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

osmanb

First Post
Wulf Ratbane said:
Sheesh. I really wish Mearls would actually try the rule system out for a while first before he dumps and rewrites it.

Indeed. :D Hopefully an admission of the problems, in the context of errata issued by Mearls, et al, will be the nail in this coffin. The only question that I see remaining is if the official WotC fix can measure up to Stalker0's new system.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

saitir

First Post
Wulf Ratbane said:
Sheesh. I really wish Mearls would actually try the rule system out for a while first before he dumps and rewrites it.

Wow, gotta love the way you entirely didn't read the post and just looked for support of your position.

All he actually said is that the text doesn't properly convey the intention behind the system, not that the system is broken. Some of us have intelligence and comprehension enough to realise intent vs blunt rules interpretation. Which is the only way the premise of this thread makes sense.
 


Spatula

Explorer
Yeah seriously, the system works great as long FNORD as you're able to detect the hidden messages FNORD that the designers encoded into the text FNORD for the faithful. Get with the FNORD program, guys!
 
Last edited:

silentounce

First Post
saitir said:
Wow, gotta love the way you entirely didn't read the post and just looked for support of your position.
.

I think your sarcasm detector is broken.

Read his comment in reference to the part of your post above after you "chuckled". Especially, the last sentence.

You probably still won't get it.

Here, I decided to quote it to make it easier for you:
"*chuckles* And now I wait to be told I'm delusional and missed the point. But I always trust real experience, actual understanding of rules intent (or in this case RAW) rather than people getting neurotic over rules sytems that they haven't played extensivley (Or at all in some cases). The rules have been out officially for just over a week now. How much to we really know about usage? Before you dump and rewrite a rule system, actually try it out for a while first."
 
Last edited:

Nail

First Post
Wulf Ratbane said:
Sheesh. I really wish Mearls would actually try the rule system out for a while first before he dumps and rewrites it.
What I'd like to know - what I think a lot of people would like to know - is "what was the intent" as the designers saw it. For example:

  • No really: should most PCs roll an Aid Another check when their initiative comes up, instead of an attempt at a success or failure?
  • Why do the preview adventures use a such a different system than what's in the DMG? What was "learned" that caused the shift?
  • Should the DM be giving out lots of +2 modifiers? What is the design reason behind this?
  • Is the intention that PCs use their "encounter powers" regularly during these challanges? Are we going to see lots of future utility powers that affect skill checks?
 

saitir

First Post
Spatula said:
Yeah seriously, the system works great as long FNORD as you're able to detect the hidden messages FNORD that the designers encoded into the text FNORD for the faithful. Get with the FNORD program, guys!

Yeah, all those hidden messages that are encoded in a funky secret language called 'english'. You should learn it sometime. Oh, and learn to take the rules as a whole rather than isolating parts from others and screaming 'but if I have to allow my players to roleplay, that means the system is broken'!
 

saitir

First Post
silentounce said:
I think your sarcasm detector is broken.

Read his comment in reference to the part of your post above after you "chuckled". Especially, the last sentence.

You probably still won't get it.

Here, I decided to quote it to make it easier for you:
"*chuckles* And now I wait to be told I'm delusional and missed the point. But I always trust real experience, actual understanding of rules intent (or in this case RAW) rather than people getting neurotic over rules sytems that they haven't played extensivley (Or at all in some cases). The rules have been out officially for just over a week now. How much to we really know about usage? Before you dump and rewrite a rule system, actually try it out for a while first."

Nope, I spotted it right out the door and understood the dig he was having.
 

Spatula

Explorer
saitir said:
Yeah, all those hidden messages that are encoded in a funky secret language called 'english'. You should learn it sometime. Oh, and learn to take the rules as a whole rather than isolating parts from others and screaming 'but if I have to allow my players to roleplay, that means the system is broken'!
Plain english reading of the skill challenges results in them not working very well. As there is no stated intent behind the challenge system presented in the DMG (other than "non-combat encounters that use skills"), perhaps you can teach us your mind reading tricks. Or spell out the hidden messages for us illiterate clods.
 

grymckr

First Post
Spatula said:
Plain english reading of the skill challenges results in them not working very well. As there is no stated intent behind the challenge system presented in the DMG (other than "non-combat encounters that use skills"), perhaps you can teach us your mind reading tricks. Or spell out the hidden messages for us illiterate clods.

The example skill challenge as a sample for us to learn from presented in DMG pg 77 is absolutely brutal too. A single +2 circumstance bonus to one of the player's checks, and one check that was an autofail because the player chose the wrong skill (intimidate) to use.
 

Remove ads

Top