Skill Challenge Overkill (mearls stuff)

[Runestar]

OK, point me to the place in the 3.5 PHB or DMG which explains how to use them and how to keep score? You can't.

I think his point was that there wasn't anything new about skill challenges which kept it exclusive to 4e, since skill checks remain the same for most part. Considering that it is in essence just a series of skill checks strung together, I am sure that at least more than a few people had caught on to it way before 4e was released.

4e simply does a better job of stealing our credibility, then repackaging it and selling it back to us.

It wasn't as revolutionary as say, the complete class/multiclassing overhaul in 3e compared to 2e, for instance.

 

[the Jester]

OK, first, they were promised (there is that word again) as absolutely, 100%, a fall back thing.

You keep asserting this. I watched the 4e news pretty fanatically and have no recollection of this; could you cite a source or post a link please?

 

[Felon]

No, they are not. The entire structure of the non-errata'd skill challenges is very flawed, which is why the errata was so extensive. Needing two successes for every failure makes low-complexity challenges (which are worth less XP) more difficult than high-complexity challenges.

Defaulting the system to a flat three failures isn't much of an improvement though. If you have a skill challenge, it's difficult at best to ensure that everyone has a relevant skill. If not, then it's all too easy to fail three times in a row, at least if we're talking about a skill challenge that has mandatory patricipation for all players.

The dichotomy with skill challenges is that, as the DMG states, the point of them is not for everyone to form a train behind the guy with the best chance of succeeding, yet they don't really offer a support role for someone who's not suited to the challenge. A party of three can often succeed at a challenge where a party of five would fail. That's because the one or two guys who are really suited to the challenge get their chances to roll spread out farther while other players participate. While the end result is probably realistic in most cases, it's just not good game design to make people feel like their presence is a detriment.

There are lots of other problems too. 4e doesn't have skill points or other resources to allow characters to emphasize a particular skilll. Your 8th-level rogue is probably about as good at Thievery as any other 8th-level rogue, and he's probably as good at it as the 8th-level wizard is good at Arcana. Conversely, the wizard is probably lousy at Thievery and the rogue likely doesn't have Arcana. In 4e, it's very pat, very cut-and-dried. You can take the skill focus feat, and there's the occasional utility power, but otherwise there's just no way to really excel at skill, so nobody ever feels like "woohoo, this is my time to shine--this is what I was born to be doing".

And rolling a skill check is the only variable in a skill challenge, which just makes it a matter of not rolling low. There's no equivalent of a damage roll, and there's nothing the DM can do to switch up their pitches. So, it's not very dynamic at all.

Now, I don't have a DDDI subscription, so maybe Mike addresses this stuff.

 

[Runestar]

There are lots of other problems too. 4e doesn't have skill points or other resources to allow characters to emphasize a particular skilll. Your 8th-level rogue is probably about as good at Thievery as any other 8th-level rogue, and he's probably as good at it as the 8th-level wizard is good at Arcana. Conversely, the wizard is probably lousy at Thievery and the rogue likely doesn't have Arcana. In 4e, it's very pat, very cut-and-dried. You can take the skill focus feat, and there's the occasional utility power, but otherwise there's just no way to really excel at skill, so nobody ever feels like "woohoo, this is my time to shine--this is what I was born to be doing".

Skill focus
Background bonus (if you are using heroes of war)
Items granting skill bonuses
Stat bonus (a wizard will have much more reason to pump int than a rogue, so the former should have a higher arcana check).
Racial skill bonus (for relevant skills)

For example, a 1st lv elf cleric can already get a perception check of +15. Since no other PC can match that score, they have no reason to want to focus on pumping it themselves, since the cleric is already assured of virtually auto-succeeding on just about every check which comes his way.

 

[LostSoul]

And rolling a skill check is the only variable in a skill challenge, which just makes it a matter of not rolling low. There's no equivalent of a damage roll, and there's nothing the DM can do to switch up their pitches. So, it's not very dynamic at all.

Can you go into this in more detail?

 

[MerricB]

There are lots of other problems too. 4e doesn't have skill points or other resources to allow characters to emphasize a particular skilll.

Feats.

Your 8th-level rogue is probably about as good at thievery as any other 8th-level rogue

The truth is that two 8th level rogues should be about the same ability for a core skill. Having a core skill being wildly at variance with other similar characters is a flaw. A difference of 3 points is significant in the D&D system.

We find some interesting things when we examine the DCs on page 42:

The Easy check needs a 5+ on the die to succeed, assuming the PC is untrained and has a +0 bonus in the ability score.

The Moderate check needs a 5+ on the die to succeed, assuming the PC is trained in the skill and has a +0 bonus in the ability score... and continues to increase the ability score with every ability score increase (4th, 8th, 11th, 14th, etc.)

