A discussion of Keith Baker's post regarding the Skill Challenge system

[Stalker0]

I still plan on just ignoring the '+5 DC' in the DMG, since not only did it not work that way at DDXP, the math is _much_ nicer without it. While greater complexities can increase the chance in certain situations, they'll decrease it in others, and the generic math can't factor in a simple 'You can only use a skill X times' which I suspect will kick in every now and then.

In a few months, maybe folks will have a nifty keen solution that is simple, easy to explain, rigorous math... certainly seems like Stalker is working towards that. I can not sweat it in the meantime

Well I just finished my final ready for playtest version, so I hope its close

Also, one thing to consider with the "-5 DC" adjustment, something I didn't even think about until the later phases of working on my system.

When your base success is 75% (which is what it should be at the -5 DC, that doesn't leave you a lot of room to move up. For example, if the paladin uses his astral speech power, or the ranger uses his crucial advice power, you can get near automatic successes.

For some people, this is perfectly fine, use a skill power, get a big skill bonus. For others this could be a cause of concern.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Stalker0: great work on this.

Have you looked at they problem with the option of keeping the DCs per the book, but simply reversing the ratio of successes to failures? So rather than 4 successes before 2 failures, 2 successes before 4 failures? It's much more generous to the PCs wihtout having to monkey with the DC mechanics -- but how much more generous?

 

[grymckr]

I think the key thing making skill challenges work in Keith's games isn't the many different bonuses he adds, but that a failure isn't really a failure.

Keith has "total success" "partial failure" and "total failure." Let's describe it as "total success" "partial success" and "total failure" instead, as the difference between the two is a matter of semantics and beverage liquid dynamics.

Put that way, it's easy to imagine why "failing" a skill challenge isn't such a big deal, as long as you managed a few successes in the process as well. In other words, it's all right if the system is set up for the players to eventually fail as long as they get something for each of their partial successes in the interim.

I anticipate the (confirmed forthcoming) WoTC errata to be along these lines when they are pushed out.

Edit: I lied, no errata "confirmed forthcoming," WoTC is just "figuring out some stuff on our end."

 

[Mistwell]

Lower the DC probably is not enough help, actually. That’s because if you hit an unskilled guy who has to go - he will fail the skill roll on easy at best about 50% of the time and in some cases as much as 75% of the time. We are not talking just a few low rolls here (which you know you are going to get too). As one other poster has mentioned if you don't want to use Stalker0's numbers and stay close to RAW the best thing you can do is make the numbers of failures in a skill challenge = the number of successes. At least you won’t have the complex challenges be easier to pass that way.

Remember according to RAW you actually are suppose to roll initiative for the characters that means that if for some reason a character can’t delay (and I can think of quite a few situations where this will happen) there is little likelihood you best guy will go first. The party can easily fail a skill challenge before the skill mister can even go on a simple 4/2 challenge.

To my mind the DMG pretty much implies that you are *not* going to be able to assist a single leader for a fair amount of skill challenges.

I disagree. Having read the rules for skills, it's not just Ok to use aid another, it's very clearly encouraged in the rules. In fact, it's specifically called out under aid another in the PHB. And you can hold that aid another as a readied action, like any other action.

If you have no skills applicable to a particular challenge, you can try a secondary skill to add a bonus to someone else's primary skill, or straight out try an aid another against a DC 10. Which you should do, if you are in a situation where your primary skills don't apply well. Just like you should if your position on the battlefield doesn't allow you to attack well.

I welcome their fix, but I don't think "has no good skills for this situation" is part that needs to be fixed.

 

[Quickleaf]

Hey, I want to give a shout out to Stalker and all of you who have been working diligently to understand the broken mechanics of skill challenges and to create a working solution for this fun part of the game. I think Mike Mearls comment came because of your efforts. Thank you!

We had a meeting about skill challenges on (cue creepy music) Friday the 13th. We came to a few conclusions on what happened, what our intent is, and what we're going to do about it.

The system went through several permutations as we worked on it, and I think there are some disconnects between the final text, our intentions, and how playtesters and internal designers use skill challenges.

So, we've been listening and reading threads and figuring out some stuff on our end.

post on the official forums

I wonder if "some disconnects" includes failing? I appreciate the official word, but the languaging is so vague it deflects responsibility. I mean if you really think something needs fixing, there's no harm in saying so. It leaves me concerned about the integrity of the rest of the rules.

Also, from reading Keith Baker's blog, something popped out at me:

Intimidate might be an option... but one that results in automatic failure.

Come on, that is just fallacious not to mention contrary to 4e's design goals.

I've been noticing little comments tby designers hat suggest to me there was a lack of cohesiveness to the design team. It seems like there were either competing goals, folks who didn't agree with the goals of the new edition, or folks who didn't understand the goals.

I'm looking forward to WotC's official explanation of how the system ended up so fubared, but my faith in the playtesting process of WotC and the finished 4e product has taken a beating.

On the plus side, I'm more confident than ever in the inventiveness and rigor of ENWorlders!

 

[Pssthpok]

Jesus, these threads are crazy.

Gambler's fallacy, anyone? Someone might be able to reduce a skill challenge to a single x% chance, but that means next-to-nothing when one takes into account that what's being discussed in such a context is "the false belief that the probability of an event in a random sequence is dependent on preceding events, its probability increasing [or decreasing]* with each successive occasion on which it fails to occur."

Google saves, and ends the ongoing effect at the end of its round.

*added: mine

 

[mmu1]

Jesus, these threads are crazy.

Gambler's fallacy, anyone? Someone might be able to reduce a skill challenge to a single x% chance, but that means next-to-nothing when one takes into account that what's being discussed in such a context is "the false belief that the probability of an event in a random sequence is dependent on preceding events, its probability increasing [or decreasing]* with each successive occasion on which it fails to occur."

Google saves, and ends the ongoing effect at the end of its round.

*added: mine

...is it me, or does every one of these threads end up including the inevitable post about the Gambler's Fallacy from someone who doesn't get the statistics?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Jesus, these threads are crazy.

Gambler's fallacy, anyone? Someone might be able to reduce a skill challenge to a single x% chance, but that means next-to-nothing when one takes into account that what's being discussed in such a context is "the false belief that the probability of an event in a random sequence is dependent on preceding events, its probability increasing [or decreasing]* with each successive occasion on which it fails to occur."

Google saves, and ends the ongoing effect at the end of its round.

*added: mine

Don't beclown yourself. The Gambler's Fallacy is not applicable here.

 

[Tervin]

Jesus, these threads are crazy.

Gambler's fallacy, anyone? Someone might be able to reduce a skill challenge to a single x% chance, but that means next-to-nothing when one takes into account that what's being discussed in such a context is "the false belief that the probability of an event in a random sequence is dependent on preceding events, its probability increasing [or decreasing]* with each successive occasion on which it fails to occur."

Google saves, and ends the ongoing effect at the end of its round.

*added: mine

One of these two:

1. You have not looked at the calculations behind this discussion, but feel certain that everyone has done the math wrong.
2. You don't know how to do probability calculations, but are sure that other people have it wrong.

Which is it?

 

[WhatGravitas]

...is it me, or does every one of these threads end up including the inevitable post about Gambler's Fallace from someone who doesn't get the statistics?

It's because statistics and probabilities are among the least grokkable things in mathematics.

Added: The maths behind this post (Stalker0's thread is somewhere here) was checked by several people. And its right, because he got it by working from base principles, and you get the same if you use the cumulative negative binomial probability (Pascal distribution/waiting process) for the chance of failure (and invert it to get the chance of success).

Cheers, LT.