Without having read all the responses, I can point out that my group thought of doing skill challenges this way, but we discovered a very big flaw. There is potential for a skill challenge to drag out endlessly while you alternate between successes and failures. You could find yourself literally stuck in the middle and never approaching either end.
Crazy Idea: Using the Disease Track for Skill Challenges
SamuraiJackJr
First Post
That's why you put a round limit on it - so it only goes x rounds (3?) and then you are left with whatever you're on (partial failure / partial success) ... of course, if a lot of "maintain" rolls were made ...
Morandir Nailo
First Post
Exactly. See, the idea I had was to ensure that there was always a chance of partial success/failure, rather than it always being binary. The way I see it, the skill challenge should go until you have achieved complete success or failure OR X rounds (I still prefer just one), whichever comes first.
To combat the "stuck in neutral" problem, you could go into "sudden death." In other words, if you're in neutral at the end of your preset time frame, you go one final round, but the challenge ends as soon as you move away from neutral, whatever the result may be; even if it's on the first roll that round. This breaks the stalemate without dragging the challenge out forever.
Danmar: nice write-up! Looks pretty solid, I must say.
Mor
Thanks but still alpha. I'm going to rewrite a bit to make it more like the actual disease layout, I actually just read that this morning and then generate some random d20's (breaking out a set of d20's and rolling them at desk would be a sure way to draw some attention but maybe not the right kind of attention. "Aren't you supposed to be fixing servers or something, not rolling dice?" 
)
)Okay made some changes for what it's worth. Math could be completely off for all I know but it looks okay. Of course the original official skill challenge system probably looked alright at first glance too...
http://www.keyourcars.com/2008/08/04/scads-update/
There's a pdf there.
http://www.keyourcars.com/2008/08/04/scads-update/
There's a pdf there.
SamuraiJackJr
First Post
Looks nice! Thanks for putting this down - lots of work / brain-drain. I think the system as written offers a lot of flexibility; for example, you could easily reduce the track from 9 spaces to 5 (if that made sense to the DM) and not have to change the core mechanic.
1) It appears there are a couple typos; for example, the normal success reads "move it up 2 spaces" - I think it should move it up one space; also, the neutral position has the rules for a critical fail.
2) I like the time passage idea - these aren't 6-second rounds ! Good example and I'd like to see the physical challenge above adapted to your setting (though I think it's pretty easy to do on-the-fly).
3) What ideas do you have for scaling to a smaller/larger number of PC? As I mentioned above, it would be pretty easy to extend/shorten the track (though you may do that for other reasons than PC scaling). For example, my group has three PC, so I would probably say two primaries and one support or two primaries and one observer - other ideas/thoughts?
Wow, great ideas here - let's keep them rolling!
In terms of scaling to party size, I'd simply remove one position on the track per missing player. For your example of 3 PC's then make it a 7 position track. That gives them a chance to succeed in one round if they all take a role as primary and they'll have 6 shots in two rounds.
In terms of roles, I'd say you'd want a minimum of 2 primaries and the third could take the role of either support or observer. For four PC's you might to do it as 2-1-1 or another 3-1or1.
I didn't put it in there but I'd planned that the non-primary roles are voluntary, if the party wants they can certainly have 5 primary particpants. The Observer and Support are in there to give leeway for the group to allow characters without any skills to ride the coattails of the others and not adversely affect the outcome and that's pretty well based on reality as well as 'reality' I think.
I'll have to fix the typo's and errors tonight, I neglected to sync my memory stick last night so I don't have a current copy of the word doc.
The length of the legs could certainly be extended or shortened and if you make them unequal lengths then you're also adjusting the difficulty of the challenge. A longer leg = harder to achieve the end result.
After doing the rough math, right now as written a Moderate challenge (base 20 + level) is less than a 50% chance of success assuming level 1's with skill levels of 9. I know that it's possible to have a skill level of up to 15'ish at level 1, legally, 5 for Trained + 4 for stat + 3 for skill focus + 2 for personal racial + 1 for group racial. But typically only for one skill and in generaly I think a 9 is much more likely.
An easy challenge (base 15) with a skill level of 9, should end up with a success of some level about 70%+ of the time?
