Skill Challenges: Bringing the Awesome

[Lacyon]

Now, you can say b=3, because there are three 'laws', and a=17,000+. So, 'k' would be the proportion we are looking for.

Each post by Mr. Hong makes his laws increasingly less valid, according to his statement.

k is constant. b and a are dependent variables (on each other). If a is 17,000 today, and 18,000 tomorrow, k does not change - only b.

(note that declaring b to be quantity of laws is not the same as declaring it to be validity of laws).

You can trust hong, he's a statistician.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

k is constant. b and a are dependent variables (on each other). If a is 17,000 today, and 18,000 tomorrow, k does not change - only b.

(note that declaring b to be quantity of laws is not the same as declaring it to be validity of laws).

You can trust hong, he's a statistician.

Statistics have nothing to do with math.

 

[hong]

Statistics have nothing to do with math.

You say this like it's a negative thing.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Did you know? When you fail to post with rising inflections? You still do not disguise your inverting of direct?

Point in fact:

If b is directly proportional to a, the equation is of the form b = ka (where k is a constant).

If b is inversely proportional to a, the equation is of the form b = k/a (where k is a constant).

Now, even in statistics, the second can't be derived from the first.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

You say this like it's a negative thing.

Then, your statements about math have less validity than your 'laws'.

 

[hong]

Point in fact:

If b is directly proportional to a, the equation is of the form b = ka (where k is a constant).

If b is inversely proportional to a, the equation is of the form b = k/a (where k is a constant).

Now, even in statistics, the second can't be derived from the first.

Did you know? Your misidentification of a, b and k? Could perhaps be better disguised by posting with a rising inflection?

 

[hong]

Then, your statements about math have less validity than your 'laws'.

The validity of such statements is also in direct proportion to post count.

HAW HAW!

 

[Cadfan]

Storm-Bringer, are you being serious? I can't tell.

I feel like I'm being left out of a joke.

 

[Crosswind]

Wait, what DM makes you roll a skill check and then says, "you succeed on your plan even though all your checks failed?"

Don't bother rolling dice in situations where you aren't going to abide by the results.

It is unclear whether you are willfully misinterpreting this, or I was just unclear. I'm going to assume you're a cheerful, friendly fellow and not an internet troll, and I was unclear. Let me try again.

In a skill challenge, players who want to participate volunteer the skill they will use, and what they want to try with it. A DM then decides whether or not what they are trying is Easy/Hard, and picks one of the DCs for it.

A bunch of people do this, and if you pass a fairly arbitrary X out of Y threshold, you win!

This seems like it's adding unnecessary structure to a pretty easy part of the game...and one that's not at all broken in 3.5. It's pretty easily handled as:

"Alright, players. You want to get the sheep into the pen!"
"I'll use my wild empathy to get the sheepdog to help..." (*rolls*)
"Thog roar, scare sheep-things into box!" (*rolls*)
"I create an illusion of food!" (Spell is cast).
*DM looks at all this, looks at the rolls people made, adjudicates what happens*

One of my favorite things about 4E is the increased power in the hands of the DMs to keep the story flowing. Providing fixed rules for how to solve every type of non-combat situation in D&D seems counterproductive, doesn't it?

-Cross

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Storm-Bringer, are you being serious? I can't tell.

I feel like I'm being left out of a joke.

More of a side discussion, really.

Of course, it also shows how even codified rules can be misinterpreted. Applying things like "common sense" or "what the DM decides" are not a fix for the issues raised about the skill challenge system.

So, the DM decides handling the body-bomb roughly will set it off automatically, but according to the rules, that is still four failures away. The players are expecting four failed checks to result in failure, but the DM determines that cutting the body down sets it off. The DM can't really express their expectations, or they are pretty much giving away the answer. The players are upset that one skill was rolled to cut the body down, or maybe no skill was rolled, but they still failed.

The argument boils down to 'use the system as presented' or 'use the system as presented until you don't want to'. Both of which have their own problems.