D&D 4E Showing the Math: Proving that 4e’s Skill Challenge system is broken (math heavy)

[Rystil Arden]

Both of your groups seem to have taken the tack that if the skill isn't listed as a primary skill, it flat-out doesn't work - is that the case? Our group interrogated a prisoner using intimidate, diplomacy, insight, perception, nature, heal... I forget what else. Generally "pick a skill you're pretty good at, think up a way in which it applies, DM determines result". Some of those end up being +/- 2s, some of them directly contribute. Particularly appropriate descriptions net a bonus to the roll, and totally inappropriate ones net a penalty.

I find it hard to believe that no party members had skills that could be used aside from one or two characters with good scores in prime abilities. I think it's more likely that your players are falling into the trap of treating a skill challenge like a 3e style "make a roll on this skill and only this skill. Anything else will fail. Only the highest score need apply" skill contests.

The Ranger listed her skills and a few suggested uses (which even she agreed were stretches). The GM said they wouldn't work (and I more-or-less agreed with him--I thought the example someone gave before the launch of "I have History and rolled high, now this prison cell has a hole in it" and such things were exceptionally silly).

For instance, she wanted to use Perception to perceive the cultist's tells. The GM pointed out (correctly) that this is precisely a use of Insight, not Perception--he suggested that if she wanted to know the fine details of his clothing and equipment or study his features so she could sketch them, her high Perception would be very useful for those.

 

[Nail]

Double post-a-rama.

Jees are the 'boards slow this week. Wonder why.

 

[Nail]

Read page 42. The reason becomes evident if you read the section. Try that before posting to avoid embarrassment.

The DCs presented in the chart are for attacks. That's why the +5 for skill checks are not added.

Funny, it seems to me that the chart is for "Actions the Rules Don't Cover". Since skill checks and Skill Challenges are both covered by the rules, the +5 doesn't seem to apply.

???

Uhm.....why do you think the "+5 doesn't seem to apply"? Because of the page title??

If you need more help, try page 61. Both pages 42 and 61 are entire consistant. ...and entirely oblivious to the underlieing chance of success.

 

[WyzardWhately]

I think it's time we got someone from WOTC in here to work over this with us. Seriously. We have got a problem.

Also, Skill Challenges were a major selling point of the system for me, so if there isn't some damned good explanation for this, I think I'll be justified in being kinda pissed off about it.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Both of your groups seem to have taken the tack that if the skill isn't listed as a primary skill, it flat-out doesn't work - is that the case? Our group interrogated a prisoner using intimidate, diplomacy, insight, perception, nature, heal... I forget what else. Generally "pick a skill you're pretty good at, think up a way in which it applies, DM determines result". Some of those end up being +/- 2s, some of them directly contribute. Particularly appropriate descriptions net a bonus to the roll, and totally inappropriate ones net a penalty.

I find it hard to believe that no party members had skills that could be used aside from one or two characters with good scores in prime abilities. I think it's more likely that your players are falling into the trap of treating a skill challenge like a 3e style "make a roll on this skill and only this skill. Anything else will fail. Only the highest score need apply" skill contests.

According to RAW, trying a non-standard skill increases the DC to hard, making it unlikely to be worth it.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The Ranger listed her skills and a few suggested uses (which even she agreed were stretches). The GM said they wouldn't work (and I more-or-less agreed with him--I thought the example someone gave before the launch of "I have History and rolled high, now this prison cell has a hole in it" and such things were exceptionally silly).

Soo... that's a yes to my "are your group trapped in 3e" then. If the rest of the group have your attitude, then you should probably ignore the entire skill challenge system and just go back to flat rolls, because it seems like you're not even willing to try to make it work.

Your example for instance - if the DM hasn't planned out the cell in detail, then "I use history and rolled high, and now I know about fact X that the DM hadn't previously thought about" doesn't seem silly to me at all: much like if I write up my character's background as "he's just a normal guy", the DM can feel free to invent family members, a hometown etc. And if he HAS planned it out in detail, then he should know it's history and be able to choose something relevant (or know for a fact that there is nothing relevant, which might be a useful fact in and of itself).

For instance, she wanted to use Perception to perceive the cultist's tells. The GM pointed out (correctly) that this is precisely a use of Insight, not Perception--he suggested that if she wanted to know the fine details of his clothing and equipment or study his features so she could sketch them, her high Perception would be very useful for those.