A hard challenge (base 25) with a skill level of 9, is only going to have some level of success maybe 25% of the time?
So you have roughly a range of 70% - 45% - 25% on Easy, Medium, Hard that it will be somewhat successful but wait there's more that throws those numbers off!
The chances to achieve total success are much fuzzier. Essentially the party has to get track length / 2 - 1 non-failures in a row assuming equal length legs. But to get total failure they also have to get the same number of failures in a row.
The percentages of success go up, perhaps significantly if you use the Major success rule because then each successful roll is worth two failures.
The use of the Sustain roll also offsets the percentages because it means that just because a roll isn't a success doesn't mean it's necessarily a failure.
Also the Heroic Interrupt can be used to offset one failure per round so that also increases the chances of as successful ending.
So in the end, the math on this is going to be pretty nasty I think to compute the chances. I'll leave that up to someone else.
All I need is a rough rule of thumb which I think I have now, that a Moderate challenge is between the Sustain system and the Heroic Interrupt option is a better than 50% chance to succeed. And an Easy one is pretty likely to succeed, probably approaching 85% likely while the chances of total success are less likely. And vice versa.
If you do actually need a binary result, total failure or total success, this isn't the best system. I would go with the original system, get X successes before 3 failures and use these base numbers (15/20/25) for your chances of success. The change they made in the errata to DC's made that system useless in the opposite direction but using a 15/20/25 it's reasonably okay to use for a binary result.
In terms of roles, I'd say you'd want a minimum of 2 primaries and the third could take the role of either support or observer. For four PC's you might to do it as 2-1-1 or another 3-1or1.
I didn't put it in there but I'd planned that the non-primary roles are voluntary, if the party wants they can certainly have 5 primary particpants. The Observer and Support are in there to give leeway for the group to allow characters without any skills to ride the coattails of the others and not adversely affect the outcome and that's pretty well based on reality as well as 'reality' I think.
I'll have to fix the typo's and errors tonight, I neglected to sync my memory stick last night so I don't have a current copy of the word doc.
The length of the legs could certainly be extended or shortened and if you make them unequal lengths then you're also adjusting the difficulty of the challenge. A longer leg = harder to achieve the end result.
After doing the rough math, right now as written a Moderate challenge (base 20 + level) is less than a 50% chance of success assuming level 1's with skill levels of 9. I know that it's possible to have a skill level of up to 15'ish at level 1, legally, 5 for Trained + 4 for stat + 3 for skill focus + 2 for personal racial + 1 for group racial. But typically only for one skill and in generaly I think a 9 is much more likely.
An easy challenge (base 15) with a skill level of 9, should end up with a success of some level about 70%+ of the time?
A hard challenge (base 25) with a skill level of 9, is only going to have some level of success maybe 25% of the time?
So you have roughly a range of 70% - 45% - 25% on Easy, Medium, Hard that it will be somewhat successful but wait there's more that throws those numbers off!
The chances to achieve total success are much fuzzier. Essentially the party has to get track length / 2 - 1 non-failures in a row assuming equal length legs. But to get total failure they also have to get the same number of failures in a row.
The percentages of success go up, perhaps significantly if you use the Major success rule because then each successful roll is worth two failures.
The use of the Sustain roll also offsets the percentages because it means that just because a roll isn't a success doesn't mean it's necessarily a failure.
Also the Heroic Interrupt can be used to offset one failure per round so that also increases the chances of as successful ending.
So in the end, the math on this is going to be pretty nasty I think to compute the chances. I'll leave that up to someone else.
All I need is a rough rule of thumb which I think I have now, that a Moderate challenge is between the Sustain system and the Heroic Interrupt option is a better than 50% chance to succeed. And an Easy one is pretty likely to succeed, probably approaching 85% likely while the chances of total success are less likely. And vice versa.
If you do actually need a binary result, total failure or total success, this isn't the best system. I would go with the original system, get X successes before 3 failures and use these base numbers (15/20/25) for your chances of success. The change they made in the errata to DC's made that system useless in the opposite direction but using a 15/20/25 it's reasonably okay to use for a binary result.
Last edited:
SamuraiJackJr
First Post
This looks pretty good to me. I'd like to incorporate this into KotS. Just curious - has anyone play-tested any of the ideas in this thread? Any lessons-learned?
