D&D 3.x Skill Challenges in 3.5

[Kristian Serrano]

People keep going on about it "not being new". And at the same time, there's other folks going, "That's so cool! How would I do that in D&D 3.x?"

Yeah, for some folks it's not new. Especially if you tend to play games other than D&D. If you play small press rpgs, then you're even further ahead of the curve.

But there's a fair chunk of people that play the game _by the book_. They've learned how to play D&D from playing 3.x, and if it's not in the book then they're not doing it.

I've only played 3e /v3.5 D&D, I've always played "by the book" and I've easily assessed how to use multiple skill checks to grant circumstance bonuses to other skill checks to determine the outcome of a skill-based challenge/encounter. Aid another, bardic knowledge, knowledge checks, sense motive, synergy bonuses, etc. have all played factors in such encounters. It's really not hard to figure out. Just allow PCs to use their abilities and resources to grant +2 bonuses here and there. Inversely, I've also applied penalties for certain things, too, such as race, affiliation, nationality, class, etc.

Rather than going on about how it's not a new idea and you've been doing it for years, why not actually explain _how_ you do it? That's a lot more useful. Especially since this is the House Rules forum.

Why? This sounds like you're just trying to call someone out rather than anything else.

Additionally, you already have a basic reference you can use in 4e. Why would you ask for anyone else's?

I won't post my own method because it's highly conditional and based on common sense.

And to keep this post on topic...

What (if anything) are done about the skills? Something like Skill Challenges are groovy and all, but D&D's skill system is *bleh* in my opinion. A slimmed down version seems like it'd be easier to pull this off in than the 3.x default skill system. Unless you're a skill monkey (Rogue) most characters are going to only bother putting points into one or two skills, because otherwise it's just a waste of time and skill points from what I've seen.

3.x skill system is not that far off from 4e. You also don't need to be a skill monkey to contribute to a skill challenge. The cleric with diplomacy can contribute just as much as a fighter with intimidate, a rogue with bluff and sense motive, or a wizard with Knowledge skills. I've never met a player who played any of those classes without at least some ranks in any of those skills, unless it was for some sort of weird roleplaying reason.

 

[slwoyach]

People keep going on about it "not being new". And at the same time, there's other folks going, "That's so cool! How would I do that in D&D 3.x?"

Yeah, for some folks it's not new. Especially if you tend to play games other than D&D. If you play small press rpgs, then you're even further ahead of the curve.

But there's a fair chunk of people that play the game _by the book_. They've learned how to play D&D from playing 3.x, and if it's not in the book then they're not doing it.

Rather than going on about how it's not a new idea and you've been doing it for years, why not actually explain _how_ you do it? That's a lot more useful. Especially since this is the House Rules forum.

And to keep this post on topic...

What (if anything) are done about the skills? Something like Skill Challenges are groovy and all, but D&D's skill system is *bleh* in my opinion. A slimmed down version seems like it'd be easier to pull this off in than the 3.x default skill system. Unless you're a skill monkey (Rogue) most characters are going to only bother putting points into one or two skills, because otherwise it's just a waste of time and skill points from what I've seen.

Wow, who took a dump in your cheerios? It's not even a new concept in DND. If you've ever had a DM ask you to make a jump check as you jumped a chasm, and then a balance check for uneven footing on the other side you've just completed a skill challenge.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

... why not actually explain _how_ you do it? That's a lot more useful. Especially since this is the House Rules forum.

And to keep this post on topic...

What (if anything) are done about the skills? Something like Skill Challenges are groovy and all, but D&D's skill system is *bleh* in my opinion. A slimmed down version seems like it'd be easier to pull this off in than the 3.x default skill system. Unless you're a skill monkey (Rogue) most characters are going to only bother putting points into one or two skills, because otherwise it's just a waste of time and skill points from what I've seen.

Okay.. How to run a skill challenge in 3x...

The basic framework of a skill challenge if flexible. You can set up a challenge with either specific tasks, like jumping across a chasm then balance on a narrow ledge, or with a general idea.
An example of the latter comes in a chase scene I ran for my group. The had to flee a city with guards chasing after them. Rather than map out the city of decide for them what skills were needed, I left it open. One used Knowledge: Local to find a shortcut. Another used bluff to get a crowd of bystanders drawn into the street between the party and the guards. Another used Climb to flee into a blind alley and climb up to the roof. Each player got to decide what they were doing, and which skill to use. The DC's of the checks varied from 15 for the easy attempts to 23 for the difficult attempts. Once the party gained 8 successful checks, they got far enough away to escape. Had they failed 4 times, one or more of them would have been captured.

Yes, the 3x plethora of skills is a problem. The 4e RAW skill challenge also has problems. Check out Stalker0's Obsidian rules in the 4e house rules for a much neater mechanic and some good stories of skill challenges in play.

Lastly, my comment that this is not 'new' was not an elitist comment, intent on condescending against you. It was an affirmative response to amaril's observation that "It sounds more like an idea rather than an actual mechanic".

