Skill Challenges that KILL

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Oh, I'm not saying you can't do it. But you have to be aware that if you're calling for hard checks, certain classes are going to have a LOT of options at their disposal while other classes might have 1, maybe 2 skills worth rolling.

I spend a lot of time justifying why Perception and Athletics are applicable to various circumstances. That's occasionally fun, or at least funny, but substantially less fun than the bard who can roll on 5 different skills without sweating having to justify things to the DM, and then can choose from 3 more with pretty solid modifiers if he feels like getting creative with description.

It just feels like a weird balance problem to me. They fixed the fact that combat was unbalanced but left non-combat rules completely lopsided. Everybody is good in combat. Outside combat... some classes are still utter dead weight in social situations, while others are dead weight in non-combat physical ones, but some can be good or great at a whole bunch of different things outside combat.

This doesn't matter as much when the stakes are low, but when you ratchet up the stakes we're back in a situation where some classes shine and others are a liability.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Oh, I'm not saying you can't do it. But you have to be aware that if you're calling for hard checks, certain classes are going to have a LOT of options at their disposal while other classes might have 1, maybe 2 skills worth rolling.

I spend a lot of time justifying why Perception and Athletics are applicable to various circumstances. That's occasionally fun, or at least funny, but substantially less fun than the bard who can roll on 5 different skills without sweating having to justify things to the DM, and then can choose from 3 more with pretty solid modifiers if he feels like getting creative with description.

It just feels like a weird balance problem to me. They fixed the fact that combat was unbalanced but left non-combat rules completely lopsided. Everybody is good in combat. Outside combat... some classes are still utter dead weight in social situations, while others are dead weight in non-combat physical ones, but some can be good or great at a whole bunch of different things outside combat.

This doesn't matter as much when the stakes are low, but when you ratchet up the stakes we're back in a situation where some classes shine and others are a liability.

Yeah, I don't quite fathom what the 'dumb fighter' thing in 4e is about. Presumably some kind of stupid tradition, but it certainly is odd that that ONE thing stayed in the game. Perhaps there was some theory that "fighters are better at combat, better not let them be skill monkeys too!" but that makes no more sense.

Frankly I just give them a 4th skill, lol. Not ideal but it does pretty well equalize things. Rogues and rangers have quite a few, but they also have the more niche skills and more that are preselected. Bards of course need no justification, it is just their shtick.

Of course you CAN spend a feat and get another skill too. It won't kill you The thing here is if a game consistently pits characters against skill checks to stay alive you see a LOT less hyper combat optimization. Kinda does make the game a bit more interesting.

 

[Riastlin]

Of course you CAN spend a feat and get another skill too. It won't kill you The thing here is if a game consistently pits characters against skill checks to stay alive you see a LOT less hyper combat optimization. Kinda does make the game a bit more interesting.

Personally, I am actually all for anything that makes the skill-related feats, powers, and items a little more desirable. I personally think that those choices should at least be considered (though not necessarily "must haves"). As it stands now though, by and large the better choice is to pick the combat related powers and feats (though items that grant skill bonuses are still good). Sure, certain DMs might make the skill related choices more attractive but I think the majority of games will show that combat related choices are better.

This is actually one of the interesting things about my rune priest. Since I decided not to go with the Rune Feats, I now have a lot more room for feat selection (particularly since Dwarven Weapon Training is basically a 2 for 1 until Epic). We've had enough problems with skill challenges in my group that I'm actually considering taking skill focus or skill training to try to help boost my ability in challenges. Even so though, its hard to resist feats like Superior Fort, Superior Will or even a multiclass that might grant a power or a some other combat bonus. It has at least become a consideration.

So yeah even as a player I think that I would embrace a system that made skill challenges and checks a little more meaningful if for no other reason than to make it a more valid choice for a PC to place more emphasis on her skills.

Again though, I still think you need to be careful when designing potentially lethal skill challenges just as a matter of fairness to the players. The single skill check of "crossing the rope bridge" works because you've given them fair warning (presumably) by describing the rope bridge as spanning a chasm that is 500 feet down. Thus the expectation would be if I fall, I die. In a skill challenge though this type of result may not be quite as obvious.

 

[jbear]

Oh, I'm not saying you can't do it. But you have to be aware that if you're calling for hard checks, certain classes are going to have a LOT of options at their disposal while other classes might have 1, maybe 2 skills worth rolling.

