official revision to skill challenge system

[vagabundo]

I might mash the newer DCs with the Obsidian Framework. I'd prefer to use Skill challenges as written in published stuff, just hang a homebrew system from it.

I think we'll get a new system for skill challenges, one with far more playtesting and options, when we get the DMGII. For now I'm going to wing it a little and see how far I get...

 

[JGulick]

I don't have the maths for this, but what happens if you bump the DCs back up a bit, but only count a serious failure (failure by 5 or more) as a failure, with a simple failure counting toward neither overall success nor overall failure?

Would that make things more swingy, less, or just the same?

Dramatically less, I believe. The math is tricky, because there are now 3 possible results of each roll (failure, success, and nothing). I don't have the time to grind out the numbers, but by both taking good skill characters and making them success or nothing (failure being impossible) and bad skill characters and giving them a reason to participate without killing the group's odds, it would be something of an improvement. Probably too much of one, though, and it could add dramatic length to contests without adding to their interestingness at the table.

IMO, I'd like to see the following changes, which use a similar idea but link it to use of daily resources to "buy" the benefit...

1) restore the footnotes. Skill DCs need to be 5 higher than they are now.

2) add rules for auto-fail (natural 1) so there is NEVER a situation where, on bonus alone, one character auto-succeeds at a challenge, though the odds of 3 natural 1's aren't all that high.

3) add rules to allow expenditure of limited resources to cancel a close (within 5 and not a 'natural 1') failure. AP, Healing Surges (representing frustration and lost self-confidence as success eludes you), Daily Powers (I would limit those to Powers from a Class for whom the Skill in question is a Class Skill, though I would allow it even if this character is not personally Trained in it), and even Daily Magic Item Uses if there's some good story why that power could help. Possibly limit each of these options to once per Challenge (perhaps more Healing Surges).

This would seem to make Skill Challenges more like Combat Encounters, in that they usually end in success but sometimes at a cost in limited resources.

 

[Nebulous]

I think i'm just going to wing Skill Challenges like i've been doing in Star Wars and 4e so far. All of this confusion and rules debate just indicates to me that something is broken, and even if it's not broken, Skill Challenges might not be that much fun anyway if they're just a bunch of skill roles.

 

[ExploderWizard]

For all those that are wondering about playtesting, its happening right now. Why pay for playtesting when the public will effectively pay you to do it.

 

[Wolfwood2]

For all those that are wondering about playtesting, its happening right now. Why pay for playtesting when the public will effectively pay you to do it.

Uh, I don't think WotC has ever needed to pay for playtesting. It's not like all the pre-release playtesters were paid.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Uh, I don't think WotC has ever needed to pay for playtesting. It's not like all the pre-release playtesters were paid.

I didn't mean directly pay playtesters as it were, more like indirect costs associated with a game being in development for a longer period before its release.

 

[Verision]

I think it's absolutely crazy to drop the skill check DCs by 10.

One of my players, the cleric, has a passive perception of 20
{20 = 10 + 5(trained) + 1(1/2 lvl) + 4(18 Wis)}

Before the new errata, that meant he would automatically find a normal secret door (a moderate skill check, which is 20)

Now, he automatically finds a magically hidden door (a hard DC, which is now 15). In fact, he automatically finds a magically hidden door in a dungeon meant for 9th level characters (hard DC = 19).

I am flabbergasted.

 

[DM_Blake]

It is slightly frustrating we are back to the 'everyone sit on their hands/roll stupid aid another actions while the face guy does all the talking.' model of doing things. I thought the idea was not to be there.

I agree.

The whole idea was to involve everyone in the action, rather than just the rogue disabling traps, the paladin talking to NPCs, etc.

Which is why I'm fairly certain I will completely disallow any use of Aid Another during a skill challenge.

I also liked the idea of initiatives and everyone acting, and might very well restore that rule, with the added caveat that choosing not to act is a guaranteed failure (not sure how crippling that might be with the new 3-strike rule).

 

[Lord Zardoz]

I am very surprised that Wizards chose to go with such a significant revision to the challenge system. I also wish that rather than suggesting you replace / add / remove words from existing text, that they had just given new text in its entirety. Errata in this type for format is nearly useless to look up and reference when at the table.

Now, I am not surprised that the skill challenge system still needs work. I figured the existing system was workable until I read the fine print saying that the listed skill DC's were for ability checks, and should be increased for skill checks. And what they are trying to create is difficult to get right.

With combat, everyone has hit points, and everyone has a means to attack the enemies, or otherwise affect the outcome of combat. There is risk, meaningful consequences, and everyone can be kept reasonably involved.

The skill system needs to do much the same, but it has more to account for. You want everyone at the table to meaningfully interact within the challenge. You also want the difficulty to reasonably scale at all levels, and you need a way to have success or failure not hinge on a single role or a single player.

The core assumption is that a skill challenge is meant to be just as dangerous as combat encounter. Going for a 3 strikes setup in the skill challenge means that your players will not want to trust skill rolls for challenges that require a large number of successes to anyone who might fail the skill check. Lowering the skill DC's will offset this somewhat, but regardless of the situation, players are very risk averse; They will always take the option that gives the best chance of success.

The skill system is on the right track, compared to previous editions. Force everyone to make checks, and allow for a limited number of failures before the challenge is considered to end in defeat. Here are the core problems:

1) What is a reasonable DC setting which is plausible for an untrained character, but not trivial for an over trained / optimized character? Since the players always get a 1/2 level bonus, the DC needs to increase at roughly the same rate. This then boils down to picking a number that an untrained character will typically need to roll on a d20 to succeed.

2) What is the best mechanism to force the less optimal characters to make any given skill check without making success unattainable, and without punishing a player for having an effective build?

For the first answer, I think that a level appropriate DC scale puts the number needed for a non-optimal character somewhere between 13 and 15 on a d20. Maybe higher once utility powers come into play.

For the 2nd answer, I really do not know. Letting the players chose who make any given roll at any time will result in an optimal character always being chosen. Forcing everyone keeps everyone involved, but will create too many failures. Random selection? Maybe.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Anthony Jackson]

2) What is the best mechanism to force the less optimal characters to make any given skill check without making success unattainable, and without punishing a player for having an effective build?

Assuming the task is one that can be done as a collaborative effort, you have to make it so that having the less optimal characters help is still a net plus. That basically has to mean "their successes count, their failures don't". Two basic methods for this:

1) You have X rounds to get Y successes. Failures have no special effect.
2) The effects of failure are personal rather than group -- e.g. after X failures that character is out of the challenge, but the challenge isn't lost until everyone is out.