Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gribble" data-source="post: 4283725" data-attributes="member: 12430">Clearly not.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I'm categoricaly not saying:<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">That rolling to assist another PC is less fun than not making a roll at all.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">That we're ignoring or only using part of the rules (as should be clear when I say that we *were* rolling to assist).</li>
</ol>What I am saying is that it seems (both mathematically and empirically) that for players who aren't trained in one of the primary skills of a skill challenge there is only one viable option: rolling to assist those who are trained in one of the primary skills. I.e.: skill challenges in 4e are not a new and revolutionary system - they are effectively glorified 3e diplomacy checks. The player with the highest modifier in diplomacy makes the primary roll and the other PCs assist him. If he manages to make the opponents friendly (i.e.: X successes) before he makes them hostile (i.e.: Y failures), the party succeeds. This is no more (or less) fun than it was is 3e... and given that skill checks are often lampooned as one of the &quot;unfun&quot; parts of 3e... well, I'll let you make your own conclusion.And before the inevitable chorus of &quot;but the players can use *any* skill for a challenge, not just the best one&quot; pipes up, I'd like to point out that the rules and examples in the DMG are very clear that isn't really the case. Claytons choice isn't really a choice. Of course you can house rule it, but let's not confuse that with the RAW.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gribble, post: 4283725, member: 12430"] Clearly not. :) I'm categoricaly not saying: [list=1] [*]That rolling to assist another PC is less fun than not making a roll at all. [*]That we're ignoring or only using part of the rules (as should be clear when I say that we *were* rolling to assist). [/list] What I am saying is that it seems (both mathematically and empirically) that for players who aren't trained in one of the primary skills of a skill challenge there is only one viable option: rolling to assist those who are trained in one of the primary skills. I.e.: skill challenges in 4e are not a new and revolutionary system - they are effectively glorified 3e diplomacy checks. The player with the highest modifier in diplomacy makes the primary roll and the other PCs assist him. If he manages to make the opponents friendly (i.e.: X successes) before he makes them hostile (i.e.: Y failures), the party succeeds. This is no more (or less) fun than it was is 3e... and given that skill checks are often lampooned as one of the "unfun" parts of 3e... well, I'll let you make your own conclusion. And before the inevitable chorus of "but the players can use *any* skill for a challenge, not just the best one" pipes up, I'd like to point out that the rules and examples in the DMG are very clear that isn't really the case. Claytons choice isn't really a choice. Of course you can house rule it, but let's not confuse that with the RAW. [/QUOTE]

Verification