I spend a lot of time justifying why Perception and Athletics are applicable to various circumstances. That's occasionally fun, or at least funny, but substantially less fun than the bard who can roll on 5 different skills without sweating having to justify things to the DM, and then can choose from 3 more with pretty solid modifiers if he feels like getting creative with description.

It just feels like a weird balance problem to me. They fixed the fact that combat was unbalanced but left non-combat rules completely lopsided. Everybody is good in combat. Outside combat... some classes are still utter dead weight in social situations, while others are dead weight in non-combat physical ones, but some can be good or great at a whole bunch of different things outside combat.

This doesn't matter as much when the stakes are low, but when you ratchet up the stakes we're back in a situation where some classes shine and others are a liability.

your only as much of a dead weight as you make yourself, that's what my gandmother used to say.

My fighter/runepriest has 4 skills because he's human. His charisma is 8. He's a big mouth. He doesn't just opt out of social situations because I as a player am aware that a skill challenge is going on and I'm likely going to mess things up. He just gets the group from the frying pan into the fire! But he'd have the head of anyone who called him a social dead weight! He is a catalyst sir!

But on a more serious/practical note: As a player:

Seeing the balance of things in the campaign I play I could choose to pump my PC with combat options only. but he's already effective in combat. Socially, he's a dead weight So, when my PC was offered a gift from the king, his owner (me) thought a Skull Mask would be a good gift. +1 Intimidate! Yoohoo! 5% boost right there. And Resist 5 necrotic is solid. And when he reaches lvl 6 he's going to multiclass into barbarian and train Intimidate. +2 dmg all encounter long and we become a social power player! With a complete lack of tact! But who is going to argue with a man in a Skull Mask!?

So, there are solutions. And in the end it's a matter of taste. If you don't build your character to be at least mildly capable when it comes time to interact with the world without murdering anything, it's because you don't want to. Not because you can't. And saying the Bard has an unfair advantage in a skill challenge because of the greater number of trained skills, is like saying a cat has unfair advantage climbing fences because it has a tail. Alright, that's not true. But, seriously, whose more involved/capable in a battle, a bard or a fighter? Shall we compare a rogue and a bard and their to hit chances? Or perhaps the healing surges of a fighter and a rogue?

 

[jbear]

Personally, I am actually all for anything that makes the skill-related feats, powers, and items a little more desirable. I personally think that those choices should at least be considered (though not necessarily "must haves"). As it stands now though, by and large the better choice is to pick the combat related powers and feats (though items that grant skill bonuses are still good). Sure, certain DMs might make the skill related choices more attractive but I think the majority of games will show that combat related choices are better.

This is actually one of the interesting things about my rune priest. Since I decided not to go with the Rune Feats, I now have a lot more room for feat selection (particularly since Dwarven Weapon Training is basically a 2 for 1 until Epic). We've had enough problems with skill challenges in my group that I'm actually considering taking skill focus or skill training to try to help boost my ability in challenges. Even so though, its hard to resist feats like Superior Fort, Superior Will or even a multiclass that might grant a power or a some other combat bonus. It has at least become a consideration.

So yeah even as a player I think that I would embrace a system that made skill challenges and checks a little more meaningful if for no other reason than to make it a more valid choice for a PC to place more emphasis on her skills.

Again though, I still think you need to be careful when designing potentially lethal skill challenges just as a matter of fairness to the players. The single skill check of "crossing the rope bridge" works because you've given them fair warning (presumably) by describing the rope bridge as spanning a chasm that is 500 feet down. Thus the expectation would be if I fall, I die. In a skill challenge though this type of result may not be quite as obvious.

I think saying 'you have to be careful when you design a lethal skill challenge' is stating the obvious.

Do you not have to be careful when you design a lethal combat encounter?

Didi anyone seriously think the OP was suggesting: 'Oops that's three fails on that diplomatic skill challenge with the king. Sorry, he has you sent to the dungeon where a man in a hood cuts off you heads with an axe! Who wants pizza?'

A combat in order to be challenging and enjoyable needs to be carefully designed. If this combat is promoted to memorable, important and potentially leathal (as an adventure reaches a climax for example) then the design needs to be doubly careful and good.

This in no way changes when you come to skill challenges. Just throwing an old sock in a bag isn't going to get you much more than a lingering stink. Good, challenging, skill challenges need care and thought. If you want to promote them to climactic, lethal and memorable because the situation calls for it ... need I say it?

I think I'm starting to get a feel for why there is a large percentage of people that don't like skill challenges. Because they DO require careful design, thought and creativity for them to work. If you don't put that into them of course they'll suck.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think I'm starting to get a feel for why there is a large percentage of people that don't like skill challenges. Because they DO require careful design, thought and creativity for them to work. If you don't put that into them of course they'll suck.

