Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Older Editions
Showing the Math: Proving that 4e’s Skill Challenge system is broken (math heavy)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 4285560" data-attributes="member: 94"><p>Everyone still questioning which bonuses apply where can save themselves a lot of trouble by going back and reading this overlooked but important post.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4279427&postcount=32" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4279427&postcount=32</a></p><p></p><p>Down the left hand column is the skill check success rate. The <em>actual</em> skill bonuses don't matter, the DC doesn't matter, the success rate is all that matters. We don't care how the PC accumulates that success rate (whether by attributes, feats, powers, etc.). It doesn't matter.</p><p></p><p>Pay special attention to the .60 and .70 lines.</p><p></p><p>A .60 success rate means the PC is looking for a natural 9 or better. (It's a +11 bonus against a DC 20, for example; it can also represent a +6 bonus against DC15.)</p><p></p><p>A .70 success rate means the PC is looking for a natural 7 or better. (It's a +13 bonus against a DC20.)</p><p></p><p>A simple +2 bonus differentiates these two cases.</p><p></p><p>The .60 group succeeds (at best) 36% of the time and their success rate drops off dramatically as complexity (the number of successes required) increases.</p><p></p><p>The .70 group approaches 50% success at the simplest complexity and their success rate actually <em>increases</em> as complexity increases.</p><p></p><p>The .65 line represents the tipping point: Pretty much a flat 42%-43% success rate across the board.</p><p></p><p>If you can keep your game in that .65 range, success and failure will be predictable. But deviate to one side or the other of that tipping point and the results, and the effect it will have on your game, are not at all intuitive.</p><p></p><p>I can certainly accept/anticipate that WotC intended for skill checks to reliably fall into that .65 range, but the fact that the system becomes so swingy is well outside the expected performance of 4th edition. It is like a very precariously balanced spinning top, and the slightest push sends it wobbling out of control.</p><p></p><p>That kind of design is not very 4e-like when you compare it to the stability and robustness of the rest of the system.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Wulf Ratbane, post: 4285560, member: 94"] Everyone still questioning which bonuses apply where can save themselves a lot of trouble by going back and reading this overlooked but important post. [url]http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4279427&postcount=32[/url] Down the left hand column is the skill check success rate. The [i]actual[/i] skill bonuses don't matter, the DC doesn't matter, the success rate is all that matters. We don't care how the PC accumulates that success rate (whether by attributes, feats, powers, etc.). It doesn't matter. Pay special attention to the .60 and .70 lines. A .60 success rate means the PC is looking for a natural 9 or better. (It's a +11 bonus against a DC 20, for example; it can also represent a +6 bonus against DC15.) A .70 success rate means the PC is looking for a natural 7 or better. (It's a +13 bonus against a DC20.) A simple +2 bonus differentiates these two cases. The .60 group succeeds (at best) 36% of the time and their success rate drops off dramatically as complexity (the number of successes required) increases. The .70 group approaches 50% success at the simplest complexity and their success rate actually [i]increases[/i] as complexity increases. The .65 line represents the tipping point: Pretty much a flat 42%-43% success rate across the board. If you can keep your game in that .65 range, success and failure will be predictable. But deviate to one side or the other of that tipping point and the results, and the effect it will have on your game, are not at all intuitive. I can certainly accept/anticipate that WotC intended for skill checks to reliably fall into that .65 range, but the fact that the system becomes so swingy is well outside the expected performance of 4th edition. It is like a very precariously balanced spinning top, and the slightest push sends it wobbling out of control. That kind of design is not very 4e-like when you compare it to the stability and robustness of the rest of the system. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Older Editions
Showing the Math: Proving that 4e’s Skill Challenge system is broken (math heavy)
Top