Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
official revision to skill challenge system
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jhaelen" data-source="post: 4389720" data-attributes="member: 46713"><p>I've already figured that in. That's why I wrote: The numbers I arrived at in the last three lines assume the average probability of success if every skill check is made by the one with the best chance, i.e. 78%, 88%, and 98%, respectively.</p><p></p><p>The introductory comparison was just meant to demonstrate how big the variance can be. It's why I assume the DC numbers were chosen with a single skill check in mind, not a skill challenge involving several checks.</p><p></p><p>What WotC seems to keep overlooking is that you _cannot_ use the same DC numbers for single skill checks and skill challenges; especially since you're longer required to participate in the latter.</p><p></p><p>There's several possibilities how to get the DC numbers and probabilities right for skill challenges. I'm not sure yet, which ones to use.</p><p></p><p>I also dislike that after the errata, 'skill focus' went from a must-have feat to a feat that is completely worthless.</p><p></p><p>It's further obvious they didn't fix all of the DCs that should have been affected, e.g. the ones for the traps. There's definitely further errata required.</p><p></p><p>These errata have been a classical case of overcompensation:</p><p>It definitely reminded me of 'balance patches' for computer rpgs:</p><p>If people are complaining that class X is too strong vs. class Y, they'll typically make class X stronger vs. class Y _AND_ class Y weaker vs. class X, thus reversing the original problem.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jhaelen, post: 4389720, member: 46713"] I've already figured that in. That's why I wrote: The numbers I arrived at in the last three lines assume the average probability of success if every skill check is made by the one with the best chance, i.e. 78%, 88%, and 98%, respectively. The introductory comparison was just meant to demonstrate how big the variance can be. It's why I assume the DC numbers were chosen with a single skill check in mind, not a skill challenge involving several checks. What WotC seems to keep overlooking is that you _cannot_ use the same DC numbers for single skill checks and skill challenges; especially since you're longer required to participate in the latter. There's several possibilities how to get the DC numbers and probabilities right for skill challenges. I'm not sure yet, which ones to use. I also dislike that after the errata, 'skill focus' went from a must-have feat to a feat that is completely worthless. It's further obvious they didn't fix all of the DCs that should have been affected, e.g. the ones for the traps. There's definitely further errata required. These errata have been a classical case of overcompensation: It definitely reminded me of 'balance patches' for computer rpgs: If people are complaining that class X is too strong vs. class Y, they'll typically make class X stronger vs. class Y _AND_ class Y weaker vs. class X, thus reversing the original problem. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
official revision to skill challenge system
Top