I don't like them because:

1) Dramatically, they don't really improve on the "Roleplay and/or tell me your relevant skills that synergies and roll 1 dice" model from 3.X.

2) Mathematically, the multiple rolls against DCs can actually reduce your odds of success if you don't do it right, making balancing more difficult.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

your only as much of a dead weight as you make yourself, that's what my gandmother used to say.

Sure. As I said, I make an effort to use my best skills, and if that is a no go, I at least try to contribute secondary skills or aid another. There are plenty of ways to be useful in many cases.

My point, however, was specific to the concept of lethal challenges. When the skill challenge is trying to get a better reward out of the king and my lack of social graces means we get stiffed instead, that's fine. Heck, we probably got a funny moment or two out of it, maybe even a running gag. That's why we're there. On the other hand, when I need to roll an 18 or better on a d20 or someone dies, that's a little less fun.

So, there are solutions. And in the end it's a matter of taste. If you don't build your character to be at least mildly capable when it comes time to interact with the world without murdering anything, it's because you don't want to. Not because you can't. And saying the Bard has an unfair advantage in a skill challenge because of the greater number of trained skills, is like saying a cat has unfair advantage climbing fences because it has a tail. Alright, that's not true. But, seriously, whose more involved/capable in a battle, a bard or a fighter? Shall we compare a rogue and a bard and their to hit chances? Or perhaps the healing surges of a fighter and a rogue?

Now you're being kind of a dick. Would you honestly say that the 4e Fighter is somehow more useful in combat than the Bard? You can't remotely say that. Every single class has a full set of tools for combat. There is variety, but parity in effectiveness. However, classes vary significantly in how many non-combat tools they get AND how good those tools are. The appropriate comparison would be if the Fighter had all the standard combat tools while the Bard could hit just fine, but was not allowed to roll a damage die above d4, simply didn't have healing surges at all, and had a permanent -5 penalty to all defenses. That's the kind of parity difference you see in non-combat roles.

 

[jbear]

Now you're being kind of a dick. Would you honestly say that the 4e Fighter is somehow more useful in combat than the Bard? You can't remotely say that. Every single class has a full set of tools for combat. There is variety, but parity in effectiveness. However, classes vary significantly in how many non-combat tools they get AND how good those tools are. The appropriate comparison would be if the Fighter had all the standard combat tools while the Bard could hit just fine, but was not allowed to roll a damage die above d4, simply didn't have healing surges at all, and had a permanent -5 penalty to all defenses. That's the kind of parity difference you see in non-combat roles.

I'm not sure what weight you hope to give your argument be calling me a dick. The fact you place 'kind of' in front of it doesn't change the fact that you've resorted to insults.

For a start, a character with training in athletics, endurance and perception will do just fine in a deadly skill challenge. When the walls start closing in the bard can talk to it or hide in the corner all he likes and he's still going to be crushed. A deadly challenge will almost always involve physical skills, especially the ones your fighter is trained in.

Secondly, a fighter is involved more in combat than a bard, in my humble opinion. If he does his job right he'll get into the thick of things and pin down the largest amount of enemies possibly to make them all attack him. A fighter is cool undr pressure when swarmed. A bard will quickly be sent on his way towards death if this happens.

I'm not being a dick, as you suggest, I'm pointing out the fact that their are differences between classes. Some are stronger in some areas than others. Including in the amount if skills they train. This doesn't make turning up the dail of lethality on skill challenges somehow unfair for some and not for others.

Bards are capable in combat. But I do think that a fighter is slightly more capable. That's my opinion. And I couldn't really care less what you think about that at this point.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A deadly challenge will almost always involve physical skills

I can't completely agree with this, at least not in the context of what we see in fiction.

Sure, physical skills matter- and may even turn a failure into a qualified success- but "mental" skills are also often tasked, and if used properly, may even prevent the necessity of using physical skills.

Examples: Stargate SG:1's "Merlin" storyline puzzles; Indiana Jones' negotiating the path into the chamber where the Holy Grail was kept.

 

[frankthedm]

Yes they can, and sometimes they should.

IMHO if you get the same xp as for a potentially-lethal combat as for a skill challenge, there should be comparable risk. Generally "everyone loses a healing surge" is not a comparable risk to a combat.

Hell yeah! No Free XP ! Anything that provides XP, should have a comparable chance to cause character death.