FourthBear
First Post
I just assumed it was Dennis Day.ravenight said:
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
A discussion of Keith Baker's post regarding the Skill Challenge system
- Thread starter Stalker0
- Start date
FourthBear
First Post
She was never a tenor, of that I feel confident. If WotC was really in trouble, I suppose they could bring in Larry Stevens.Nail said:
Nathal
Explorer
Stalker0, your posts are very interesting concerning the 4E skill system. In fact, I have a question for you that I'd like to discuss off forum, if you don't mind.
I'd PM you, but I don't have a paying account here on ENworld. So please email me at dan@dancross.com, if you've got the time. It's about game design in general.
I'd PM you, but I don't have a paying account here on ENworld. So please email me at dan@dancross.com, if you've got the time. It's about game design in general.
Morandir Nailo
First Post
Disclaimer: though I have the 4e books and I am DMing a game, I have not used or read the Skill Challenge system (mainly because of all the complaining about it), so take what I say with a large grain of salt.
That being said, for those of you doing the math: do you factor in the use of skills to change DC levels, as Keith illustrated? I'm talking about the gnoll encounter where the Fighter made a Nature check which lowered the Intimidate check to 15 (since he knew how to do it properly). See, if I was running the skill challenge, I wouldn't count that Nature check as one of the successes needed for the challenge - it would basically be the fighter aiding himself.
So, in other words: when you run your numbers, are you just rolling d20+mods against a flat DC and seeing how often you succeed before you fail? Because I think that really oversimplifies the problem; like an actual combat, a skill challenge can be modified by proper use of "terrain" (i.e. secondary checks) to make things easier. DCs and modifiers can fluctuate greatly depending on the PCs tactics. Like in combat, PCs in a skill challenge should do their best to grab every advantage they can (just like rolling a good knowledge check in combat can provide info, or a bonus, against a monster). I could be very wrong here, but I think that complicates things beyond just rolling some d20s and counting the results.
BTW if I am wrong, please feel free to explain why. I love the idea of skill challenges and want to implement them in my game, but I want to make sure they work before doing so.
Mor
That being said, for those of you doing the math: do you factor in the use of skills to change DC levels, as Keith illustrated? I'm talking about the gnoll encounter where the Fighter made a Nature check which lowered the Intimidate check to 15 (since he knew how to do it properly). See, if I was running the skill challenge, I wouldn't count that Nature check as one of the successes needed for the challenge - it would basically be the fighter aiding himself.
So, in other words: when you run your numbers, are you just rolling d20+mods against a flat DC and seeing how often you succeed before you fail? Because I think that really oversimplifies the problem; like an actual combat, a skill challenge can be modified by proper use of "terrain" (i.e. secondary checks) to make things easier. DCs and modifiers can fluctuate greatly depending on the PCs tactics. Like in combat, PCs in a skill challenge should do their best to grab every advantage they can (just like rolling a good knowledge check in combat can provide info, or a bonus, against a monster). I could be very wrong here, but I think that complicates things beyond just rolling some d20s and counting the results.
BTW if I am wrong, please feel free to explain why. I love the idea of skill challenges and want to implement them in my game, but I want to make sure they work before doing so.
Mor
Morandir Nailo said:
Sometimes yes sometimes no. As a baseline, I will look at the flat numbers without special bonuses....because special bonuses are special and therefore shouldn't be a "core" part of the system.
But I've gone much farther than that. I have looked at aid another in detail, looked at DM fiat's effect on the system, checked out utility powers and there effects, etc.
The Hitcher
Explorer
Keith's points are all very good, and I think they will work well when combined with a 1:1 success/failure ratio for all challenges. But as things stand, there's too much work to do to even make challenges 50-50.
After extensive fooling around with a program along the lines of what I discussed earlier, I'm ready to conclude that a) the system's most fundamental flaw is the increasing number of failures needed based on complexity - it would make much more sense as a flat 4 - and b) you have to go pretty far with your assumptions of players aiding each other, choosing skills well, or getting DM's best friend bonuses to make the success rate reasonable for skill challenges with an average DC of 20 given to a 2nd level party.
Even if you let the players use a secondary skill 2 times out of 3 to give a cumulative +2 to the next primary skill check, had them always roll their best skill (sometimes as a secondary, sometimes as a primary - assuming that skill is +11), and gave them a 50% chance of a +4 bonus from things like racial benefits, utility powers, DMs best friend and any other situational thing you want to think of, the result is still a 30% failure rate for complexity 2 challenges (which is actually reasonable, I think), but only a 21% failure rate for complexity 5 challenges, which is a problem. Change it to a flat 4 failures and the numbers are 15% failure rate for Complexity 2 (still reasonable - the party would beat 2 monsters of their level more often, but failure has harsher consequences againt monsters), and 52% failure for Complexity 5 (which is harsh, but not insane, again success is a bonus and failure only a penalty, not a game loss).
If you use average DCs of 15 for that same party, you can give half the situational bonuses half as often, have the party make primary checks half the time (instead of 1/3) and let players use skills they are trained in but not necessarily amazing at (+8 instead of +11) 2 times out of 3, and you get 23% failure for Complexity 2 and 13% for Comp 5 (11% and 40% with flat 4 failures), which is probably about where things should be.
Even if you let the players use a secondary skill 2 times out of 3 to give a cumulative +2 to the next primary skill check, had them always roll their best skill (sometimes as a secondary, sometimes as a primary - assuming that skill is +11), and gave them a 50% chance of a +4 bonus from things like racial benefits, utility powers, DMs best friend and any other situational thing you want to think of, the result is still a 30% failure rate for complexity 2 challenges (which is actually reasonable, I think), but only a 21% failure rate for complexity 5 challenges, which is a problem. Change it to a flat 4 failures and the numbers are 15% failure rate for Complexity 2 (still reasonable - the party would beat 2 monsters of their level more often, but failure has harsher consequences againt monsters), and 52% failure for Complexity 5 (which is harsh, but not insane, again success is a bonus and failure only a penalty, not a game loss).
If you use average DCs of 15 for that same party, you can give half the situational bonuses half as often, have the party make primary checks half the time (instead of 1/3) and let players use skills they are trained in but not necessarily amazing at (+8 instead of +11) 2 times out of 3, and you get 23% failure for Complexity 2 and 13% for Comp 5 (11% and 40% with flat 4 failures), which is probably about where things should be.
Morandir Nailo said:
Yes, yes, yes, and yes... been there done that got the t-shirt, they still don't work well.
Morandir Nailo said:
Use Stalker0's system.
Sorry to be so blunt but I've ran enough challenges (picture four or five challenges twice a week since the date of the first DDXP) that I'm past discussing it... just don't bother with the RAW for now.
The Hitcher said:
I've play-tested them all, they're not, and they won't.
In fact, just using a 1:1 ratio for challenges and nothing else will help you MORE than all of his advice combined.
Oompa
First Post
I kinda dont get the problem.. The big complaint is that the medium dc of 20 is to high at level 1 or 2.. that would come with to much failures..
Just lower the dc an bit then.. to 15 or 17..
It all comes down to what are the main skills for the challenge, if you have an challenge with alot of bluff and intimidate, but dont have the players with that skill.. lower the dc an bit so it is still hard because they dont have the skill, but dont make it impossible..
Just lower the dc an bit then.. to 15 or 17..
It all comes down to what are the main skills for the challenge, if you have an challenge with alot of bluff and intimidate, but dont have the players with that skill.. lower the dc an bit so it is still hard because they dont have the skill, but dont make it impossible..
