Excerpt: skill challenges

[ForbidenMaster]

Even though I have really enjoyed the non combat side of D&D in 3.5, a lot of times it really came down on the DM to just sort of wing it. There werent any base rules for dealing with getting chased in a city, or having to convince a mob not to listen to the opposition. At best you had the rules for skills, but even then it still came down to the DM having to fiddle arround and sort of wing it. Now it always worked out in the end, and it was always a lot of fun, but I am really glad that in 4ed there will be some sort of structure to "social encounters" that a DM can fall back on.

 

[DandD]

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.

I guess it still is up to the gamemaster to decide if one should roll a skill check in the skill challenge. It's when you try to intimidate him that you have to roll intimidate... But that's either an automatic failure (not so good mechanically, in my opinion), or simply a much much higher DC (which I personally would rather suggest).

 

[cferejohn]

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'm pretty sure that's still on the table. This looks like a guideline. I would be surprised if there isn't some text saying "if a character can come up with a convincing reason why another skill would be relevant, you are free to allow it."

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.

Meh. Do it yourself. It's *possible* for you to write a skill challenge like this one, but you are free to disregard absolutes. I mean, if you have a skill challenge where characters have to cross a 50' chasm with some rope, a grappling hook, and a fallen tree, I think you are perfectly within your rights to say "a jump check automatically fails".

 

[charlesatan]

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?

It's not in the stated rules but I think the suggested applicable skills are a suggestion (i.e. you're playing from a module) rather than a hard-and-fast definitive skill set.

As for your Acrobat/History question, I'd probably call it that you can make a History roll and success opens up the Acrobat "victory condition" (if applicable) although success in the History roll itself does grant you one step closer to accomplishing the skill challenge (which is different from the diplomacy + history roll as success in both entails 2 "successes").

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.

For me, it's about GM Fiat. Maybe as GM, I envision the Duke as not the type that responds positively to being intimidated. Sure, you can intimidate him, but instead of being afraid, he responds via anger (even if it might be suicidal). For me, the "penalties" are there so that players don't simply use every skill in their character sheet but have to decide which is optimal in the situation (and rack their brains). Ultimately, if you don't need it, it's easier to remove the Intimidate entry.

 

[Cadfan]

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.

I don't think the idea is that the Duke is un-intimidatable. I think the idea is that for this set of player characters, with what they have to use as leverage, they haven't got anything that will scare the Duke at this particular moment.

 

[hbarsquared]

Although I have loved the concept of skill challenges, up to now, I am unfortunately a bit disappointed in the preview. The "overview" portion said nothing new (besides the fact that we have a "CHAPTER" devoted to skill challenges; yay!), and the example was a lot more constraining than peoples' experiences.

I am hoping that the "choose your skill, roleplay your action, roll check, DM adjudicates" is still a primary method in skill challenges.

With that said...

I like some of the mechanics introduced in the "Template." I like the idea of having particular skills cause automatic failures, when used sparingly, and when used in conjunction with the DC spectrum (easy, moderate, hard). I like successful skills "opening up" other skills. From a DM perspective.

For instance, if the DM makes sure when presenting this noble NPC as one unswayed by intimidation, it would make sense for the use of Intimidate to result in an automatic failure. (Just as if you had a challenge where an NPC is portrayed as extremely urbanized: a Nature check should also result in failure).

Or, when a character has a successful Diplomacy check, the DM can then roleplay the NPC as having an obviously link with the History skill - perhaps this is a hint of the "free skill check when succeeding on a Hard DC?

Anyway, my appetite was whetted a long time ago, and the Skill Challenges CHAPTER will be the first page to which I turn when I get my hands on the books.

 

[malraux]

I would hope that the non-primary skills could still be used, just at a penalty. For the acrobatics example, if the party is trying to convince the NPC that they are the talent needed to infiltrate castle, and the rogue uses acrobatics to leap to the rafters and reach the roof in mere seconds, it indicates great skill in the party, just as the ranger shooting a copper piece in the air from 30 paces does. Sure, it shouldn't result in automatically "winning" but that's why the system requires many checks.

 

[Klaus]

Many things in 4E are evolutions from UA. Complex Skill Checks -> Skill Challenges. Level-Independent Benefits (and how to build an encounter) -> 4E XP system.

 

[Fobok]

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

This to me is a major issue with it too. I can see it being very difficult to intimidate a Duke surrounded by his guards, but I like to leave the option open. That's probably how I'll be running things.

 

[jaelis]

I would hope that the non-primary skills could still be used, just at a penalty.

That sounds like a pretty good way to do it. Perhaps that's how it is.