Excerpt: skill challenges

[A'koss]

More interesting than I was expecting. The idea of using one skill to open up the easy use of another related skill to assist is pretty clever on their part.

Me likey...

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

I wonder about opposed rolls though...Bluff for example was an opposed roll versus Sense Motive in 3E....
Well, it is an excerpt from a chapter...

They addressed the issue of opposed rolls in social situations with passive Insight and Perception, I believe. Dumbed it down too much in my opinion.

 

[DandD]

So what would happen if a PC tried to impress the duke with his acrobatics skill? Would it be an automatic failure, or would it not count for anything?

Well, depends how you intend to use the "acrobatic skills", if you understand what I mean.

Though if you only mean doing some funny things like balancing on a ball, or doing backflips for entertainment, it surely is entertaining, but what does it help the duke directly? The goal is to convince the NPC that there is something to gain for him, after all. Unless the NPC asks or demands an acrobatic act from the PCs, I wouldn't see the benefit for the acrobatic skill either. It's rather, why should I send 100 of my best men to aid these adventurers to the Doomdark Castle-ruins (which is infested with Gnoll Marauders, by the way)? What's in for me? That would be an example, I guess.
That's why insight, following history checks, bluff and diplomacy might and should be applied, but a circus performance won't do it.
And normally, guests don't perform and beg simultaneously. A rich and influencial host would have his own entertainer to provide amusement for the evening, while the PCs ask/beg for assistance. It would be too shameful for the host, otherwise, if the PC-guests had to do things themselves.

 

[AllisterH]

It does say Primary skills which implies that secondary skills are available to be used...

 

[AllisterH]

They addressed the issue of opposed rolls in social situations with passive Insight and Perception, I believe. Dumbed it down too much in my opinion.

How so? Did Sense Motive become Insight?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

How so? Did Sense Motive become Insight?

Essentially, Insight covers your ability to read and understand the behaviour and expressions/talking of those around you.

 

[jaelis]

Well, depends how you intend to use the "acrobatic skills", if you understand what I mean.

Though if you only mean doing some funny things like balancing on a ball, or doing backflips for entertainment, it surely is entertaining, but what does it help the duke directly? The goal is to convince the NPC that there is something to gain for him, after all. Unless the NPC asks or demands an acrobatic act from the PCs, I wouldn't see the benefit for the acrobatic skill either. It's rather, why should I send 100 of my best men to aid these adventurers to the Doomdark Castle-ruins (which is infested with Gnoll Marauders, by the way)? What's in for me? That would be an example, I guess.
That's why insight, following history checks, bluff and diplomacy might and should be applied, but a circus performance won't do it.
And normally, guests don't perform and beg simultaneously. A rich and influencial host would have his own entertainer to provide amusement for the evening, while the PCs ask/beg for assistance. It would be too shameful for the host, otherwise, if the PC-guests had to do things themselves.

I was being a bit facetious with the example, but I think its still a valid point in general. For instance, a player might try to use the history skill to see if there was anything in the duke's background that would provide leverage of some kind. Evidently there actually is. But what if he tried to use history without first succeeding on a diplomacy check?

And it's not like the DM just says, "you can try bluff, diplomacy or insight." Because clearly the option to try intimidate is there.

 

[Cryptos]

So my questions:

1) When it says "Level" and the answer is "of the entire party" what does that mean? It implies sometimes levels will be specific? How do these encounters scale with level or is this just an XP thing.

2) Complexity 3 - any idea what this means?

3) Moderate DCs ... is this a specific number or will there be mechanics about this that we don't really grasp.

I do also note that it says "Moderate DCs" suggesting they could be used multiple times (each time must be a different character?) but then an easy DC (singular) indicating you can only use the history once. That sound accurate?

1) I think that indicates what a low, moderate, or high DC would be for the skill challenge - DCs vary by level. They'd almost have to, with the way that check modifiers increase (1/2 level + bonus...) So a skill challenge "equal to the level of the party" would mean that the target DCs are appropriate to the party's level.

2) It's the success / fail threshold, or so it appears. Complexity 3 is apparently 8 successes against four failures.

3) See #1... a moderate DC for a 1st level party might be 15 or 20, whereas a moderate DC for a level 20 party would likely be much higher (as they're adding 1/2 their level (+10) to their rolls.)

 

[hong]

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.

Eh, what one DM calls "impossible", another DM will call "very hard". It's just a formalised out for DMs who want the ability to call shenanigans on what they perceive to be cheesy exploits.

The "level" of the challenge probably sets the DC for the easy/moderate/hard checks; in turn, this determines how much XP the party gets from the challenge.