Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dave Turner" data-source="post: 4285746" data-attributes="member: 12329">Ok, so help me with this scenario:Let's assume a conscientious DM who wants to give each character a chance to shine (meaningfully contribute) in every skill challenge.&nbsp; Table 3 shows that, with the +5 DC footnote stripped out, a skill challenge with 5 &quot;medium&quot; characters has very respectable chances of success, both on the individual and overall level.On average, a 4e PC will have 4 trained skills and, thanks to ability and racial modifiers, probably be &quot;medium&quot; in at least 2 of them.&nbsp; So in a party of 5 PCs, we'll have ten areas of &quot;medium&quot; competency.&nbsp; We might assume some overlap, like three characters who are all &quot;medium Bluffers&quot;, but that shouldn't affect my hypo as I understand it.Our hypothetical DM designs a skill challenge that focuses on at least one skill that one player has at &quot;medium&quot;.&nbsp; For our hypo, it's a social challenge in which the DM chooses Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight, and History (we've got two medium Bluffers in the party, so the DM can kill two birds with one stone by choosing Bluff).&nbsp; The DCs for these medium skills are set at the moderate level according to the DMG table without the footnote, i.e. the assumptions of Table 3.What we seem to have is 5 medium skill characters who are attempting to overcome a skill challenge.&nbsp; It's not a case of 1 medium skill character who is, for sake of argument, skilled in Bluff, accompanied by four &quot;bad&quot; Bluff characters scrambling to Aid #5's Bluff (recall that in order to Aid Another, one must roll the same skill that one is trying to Aid).&nbsp; We've got 5 medium skill characters, rolling independently and without Aid, who have very decent chances of success according to Table 3.In other words, if we assume a conscientious DM who tailors a skill challenge to his party using the &quot;unfootnoted&quot; DCs, the problem seems to be substantially reduced.&nbsp; If it's reasonable to assume a conscientious DM, then doesn't Ockham's Razor point us to an innocent error by WotC with the +5 DC footnote?EDIT:&nbsp; I just remembered, Stalker0, that your assumptions are for a Complexity 5 challenge (12 successes v. 6 failures).&nbsp; Do the probabilities worsen, for ALL tables, if the complexity starts to drop?&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dave Turner, post: 4285746, member: 12329"] Ok, so help me with this scenario: Let's assume a conscientious DM who wants to give each character a chance to shine (meaningfully contribute) in every skill challenge. Table 3 shows that, with the +5 DC footnote stripped out, a skill challenge with 5 "medium" characters has very respectable chances of success, both on the individual and overall level. On average, a 4e PC will have 4 trained skills and, thanks to ability and racial modifiers, probably be "medium" in at least 2 of them. So in a party of 5 PCs, we'll have ten areas of "medium" competency. We might assume some overlap, like three characters who are all "medium Bluffers", but that shouldn't affect my hypo as I understand it. Our hypothetical DM designs a skill challenge that focuses on at least one skill that one player has at "medium". For our hypo, it's a social challenge in which the DM chooses Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight, and History (we've got two medium Bluffers in the party, so the DM can kill two birds with one stone by choosing Bluff). The DCs for these medium skills are set at the moderate level according to the DMG table without the footnote, i.e. the assumptions of Table 3. What we seem to have is 5 medium skill characters who are attempting to overcome a skill challenge. It's not a case of 1 medium skill character who is, for sake of argument, skilled in Bluff, accompanied by four "bad" Bluff characters scrambling to Aid #5's Bluff (recall that in order to Aid Another, one must roll the same skill that one is trying to Aid). We've got 5 medium skill characters, rolling independently and without Aid, who have very decent chances of success according to Table 3. In other words, if we assume a conscientious DM who tailors a skill challenge to his party using the "unfootnoted" DCs, the problem seems to be substantially reduced. If it's reasonable to assume a conscientious DM, then doesn't Ockham's Razor point us to an innocent error by WotC with the +5 DC footnote? EDIT: I just remembered, Stalker0, that your assumptions are for a Complexity 5 challenge (12 successes v. 6 failures). Do the probabilities worsen, for ALL tables, if the complexity starts to drop? :) [/QUOTE]

Verification