D&D 4E Heavy Concrete Data on 4e's Skill Challenge System (long, lots of tables)

[Hussar]

I can't remember where it was stated (the magic item exerpt?) that the weapon/armour/amulet was the only 'needed' items. The rest could be ignored in terms of number crunching and succeeding in the game - they only give more options. In fact, as I recall, the weapon/armour/amulet set could also be dispensed with by giving an equivalent bonus based on level to create the low/no-magic system. If this is true, pointing to skill bonus magical items being one of the counters to the broken skill challenge argument is incorrect.

But, again, magic items aren't "needed" for my point to work. There are a number of ways to control the odds. There are rituals, magic items, actions which, in the context of the challenge, give bonuses to other skill checks but don't contribute to success/fails, utility powers, racial bonuses and circumstance modifiers. Many of these are controllable by the players. Not all, since the DM should retain some control over the scene, but many.

Even removing magic items doesn't change things.

Yes, if you remove magic items, rituals, circumstance modifiers, Aid Another, racial bonuses, and the party does nothing to help eachother, then yes, their chances of success are minimal. But that's an awful lot of assumptions there.

Even at very low levels, where magic items and rituals aren't available, they can still Aid Another, have access to utility powers and racial bonuses.

I think that the original math is excellent and does show a lot of the story, but, I think it ignores the actual play at the table. We do have to assume that the players will have access to some or all of the above bonuses before we can declare the system a failure.

 

[Vempyre]

I the this post's OP way better than the 1st one. I know I bitched about the other thread but it was too obvious it was missing some critical info to be worth it. This one is worth thinking over.

 

[Stalker0]

I the this post's OP way better than the 1st one. I know I bitched about the other thread but it was too obvious it was missing some critical info to be worth it. This one is worth thinking over.

Your welcome

 

[gribble]

See the urban chase template, and some of the others. That's basically how those challenges handle "aiding" without actually using aid another (and it implies that aiding is not a matter of course for skill challenges).

I realise that. I disagree that it implies "aiding" is not a matter of course for skill challenges. It could equally imply that all rolls not marked as "non-cooperative" are assumed to have the other four players cooperating (i.e.: aiding) the rolls.

e.g.: First player in the urban chase challenge rolls perception. The other players "cooperate", three succeed on their skill checks and with a +6 to the roll the acting player makes a successful perception test.
The second player then acts and rolls athletics. The others players "cooperate", but only one of them succeeds. With the addition of the +2 from the previous successful perception check, this player gets a +4 to his athletics check.

 

[Mistwell]

Did y'all miss that WOTC is aware of the math problem with skill challenges, and will issue errata on the issue eventually?

 

[Terramotus]

Did y'all miss that WOTC is aware of the math problem with skill challenges, and will issue errata on the issue eventually?

Interesting - I'd like to see what they said. Do you have a link?

 

[Stalker0]

Interesting - I'd like to see what they said. Do you have a link?

Very interested to see what they come up with.

 

[Spatula]

I realise that. I disagree that it implies "aiding" is not a matter of course for skill challenges. It could equally imply that all rolls not marked as "non-cooperative" are assumed to have the other four players cooperating (i.e.: aiding) the rolls.

e.g.: First player in the urban chase challenge rolls perception. The other players "cooperate", three succeed on their skill checks and with a +6 to the roll the acting player makes a successful perception test.

Err... why wouldn't you aid a check that actually contributed to winning the challenge?

But the thing is, why would you use the Perception check at all if you also have access to aid another? The Perception check has a higher DC than aid another, gives the same benefit, and imposes a penalty if you fail the check.

 

[Hussar]

Hrm, Mistwell, I too would like the link.

From where I'm standing, I'm not convinced that there actually is a problem. But, I realize that I could be missing something.

 

[gribble]

Err... why wouldn't you aid a check that actually contributed to winning the challenge?

The only time you wouldn't is where you're unable to. Read PHB p179 - a strict reading, without 3.x baggage, implies that the cooperation is done as part of the lead characters check. As I said, it appears to be very different from 3.x - essentially every skill check has an assumed ~+5 on their skill check (until mid-paragon and higher where the cooperation becomes automatic and the assumed bonus becomes +8).

But the thing is, why would you use the Perception check at all if you also have access to aid another?

Did you read my example? It should be pretty obvious that when every roll has cooperation thrown in for free, this is a good tactic, because it provides the next character with an additional +2 on top of any cooperation bonus.

Of course, this is only one way of reading the rules, and could be wrong. I think the rules are in serious need of clarification in this area, if not outright errata (e.g.: if the above interpretation is correct, cooperation becomes automatic around mid-paragon - surely this shouldn't be the case, and cooperation should use the level appropriate "easy DC" and not a flat DC 10).