Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ulthwithian" data-source="post: 4283234" data-attributes="member: 60612">I took using Aid Another to be your action (in lieu of another attempt) to be understood.Rereading, I think I'm understanding the issue involved with the skill table at least.&nbsp; It's to avoid the Take 10 issue.&nbsp; If a Moderate difficulty task were DC 15 at level 1, virtually anyone trained in that task, if allowed to Take 10, will succeed at that task.&nbsp; Therefore, when outside an encounter (with a skill challenge being considered an encounter), an Easy task is DC15 (meaning that anyone trained in that skill can succeed on it, barring an ability penalty), while a Moderate task is DC20.With that, we can look at skill checks vs. attacks.&nbsp; An attack roll is normally Ability mod + other bonuses (+ Proficiency bonus if using a weapon, which normally attacks AC).&nbsp; With that, people generally have a 50% chance of succeeding at an attack, on average.The +5 difficulty to Skill checks seems designed to offset the trained bonus for a skill, in the same way that your proficiency bonus with a weapon offsets the increased bonus to a monster's AC.&nbsp; This would seem to indicate that the notations on the table are indeed correct.&nbsp; This also makes sense, as combat can be seen, in a sense, of a race to generate a certain number of successes before a certain number of failures.Morrus has a very valid counterpoint, however.&nbsp; With combat, you have a ubiquitous bonus to seek (Combat Advantage) to assist in overcoming what would otherwise be a random chance.&nbsp; To ignore it would seem to imperil the underlying basis of the math involved.I would think that having a multi-channel challenge would be far better, to better mimic the combat analog.&nbsp; Keep the 'X successes before 2X failures', but allow for successes to be 'scored' against different people (e.g., the baron is one person, his spiritual advisor another, and his general yet a third).&nbsp; Thus, you can measure not only success and failure, but the degree of success.&nbsp; Perhaps you were able to convince the baron, but ignoring his 'cabinet' might have lingering issues in the future.Etc. etc.&nbsp; I'll have to give this more thought, I'm sure.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ulthwithian, post: 4283234, member: 60612"] I took using Aid Another to be your action (in lieu of another attempt) to be understood. Rereading, I think I'm understanding the issue involved with the skill table at least. It's to avoid the Take 10 issue. If a Moderate difficulty task were DC 15 at level 1, virtually anyone trained in that task, if allowed to Take 10, will succeed at that task. Therefore, when outside an encounter (with a skill challenge being considered an encounter), an Easy task is DC15 (meaning that anyone trained in that skill can succeed on it, barring an ability penalty), while a Moderate task is DC20. With that, we can look at skill checks vs. attacks. An attack roll is normally Ability mod + other bonuses (+ Proficiency bonus if using a weapon, which normally attacks AC). With that, people generally have a 50% chance of succeeding at an attack, on average. The +5 difficulty to Skill checks seems designed to offset the trained bonus for a skill, in the same way that your proficiency bonus with a weapon offsets the increased bonus to a monster's AC. This would seem to indicate that the notations on the table are indeed correct. This also makes sense, as combat can be seen, in a sense, of a race to generate a certain number of successes before a certain number of failures. Morrus has a very valid counterpoint, however. With combat, you have a ubiquitous bonus to seek (Combat Advantage) to assist in overcoming what would otherwise be a random chance. To ignore it would seem to imperil the underlying basis of the math involved. I would think that having a multi-channel challenge would be far better, to better mimic the combat analog. Keep the 'X successes before 2X failures', but allow for successes to be 'scored' against different people (e.g., the baron is one person, his spiritual advisor another, and his general yet a third). Thus, you can measure not only success and failure, but the degree of success. Perhaps you were able to convince the baron, but ignoring his 'cabinet' might have lingering issues in the future. Etc. etc. I'll have to give this more thought, I'm sure. [/QUOTE]

Verification