Agreed - that particular use IS insight. Why did she assume that the fine details of his clothing and equipment were irrelevant however? They're going to be a indicator of his treatment and conditions within the cult, or possibly give clues as to where they do their shopping. Either could make for possible bonus to diplomacy, intimidate, insight or bluff if used correctly.

None of this is supposed to be a judgement of you and your group - there is no badwrongfun. It does seem that you're trying to argue that it's the numbers that destroy skill challenges, though, and to me that doesn't seem to be the case for your group.

 

[Saeviomagy]

According to RAW, trying a non-standard skill increases the DC to hard, making it unlikely to be worth it.

Does "non-standard" mean "not on the list for the encounter"?

 

[Rystil Arden]

Soo... that's a yes to my "are your group trapped in 3e" then. If the rest of the group have your attitude, then you should probably ignore the entire skill challenge system and just go back to flat rolls, because it seems like you're not even willing to try to make it work.

Trapped in 3e? No. Being reasonable? Yes. And if you look at the 4e example Skill Challenges in the DMG, they also make choices that certain skills will not work (there's an example of a low-level challenge where Intimidate automatically generates a failure, even if you roll a 50).

Your example for instance - if the DM hasn't planned out the cell in detail, then "I use history and rolled high, and now I know about fact X that the DM hadn't previously thought about" doesn't seem silly to me at all: much like if I write up my character's background as "he's just a normal guy", the DM can feel free to invent family members, a hometown etc. And if he HAS planned it out in detail, then he should know it's history and be able to choose something relevant (or know for a fact that there is nothing relevant, which might be a useful fact in and of itself).

It of course depends on whether the GM has planned out the room more carefully. I chose an example that someone actually used in a pre-4e discussion thread. They argued vehemently that History should make a hole in the room even if the GM had pre-planned the room in detail without the hole. This is ludicrous to me. And this isn't a 3e/4e thing. The 4e DMG specifically indicates that sketchy skill uses that don't really fit should be automatic failures, result in penalties to later rolls, or have extremely high DCs. I have every indication from the 4e DMG that 4e is approaching this in a reasonable fashion.

Agreed - that particular use IS insight. Why did she assume that the fine details of his clothing and equipment were irrelevant however? They're going to be a indicator of his treatment and conditions within the cult, or possibly give clues as to where they do their shopping. Either could make for possible bonus to diplomacy, intimidate, insight or bluff if used correctly.

The GM agreed that we could get clues to this information with Perception. But we had specified what we wanted to learn ahead of time (he asked us to state it before setting up the challenge), and those things were not among them.

I agree that in some cases, there are more skills that could help than in others. In our case, we knew already where the cult was based, etc. We just wanted to know about the identity and abilities of the higher-ranked members and their end goal. Perception would not have helped with that (a good example of where it might have helped was if the cultist had a hidden object on him with a symbol of Orcus and we didn't know it was a cult of Orcus or something, but we knew, and he didn't). This is from KotS, which seemed to have pretty detailed information of what this guy had and knew.

None of this is supposed to be a judgement of you and your group - there is no badwrongfun. It does seem that you're trying to argue that it's the numbers that destroy skill challenges, though, and to me that doesn't seem to be the case for your group.

It is indeed the numbers--some skills do not have a place in some skill challenges (or if they do, they have a place as defined by the DMG as auto-failures, penalties to later rolls, or exceedingly high DCs). The GM was doing us a kindness by telling us this ahead of time for each suggested skill use (since we weren't veterans of skill challenges and were trying to feel it out) rather than just letting us roll and then failing.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Does "non-standard" mean "not on the list for the encounter"?

Technically the terms are "primary" and "secondary" skills, but otherwise, yes.

 

[hong]

It of course depends on whether the GM has planned out the room more carefully. I chose an example that someone actually used in a pre-4e discussion thread. They argued vehemently that History should make a hole in the room even if the GM had pre-planned the room in detail without the hole. This is ludicrous to me.

In the context of skill challenges, if the DM has preplanned the room in detailed and History is an allowable skill, then it should either 1) find the hole that the DM put there; 2) find something else that the DM put there that would let the PCs escape. Lack of narrative fidelity is a DM thing, not something due to skill challenges.