D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
The first Skill Challenge Method was too hard, but the new one seems so easy that I haven't seen a GM (including me) who uses the new DC's since they are no challenge at all for a trained Character...
So has anyone here actually used the new (post-errata) Skill Challenge without any house-ruling? I would really like to know some opinions how it ran since I only had very few SCs myself.
P.S.: Please no discussion about theory/math, I just want to know about ACTUAL in-play-experiences.
Complexity 3. Ended up with 7 successes and 2 failures before the last roll.
The PCs were level 3, the challenge was level 4.
edit: There were only 3 PCs in the skill challenge. They all had to contribute - because they'd get stabbed if they didn't.* They were not always in a position to Aid each other.
* - I think this is very important in running skill challenges, because the DM doesn't get to roll for NPCs.
__________________ "If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."
-- Ernest Hemingway, "A Farewell to Arms" Burning Empires:Boldaq Keep on the Shadowfell
Last edited by LostSoul; 1st September 2008 at 06:28 PM..
Rescue at Rivenroar appears to use the new DCs. Out of all the skill challenges in it, we only failed two (the social ones). They weren't high complexity or high level though, so the results seemed about right.
Well... I don't have experience with the new numbers, but I can say that I've only seen two skill challenges failed using the old DCs out of 30 or so I've been part of or DMed. One was failed by a landslide, even by people who were pretty good with some assists, and the other was just barely failed because someone just wasn't quite paying enough attention.
I always like to come back to comparing the success rate of skill challenges to the success rate of combat encounters.
Since generally the penalty for losing a skill challenge is lower than the penalty for losing a combat encounter, it would be cool if you failed at skill challenges a little more often than you do at combat encounters.
In most games I play, the success rate for combat encounters approaches 100% - often the first fail means a restart with new, not-quite-so-dead PCs. If the success rate for skill challenges is in that neighbourhood, then I'm happy.
On the other hand, if the style of game you're in means running away from lost combats more often, then more failures in skill challenges is good too, I suppose.
More on-topic: I've still only done old-style skill challenges. Never succeeded at even one of them.
It's better not to think of failing a skill challenge like failing a combat, but more like doing poorly at a combat. Ie, like one person dying or having to burn some potions.
It's better not to think of failing a skill challenge like failing a combat, but more like doing poorly at a combat. Ie, like one person dying or having to burn some potions.
I agree.
I see it like this - will PCs lose a battle against an equal level encounter?
Most likely they will not. They need bad tactics and bad rolls for that.
So, if you want a really tough fight, you increase the level.
If you want a really tough skill challenge, increase the level.
A high complexity, higher level challenge has a good enough chance for failure.
We have run so far two skill challenges of our level, and failed at neither. In both cases, the party had exactly the right skills and sometimes even items enhancing them (one was a level 5 urban chase, and another was a level ~16 overland travel challenge.)
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
My party went through a level appropriate complexity 3 challenge a few days, using the new DCs and system, and we made it through with one failure, thanks to decent dice and some clever use of secondary skills (and primary ones for that matter). We pretty much found out that those DCs work well if you're using standard array for ability scores.
__________________ And once again, Probability proves itself willing to sneak into a back alley and service Drama as would a copper-piece harlot.
Rescue at Rivenroar appears to use the new DCs. Out of all the skill challenges in it, we only failed two (the social ones). They weren't high complexity or high level though, so the results seemed about right.
Rescue at Rivenroar very clearly does not use the new DCs. The DCs for the social challenges range from DC 20 to DC 13, with most being DC 15.
Those appear to be the values from the old table (pre-errata) but without the footnote. Exactly as the majority of the community seem to have decided is appropriate.
The new errata would have lowered the DCs for each part of the skill challenge by five so that the difficult roles were DC 15 and the moderate rolls were DC 10.
The only DC I saw that was as low as a 10 (the errata versoin of a Moderate DC) was one that took three PCs making the role to equal one success.)
Interestingly, I've just come back from GenCon UK and DMed three different Living FR scenarios for a total of six sessions.
Every single skill challenge was a success - and they all use DCs of around 15 for moderate challenges at first level.
I'd say that the errata'd DCs (10 for moderate at levels 1-3) were too low, by 5 - but that the originals (taking into account the +5 for skill challenges) were too high. DC15 seems about right.
__________________ I am enjoying D&D 4th edition so much I'm taking the unprecedented step of moving to two gaming nights a week.
We tried the new DC's for a session. We did 3 skill challenges without a single failure, rolled our eyes, and went back to the old system (but without adding another +5 for skill checks). Since then, skill challenges feel great.
It seems that the middle way between the original and the new DC's seem the way to go. I think I will simply use the new DC's but keep the foot notes since most of the time I will get the DCs that I want (15 for lvl 1) and I think a straight Attribute-Check should be easier since you can't get a trained-bonus, so this would be perfect.
What do people think about having failed Aid Another subtract 1 from the end roll.
I mean. Currently there is no down side to Aiding at all...
I don't think it is really a big deal. Past a certain point, you can't fail an aid-another check anyways. Might be significant at lower lvs, but this really depends on the party makeup. If they consist of PCs who are each allocated a list of skills to max out (and the rest dump accordingly), then it may be useful.
I don't think it is really a big deal. Past a certain point, you can't fail an aid-another check anyways. Might be significant at lower lvs, but this really depends on the party makeup. If they consist of PCs who are each allocated a list of skills to max out (and the rest dump accordingly), then it may be useful.
Yes, but that situation ("no need to roll") will only be available for someone that is untrained and does not have a good modifier until 18th level. A trained person will get that, at the latest, at 10th level, which is still a significant level and not necessarily low level. For those that have a good modifier and are trained then the need is less but that should not be the determinant.
I've ruled it in the past that a failure to aid does nothing if the Skill Check being aided succeeds but gives a -2 to the next roll if the check fails.
I know of one DM that actually counts the failure to aid as a failure for the Skill Challenge. That just became too harsh and people started not even participating on the challenge unless they had a good modifier. Which IMO defeats the purpose of the Skill Challenges.
Yes, but that situation ("no need to roll") will only be available for someone that is untrained and does not have a good modifier until 18th level. A trained person will get that, at the latest, at 10th level, which is still a significant level and not necessarily low level. For those that have a good modifier and are trained then the need is less but that should not be the determinant.
Thing, the core rules assume players are using their best skills almost all the time, it even encourages players to try and find uses for their best skills.
All you need is a +9 to autoaid, and heck many character will have that at 1st level.
I don't see Aid Another as that big of a deal in Skill Challenges. It's not available in many challenges, which means if you decide to allow it you'll know ahead of time and can adjust DCs to compensate. When the situation does fit letting people give +2 for a DC 10 freebie, you can up the base DCs or lower the XP.
For the rest of the challenges, there are some where you can help others, but not at the default DC of 10. For those, you often need at least one person helping to have a better than average chance of succeeding.
Skill challenges of the party's level and low complexity should be cakewalks. They represent the same challenge as a few monsters of their level. There should be a chance of failure, but it won't be high. When you want something tough, Complexity 5 and Level + 4 can cause some major brain sweat, especially if you're not allowing standard aid another and the ways in which you can aid are mostly secondary skills, so only usable once.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