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Yes, the 3x plethora of skills is a problem. The 4e RAW skill challenge also has problems. Check out Stalker0's Obsidian rules in the 4e house rules for a much neater mechanic and some good stories of skill challenges in play.

Lastly, my comment that this is not 'new' was not an elitist comment, intent on condescending against you. It was an affirmative response to amaril's observation that "It sounds more like an idea rather than an actual mechanic".

Thanks for that bit. Are Stalker0's rules actually hijackable for a 3.x based game? I can't get 4E books until next year, so it's not going to do me much good if it relies too heavily on 4E

I didn't take your comment as an elitist comment either. I play plenty of games other than d20 based stuff, so I'm pretty familiar actually with the overall idea required successes vs failures and some other things related to it. So I completely agree that it's not a new idea. I just find it annoying when some people show up and simply post "It's not new" and don't bother giving any kind of actually useful information or suggestions.

And speaking of advice/suggestions:

What's the guideline you use for determining the number of successes needed vs failures? I'll take a look at Stalker0's system, but I imagine that D&D 4E has a different "level of competence assumption" than 3.x.

In other words, 3.x is assuming people are going to be successful in succeeding at a skill approximately how often? D&D is geared much more towards the "zero to hero" kind of play (instead of character simply starting out competent/good), so it's a bit different in terms of deciding how to assign the DC and the number of successes required, compared to other systems I'm more comfortable with.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What's the guideline you use for determining the number of successes needed vs failures? I'll take a look at Stalker0's system, but I imagine that D&D 4E has a different "level of competence assumption" than 3.x.

In other words, 3.x is assuming people are going to be successful in succeeding at a skill approximately how often? D&D is geared much more towards the "zero to hero" kind of play (instead of character simply starting out competent/good), so it's a bit different in terms of deciding how to assign the DC and the number of successes required, compared to other systems I'm more comfortable with.

3e skill modifiers are very difficult to predict, in my experience. There are many feats, synergy bonus, class bonus and magic item bonus that effect them. And you don't actually know how much skill points anyone will spend on a given skill.

There are some things that are likely to be maxed for characters that have them - Search, Disable Device, Diplomacy, Open Lock, Listen, Sense Motive, Spot, Spellcraft, Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (Religion), Concentration. Many of the other skills, though, often don't require to be maxed at higher levels. And then there are cross-class skills, which are rarely increased at all.

I would say:
5 major factors contribute to your skill modifier
- Ranks
- Ability Modifiers (being affected by spells or magical items)
- Feats
- Synergy bonus.
- Magical Items directly enhancing skills

Following this assumptions:
Low DCs are for cross-classes or don't focus on a class skill, but still advance it from time to time (maybe for synergy bonus or even modifiers, two things I often did)

Moderate DCs are for class skills for which you don't invest many other resources. A fighter increasing Ride or Jump, for example.

High DCs are for class skills you invest heavily on. Feats, magical items, optimizing synergy bonus and so on.

Low DCs are probably around 10 + (2/3 x level)
Moderate DCs are probably around 12 + (2 x level)
High DCs are probably around 15 + (5/2 x level)

So, a Level 10 skill challenge would have DCs as following:
Low DC 17; Moderate DC 32; High DC 40

If we take a Bard maxing his Diplomacy skill (assuming: Circlet of Persuasion, Synergy from Bluff and Sense Motive, Cloak of Charisma +4, Starting Charisma of 16, +2 for levels, 13 ranks) we get a +26. (Low DC automatic success, moderate DC 75 % success chance, and a high DC 35 % success rate)

Well, this is a first guesswork, and I tweaked the numbers until I got the level 10 Bard "right". I am not sure you will ever make something that really works.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

So, a Level 10 skill challenge would have DCs as following:
Low DC 17; Moderate DC 32; High DC 40

If we take a Bard maxing his Diplomacy skill (assuming: Circlet of Persuasion, Synergy from Bluff and Sense Motive, Cloak of Charisma +4, Starting Charisma of 16, +2 for levels, 13 ranks) we get a +26. (Low DC automatic success, moderate DC 75 % success chance, and a high DC 35 % success rate)

Well, this is a first guesswork, and I tweaked the numbers until I got the level 10 Bard "right". I am not sure you will ever make something that really works.

I think your DC's are too high - the Bard with Diplomacy is a real outlier in terms of his top end number due to all the synergy bonuses that you can get with Diplomacy. Most skills at 10th level will be in the range of +17 to +21, I'd guess, which would give almost no chance of success at the high level. and only less than half at the moderate level.

A big question for this that I've never heard answered: What should the overall success percentage with a Skill Challenge be? 50%? 75%? I'd say set the chance at 50%. Since you need to succeed twice as often as you fail, that means the DC's should be set at 66% chance of success, right? That would mean, IMO, that the DC for a moderate skill check should be around DC 25 - that way a non-optimized 10th level PC can succeed by rolling a 8, with a +17 skill modifier. The Hard DC is not as easy to set - I'd probably set it at 3-5 points higher, and the Easy DC 3-5 points lower.

Caveat: I'm no mathematician, so my numbers may well be egregiously off.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I didn't go the long math model. Instead I asked what would encourage the players to attempt skills even when they did not invest alot of points into them.

