Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lurker37" data-source="post: 4284245" data-attributes="member: 9522">Something just occurred to me.My books have yet to arrive, but the Skill Challenge excerpt had an example where intimidate was automatically a fail, no matter what you rolled. Is that still in?I'm asking because none of the numbers I've seen so far have taken into account that there can be one or more auto-fails.If there can still be counter productive actions in a skill challenge, then how does that affect the probabilities, and are there any notes about whether complex challenges are more likely to have these?Turning to the continuing debate over DCs and player tactics, here's my opinion, for whatever it is worth:I can't believe that skill challenges are meant to be failed more often than not. Players enjoy overcoming obstacles, not repeatedly falling to them. The DM telling them that failure isn't fatal to them isn't going to improve the mood at the gaming table. Repeated failure isn't what most players are looking for in a game. They want to achieve goals, not fall short of them. Certainly not on a regular basis.So a system designed to make players fail under anything less than perfect conditions just doesn't make sense to me. It's not a rewarding gaming experience, and I am absolutely confident that WoTC know this.If the problem is in the player tactics, then why is there no mention that players will generally need to aid another to succeed? And is aiding another really the answer? The additional skill challenge posted by WoTC for KoTS specifies that one or more party members will attempt it while the rest are otherwise engaged. If those DCs are assuming no aid another, then how are PCs meant to achieve them?  Come to think of it - that skill challenge has been roundly criticised in this very forum for being too damn hard - as in almost impossible for the characters engaging it. That being the case, is it really a shining example of a correctly-balanced skill challenge?As I understand it, the current argument is that the +5 should be applied to the table of DCs, with the (undesirable for many) result that aid another is required to pass these challenges. It strikes me that this is exactly the opposite of every playtest that has been described to us. Add that we have at least one example where those DCs are intended to be achieved by a solo character, and I must conclude that aid another is not intended to be the norm. Indeed, it would be far more dynamic and exciting if each character attempted completely different actions, and that is what we all expected to be happening in skill challenges until we saw this table.So many are using this to support their argument that the +5 should not be added, despite the web example appearing to use it. That, effectively, the web supplement is in error. Given the errors that have appeared in other excerpts, I cannot rule it out. I'm reluctant to write it off without hearing from the writer, however.In fact, it seems to me that it all boils down to one question:When is the +5 NOT added? I assume that WoTC did not subtract five from every number in a table just for giggles. If it does apply to both standalone skill checks and to skill challenges, what is left for it to apply to?Until we know when exactly the +5 does not apply, we're all at risk of misinterpreting these rules. Those of you who already have the DMG (you lucky,lucky people) is there any text, anywhere at all, that clarifies which DCs the +5 does not apply to? Any examples in the rulebooks? What we desperately need is some official statement to clarify this. We can't be the only ones confused by this.</blockquote>

Verification