going for Broke rule and they decide to go for it.

The Wizard looks for any kind of natural resource they could use with Nature at +5 DC. We actually makes it and finds some herbs that the party chews and gets a boost to their energy (something like a caffeine-leaf plant I guess, lol).

The Warlock to run up the rest of the way with her newfound evergy (+2 bonus) using Athletics at +5 DC and fails. She did her best but it just wasn't enough.

The Paladin makes a last desperate attempt at pushing his friends with an Intimidate ("You better get moving or so help me I will kick your asses myself!"). He fails it. His party is just too tired from the climb to listen any more.


Result: With 5 successes out of a needed 7 to get to the cemetery during the day, it was a partial success. I described them getting to the cemetery just as the last of sunlight winked out of the sky, and seeing skeletal hands slowly rise out of the ground. However, no undead were actually waiting for them and the boss (a Deathlock Wight) was still asleep, to wake up in a couple rounds (they didn't get to know this until later though).


I should note that even though there were many failure, there was never any feeling of the DC (19) being at fault. It was always reachable and it was 100% due to low rolling that we ended up like that.

As you can see, the round-by-round structure makes it easy to keep the scene interesting and fluid by knowing when to introduce new things, and keeps a sense of progress alive instead of devolving into a string of checks. I like that very much.

One thing I noticed is that the whole thing took A LOT less time to resolve than an average combat takes us. So no way I would give the same XP; I decided to be generous and gave 1/2 the XP that a normal encounter would give (300 XP) but I think 1/3 (200 XP) or even 1/4 (150 XP) would have been more in line.

Anyway, final verdict: We like!! Very much. The whole thing was easy to follow, stimulated engagement and interest, and got the players (players who have been through a BUNCH of skill challenges already) to start thinking up creative stuff again. No easy feat let me tell you, and this wasn't even the most interesting challenge in the world . It just made the action align with everybody's 'narrative expectations' to a T, that I could tell.

I'm looking forward to tossing out some more of these tonight and if any of them turn out pareticularly interesting I'll be sure to post. Thanks Stalker0 for your hard work on it.

[hcm]

Thank you so much for this! I have a request though. I love Bold recovery and Going for broke, as they are tactical options. Can you add a few more tactical options like that without breaking the maths? It would be a real boon to players who love tactically meaningful choices and choose to play dnd for just that reason.

Again -- thanks a lot!

[The_Warlock]

Just wanted to say, I'm not fond of 4E overall, nor of several of it's subsystems - however, I find this to be a gem. I've done complex, group assistive skill based scenes in many games through the years, mostly winging things on my end while offering the illusion of structure to my players.

I find this interpretation of a group challenge to be fabulous. It reminds me of a much more group interactive many times evolved "Complex Skill Check" from the old Alternity game by TSR. And much smoother and polished.

While I don't intend to play or DM 4e, there's good odds this will see use in anything I run that uses a 20 sided die. Thanks for the excellent work.

(PS: And if it was possible to file enough serial numbers off and release it under the OGL on RPGNow...I'd buy it tomorrow. Just saying)

[Stalker0]

Originally Posted by Verequus

Stalker0, can you post your test challenges as examples? It's easier to assess your system with more material to draw from. What I'm wondering is where to draw the line between a skill challenge and normal skill checks. This KotS prequel (beware for spoilers if you haven't played it yet!) has the situation that a goblin guard keeps the gate under surveillance.

In general, the question of whether something should be a skill challenge is a DM preference. Some DMs will want to use skill challenges all the time, some only once in a while. The system handles both, though I recommend not making every scenario that involves skills a skill challenges.

One thing a skill challenge is particularly good at is summing up a series of events into a single encounter. For example, if your sneaking past one guard, that could be done with a single check. However, if your party is sneaking past several groups of guards, its far quicker and easier to run one skill challenge as opposed to going through each and every guard encounter separately.

For this encounter, if you want to make it a skill challenge, here's a suggestion:

Sneak Past the Guard (Physical)
The party must sneak past the goblin watchman or risk alerting the entire camp to their presence.

Primary Skill: Stealth
Challenge: Equal to the party's level.
Failure: The guard alerts the goblin camp to the party's presence.
Partial Victory: The party manages to sneak past the guard, but not perfectly, and the guard is on high alert for the next several hours. The party will suffer a -1 to checks if they have to get past him again.
Victory: The party sneaks past with no problem.

[Dayspire]

This needs to go right back up to the top, so that it is seen by many others.

[mcnathan80]

So it seems as if there is no "aid other" actions in this new system. I can kind of see the point (it is too important to get thso e victories to waste time helping someone succeed on theirs", but what if someone wanted to succeed on a simple DC 10 to give some one else a +2 just to make sure they get it? Would that break the system?

[Stalker0]

Originally Posted by mcnathan80

So it seems as if there is no "aid other" actions in this new system. I can kind of see the point (it is too important to get thso e victories to waste time helping someone succeed on theirs", but what if someone wanted to succeed on a simple DC 10 to give some one else a +2 just to make sure they get it? Would that break the system?

