Skill Challenges: What is the issue with them?

[WizarDru]

I've seen a great deal of references to Skill Challenges being broken, not working as intended or just otherwise being bad. Could someone explain to me the central problem with them that some folks appear to be finding as a problem? I see several people have come up with alternate takes on the Skill Challenge and I'm curious what faults they're trying to shore-up or prevent.

Is this an issue with the math involved? Is this something that has been mollified by the errata to 4e? Do they not perform as they are supposed to? This is what I'm trying to get a feel for.

Note: I'm not interested in comparing 4e skill challenges with 3e's skill system, unless it has a bearing on illustrating the problem with 4e's system. The relative merits of the two are not something I'm looking to discuss, but instead am primarily concerned with investigating whether my upcoming 4e game will require tweaking or not.

 

[Henry]

The threads can give you much more detail (I'll look them up and post them in a sec), but the general gist is this:

As written in the first run DMG, the skill challenges are MUCH more likely to fail than succeed, and the more rolls you make, the worse it is. Even the easy challenges had something like a 75% chance of failing.

The system as errata'ed some people think is now just the opposite -- too easy. They basically dropped the DC's on skills in challenge by 10 across the board (5 by the chart, and 5 more by taking off that sub-note "if it's a skill, add +5 to the DC").

Stalker)'s system seems to have the most work done behind it, and seems the most robust. However, my personal taste is that it's overly complicated compared to the basics of the original system (with the "time of crisis" and other added rules).

 

[Henry]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...skill-challenge-system-new-version-1-2-a.html

I see he's added a simplified version -- I'll have to check it out.

 

[GlaziusF]

Okay, skill have about three levels of proficiency.

LEVEL 1: Checks with a level bonus, maybe an incidental stat.

LEVEL 2: Checks with a primary stat, or skill training, or a racial bonus and a secondary stat.

LEVEL 3: Checks with skill training and: a primary stat, or a racial/skill focus bonus and a secondary stat.

As written they're about 4 apart for every level group. Really I'd put them 5 apart at heroic tier, 6 at paragon tier, and 7 at epic tier.

The real question is, what should be the average success level, and how do extended skill tests tax the party? I'd honestly like to see a system where instead of just burning the occasional utility power you could use healing surges to negate failures or fire off action points to get rerolls.

I'm not as much in favor of people making level 1 skill checks (with no consequence for failure) in lieu of aid another as I am in favor of people making level 3 checks (with no consequence for failure) to open up level 1 checks for anybody to make. There's more of a feeling of accomplishment.

Unless you're making skill checks as part of combat, you don't need to bother with initiative for skill challenges, because everybody can pretty much delay at will.

 

[Stalker0]

There are two main issues with the skill challenge system as written:

1) Initial, it was extremely difficult with the DCS provided. Players literally had a 7% win rate on challenges for their level in certain circumstances. Now the DCs have been dropped, and the win rates are much higher. However, in certain cases, most of which are not that rare, the party has a near automatic chance of success.

2) The main fundamental issue with the system is that it is extrememly sensitive to small changes in a party's skills. If even one party member has a +2 to certain skills higher than another party, you can get huge increases in the party's win rate. The same goes for penalties. You as a DM for example, might want to try giving your players a higher challenge. You throw in a +2 to the DC, afterall, +2 isn't so bad, so right for a higher level challenge right? The reality is this can cause your players win rate to go from a decent chance of winning to a near impossible scenario.

This is an issue that unfortunately cannot be fixed with any slight change. It is a property of the success/failure mechanics used in the system. WOTC has errated the system and curbed this problem slightly, but the high sensitivity is still present.

I have a couple of threads that detail a lot of the actual numbers, and some others have actually shown the theoretical models that highlight the sensitivity of the current system.

 

[Starbuck_II]

I've seen a great deal of references to Skill Challenges being broken, not working as intended or just otherwise being bad. Could someone explain to me the central problem with them that some folks appear to be finding as a problem? I see several people have come up with alternate takes on the Skill Challenge and I'm curious what faults they're trying to shore-up or prevent.

Is this an issue with the math involved? Is this something that has been mollified by the errata to 4e? Do they not perform as they are supposed to? This is what I'm trying to get a feel for.

Note: I'm not interested in comparing 4e skill challenges with 3e's skill system, unless it has a bearing on illustrating the problem with 4e's system. The relative merits of the two are not something I'm looking to discuss, but instead am primarily concerned with investigating whether my upcoming 4e game will require tweaking or not.

Mathophiles did some testing/experimental theory and according to it you will fail easily moderate DCs(which the testing assume most will be).

So after a while WotC caved to this massive math and reduced skill Challenge DCs.

 

[FireLance]

As others have mentioned, skill challenges were probably too difficult at first and probably too easy now.

Stalker0 also mentioned the sensitivity to small changes in the PCs' skill modifiers. I believe this is primarily due to one key factor: a skill check that does not succeed counts as a failure. This leads to a number of undesirable (IMO) results:

1. Under the old skill challenge system, every character had to make a skill check during each "round" of the skill challenge. A character with poor skill modifiers in the key skills for the challenge was thus a liability to the party. Every time his turn came up, he was more likely to get a failure than a success. The only meaningful way for the character to participate was to try to aid another character's skill checks as that normally had no consequence for failure. Either way, the player feels like his character is a liability, or that he is not contributing much to the party's efforts.

2. Under the new skill challenge system, a character can opt not to participate in a skill challenge. Although this addresses the liability issue, it creates another problem: the player is not engaged for that part of the game.

I think a better system would be to have separate skill checks to make progress (gain successes) and deal with consequences (accumulate failures). Ideally, the players with higher skill modifiers should be most active in dealing with consequences, but every character ought to be able participate by trying to make progress without worrying that he will hurt the party by doing so.

 

[Danceofmasks]

But ... if you let the dwarf talk, you're all going to die!
If excluding characters can be done if they're going to be a liability, then exclude away.
Skills are a part of the game where there are "cans" and "cannots" ... I'd go with muzzling the cha-dumped dwarf.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Stalker0's thread digs into all the reasons for the RAW skill challenge issues.

I like his alternate version and use it in my game.

I really like that all the players can be involved the challenge without worrying about blowing it for the party... which is one area the RAW fails on.

 

[Turtlejay]

Right, nobody expects the wizard to go toe to toe with the minotaur, and nobody should ask him to track the minotaur, either. A DM should try to present a range of challenges (social, physical, mental, etc.). Allow skills not part of the expected set (if roleplayed and at a higher DC). Players need not participate each round but they can try to just give a circumstance bonus. All in all I think more rules here will be the wrong way to go. Let your players feel cool!

Jay