D&D 4E 4e skill system -dont get it.

[Hussar]

Likewise, I've argued extensively over the intricasies of how a search check is best resolved in play, and while not every DM has agreed with me, I think a reasonable case can be made that specific propositions like "I search for a hidden panel behind the painting by stripping the plaster off with my axe" involve search tasks of lower (perhaps even trivial) DC than general propositions like "I search the room [5' square at a time]." Likewise, the proposition, "I search the desk." has a different meaning than, "I search the desk but don't yet open any of the drawers." This is particularly clear if opening the drawers carries some consequence (sets of a trap, releases a creature, reveals nothing because the clue is in a drawer). Hense, a player which provides in game context for how he is searching is influencing the skill system even in 3e

Just calling this bit out.

You are exactly right. If I, as the player, give more exacting description of my actions, that should have an impact on the resolution of the action in 3e.

But, by RAW, it doesn't. A search check checks a 5 foot cube. End of story as far as RAW is concerned. The DC for both checks you outlined should be, by RAW, identical. If I search the desk, I search the desk, regarless of how I describe it.

Now, I agree with you that a DM will likely take the description into account, but, that's not the issue here. The issue here is how the rules are presented in the RAW. There is nothing in the text of the Search skill which talks about more detailed actions. You make your search check, you find/don't find something. You don't state what you are looking for or how. You simply move within 10 feet and roll your Search check.

That's where the difference is coming in I think. 4e will explicitly (apparently) tell all players that describing what they want to do before making a skill check is imperative. In a skill challenge, you should not be able to simply Take 20 on a Search check and find everything you could possibly find in that 5x5x5 space.

 

[Celebrim]

Just calling this bit out.

You are exactly right. If I, as the player, give more exacting description of my actions, that should have an impact on the resolution of the action in 3e.

But, by RAW, it doesn't.

This is not clear, and the way I read it, the rules don't take a strong stand on the issue either way but instead leave the matter up to individual DMs. The skill rules, as is typical for D&D, don't address how the game should be played - merely provide tools for playing the game you decide you want to play

For example, page 58 of the 3.0 player's handbook concerning how skills are used in play contains several short examples, including the following: "Unsucessful at winning the cleric's favor with song, Devis tries to sway her with words. He explains that he and his party are good people and that helping them would in turn help many others. Devis is trying to use the Diplomacy skill, which he doesn't have (he has 0 ranks in diplomacy), so he doesn't get to add any ranks to his skill check, but he does get to add his +2 Charisma modifier. The DM secretly sets the DC at 20, and Devis's player rolls 19 on the d20 for a result of 21. The cleric smiles and agrees to help Devis and his party."

This example of play is short, but certainly in line with my description of how skills work in play. We could easily rewrite the above description such that Devis's player did not need to describe what Devis was doing (that is outline the argument), only describe what his intention was (to persuade the cleric to help).

3e gives DM's wide latitude in setting the DC's for tasks and applying circumstantial modifiers to rolls. It provides very little guidelines for why the DM should set particular DC, but the examples provide hint that it can be just about any reasoning that a particular DM finds reasonable.

Certainly there is nothing in the RAW which suggests descriptive player propositions should not be taken into account, end of story. And, "stop me if you've heard this", but what the rules don't forbid, they permit.

4e will explicitly (apparently) tell all players that describing what they want to do before making a skill check is imperative. In a skill challenge, you should not be able to simply Take 20 on a Search check and find everything you could possibly find in that 5x5x5 space.

First of all, I believe, "I search the room." is a valid player proposition and one that involves a high degree of difficulty in adjudicating only in some corner cases. As a practical matter, the player should not have to describe his actions in great detail all the time.

Secondly, the notion of either 'taking 20' on a search check and 'searching a 5'x5'x5' space' seems so opposed to everything that a skill challenge seems to represent, that I would imagine both are meaningless even if a skill challenge doesn't explicitly require player narration of thier actions to any degree beyond the most superficial.

