Skill Challenges: New or Old - which is better?

[Nikosandros]

Other. IMHO the original version was too hard and the current one is too easy.

 

[MrMyth]

I use the original DCs, with one exception/clarification - I only apply the "+5 DC for skill checks" note on the chart to Skill Stunts, not Skill Challenges.

With that, everything has fallen pretty perfectly into place when I've run them.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I went with Other. I think the errata version of the RAW is much better, but I don't quite do it RAW. I don't set up specific skills required for the challenge; rather, I let the players decide how they want to tackle the challenge, then call for the skill checks accordingly. Of course, this means the players are always looking for ways to use the skills they're good at--which is fine; who doesn't play to their strengths?--but also means I need higher DCs to ensure a real challenge.

I agree.

 

[pukunui]

What do people think of making skill challenges into a "best out of" type of thing? Best 3 out of 5, best 4 out of 7, best 7 out of 9. That sort of thing. It stops being a "get x successes before y failures" deal and instead just becomes a "majority rules" deal instead. In a best 4 out of 7 challenge, the group has to make a total of 7 checks. If, at the end of it, they've got 5 successes, they win. If they've got 5 failures, they lose. If it's somewhere in between, the challenge can either escalate or be a partial victory or something. Or it could just be "keeping making checks until you either succeed or fail".

Thoughts?

 

[jensun]

A little bit of both together with some homebrew on top.

I tend to use the original DC's, without the +5 but I get rid of initiative, multiple aid another and and requiring everyone to contribute. I rarely have anything which requires more than 4 successes, 6 is my maximum so far and I use te 3 fails and you lose.

I add stake setting, levels of success and penalties for failing both individual rolls and the challenge overall.

I use the basic system quite a lot for things like exploration, investigation, dungeon delving, influencing npc's and pursuing plans.

 

[jasonbostwick]

What do people think of making skill challenges into a "best out of" type of thing? Best 3 out of 5, best 5 out of 7, best 7 out of 10. That sort of thing. It stops being a "get x successes before y failures" deal and instead just becomes a "majority rules" deal instead. In a best 5 out of 7 challenge, the group has to make a total of 7 checks. If, at the end of it, they've got 5 successes, they win. If they've got 5 failures, they lose. If it's somewhere in between, the challenge can either escalate or be a partial victory or something.

Thoughts?

What you've just described is more or less Stalker0's Obsidian system [which gets my 'other' vote, by the way].

Each player makes a total of three checks in the challenge, and the party as a whole has to get a certain number of successes once all of the checks have been made (in a 5 player party, for example, to win they need 8 out of 15 possible successes).

 

[pukunui]

What you've just described is more or less Stalker0's Obsidian system [which gets my 'other' vote, by the way].

Each player makes a total of three checks in the challenge, and the party as a whole has to get a certain number of successes once all of the checks have been made (in a 5 player party, for example, to win they need 8 out of 15 possible successes).

I've looked through Stalker0's system, and while it's pretty good, it's way too complex for me. Glad to hear I'm on the right track, though! Ha ha.

OK, so it goes:

Complexity 1: 2:3
Complexity 2: 3:5
Complexity 3: 4:7
Complexity 4: 7:9
Complexity 5: 6:11

Is that right?

 

[Ander00]

I'm using the Obsidian system.


cheers

 

[Frostmarrow]

Please take a look at my stuff too. See sig.

 

[RangerWickett]

The Obsidian system in my signature. Might sound a bit arrogant, but I think I got something pretty right with that mechanic.

I agree. Stalker0's Obsidian system is great.