Skill Challenge DCs

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Adding a way to counteract failures is pretty easy. Just add a mechanic for it if the skill challenge calls for it.

I recently did one where each pc had a choice to help succeed or defend the party. If they chose to defend, they could make an attack roll (using a power if they chose) to remove a failure.

The big dissapointment for me in the challenge was the low dcs. They didn't really have to use the defend mechanic because they never failed a check (using the errata dcs). Thats what prompted the post.

I am not sure if you agree with me or not, but maybe I should rephrase it:
The high likelihood of succes of the challenge is not the problem. We win combats all the time, too. Despite overwhelming odds and all.

The problem is that each individual aspect of the challenge is too easy. It doesn't get exciting if you know there is little chance of failing each round. There is no tension.
To create such tension, raising the DCs works. But it also means that challenges are far more likely to fail then combat. That is not, in my view, all that satisfying, and it doesn't make the decision-making process any more interesting, either.

The trick is having the challenge succeed most of the time if the players work hard for it and feel smart. (And sometimes lucky.) This requires some "tactical"/"gambling" element. In combat, you risk resources like healing surges and powers and have to apply them at the right time. A good skill challenges need this kind of dynamic, too.

They do not get more interesting just because there is a different chance of failure. They get more exciting if people have to think about how they can achieve access and avoid ways they can't. Based on their decisions, not merely their dice rolls.

The trick is finding ways to make this kind of decision non-trivial. Using the highest applicable skill all the time is trivial.

One way might be to have more complex outcomes than just "pass/fail" - the skills you have used determine the details of your success or failure. If you bluff your way through the guards it is different then using Diplomacy to make them your friends. If you use stealth to get buy that is also different.

If you use an approach that raises the DC, my suggestion would be to add the ability to undo failures. But these "rescue-rolls" can't be used all the time. Maybe the guards will fall for the diversion represented by your Bluff check only once, so only one Stealth check is "free".

I think some kind of "resource management" system is what skill challenges would need.

 

[Nifelhein]

(...) snip

Back then it was only an assumption, but now playtesting has shown it to be correct.

What I would like to see is a 50% success rate _at most_. And this requires the applications of restrictions and/or increasing the DCs.

Unfortunately, I'm also still waiting for my copy of the DMG2 which is supposed to contain an update on skill challenges.

The level of the challenge also dictates how hard it is, a same level challenge isn't any different then an encounter with a number of monsters of their level would, and that is exactly how it is said to be designed.

When assigning complexity and level also consider how you define number of monsters and their level in order to challenge the PCs with a combat encounter and how hard it turns out at different combinations.

In the end a skill challenge that stays true to its name would probably need to get into the complexity 4 or 5 with a level of the party +3 or more, the new DCs seem to account for the use of secondary skills better than the old ones in those cases.

 

[keterys]

It's important to note that failing a skill challenge changes the plot in interesting ways, it doesn't TPK the party (or even cause as much hardship as fleeing a combat), so failing one should be far more acceptable.

That said, skill challenges give out XP and action points, they should cost surges, action points, dailies as much as fights do if they're going to be taken seriously, and they should be more complex than 'best person for particular skill rolls it, possibly with others aiding'.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It's important to note that failing a skill challenge changes the plot in interesting ways, it doesn't TPK the party (or even cause as much hardship as fleeing a combat), so failing one should be far more acceptable.

That said, skill challenges give out XP and action points, they should cost surges, action points, dailies as much as fights do if they're going to be taken seriously, and they should be more complex than 'best person for particular skill rolls it, possibly with others aiding'.

Yes, I agree.

I really hope that the WotC design team is thinking about this kind of stuff and working on it in DMG 3 or Dragon/Dungeon material. If they really want to fill _and_ sell all those core X books, they will have to come up with more ways to make this part as exciting as combat.

 

[Kestrel]

I am not sure if you agree with me or not, but maybe I should rephrase it:

To clarify, I'm totally agreeing with you

I've found that building mini-games around the skill challenges are much more enjoyable than just making static checks, but the only way to really make those work is to increase the chance of failure. (by increasing DCs)

Also, if they do hit the failure number, this should never lead to a pass/fail for the challenge. Instead, it should lead to a new obstacle/complication to deal with, not a "You Failed.Game Over".

This leads to an expectation from my group that if they succeed a skill challenge with no failure, its a high five moment, because they beat the odds. Not a ho-hum, we won.

(Just like a TPK in combat would never lead to a game over. I just don't run games that way. It would most likely lead to the BBEG's dungeon of doom escape session)

 

[Skywalker]

Based on my admittedly very limited experience with skill challenges the new values really are too low. During our test week my players breezed through a Complexity 4 skill challenge without a single failure. And that was with adjusted DCs (the original DCs were in the range of 10 to 15 which meant some pcs would have had a higher skill bonus than the DC!).

