Excerpt: skill challenges

[Wolfwood2]

Doing something which I am absolutely sure to win 6 times is better than trying something with a high risk of failure.

I'd rather roll 1d20+15 vs. DC 17 six times than to try my luck with 1d20+8 vs. DC 20

I think the point you're missing is that one failure doesn't kill you. So what if it's roll 1d20+15 vs. DC 17 and succeed six times before you fail four times versus roll 1d20+8 vs. DC 20 and succeed once before you fail four times?

 

[Cadfan]

In any case, D&D is not a game in which the "interesting choices" that make up the gameplay stem from efforts at optimizing a series of die rolls by doing quick mathematical calculations in your head. For one, you haven't got the information that would be necessary for that. You might know your own skill bonuses, but you don't know the DCs. You have to infer that sort of information from the situation, and act upon it taking into account not only your character's strengths, but also your opportunities. This is sometimes referred to as "roleplaying."

 

[Torchlyte]

But what would that achieve? Intimidating a noble is quite hard unless you are massively powerful o have some way to blackmail him, but lets say the PCs manage to intimidate the Duke to support them. What kind of support would the Duke give the PCs? Certainly not honest support but rather unreliable one and as soon as the PCs show a weakness the Duke will exploit it to get rid of the PCs.

That sounds more like the result of a failed Skill Challenge (Don't forget, a failed challenge doesn't have to mean "No" but can also mean"Yes with bad side effects") so its quite logical that a successful intimidate moves you toward the "bad" result.

So the Duke can be intimidated, but both a successful and unsuccessful attempt will in the end get the same, bad, result.

That's something to remember as a DM. If the players use intimidation to get their way, they just supplied you a free plot hook that, when used, will increase immersion by showing them that their choices have real consequences. As for success vs failure, I would say it's a success if they get what they want (at least temporarily) and a failure if they get kicked out.

To all of you "intimidate automatically fails" haters. I say you automatically fail at reading comprehension.

It is simply NOT POSSIBLE to INTIMIDATE someone into TRUSTING you. There is no DC 10000000000000 check, it is not possible, because WORDS MEAN THINGS.

BTW, in my campaigns trying to jump to the moon automatically fails, even if you are on the highest mountiantop. I guess I railroad too much...

Exactly. The question then isn't whether or not intimidate should be an automatic failure, but whether the stated goal for the skill challenge was chosen properly. The DM is railroading because there's no reason that the PCs shouldn't be able to use intimidation to get what they want (except for "cuz I decided that the plot should go like this, guys"). If that brings later troubles, so be it. The example challenge here sucks because it makes a dumb assumption.

This is like arguing that a pit fiend's fire resistance is railroading, because it means you can't use fire spells to defeat it. Fire spells are for killing things, so if I can't use them for that in any one particular situation, the DM is a railroader.

Fire resistance is an innate physical quality that all Pit Fiends have. The capacity to understand social situations is an innate physical quality that normal human beings have. The Duke understands intimidation just like anyone else, even if he is in a position where effectively intimidating him would be difficult.

Remember Leonidas' reaction to being intimidated? He didn't even bother sending back the heads. . . He knew he was not more powerful than Xerxes and his army - that was not the issue.

Messenger-man failed his intimidation check. Maybe he rolled a 19 or 20 or whatever, but the DC was higher than what he had. It is concievable that LEonidas could be intimidated successfully by someone else through the clever use of circumstances.

Four responses.

1. There's no difference between saying "an effort at intimidate is automatically a failure" and saying "the Intimidate DC is 40" when you know the party's best intimidator has a +10 skill check and his allies, if aiding him, can only provide a further +8. Even on a 20, that's a 38, and a failure.

Yes there is. For the latter to be equal to the former, the DM would have to check the player's skill modifiers and design around them specifically.

2. Some people enjoy a game where, on a natural 20, crazy stuff happens. I've had DMs who would let you roll for anything, and no matter how unlikely it was, if you got a 20 they'd let it happen. Stroll into the Duke's courtyard, where the Duke sits, flanked by 30 heavily armed warriors, 20 archers, and 10 battlemages, and tell him you'll cut him down where he stands if he doesn't go along with what you want, even though at the moment you're weaponless and wearing rags? Roll a 20, it happens. But that's not for everyone, and I don't think the rules should be set up that way.

This is not RAW, so assuming it when making decisions about RAW would be dumb.

3. Success at a skill is based on more than just your skill multiplier. Its based on context. For some skills thats really obvious. You can't light a signal fire using only a dead fish, dead fish don't work that way. For some its middling obvious. How hard it is to climb a wall depends on what handholds are available. And as a result, some walls, those without any handholds at all, may be unclimbable. A wall of sheer, rain-slick glass, for example.

In order to be truly immune to intimidation you'd have to have no emotional attachments whatsoever.

4. When a DM is preparing, he wastes his time if he assigns DCs to things the players can't accomplish. If I have my second level 3e PCs visited by an incarnation of Pelor, for example, I don't work out the incarnation's hit points. I just mentally note that they can't kill it. Maybe some other set of PCs could kill it under some other circumstances (level 30 PCs wielding artifact weaponry, perhaps), but not this group right now. So why bother?

This is why #1 is not true.

 

[Mirtek]

ts based on context. For some skills thats really obvious. You can't light a signal fire using only a dead fish, dead fish don't work that way.

But I have such a high modifier in stealth, why can't I use a stealth check to light the fire with the dead fish?


