Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RyvenCedrylle" data-source="post: 4390040" data-attributes="member: 66726">Firelance and Frostmerrow had come up with an alternate system on the homebrew forums that addressed some issues that the current skill system and even Stalker0's Obsidian (which, btw is a solid system - no slight to Stalker0 for all his hard work here <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />) didn't address directly.&nbsp; It didn't catch on, and that's fine.&nbsp; I won't detail it here, but I do want to bring up the theory behind it for public consideration.&nbsp;In 4e, it's very simple to write up a trap or monster.&nbsp; The designers have made it very clear how that works.&nbsp; Why is it that skill challenges don't have statblocks?&nbsp; Furthermore, half the fun of a combat encounter is that stuff gets to hit back.&nbsp; If combat counted failures in the same sort of way the current official skill challenge system does, it would be just as boring and would discourage total character involvement in a similar fashion.&nbsp;The metaphor is obviously not entirely transferrable, but IMHO, an optimal skill challenge would have these components in a standard statblock sort of formula (and I shall keep it short so as to not constitute being on the homebrew forum again):&nbsp;&quot;HP&quot;: The number of successes required to defeat the challenge.&nbsp; If you can &quot;bloody&quot; the challenge before losing, consider it a partial success.&nbsp;&quot;Defenses&quot;: Preferably 3 or 4 grouped by type of action attempted - not necessarily Skill. Perhaps Force (for when you attempt to simply overpower or intimidate the challenge), Reason (for when you attempt to think or negotiate) and Awareness (if you attempt to bluff or trick the challenge).&nbsp; Seems like there should be a fourth, but these are kinda off the top of my head right now.&nbsp;&quot;Powers&quot;: Things the challenge gets to actively do to stymie the PCs after each round of PC skill rolls.&nbsp; Interesting flavor text that sets up the final stat section...&nbsp;Failure: This has no combat equivalent. M'eh.&nbsp; The condition under which failure occurs, related to the skill challenge's Powers.&nbsp; It could have a Power which activates once per round of PC skill rolls and if it activates three times, the challenge ends (this is sort of like Obsidian.&nbsp; Sort of.)&nbsp; Conversely, the challenge Powers might make specific PCs roll additional skill checks in either single target or 'burst' &quot;attacks&quot; ; the challenge &quot;wins&quot; after a certain number of these checks fail.&nbsp; (The Powers could alternatively roll, with appropriate bonuses for level, against player's Passive Nature or Passive Diplomacy, whatever.)&nbsp;I'm not sure how the tactical aspect would carry over, even if it could.&nbsp; However, I'd like to know why WoTC didn't errata to something that looked more like what 4E already has going for it instead of this bizzare stepchild of a subsystem.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RyvenCedrylle, post: 4390040, member: 66726"] Firelance and Frostmerrow had come up with an alternate system on the homebrew forums that addressed some issues that the current skill system and even Stalker0's Obsidian (which, btw is a solid system - no slight to Stalker0 for all his hard work here :D) didn't address directly. It didn't catch on, and that's fine. I won't detail it here, but I do want to bring up the theory behind it for public consideration. In 4e, it's very simple to write up a trap or monster. The designers have made it very clear how that works. Why is it that skill challenges don't have statblocks? Furthermore, half the fun of a combat encounter is that stuff gets to hit back. If combat counted failures in the same sort of way the current official skill challenge system does, it would be just as boring and would discourage total character involvement in a similar fashion. The metaphor is obviously not entirely transferrable, but IMHO, an optimal skill challenge would have these components in a standard statblock sort of formula (and I shall keep it short so as to not constitute being on the homebrew forum again): [B]"HP":[/B] The number of successes required to defeat the challenge. If you can "bloody" the challenge before losing, consider it a partial success. [B]"Defenses":[/B] Preferably 3 or 4 grouped by type of action attempted - not necessarily Skill. Perhaps Force (for when you attempt to simply overpower or intimidate the challenge), Reason (for when you attempt to think or negotiate) and Awareness (if you attempt to bluff or trick the challenge). Seems like there should be a fourth, but these are kinda off the top of my head right now. [B]"Powers": [/B]Things the challenge gets to actively do to stymie the PCs after each round of PC skill rolls. Interesting flavor text that sets up the final stat section... [B]Failure:[/B] This has no combat equivalent. M'eh. The condition under which failure occurs, related to the skill challenge's Powers. It could have a Power which activates once per round of PC skill rolls and if it activates three times, the challenge ends (this is sort of like Obsidian. Sort of.) Conversely, the challenge Powers might make specific PCs roll additional skill checks in either single target or 'burst' "attacks" ; the challenge "wins" after a certain number of these checks fail. (The Powers could alternatively roll, with appropriate bonuses for level, against player's Passive Nature or Passive Diplomacy, whatever.) I'm not sure how the tactical aspect would carry over, even if it could. However, I'd like to know why WoTC didn't errata to something that looked more like what 4E already has going for it instead of this bizzare stepchild of a subsystem. [/QUOTE]

Verification