I note that with the standard rules, the avergae result is normally just 1 failure for 4 to 12 success. So, getting no failures happens. This doesn't mean the mechanics don't work as intended.

They figured out almost immediately that they should try to let those who were trained in a certain skill make that check and used aid another to bump the results even higher.

OK this is your first issue. As with play outside of Skill Challenges, if the players are allowed to analysis and organise themselves in an optimal manner then you should expect them to do better than normal. However, a good Skill Challenge will include all kinds of pressures that make this kind of optimisation difficult. Time may be limited, narration may influence what skills are brought into play, perhaps the party's focus gets split. My recommendation is to try and keep the pressure on in Skill Challenges like a DM does in combat.

Imho, the new DCs only make sense if
a) aid another is not allowed
b) everyone is forced to participate every round
c) everyone is required to make a particular skill check at some point (i.e. forcing pcs to use untrained skills)

The DCs certainly work better with that kind of pressure in play. Ask yourself this: how often does aid another get used outside of Skill Challenges? If your answer is much less than in Skill Challenges then you aren't applying enough pressure.

One thing that particularly irked me was that the module we used (the Ashen Crown adventure for Eberron) suggested perception DCs that didn't make any sense, e.g. in one encounter it suggested a DC of 10 to detect a hidden gnoll hunter with a a Stealth modifier of +12 (I'm not 100% sure about the correct numbers, but you get my drift). Umm, yeah.

I don’t think an issue in a single Skill Challenge is basis for criticising the mechanic as a whole.

Imho, having skill challenges with a 100% success chance is a waste of time. Where's the challenge in this? Since failed skill challenges should never be show stoppers, it doesn't matter if the pcs don't always succeed.

FWIW did you arrive at 100% mathematically or are you exaggerating the probability of success to support your conclusion?

As mentioned above, in a Complexity 4 Skill Challenge, an even chance of success overall requires an average of 83% chance of success on individual skill checks. Putting that into perspective, that's needing no more than a 4 or more on the D20. It feels like success is high, but you only need 3 failures to fail.

 

[Kestrel]

I really hope that the WotC design team is thinking about this kind of stuff and working on it in DMG 3 or Dragon/Dungeon material. If they really want to fill _and_ sell all those core X books, they will have to come up with more ways to make this part as exciting as combat.

This would be cool. More modular bits to use in challenges beyond what has been presented thus far (skill checks, complexity failure system).

A way to ratchet up the tension and make it more fun to go to a skill challenge. Nothing in DND is as exciting as the words, "Roll Initiative" It would be cool to have the same kind of excitement for the words, "Skill Challenge!"

 

[Jhaelen]

@Skywalker: for some reason your latest post gives me a serious case of deja vu...

A way to ratchet up the tension and make it more fun to go to a skill challenge. Nothing in DND is as exciting as the words, "Roll Initiative" It would be cool to have the same kind of excitement for the words, "Skill Challenge!"

I think, having a skill challenge during a combat situation would have that affect. I remember several examples for this in published modules.

It leaves the problem of dealing with skill challenges that aren't in any way combat-related, though.

 

[babinro]

In my experience with skill challenges (I've probably run about 20 so far give or take), I've never had a failure in the overall challenge. I've had 2 failures during them, but these typically only happen when players roll exceptionally low (4 or less).

I houserule that aiding another causes a -2 detriment to the skill check if unsuccessful. This has been nice as it greatly reduces the abuse of simply aiding on every check.

The 'problem' as I see it is simply that people will only utilize skills they excel in. I don't blame them either. PC's inherently want to maximize their turns by doing what they're good at...despite knowing full well that overall failure means nothing in terms of ruining the overall game.

 

[Skywalker]

The 'problem' as I see it is simply that people will only utilize skills they excel in. I don't blame them either. PC's inherently want to maximize their turns by doing what they're good at...despite knowing full well that overall failure means nothing in terms of ruining the overall game.

I still see this as a flaw in how the Skill Challenge was designed, not the mechanic as a whole. What Skills are appropriate in a given situation is something that must be discovered through narration and experiementation. As such, just relying on the Skills you excel at with properly designed Skill Challenges should result in all kinds of problems.

For example, if the PCs are in a delicate negotiation situation (where Intimidation is inappropriate) then the DC on an Intimidate check could be as much as 10 higher than a Diplomacy check. As such, a PC who relies on Intimidate simply because they excel at it is not acting very smartly.