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

[Harr]

Meh, all the stuff he said is stuff I've already tried and it ALL has a marginal effect at best. None of it even comes close to making Skill Challenges as written work well.

I found the entire thing very trite to be honest, almost condescending. Like if I have problems with the Skill Challenge system it's because I can't figure out that a 20 should be a critical success or that I should reward clever ideas, or aiding or any other number of perfectly obvious basic newbie-DM concepts? Come on :eyeroll:

 

[unan oranis]

It is not at-will. It's an encounter power. Rangers get 0 at-will Utility powers.

er, whoops.

Still, for a skill challenge where you can make your attempts at 5 minute intervals, such as navigating a jungle or some-such, this ability would destroy.

 

[ravenight]

My take on the whole thing is that the system is great as a framework, but the guideline DCs that make sense for characters doing something out of the ordinary in combat are not appropriate to determining DCs for a skill challenge.

I think each of the DMs that have been running skill challenges in playtests has had some different takes on challenge design (note that the Heathen skill challenges include ways for the player to make the roll vs. an easy DC with a potential extra penalty for failure, or a hard DC with a potential extra bonus for success), on the specific application of DCs and on house rules related to challenges. The framework is great - make skill rolls in initiative order and try to find ways to generate successes; screw up too much and you fail - but the actual balance as presented in the DMG is way off (assuming you use the +5 for skill checks on page 42).

A much better set of guidelines would have been to tell DMs to set the base DC at 15 + 1/2 char level and to be sure that certain skill checks boosted other ones, that there was a variety of harder and easier check DCs, and that there were a lot of secondary skills that can affect the challenge without directly contributing to success or failure. Essentially, that about half the characters should be doing something for which success results in a +2 or +5 to a certain "real" check, and failure has either no consequence, costs some resource (like money), or gives a -2 penalty on some check.

Partial success, the critical rule, and the action point rule are all good house rules that hopefully will make it into an errata or at least a Dragon article or something, but like he says, the key to making this system work is designing appropriate challenges, and right now that means setting different DCs from what the DMG suggests (and ignoring silly rules like only allowing 1 use of a seconardy skill).

 

[Nail]

For the most part, I found Mr. Baker's comments problematic. Not only did he use "house rules" to make the system actually work (why aren't these house rules in the DMG? You are a 4e designer, Mr Baker!), but he still seems to think the system doesn't work because we aren't using it right (excuse me, Mr. Baker, but most of us have gamed before --> we already know the ole DM tricks).

First of all, Mr. Baker speaks about the DM's best friend: The +2 to reward creative thinking:

With this suggestion of his, Mr. Baker makes it quite clear that he has not done the math. Quite clear.

The problem isn't fixed by a mere +2, dearie.

So Aid Another is definitely a part of skill challenges, though not necessarily always a part.

This is a BIG oversight. Essentially, PCs must use Aid Another, or they can't win. This is not spelled out in the DMG, and given it's obvious importance, it must be.

"In order for your PCs to have a reasonable chance of success, they should always Aid Another. Always.

Mr. Baker continues with his article and dives into the realm of utility powers.

Stalker0, this is called "grasping at straws". That's what Mr. Baker is doing, as he sees a key peice of 4e go down in flames.

Mr. Baker's last main comment deals with partial successes in a skill challenge.

...and this is spelled out in the DMG where, exactly? If it's not in the DMG, it's just another Mr. Baker house rule.

And I think in the long run that's my final point about the system. A skill challenge equal to my party's level isn't supposed to be so challenging that I need utility powers, DM fiat, and aid another to have a good shot at beating it, not to mention that every player gets to use one of their best skills, which isn't always possible either.

Agreed.

That's what I was hoping for. Instead I get a system that needs a permanent +6 bonus right outta th' box, and some cludge to make more complex challenges slightly harder than less complex challeneges.

 

[Contents May Vary]

Based purely on that essay I'm going away with the impression skill challenges are too difficult even for the designer.

Are you labouring under the misapprehension that Keith baker designed the rules for skill challenges? If so, it doesn't seem very likely that you actually read the thread that was linked...

 

[Contents May Vary]

Why aren't these house rules in the DMG? You are a 4e designer, Mr Baker!/

What part of Keith Baker's post that said "I'm not a 4E designer or a WotC staffer" did you fail to comprehend?

Did you not even read the thread that you are talking about?

 

[Nail]

Huh.

I did read the post. I shall go to re-read it now. :embarrassed:

 

[Contents May Vary]

<Edit: Content now irrelevant>

 

[Vempyre]

Although the maths are interesting, nothing beats the experience itself. I am pretty sure that once I have a few challenge designs under my belt I will have no problem with them (and by that I mean using them mostly as described in the DMG and Keith's advices on what it all means).

It was my 1st gut feeling when reading the challenges part last week, and it still remains so even after seeing the math. Even though the math is interesting, it only tells me that designing plain challenges won't work, I will have to design interesting challenges with twists and bonuses for this or that, which will only make them way more fun anyway.

 

[Nail]

What part of Keith Baker's post that said "I'm not a 4E designer or a WotC staffer" did you fail to comprehend?

Did you not even read the thread that you are talking about?

In Mr. Baker's original post, he does NOT say "I'm not a 4E designer or a WotC staffer".

That - of course - does not make him a 4E designer or a WotC staffer, obviously. And, just as obviously, I made a mistake and mistook him for one. Oopps.