 

[FireLance]

There is nothing wrong with that. I'm just being very open about the fact that I play lots of traditional card games, collectible card games, modern and classic strategy board games, PnP and computer war games, and sports and tend to have been parts of gaming groups where this was true of everyone. Hense, a certain amount of player challenge is inherent in my reason for gaming. That isn't to say that I care nothing for emmersion or role play. If I did, I'd stick to games designed to be fair and competitive rather than playing RPG's, but it does mean that I'm willing to sacrifice a certain level of pure simulationism for the sake of what I consider important game play. I don't want to figure out the answer to the riddle by rolling against, "Knowledge (Puzzles and Enigmas)". I want to figure out the riddle. I'm willing to put up with a bit of well constructed 'pixel bitching' (as one opponent of this style of play calls it). I like adventure games. Heck, I like 'Humongous Cave' and 'Zork'. I'm willing to tolerate some DM fiat in exchange for resolving social interaction through elaborate in character conversations which depend on player wit and intelligence, rather than letting my character persuade the reluctant noblemen with a diplomacy check.

The good thing AFAIC is that traditionally, D&D has let each individual table resolve these question for themselves. The D&D rules typically take a very loose stand on these technicalities of play, so if you want to play D&D as high simulationism or D&D according to its gamist wargaming roots the rules would do little to get in the way. Whether that is going to change and some groups will no longer find thier preferred style of play supported in 4e remains to be seen.

On this issue, one advantage that I see in having a system where multiple successes are required to overcome a challenge (such as the 4e skill system) is that you can have a simpler and more explicit framework to describe how much you allow player ability to compensate for character ability. If you required three successful skill checks to persuade a nobleman, for example, you could allow player ability to contribute up to one, two, or all three successes, depending on many successful skill checks you want to require of the character. Conceptually, it's not very different from the 3e idea of allowing player ability to add a bonus to the skill check, but it seems more clear and intuitive (at least to me) to say that I would not allow player ability to contribute more than half the necessary number of successes than to say that I would not allow player ability to grant more than a +4 bonus to a skill check.

 

[dimonic]

I will try to apply my OP to what you are saying here. You can calculate the probability odds of this guide (say X% chances of overall success or failure) and equally check them with only one roll. Why do you need to throw multiple times the dice when you can get the same mechanical effect by rolling just one, from a mechanical perspective is beyond me.

Actually not so - having multiple rolls for a single resolution will broaden the bell curve (in d20, create a bell curve). This means the game will be less tippy - that one roll does not automatically spell success or disaster.

Additionally, it will allow many members of the group to get in on the action, as opposed to the one member who has the "class skill", and fosters team play - and also allows some of the more unusual skill choices to get some play.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Please enlighten me on this one. Skill system still is just about your skill checks right? So mechanically I do not understand the difference of one check versus multiple checks that count number of successes versus failures within a limited scope of attempts (max 5 from what I know). Probabilities and statistics play exactly the same role: you just need to count your probabilities before deciding how to roll the dice and so make the right decision. It is not like combat where new data may come round after round (ie new monsters, finding out about a monster ability you did not know before etch) so you have to play it out. 4e skill system just seems needlessly more complicated for what it is. Is it something else I do not get?

The Skill system is not the same thing as a Skill challenge.

If you need to jump over a hole in mid combat, that would just be an Athletics check, and you either succeed or you do not.

If the DM wants to build an entire encounter around a series of skill checks, the Skill Challenge system comes into play. The DM chooses a number of successes before number of Failures, and describes the situation. The players then decide how to deal with the situation at hand using which ever skills they think best apply.

If the DM is convinced the skill is reasonably applicable, the skill check is rolled, and the DM pulls some narrative out of his arse to describe the situation. Although it is an assumption, I do not expect the players to be able to use a Diplomacy check to help get across an unstable bridge over an active volcano.

The point of the skill challenge is it allows the DM to create flexible encounters that aren't dependent on the players knowing exactly what skill check to use. Because the players have some choice in how they deal with the situation, rather than just asking the DM what check they need to make, it gets the players much more involved in the encounter.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[specks]

Celebrim, coming in late here (boy this thread has gotten long) and I may have missed some things you're saying but:

1) How would you best go about fixing the problem you're seeing so far with the resolution system?
2) Which skill system do you think is the best you've run across?
3) Can you discuss from some of you're previous sessions how your group has resolved some of the issues that have been dealt with in this thread?

Thank You