Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheIsland" data-source="post: 4126042" data-attributes="member: 63268">You have certainly described an exciting encounter, Harr, but I don't understand a few points in it.  For example, if the trap goes off after 4 failures, how does the Wizard failing to talk to the Dryad or the Samurai not knowing his history very well contribute to the trap going off?Also, it's a trap, right?  Are we lessening the rogue's detect traps ability by turning what should be for him a simple die roll into something else?  (Even if that something else is a lot cooler?)I think xechnao is asking a different question altogether.  The idea is that if I have to roll a d20 + modifier vs a DC then, from a probabilistic decision-making standpoint, that is absolutely no different than rolling d20 + modifier vs a DC multiple times trying to accumulate X successes before Y failures.  Both approaches have a single calculable probability associated with them; it matters not that the second approach takes multiple rolls.  From a player deciding what to do point of view, given the probabilities the rules present, nothing has been added.What the 4e skill challenge system seems to do is abstract the normal player's decision to the entire group. The DDXP example of the party trying to flee the town by making a certain number of skill checks showcases this.  If we had one player controlling the entire party, then the party-character just makes a Flee Town check vs DC 20 and we're done with it. However, there is no party-character and there is no Flee Town skill. Instead, you have to build such a mechanic out of the available skills possessed by each character.  So, while nothing has been gained from a player-decision-making point of view, something HAS been gained from a group-problem-solving point of view.And this is what Harr's example shows us.  While he steals the rogue's thunder to give action to the entire table, he is showing how the 4e skill system can be used as a PARTY Detect Traps skill check.  Perhaps the system is best suited for skill checks that individuals don't already possess, but that could be a matter of taste.Why X successes before Y failures?  Because that's the easiest way to build this party-character entity.  You could run the numbers and calculate the appropriate modifier and have one player roll d20 + modifier vs DC to see if the party succeeds, but that would be very cumbersome.  So, they have chosen to implement it in a way that makes more sense and flows more readily from current gameplay.The original post by xechnao is absolutely correct that for a given player whether you roll once or multiple times doesn't matter under normal circumstances (all it does is give the player a chance to quit early if it looks like things are going against him, provided that there is a difference between quitting and failing, which in many cases there may not be.)  However, what this system does do well is allow the entire party to essentially Voltron-up into a single character to contribute to a 3e style single skill check.  And that's potentially pretty cool.It would be better, of course, to port the combat rules more explicitly to non-combat encounters.  Say that Fleeing the Town has 30 HP and players have skills (and powers!) that allow for attack rolls and damage vs this encounter, and it is run as a more traditional combat.  However, what has been presented is much closer to this than anything codified in the 3e rules, and that's pretty great.</blockquote>

Verification