Thanks!
Thanks!
I've done a few playtests, theoretical not 'in game' and it does work although I'm not sure as I get more involved in the skill system if I don't think the entire concept, Skill Challenges themselves, not the math system under them, might need a face lift and some liposuction.
I think after going through a lot of threads on them that the Disease system could use a 'required' check per round system for situations that it makes sense for.
Example:
Challenge:
Trailing the Goblins: The party wants to trail some goblin scouts back to their camp in order to do the usual thing that adventurer's do when they come across goblin camps.
Primary Skills: Perception, Stealth, Endurance, Acrobatics, Athletics
Support Skills: Intimidate, Nature, Dungeoneering
General Difficulty: Moderate - DC 20
Required Checks Per Round: Easy Perception, Easy Endurance, Moderate Stealth.
Failed Required Roll Penalties:
Perception, party loses trail and must make an Opposed Player Perception versus Goblin Stealth roll to find it again. If unable to regain trail goblins have gotten away.
Endurance, Party loses one Healing Surge until after their next short rest.
Stealth, Goblins are aware that the party is following them. Party must regain stealth next round at DC+10 or lose 6 points on the challenge track.
So that once per round someone has to make a perecption roll to keep on the goblins back trail, someone has to make an endurance roll to keep everyone from getting 'fatigued' and someone has to make a stealth roll to keep the party under cover and un-noticed or they run into an ambush.
I'll add something to the document tomorrow to explain this, hopefully al ittle clearer and cover those situations.
Where I've run into questions in general with Skill challenges are these:
The vast range of skill levels. At first level a character can range from 0 to 15 for skill level.
Unless you specifically customize your challenges for your specific group a general rule is going to never be right. For a group with all physical skills, they're going to fail social and mental's and round robin it.
There's also metagame issues where a player will take one skill in each likely group, for example, Bob takes Diplomacy, Athletics, Perception and he pretty much is going to come up well in most skill challenges.
I love the conept of the Skill Challenge but the underlying math that they revolve around the skills themselves that can vary by 15 at first level and I believe someone said as much as 36 by level 30 seems a bit broken.
And I'm not sure how to resolve any of it other than continue to come up with things that kinda sort work.
I think after going through a lot of threads on them that the Disease system could use a 'required' check per round system for situations that it makes sense for.
Example:
Challenge:
Trailing the Goblins: The party wants to trail some goblin scouts back to their camp in order to do the usual thing that adventurer's do when they come across goblin camps.
Primary Skills: Perception, Stealth, Endurance, Acrobatics, Athletics
Support Skills: Intimidate, Nature, Dungeoneering
General Difficulty: Moderate - DC 20
Required Checks Per Round: Easy Perception, Easy Endurance, Moderate Stealth.
Failed Required Roll Penalties:
Perception, party loses trail and must make an Opposed Player Perception versus Goblin Stealth roll to find it again. If unable to regain trail goblins have gotten away.
Endurance, Party loses one Healing Surge until after their next short rest.
Stealth, Goblins are aware that the party is following them. Party must regain stealth next round at DC+10 or lose 6 points on the challenge track.
So that once per round someone has to make a perecption roll to keep on the goblins back trail, someone has to make an endurance roll to keep everyone from getting 'fatigued' and someone has to make a stealth roll to keep the party under cover and un-noticed or they run into an ambush.
I'll add something to the document tomorrow to explain this, hopefully al ittle clearer and cover those situations.
Where I've run into questions in general with Skill challenges are these:
The vast range of skill levels. At first level a character can range from 0 to 15 for skill level.
Unless you specifically customize your challenges for your specific group a general rule is going to never be right. For a group with all physical skills, they're going to fail social and mental's and round robin it.
There's also metagame issues where a player will take one skill in each likely group, for example, Bob takes Diplomacy, Athletics, Perception and he pretty much is going to come up well in most skill challenges.
I love the conept of the Skill Challenge but the underlying math that they revolve around the skills themselves that can vary by 15 at first level and I believe someone said as much as 36 by level 30 seems a bit broken.
And I'm not sure how to resolve any of it other than continue to come up with things that kinda sort work.
Similar Threads
