Skill Challenges involve resolution after multiple checks.
A 5th level character with +7 mods against DC 15 medium = 65% of success.
A 5th level character trying to get 8 successes before 3 failures at DC 15 = 26% chance of success.
D&D 5E Average skill modifiers by level?
- Thread starter bert1001 fka bert1000
- Start date
Skill Challenges involve resolution after multiple checks.
A 5th level character with +7 mods against DC 15 medium = 65% of success.
A 5th level character trying to get 8 successes before 3 failures at DC 15 = 26% chance of success.
overgeeked
Open-World Sandbox
Ah. Now I see the problem. Don’t strictly bring over the X successes before Y failures framework. It’s terrible design. As you say, it pushes failure. Use a looser setup. Import the idea of skill challenges, not the mechanics.
Reference other extended contest ideas, like group checks, if 50% of group succeeds, the group successfully does the thing. Or have success/failure on one check give advantage/disadvantage on the next. You botched the check to pick the lock, so made noise, now the check for stealth has disadvantage. Or have individual obstacles require 1-3 successful checks to overcome before moving ahead and the risk is lost time. HeroQuest 2E’s extended contests or the pass/fail cycle. 13 Age’s montages. WFRP 4E’s extended contests. The One Ring’s journey rules. Etc.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Sure, that's a known issue with 4e skill challenge math. You can work around it by changing DCs which mean things miraculously become easier or harder if your meta-context switches from ability check to skill challenge. Which is pretty much the wrong way to handle it.
Or you can fix skill challenge math in the first place, plenty of discussion out there on the internet about it.
Yeah, it's not the best one but can have its uses. As I said, I prefer Obsidian which is whole party based >X successes in 3 rounds = success, >Y successes in 3 rounds = partial success, <= Y successes in 3 rounds = failure. So 12 total checks in 3 rounds for a party of 4.
But regardless any extended contest with multiple rolls will have different success rates than a single check if using the same DC. I'm just trying to figure out DCs for whatever framework I use so when I use those frameworks I'm not putting the PCs into situations where the underlying probabilities are wildly off from my DM intuition / intent.
Unfortunately, this disconnect between what you think it means and the actually math happens a lot in professionally developed extended skill framworks. TOR 2e has an extended skill check system called Councils and Skill Endevors that is completly broken because it appears they didn't do the math.
Anyway, as long as am a confident of what a typical party skills looks like at each level then I can do the math.
You mean fix the skill challenge math by using a different mechanic and not X before Y? Sure, Obsidian is one system that does a better job than traditional skill challenges in 4e. There will always be some implications to the math by evaluating resolution over multiple checks vs. 1 though.
I have no problem though with switching from DCs to SCCs as mentioned above. It's a different "mode of play". Nothing becomes miraculously easier. The roll is just measuring something different. Some people don't like to switch modes like this -- from zoomed in action by action to abtract movement toward a goal -- but there is nothing incoherent about it.
But I've run a few games where we play FATE or Cortex for most of the game and switch to 4e D&D for set piece combat. So my group has a higher tolerance than most perhaps for switching between modes and still keeping the in character head space. It is easy enough for us to basically play 5e mostly and then ocasionally add a more abtract non combat resolution "mode" in the form abtract extended skill checks (in whatever structure).
overgeeked
Open-World Sandbox
All you have to do to fix the problem is to not insist on using X successes before Y failures. Done. But you're insistent, so feel the need to change the math.
So, again, all you have to do is remove the "before Y failures" or "in Y rounds" part of the framework and the problem melts away. Put an extended contest in front of the party and count the successes to determine their degree of success as a group. As you say, it's an abstraction, it's not one roll equals one action. The math is fine. The limit is what screws up the framework.
As long as you insist on keeping the limiter you're going to have that "problem". It looks like you're shooting yourself in the foot. Good luck. You'll need it.
Man. The limiter and predetermined parameters of success are the whole point of these kinds of extended skill resolution frameworks!
overgeeked
Open-World Sandbox
Another way to cut the Gordian Knot is to remove the idea of skill challenges as simple pass/fail endeavors. Use the number of successes and failures as a benchmark for the outcome. No failures means perfect resolution with no problems. Each failure means the expenditure of a resource to accomplish the task, failing forward, in something like an overland travel skill challenge. Or determine the level of resistance you meet on the far side of the skill challenge, say how alert are the guards in the place you’re breaking into.