The Hard check needs a 6+ on the die to succeed, assuming the PC is trained in the skill and has a +4 bonus in the ability score, and continues to increase the ability score with every ability score increase (4th, 8th, 11th, 14th, etc.) For your unskilled lout, Hard means 15+ to begin with, increasing to 18 by the end!

I have a suspicion that for lone skill checks, you might want a +5 to DC; in skill challenges, you need easily accomplished rolls because otherwise they can be very hard if you're using the wrong skills.

But that brings up one of the chief problems with Skill Challenges: as written, not everyone needs to participate, and it's too easy to just use the right skill again... and again... and again...

One PC uses Diplomacy 12 times for the win? Yeah. Too easy.

The idea of Skill Challenges is great; the structure isn't there yet.

Cheers!

 

[Spatula]

Defaulting the system to a flat three failures isn't much of an improvement though. If you have a skill challenge, it's difficult at best to ensure that everyone has a relevant skill. If not, then it's all too easy to fail three times in a row, at least if we're talking about a skill challenge that has mandatory patricipation for all players.

Well, part of the errata specifies that participation is voluntary. Someday I'd like to see a system that somehow incorporates everyone without someone feeling like they're just a drag. I love the idea of skill challenges even if the implementation is still flawed.

4e doesn't have skill points or other resources to allow characters to emphasize a particular skilll.

Feats, utility powers, items (and on a more permanent basis, race).

but otherwise there's just no way to really excel at skill, so nobody ever feels like "woohoo, this is my time to shine--this is what I was born to be doing".

...what, are you in a group of 5 rogues? A character excels (or does not) in relation to the group around him, not in relation to every character with the same race/class choice...

 

[Dausuul]

A stopping point- (IE if said demand is not met, despite however many other DCs are passed the negotiations fail. )

Or just assume that they're part of whats happening in the skill challange to begin with (IE here are our demands, here are our counters etc...)

Well, it depends:

Ultimatum is delivered by the PCs, and they make the Intimidate check, and that puts them over the top for the skill challenge: The NPC gives in.

Ultimatum is delivered by the PCs, and they make the Intimidate check, but they need more successes: The NPC is clearly intimidated but isn't quite ready to cave; s/he backs down some but tries to keep negotiating.

Ultimatum is delivered by the PCs, but they fail the Intimidate check: The NPC defies them. If the failed Intimidate check is enough to end the skill challenge, the NPC might even take that as the cue to roll initiative. Otherwise, the PCs can either break off the skill challenge and start a fight themselves, or back down.

Ultimatum is delivered by the NPC: If this happens during a skill challenge, it's a negotiating tactic (and the NPC can be made to back down with further skill checks). More commonly, it's a sign that the PCs have failed the skill challenge and the NPC is no longer open to discussion.

The dichotomy with skill challenges is that, as the DMG states, the point of them is not for everyone to form a train behind the guy with the best chance of succeeding, yet they don't really offer a support role for someone who's not suited to the challenge.

Yeah, I've noticed this too. I'm considering using a slightly different mechanic for skill challenges: We go around the table X number of times, with each person declaring an action and making an appropriate skill check. If in X "rounds," the PCs get a total of Y successes, they beat the skill challenge. Otherwise, they fail.

This way, everyone is encouraged to participate; even if you don't have much in the way of relevant skills, you're not actually dragging the party down. You could still get a lucky roll.

 

[Spatula]

Yeah, I've noticed this too. I'm considering using a slightly different mechanic for skill challenges: We go around the table X number of times, with each person declaring an action and making an appropriate skill check. If in X "rounds," the PCs get a total of Y successes, they beat the skill challenge. Otherwise, they fail.

This way, everyone is encouraged to participate; even if you don't have much in the way of relevant skills, you're not actually dragging the party down. You could still get a lucky roll.

That's... a really good idea.

 

[Glyfair]

But that brings up one of the chief problems with Skill Challenges: as written, not everyone needs to participate, and it's too easy to just use the right skill again... and again... and again...

One PC uses Diplomacy 12 times for the win? Yeah. Too easy.

The idea of Skill Challenges is great; the structure isn't there yet.

However, in practice this is mitigated somewhat. Some of the RPGA adventures (IIRC) have a list of skills with other information. One of them is how often a skill can count. All you need to do is limit how many skill checks of a specific skill counts. You can even limit this by characters (everyone can make an Endurance check, but no one gets credit for making two).

Someone said that it wasn't playtested enough. IMP, skill challenges are going to undergo a lot of evolution under 4E. Things will be tried, tested and you will see experimentation. It will have been "playtested enough" about the time of 5E (going by the 8-10 year estimate given by Scott Rouse).

One thing I'd like to see played with are gradients. Having certain skills count more (each player only gets to make one Streetwise check, but it counts as two successes), varying DCs based on the skills, getting additional successes for a great success, etc. Overall this will make them more complex, but there are bits and there that might add a lot to the system.