official revision to skill challenge system

[Stalker0]

What I find more interesting is that WOTC didn't just alter the skill challenge DCs, they altered all skill check DCs if I'm reading this right. I'm cool with that, as I found the DCs a bit high for all skill checks.

 

[Timeboxer]

What I find more interesting is that WOTC didn't just alter the skill challenge DCs, they altered all skill check DCs if I'm reading this right. I'm cool with that, as I found the DCs a bit high for all skill checks.

I find it interesting that they lowered all skill check DCs but apparently didn't change any DCs for the sample traps and hazards.

 

[Paul Strack]

What I find more interesting is that WOTC didn't just alter the skill challenge DCs, they altered all skill check DCs if I'm reading this right. I'm cool with that, as I found the DCs a bit high for all skill checks.

They did lower the skill DCs, but they lowered them too much. They dropped the footnote from DMG and slashed 5 off the DCs. The net effect for skill checks is 10 off the DCs, at low levels (higher levels are about the same as they used to be).

IMO, that's much too easy. Now that I've looked it more, I like the progression better, but they need to bump the DCs up by 5 more.

 

[JesterOC]

I find it interesting that they lowered all skill check DCs but apparently didn't change any DCs for the sample traps and hazards.

I guess they want the mosnter knowledge checks to be hard also. Good thing or they would have to change every entry in the monster manual.


JesterOC

 

[ac_noj]

To expand on what JGulick did, here's a look at level 1. Remember that under the new system up to two players can use Aid Another to assist a third player with a higher skill, so a level 1 you're getting up to +16 to your skill check.

Skill                 
Easy  -1    0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16
1     83%  90%  95%  98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2     68%  80%  89%  96%  99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
3     53%  68%  82%  93%  99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
4     39%  56%  74%  89%  98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
5     28%  45%  65%  84%  97% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
 
Moderate                  
1     34%  44%  54%  65%  74%  83%  90%  95%  98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2     14%  22%  32%  43%  55%  68%  80%  89%  96%  99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
3      5%  10%  17%  26%  38%  53%  68%  82%  93%  99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
4      2%   4%   8%  15%  25%  39%  56%  74%  89%  98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
5      1%   2%   4%   8%  16%  28%  45%  65%  84%  97% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
 
Hard                  
1      4%   7%  12%  18%  26%  34%  44%  54%  65%  74%  83%  90%  95%  98% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2      0%   1%   3%   5%   9%  14%  22%  32%  43%  55%  68%  80%  89%  96%  99% 100% 100% 100%
3      0%   0%   0%   1%   3%   5%  10%  17%  26%  38%  53%  68%  82%  93%  99% 100% 100% 100%
4      0%   0%   0%   0%   1%   2%   4%   8%  15%  25%  39%  56%  74%  89%  98% 100% 100% 100%
5      0%   0%   0%   0%   0%   1%   2%   4%   8%  16%  28%  45%  65%  84%  97% 100% 100% 100%

 

[Scud.NZ]

It good to see that player feedback has some effect.

However, I think the comments of Jester and Amy reveal something quite important. The system was stuffed from the beginning. Did they playtest this game at all? How the hell did they not notice?

The skills checks and challenges are such an integral part of the game, yes, they would have to change an awful lot of the products that are currently available and presumably couldn't change the products that are due to come out in the next few months without a huge fuss.

 

[Center-of-All]

The playtesters found ways around it? Most gamers aren't willing (or necessarily able) to do the math that Stalker did with the skill challenge system to demonstrate its problems. Most likely, a combination of aid another, ad hoccing with good skills, convincing the DM to use his best friend, etc. were used to make the challenges workable in their original context. Most gamers that I know, at any rate, would be more likely to make these sorts of adjustments to how they play then call the whole system broken.

 

[ac_noj]

Looking at the numbers, you've got fairly flat regions at the extremes where skills slowly scale and steep regions in the middle. Also the higher the complexity the steeper the scaling. All up a single point difference in the DC can make for a 20% difference in the party's chance of success, which is way too much.

Also, the moderate challenges are too easy, at least for my party. My group of 4 has an average high score (the highest score anyone has for a particular skill) of 8. So with Aid Another they're 100% likely to succeed on moderate challenges.
For Hard challenges their chance drops to 56%.

Since Hard DC is +2 levels, I might make up a new 'Tough' DC for +1 level and use that. Moderate DC+2 should do the trick.

 

[Xorn]

Is it just me, or by those numbers is the new system horribly swingy?

I mean, say you have an average check of +8 at level 2. 97% to complete a complexity 5 challenge. A "hard" challenge (meaning you bump up the moderate DC to 12) would be like 65%...

But if you have an average untrained check of say... +3 (level 2 remember) and slid the average of trained versus untrained towards trained, let's go with +6 being the average check... a 28% percent chance!?

All I can say is if you aren't trained in a skill, don't you dare Fing participate.

I've looked at this for all of an hour and I can't comprehend how they thought this was an improvement. Can someone please tell me what I'm not seeing?

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

It is slightly frustrating we are back to the 'everyone sit on their hands/roll stupid aid another actions while the face guy does all the talking.' model of doing things. I thought the idea was not to be there.