In the new system, mechanically all actions are treated the same. However, flavor wise you can describe it however you want. If you want to say your aiding another person, then do so, but your roll never changes. I did this for several reasons:

1) Make the mechanics more invisible. I wanted to remove modifiers and bonuses that would get the players thinking mechanically. I wanted them to know exactly what to roll in a skill challenge everytime, so there's no confusion, no questions to be asked, they can roll and get on with the challenge.

2) Aid isn't mechanically viable in this system. Because its based on the number of rolls, there are few situations where a person giving up their chance to roll a success in order to give a person a +2 is beneficial, even if the +2 bonus is automatic. I could make a bigger number or change some other things, but it wouldn't be aid another.


So it would break the math, in the wrong direction. Because there's no real mathematical incentive to use aid, it is basically a "bad" idea for players to use it, because they are hurting their chances by doing so.

[Cirex]

Just posting to appreciate your work. I've been following your threads about this matter for a while, since those super low success chances were a bit troublesome in my opinion, so, thanks for doing this.

My players will appreciate it too!

[Vermonter]

Overall great job! I'm definitely using this system over your previous attempt to fix the WOTC version.

I do have a few comments/complaints and then some questions:

1> First, you keep saying that there is no Aid Another in this system. I think that is the wrong answer. The right answer is to say that it is still a valid action and then point out to players it is almost always less productive than directly helping yourself by taking a skill check. The more that the rules are consistent with other 4E rules the better, and leaving it in as a valid (but poor) choice is consistent.

2> For the same reason I'm not fond of the critical success re-roll rule. How much does it break things to just give 2 successes on a natural 20? Overall, are you willing to share your math (spreadsheet?).

3> I really like the "party leader" style challenge variant someone else mentioned, where you need more successes, but that player counts for 2 successes (3 on a critical success) when the hit the DC. I'd love to see it as a formal variant.

4> Great prison break example, really evocative and I like the way the outcome of each segment feeds the next. I understand that going beyond a +1 to -1 range can make the math swing a bit, but it feels a bit wimpy after all that 'work'. I'm thinking that full success in segment 1 and 2 could give +2 bonus, failure could cost a healing surge from all players and the DC for segments 2 and 3 could be +1 higher than for stage 1. Just another way to make the math the same as you had, but also penalize the players for failure. I might go a bit tougher and make segment 3 one higher DC than segment 2.

5> I like the action point for a re-roll mechanism and was brainstorming other elements that could 'cost' players resources during a challenge. I liked one idea I saw somewhere that had ongoing background checks between each 'round' of the challenge itself. For example if the challenge was a long wilderness journey the challenge checks determine overall success, but everyone still has to make an endurance check between each of the three rounds or arrive with one less healing surge than normal. This maintains the team play, but also differentiates a bit between characters. Our GM did this to us in a Star Wars adventure where background radiation was effecting us and it was very evocative.

5> I think XP should be 1/2 for partial success and full for success.

That's it, not a lot of questions I guess. Just thinking about how much changing things impacts the math, mostly with critical successes even simpler, and allowing a leader roll for certain challenges.

[LargeGoblin]

This seems awesome, but I'd like to see more examples and more tactical options. I think more tactical options lead to skill challenges being more fun for the players. I'm not too worried about complexity. If players can learn combat rules, surely they can learn skill challenge rules.

[Zelc]

I like how there's a sliding scale of success-failure, just like a combat encounter. Here's a thought about partial successes. Maybe when the party attains a partial success, they enter the skill challenge a second time. In the first two segments of this follow-up challenge, they must spend a healing surge if they want to make a roll. In the last segment, they must spend a daily power if they want to make a roll. Success in this second skill challenge means their focus and persistence paid off, and they achieved a success in the whole thing. Failure can mean they keep a partial success. Alternatively, you could eliminate the partial success conclusion and have only successes and failures; if they choose not to participate in the follow-up skill challenge, it's like retreating from battle; they fail the challenge. Would something like this work?

[doctorhook]

Stalker0,

I'm intrigued by this system, and I'm seriously considering using it in my game! However, I am slightly hesitant.

You see, I just bought a new car, then traded it in for a better car, and now, I have the option of trading it in for a potentially even better car! I've been waiting for a new car for a while, and now, all of a sudden, I have a chance to trade in my newest before I really even have a chance to try it out. People are starting to think I'm crazy, changing cars every week.

4E's skill challenge system was my first new car; I replaced it with your previous skill challenge system. Now, you again offer me another, better car/skill challenge system, one that promises to be the best so far. I don't if I should stay or go.

Give it to me straight, Stalk. Why should I, a devoted fan of your previous skill challenge system, adopt obsidian? Is there any major disadvantages to obsidian? Please don't mince words; I prefer to make an informed decision.

Thanks (again) for your patience, Stalker0.

Sincerely,
Kyle

PS: I'm pretty sure the movie you were thinking of is "The Incredibles" not "Inevitables".

