Search results

Since I said nothing of the sort, you will probably find your strawman more enjoyable to argue with, o logically challenged one.

How is this hindered by the rules now? Except, if they want to actually use a skill to perform a relevant action, the dice come out. Not if they start yelling out whatever skill strikes them and some weak excuse to use it. Otherwise, the players will have to rely on their planning and wits...

In light of: Yes, it is exactly the same. Rolling once, rolling six times, or rolling six hundred times makes no real difference. No single roll in a skill challenge is causally related to any other roll. It is identical to six separate Diplomacy checks, because that is all it is. Games...

I stand corrected, thank you. I am still seeing players just taking actions that are Easy to pass the challenge. If that means they simplify their actions until the DM calls it 'easy', it doesn't seem much different than having the player declare an Easy check.

If the DM vetos the use of a skill, then they can veto the use of any skill. We are back to 'pixel-hunting' for the 'correct' answer, as determined by the DM. Which is what this system is designed specifically to address. Modifying a skill is really no different. "You want to use Diplomacy...

Your disappointment is a black mark on my soul. What are your thoughts about the skill challenge system?

How is this not the exact same as deciding based on one roll? Perhaps there is another way... I know, the players can come up with a plan of action, and the DM can determine the results! Perhaps a roll or two where pertinent, but (this is the cool part) for the most part, the DM and players...

What skills you use isn't important to the skill challenge because the skill challenge isn't about using skills. You cannot simultaneously use a 'skill' to describe what the character is capable of and implement a 'skill challenge' system where the skill you use doesn't matter, as long as you...

Noting the problems with the skill challenge system is at least pertinent to the discussion of using skill challenges. As in: "the skill challenge system may actively hinder 'the awesome', and here's why..." Unlike, say, complaining about people not staying on some narrow, third party...

But more importantly, you can definitively say what the character doesn't know, which is how you determine whether or not a skill is applicable. With History (Orcs), you can definitively say that character doesn't know much non-Orcish history, and you can definitely say they can't use that...

Not really. History (Orcs) is much different than History. The former assumes a general knowledge of Orcish history, so knowing this hero or that chieftan is likely. But knowing the Goblin Ritual of Tribal Acceptance is right out. With the latter, you have equal chances of both. Having a...

I am sure you are correct, it is not a new mechanic with 4th edition. That isn't really the point. The idea is valid, it's the implementation that is the issue here. I would be willing to bet hard money that in previous incarnations, the skills used were better defined or more specific, and...

Agreed. I apologize for the diversion, but it helped make a point. At least, I hope it did. :)

Well, the way I understood it, and I am hoping someone comes along and clears this up, is that the players 'set the stakes'. So, they choose a Hard difficulty, which increases the DC, but garners more successes. So, using Athletics as a Hard challenge would involve vaulting up the tree...

A clarification: I believe, unless it has changed recently, that part of the system is the players set the stakes with the difficulty they want to attempt. The difficulty they choose determines not only the DC, but also indicates the level or number of successes/failures that result. So, with...

More of a side discussion, really. Of course, it also shows how even codified rules can be misinterpreted. Applying things like "common sense" or "what the DM decides" are not a fix for the issues raised about the skill challenge system. So, the DM decides handling the body-bomb roughly will...

Then, your statements about math have less validity than your 'laws'.

Point in fact: If b is directly proportional to a, the equation is of the form b = ka (where k is a constant). If b is inversely proportional to a, the equation is of the form b = k/a (where k is a constant). Now, even in statistics, the second can't be derived from the first.

Statistics have nothing to do with math.

I am pretty sure I do. A simple transformation gives us b/a=k. Now, you can say b=3, because there are three 'laws', and a=17,000+. So, 'k' would be the proportion we are looking for. Each post by Mr. Hong makes his laws increasingly less valid, according to his statement.