Skill Challenge Overkill (mearls stuff)

[Lacyon]

Are you fellows being coy? Who needs examples? In 4e, the math for the baseline is cut-and-dried:half-level, a +5 if trained, and a an ability score bonus. The only variable is the ability score bonus, and with 4e, ability score bonuses tend to be more prescribed than in 3e--not many 4e rogues are debating whether Dex or Int should be their highest stat. The only other freebie to add into the mix is a racial bonus, if any.

There are no item bonuses in your games? Or Skill Focus? Other feat bonuses? Okay.

Figuring an average characters' total bonus at a given level is easy; it's breaking away from the average that poses problems.

Average dudes are level 1. You've already broken away. If you're trying to break away from your teammates, spend a feat. It's not like giving up +1-2 damage is going to cripple your character in combat.

 

[Cadfan]

I'm not being coy. What you wrote didn't make any sense.

It kind of sounded like you were saying that you only feel that your character "excels" if it "excels" in comparison to a hypothetical baseline character of the same class and race.

I understand what you have to say about the degree of variability in skill rolls being tighter in 4e- there are fewer stackable bonuses, as an intentional design decision. I think your argument about ability scores being more tightly controlled is a little bogus (see a lot of characters with 14 in their attack stat in 3e? it was mostly 16s and 18s and 20s back then too), but whatever, its not a big deal.

The part I don't get is why you care. The +3 from skill focus is enough to make a noticeable difference between a trained and untrained character, and there are significant advantages to varying upon a known baseline instead of wildly occilating.

 

[Felon]

There are no item bonuses in your games? Or Skill Focus? Other feat bonuses? Okay.

Sure, those things exist, but I'd specifically used the term "baseline", and those things aren't inherent to the baseline character.

Average dudes are level 1. You've already broken away.

I'd specifically used phrases like "of a given level", and the whole conversation pretty handily indicated that "average dude" isn't a reference to 1st-level NPC's. Basically, this just sounds like an attempt at deconstruction without the courtesy attempt at acceptance that should precede it.

I'm not being coy. What you wrote didn't make any sense.

It kind of sounded like you were saying that you only feel that your character "excels" if it "excels" in comparison to a hypothetical baseline character of the same class and race.

I understand what you have to say about the degree of variability in skill rolls being tighter in 4e- there are fewer stackable bonuses, as an intentional design decision. I think your argument about ability scores being more tightly controlled is a little bogus (see a lot of characters with 14 in their attack stat in 3e? it was mostly 16s and 18s and 20s back then too), but whatever, its not a big deal.

The part I don't get is why you care. The +3 from skill focus is enough to make a noticeable difference between a trained and untrained character, and there are significant advantages to varying upon a known baseline instead of wildly occilating.

Well, first off, yes, you certainly saw 3e characters with 14's in their attack stat in 3e. You saw characters with 12's and 10's. How could you not? With few exceptions (Weapon Finesse), you used Strength to attack in melee and Dex to attack at range, and many characters simply had bigger priorities in their ability scores. Monks, rogues, scouts, and rangers all spring to mind as guys who had to attack with a 14.

As to "why I care", let's do a little backtracking. People were discussing why skill challenges are kind of blah. I'd explained that part of why they're blah is that the numbers involved are usually too flat, too predictable, too homogeneous. In a skill challenge, you'll either have a character trained in a relevant skill or you'll have a character untrained in a relevant skill, and since the DC's for a skill check take those numbers into account, that pretty much comprises a very simple, routine set of numbers to play with. If I succeed on a 9, then likely someone else on the same end of the trained/untrained pendulum is also succeeding on a 9. Blah.

I see a lot of folks promoting item bonuses and Skill Focus and feats and utility powers, but on the basis of empirical evidence, do your fellow gamers glom onto these things, or do their priorities for items, feats, and utility powers tend to wind up elsewhere?

Now, I daresay my discourse has been about as meticulous as any you're likely to see on these forums. I've done my due diligence in terms of articulation. If the response is still "you're not making any sense" or "I don't get it", then we're pretty much at a dead stop.

 

[the Jester]

I see a lot of folks promoting item bonuses and Skill Focus and feats and utility powers, but on the basis of empirical evidence, do your fellow gamers glom onto these things, or do their priorities for items, feats, and utility powers tend to wind up elsewhere?

IMC, about 1/2 of the utility powers chosen at levels where skill-boosting utilities are available have been skill-related ones.

A few skill-related feats have been taken, too, though probably not 50%. Likewise with items. So I'd say, in my experience, that the players do sometimes choose to focus on skill stuff.

Which is about as it should be, imho- if it's a no-brainer either to always take skill stuff or to never take skill stuff, then something's broken. When it's an option worth taking some but not all of the time, I think the balance is about right.

YMMV, of course.

 

[Spatula]

As to "why I care", let's do a little backtracking. People were discussing why skill challenges are kind of blah. I'd explained that part of why they're blah is that the numbers involved are usually too flat, too predictable, too homogeneous. In a skill challenge, you'll either have a character trained in a relevant skill or you'll have a character untrained in a relevant skill, and since the DC's for a skill check take those numbers into account, that pretty much comprises a very simple, routine set of numbers to play with.

There's actually around 4, not 2, different skill "states" in 4e - a matrix of trained/untrained and boosted/unboosted stat. You could make it a bit deeper by differentiating between primary boosted stats and secondary boosted stats (a fighter's STR vs WIS, frex), but that's only going to be around a 1 or 2 point difference.

That's without getting into feats, powers, etc. which provide a significant extra dimension to possible skill values.

As an example, consider a Cleric's or Paladin's Religion bonus (their signature skill) vs a Wizard's.

 

[Dausuul]

I see a lot of folks promoting item bonuses and Skill Focus and feats and utility powers, but on the basis of empirical evidence, do your fellow gamers glom onto these things, or do their priorities for items, feats, and utility powers tend to wind up elsewhere?

I use them all the time. My elf ranger has Skill Focus (Perception) and the paragon feat that lets you roll all Perception checks twice and take the better result. Perception is an extremely valuable skill and it's worth it to me to spend a couple of feats on it.

I've also been known to boost Stealth, Bluff... if a character happens to have good basic synergies in a skill (trained, high associated stat, and maybe a racial bonus), I'll at least consider kicking it up further with feats, then making that skill a central part of my adventuring strategy with that character.

I'm currently considering a doppelganger feylock with Skill Focus (Bluff) and the warlock utility power that lets you re-roll a Bluff check... can you say "ultimate spy?"