[Stalker0]

Originally Posted by Vermonter

2> For the same reason I'm not fond of the critical success re-roll rule. How much does it break things to just give 2 successes on a natural 20? Overall, are you willing to share your math (spreadsheet?).

3> I really like the "party leader" style challenge variant someone else mentioned, where you need more successes, but that player counts for 2 successes (3 on a critical success) when the hit the DC. I'd love to see it as a formal variant.

4> Great prison break example, really evocative and I like the way the outcome of each segment feeds the next. I understand that going beyond a +1 to -1 range can make the math swing a bit, but it feels a bit wimpy after all that 'work'. I'm thinking that full success in segment 1 and 2 could give +2 bonus, failure could cost a healing surge from all players and the DC for segments 2 and 3 could be +1 higher than for stage 1. Just another way to make the math the same as you had, but also penalize the players for failure. I might go a bit tougher and make segment 3 one higher DC than segment 2.

5> I think XP should be 1/2 for partial success and full for success.

You'll get your way on number 2. I was already looking for some tweaks to fix a few trouble spots in the system, and ran the model with a 2 success critical idea. It actually came out very well, it smooths some of scaling even more, and allowed me to change the 2 player victory/p.victory numbers which were always a little off for my taste. This has been added to version 1.1, which is now up!

As for aid another and leadership ideas, I am doing work on a variety of variants for those who "want more". However, I'm only going to officially add variants that are very solid and that work well with the system as a whole. For example, aid another as normally written does not work. However, I have a new idea for it that might, we shall see what the number reveal!!

For multiple challenges, a +1/-1 DC is actually a decent change, +10/-10% overall. Considering it is to every single person's roll, that can be a fairly big impact.

Originally Posted by Zelc

I like how there's a sliding scale of success-failure, just like a combat encounter. Here's a thought about partial successes. Maybe when the party attains a partial success, they enter the skill challenge a second time.

As the DM, you are free to work with partial successes however you please. They are a backbone mechanic to give the DM the ability to give his players a win but keep the adventure moving in that direction. How the DM decides the bonuses for victory and partial victory are up to him. Your idea is a perfect one for some partial successes. Let your imagination run free!

Originally Posted by LargeGoblin

This seems awesome, but I'd like to see more examples and more tactical options.

Hehe, I can never win. People said my last system was too complex, and this one too simple. I am working on a few additional options, but just so you know I have no plans to add a huge list of player abilities. The point of this system is that it is simple, the mechanics are secondary to the actions of the player.

Originally Posted by doctorhook

Give it to me straight, Stalk. Why should I, a devoted fan of your previous skill challenge system, adopt obsidian? Is there any major disadvantages to obsidian? Please don't mince words; I prefer to make an informed decision.

I would never beat around the bush Doc Hook. Here is a general comparison between the two systems:

Original
1) More gradual length to the system, able to accommodate slightly larger or shorter skill challenges.
2) More player options
3) More in line with original system, good for those who don't want a significant change from the original.
4) Players are encouraged to use their best skills in nearly every encounter, and to use aid another.*
5) More mechanical

Obsidian
1) Sturdier math, able to take DM's tweaking on the fly better.
2) Cleaner and easier to learn overall.
3) Players are encouraged to use certain skills for certain challenges, even if they aren't very good in that skill.*
3) Mechanics are further in the background, more "invisible".

You'll note I (*) one point on each list. This is the core philosophy difference between the two systems.

From a mechanical point of view, Obsidian is better. Its math is sturdier, scales better, and can take the occasional DM, "what the heck, let's try...THIS" more than the original. But as you'll note, many people in this thread want more options with Obsidian, because they like that in the original. Its hard to get the rock solid math and provide more options, they tend to work against each other. Also, the other disadvantage to Obsidian is that its length is "set". For a 5 player group, its 15 rolls everytime. That's a fair number of rolls, which doesn't support the quicky skill challenge as well.

The bottom line is what system would fit your party's playstyle better. If they prefer a skill challenge to be more "roleplaying", then use Obsidian. If they prefer it to be more like combat with tactical options and the like, use the original.

[LargeGoblin]

Originally Posted by Stalker0

Hehe, I can never win. People said my last system was too complex, and this one too simple. I am working on a few additional options, but just so you know I have no plans to add a huge list of player abilities. The point of this system is that it is simple, the mechanics are secondary to the actions of the player.

I didn't mean to imply that the system wasn't awesome. I am looking forward to the new abilities, and it's not like this system has less tactical options than the original skill challenge system. Keep up the good work.

On a related note, and to all readers, what would be a good formula for determining a bribe amount for PCs of a given level going into a social challenge or a good "buy good help" for a research challenge or the like? I like the idea of having money help PCs solve problems in other ways than buying a shinier sword or new belt. Maybe something like the lowest value treasure parcel for the PCs' level? I'm also trying to think of exactly how to have this affect the outcome. I was thinking of maybe a bonus to the skill checks or one free success. Is this too much?