PS: Maybe I can hide from the laws of physics so they won't notice me doing it

I think the point you're missing is that one failure doesn't kill you. So what if it's roll 1d20+15 vs. DC 17 and succeed six times before you fail four times versus roll 1d20+8 vs. DC 20 and succeed once before you fail four times?

If there's no penatly except having to roll five more times, I am going easy.

 

[jaldaen]

I'm wondering if this whole Intimidate debate might be solved by the idea of a "false positive" result. Sure you can use Intimidate on the duke, you might even convince him to give into your demands, however you have not proved yourself trustworthy and therefore although you get the aid requested, you get it with stings attached, or dagger in your back at some inconvient time... so you seem to succeed at the skill challenge, but actually fail it.

I like the idea of "false positives"... I wonder if there would be a way to work in "false negatives" too...

 

[Lord Zardoz]

I'd like to know the first part as well, as regards the second..

You're not *supposed* to whip it up on the fly.

You're not supposed to whip up combat on the fly either.

Maybe you, personally, can, but that's not the intent, and planning gives better results, most cases.

Good combat challenges are no less complex than this.

I see much of that 4th Edition advises as establishing a common gaming doctrine. It is easier to whip up something plausible on the fly if you have some good guidelines on how to do so successfully. Some examples:

If your players manage to start an unexpected fight, you may need to whip up a combat on the fly. You can do this in 3rd edition, but with the CR system, you have a lot of uncertainty about how to scale the difficulty in an appropriate manner. With 4th edition, you have a fixed XP amount tied to the actual difficulty of each monster, and you will know that you need a total of X amount of xp for the encounter to make it level appropriate. So with maybe 3 minutes of notice, you can look up in the MM the XP values for the monsters you have on hand, and then use the right amount for a level appropriate encounter. And with clearly defined monster roles and fewer miscellaneous powers, you will be able to use those monsters more effectively.

Similarly, you have things ready to go for a Level 14 combat. But your players refuse to co-operate and instead start trying to use various skills to acheive the goal at hand. All you will need to do is look up the appropriate skill DC's for the party level, decide how many Successes and Failures you want, and run from there.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Nine Hands]

<snip>

I think I will have some auto-fail skills, but only if it's very clear that it won't work to the PCs (the description earlier of a Nature check always failing if the NPC is clearly urban). I think I'd allow a natural 20 to be a "no bet" situation where it's neither a success nor a failure, mostly because I think most players would say "But I rolled a natural 20!" when I say "The Duke calls in his guards and bellows at you" in this example.

<snip>

Actually it would be really cool if the Duke does this then later contacts the party for a more private conversation afterwards, away from the eyes and ears of his courtiers.

 

[Creeping Death]

I actually like the version that folks here were bandying about. It wasn't "Roll a random skill..." it was, "Do a little roleplaying and convince me that your skill is relevant to the challenge." I liked that. It strongly encouraged players to be engaged and creative.

I also specifically don't like what others have said here they do like: That some skills earn you automatic failures.

It's the problem of absolutes, again. You're telling me it is IMPOSSIBLE for my character to ever Intimidate the Duke? Just a flat out failure? Bad designers! Bad! It may be a semantic thing, but it's important. Crank the DC up by 5 or 10 points, but don't tell me it's literally impossible.

Overall Skill Challenges are a huge win. One of the best and biggest steps forward for the game, IMO.

I know I'm late in responding to this, and I have not read the whole thread yet, so apologies if this has already been addressed.

The absolute failure in this circumstance could be that no matter what you roll and no matter who you are, the Duke does not like to be bullied. You may scare him, you may not, but the fact is he doesn't like it. If he is the type of person that would die for the sake of principle, then intimidate wouldn't work, not matter how good you are. I could actually see this as a false success. He is intimidated and will aid you with 10 archers or something like that, but as soon as the chance arises, those archers will turn on you.

I see far more RP opportunities for this type of mechanic. Imagine 3.xe Abyss, Diplomacy won't work, but intimidate will. The PC's must research where they are going and who they are going to deal with to determine the skills necessary to succeed.

 

[Ingolf]

Sure, but the player group isn't broken up and evenly balanced into social roles the way they are into combat roles. If someone takes the Intimidating Street-Tough role, do I have to provide encounters suitable for that? What happens if he gets invited to a noble banquet? I prefer these matters be handled through RP than have char-gen choices force the issue.

Fair enough - how do you handle it when the PC is in a situation that you'd resolve through "roleplay" without touching the dice - and he is in direct competition with another NPC? Both the PC and a prominent NPC are attempting to convince the Duke to back them in some conflict. The NPC in question has a reputation as a smooth talker. The player is trying to convince the Duke towards his side, but you as the DM are forced to take on the role of both the smooth-talking NPC and the Duke himself.

How do you resolve that situation without resorting to DM fiat, unless you let both the PC and the NPC roll a few dice against their appropriate skills?

 

[Cadfan]

Ok, ok, I can't resist any longer.

Ahem. By rules as written, 3e does not permit you to Intimidate a Duke into loaning you troops. Ever. For any Duke at all. No matter what. Go read the rules for Intimidate. Its purely a "smash people against the wall and make them comply" skill. By RAW, an Intimidated target functions as a Friendly NPC. But 1d6x10 minutes after you cease to pose an immediate risk of physical harm, the target shifts to Unfriendly or Hostile. Long term intimidation violates RAW.