One problem with the skill challenges as they stand is that the mechanics encourage the inventiveness of 'how can I use my +18 Ride skill in this scenario?"... because a failure counts against the group so they don't want to use thier +1 {Chr bonus only} Diplomancy skill and risk failure.

With that assumption I asked myself what DC would allow the non maxed out skills to succeed with at least some regularity {50% ish}.

My swag of CR +16 for normal and +/- 4 for hard/easy allows for the widest range of skill choice. Will the Bardic Diplo monster walk over this? sure.. but is that a bad thing when it allows the non skill monkey characters to be a meaningful part of the challenge?

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

My swag of CR +16 for normal and +/- 4 for hard/easy allows for the widest range of skill choice. Will the Bardic Diplo monster walk over this? sure.. but is that a bad thing when it allows the non skill monkey characters to be a meaningful part of the challenge?

You ended up with a number just 1 higher than what I came up with - and your reasoning is absolutely right; you have the give the non-skill focused PC's a moment to shine, too. The Bard will walk over a Diplomacy challenge using that DC - but then he really should, since that such a focus of such characters.

The one thing that I haven't figured out how to handle is what to do when a player wants to use a ability check to contribute in a skill challenge. 4E ups the DC by 5 when using skills over ability checks, IIRC. Any thoughts? Or did I miss this from earlier in the thread?

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I had not run into that yet, but just reversing the 5 point bump should work.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Here are a few things to consider before ninjaing the 4e skill challenge system.

1. There are a few mathematical problems inherent in the 4e skill challenge system. Stalker0 explored them in the excellent threads referenced above, but to give a preview, I think the most persuasive problems that he presents are:
a. A character without an appropriate skill harms the party by participating. (If three failures before six successes loses you the skill challenge, then every time Joe the barbarian without any (appropriate) good skills attempts to participate, he is likely to fail (because his skills are not good) and harm the party (because they can't afford failures.
b. The RAW encourage every player to try to finagle a way to use their good skills to solve every problem. The fighter has a really good athletics but no diplomacy? He impresses the king by flexing his biceps? The wizard is running away from the guards in Sembia? His athletics is garbage, he doesn't have any streetwise, and he doesn't have the endurance necessary to succeed. So, he tries to find a way to use history or arcana. (Apparently, he spent his time as a child reading the "Guiness book of most useful secret doors in the Realms"... and they all happen to be in Sembia).

Now while I haven't played it, Stalker0's thread convinced me that the mechanic can be (and probably has been) fixed.

But there's a bit more work necessary to adapt in to 3.X or Pathfinder because there is a much larger difference between the abilities of a poor character and a good character. To illustrate that, let's take the example of athletics. In 4e, a strength focused melee ranger with skill focus athletics might have an athletics check of +13 at first level (+5 str, +5 skill training, +3 skill focus). More reasonably, it would be +8 or +9 depending upon amor check penalty. A very aggressively charisma focused paladin might have an athletics check of -5 (-1 for an 8 strength, -2 for heavy shield, -2 for plate armor). That's a potential difference of 13 points. At level 21, the difference would not be that much different. The typical melee ranger has +10 from level, +8 from strength, and +5 from skill training: +23. The paladin has +10 from level, +0 from strength, and -4 from armor check penalty. Total +6. That's a difference of 17 points. A bit bigger, but not too much.

Now, look at that example in 3.x and we'll use Climb since it follows a more typical skill progression than Jump. Character 1 is a lightly armored fighter. He starts out with an 18 strength and puts max ranks in climb because he has nothing better to do with his ranks. At level one, he has +8 to climb. Character 2 is a grey elf wizard. He has a 6 strength and no ranks. -2. A difference of 10 points. Pretty similar to 4th edition at 1st level. But up the level to 16 (perhaps the equivalent of 4th edition 21st level) and things are dramatically different. The fighter now has 19 ranks, +9 from strength, +1 from a luckstone, and +2 from his armbands of might for a total of +31 to climb. The wizard still has no ranks and still has a strength of 6 but he also picked up a luckstone. So he has a total bonus of -1. That's a 30 point difference in ability. The fighter can strap on fullplate and take the penalty to climb at double speed, roll a 1, and still succeed at a task that the wizard can't succeed at even on a 20. (Which is why wizards have spells like spider climb, fly, and dimension door).

In short, while 4th edition has a fairly consistent difference between characters who are good at skills and those who aren't, 3.x enables characters who are godlike in combat or one skill to be no better than your typical first level commoner at other skills. Just because you can kill a gargantuan black dragon singlehandedly doesn't mean you can weave a rug or lie your way past the palace guards.

That poses a problem for the skill challenge mechanic because if you adopt a fixed DC for everyone, by mid levels it will simultaneously be automatic for some characters and impossible for others. (In a home game, careful design of the challenge can accomodate this since you should know the characters' abilities; writing for a con game or publication does not afford you that luxury). My experience writing RPGA mods suggests that for 3.x, you're probably better off using a complex skill check mechanic and providing multiple skills that give you different paths to your goal, some of which may be better than others.