Skill Challenges: What is the issue with them?

[Irda Ranger]

Right, nobody expects the wizard to ... track the minotaur

Nuh uh. My eladrin wizard has Skill Training in Nature and Perception.

------

I'm just posting on the theory that once Stalker0 has posted on the topic the OP has been answered definitively, and the rest of us can be silly.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

I think the problem with players unable to participate can be lessened if you allow Easy DC skill checks that do not count as success/failure, and gain a +2 bonus to the next check of the challenge. That's what I have been doing and have seen from the players side, and I feel it works fine. The core assumptions allow such skill checks already, so it's not even a house rule, just a design guideline. (The house rule - maybe - is that I don't allow traditional aid another on skill challenges. Aid another is both to easy - fixed DC - and it is also less flavorful then narrating a specific skill use and explain how it "helps" the challenge)

Of course, so far no challenge has ever failed (though some came close), so maybe this is making it too easy? (But in each case, we also had a PC that was good at one of the challenges primary cases)

 

[WizarDru]

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.

I'd be curious in seeing some of the numbers. I glanced at your system...and I'll be honest, it seemed to make the whole process a lot more complicated than I really wanted. Is the general issue that of the existence purely of the success/failure mechanic, with no option for partial success/failure? Is it just the cumulative math involved (i.e. the greater the number of checks, the lower the PCs chances of success go)? Could this simply be alleviated by changing the conditions for success/failure (i.e. make it four failures instead of three, allow players to sacrifice an action point or healing surge to counteract a specific failure, etc.)?

While your system looks very detailed (and I've only glanced at the 12 page version, not the longer one), it seems to sacrifice one of 4e's biggest appeals to me; specifically the speed-of-use and relative simplicity.

 

[the Jester]

Easy solution, and it seems to be working out in my 4e campaign so far: drop the original skill test DCs by 5, not the 10 that WotC errata'd in place. My group has had a good (but not perfect) success rate on skill tests since then.

 

[MrMyth]

Easy solution, and it seems to be working out in my 4e campaign so far: drop the original skill test DCs by 5, not the 10 that WotC errata'd in place. My group has had a good (but not perfect) success rate on skill tests since then.

Yeah, this is what I've done as well. I'm very disappointed that Wizards decided to completely overhaul the entire table, rather than just errata the footnote (about adding 5 to the DCs for skills) to say that it only applies to skill stunts, not skill challenge.

By removing that footnote from skill challenges, the numbers seem to be about right for success and failure.

 

[Silverwave]

I'm I the only one who find the RAW for skill challenge ok ?
I don't see a big problem.

EDIT : Well, I never used the side note about +5 on DC for skill checks.

For lvl 1 :

Let see : a moderate DC is 15
Character's best skill is on average +8 (trained +5, ability +3)

So he will need 7 on his dice (wich is 70% succes [getting a 7 on the dice IS a succes, only a result of 1 to 6 is a fail, wich is 30% odds], not bad at all), not to mention he could get a +2 to his dice if he provide an original/intelligent description of how his skill can be used in this challenge.

Keep in mind that players will try to use their best skills in each rolls. Just let them. You're doing a diplomatic skill challenge? How can the wizard provide help with his arcana skill ? Well, just let him tell you. If he comes up with a good or original explanation for it, let him do a check with a moderate dc (15) (maybe even granting him +2 bonus if his explanation is really creative/wise). Be open minded! Let say the fighter wants to use his athletic skill on the diplomatic skill challenge and he comes with an explanation like : "I dash as fast as I can to get to the city guards and tell them about the noble's treachery!" I would let him use his athletic skill with a DC 15 since this is an original idea of using his skill. But if, some levels latter, come by another diplomatic skill challenge and give me the same explanation, I would use a Hard DC and tell him the next time he should be more original (heck, if this new skill challenge is against the same noble, I would not allow him to do so and give him an in game reason like "this time, the noble expected you to do this and locked all the room's doors from the other side")

For a 4 succes before 2 fails, it works great. Each player will do one skill roll (and they WILL use his best skill to do so). Well, odds can come up with 2 fails or 4 succes before every character can make his roll, but in some case, some character can't find how to use his skill on this particular situation and he'll only be happy to find the skill challenge resolved before his turn comes up. For that matter, I don't use initiative. The first player to come with an idea how to use his skill on the challenge get to do his roll, then the next one, etc (but I don't allow a character do to 2 rolls before everyone could make one).

Then comes complexity 2, 3, 4, 5...
Now it messes the odds.

I changed the success/fail on those to keep an average of 70% succes (more or so) and on those I keep in mind that on complexity 2, I want players to do an average of 2 skill rolls each, complexity 3, 3 rolls, etc.

Here's my list :

Complexity 1 : 4/2
Complexity 2 : 7/4
Complexity 3 : 10/6
Complexity 4 : 13/8
Complexity 5 : 16/10


EDIT : Well, then again you could go RAW only removing the +5 DC on skill check side note and have a more or so ok skill challenge system without having to change things from the book.

 

[Stalker0]

I'd be curious in seeing some of the numbers. I glanced at your system...and I'll be honest, it seemed to make the whole process a lot more complicated than I really wanted. Is the general issue that of the existence purely of the success/failure mechanic, with no option for partial success/failure?

While your system looks very detailed (and I've only glanced at the 12 page version, not the longer one), it seems to sacrifice one of 4e's biggest appeals to me; specifically the speed-of-use and relative simplicity.

Here are the links to the math threads I made: http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/229919-showing-math-proving-d-d-4th-edition-s-skill-challenge-system-broken-math-heavy.html

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/230357-heavy-concrete-data-d-d-4th-editions-skill-challenge-system-long-lots-tables.html

As to your questions: The main issue is the success/failure model. At low complexities, you can design the system to be pretty stable. But start increasing the complexity and the system gets very unstable very quickly. Now you can create curbs to the system (like I did in my original system). These can help, but they don't fix this particular problem. Other issues with the system depend on your tastes. For example, the system greatly penalizes characters that don't get to roll their best skills. You actually become a hindrance to your group if you try to participate. This was why WOTC errated the system so that participation is now optional, which to my mind eliminated one of the main points of the system in the first place.

A lot of people use the original challenge DCs, and just remove the table's footname, effectively lowering the DCs by 5. I have the math on that in one of the threads.

If you are looking for a stable, simple skill challenge system, I recommend my Obsidian system, which you can find in my signature.

 

[MrMyth]

I do tend, when designing skill challenges, to try and make sure there are options that don't directly give success or failure (such as using Perception to try and find useful information for others, with success giving them a bonus on their next roll, and failure giving them a penalty or misinformation.) This is a good way to let characters participate without feeling like anything they do will cost the group the challenge.

I still like the succes / failure model as a whole - but I prefer those failures come from genuine failures at something the character could succeed at, not inevitable failure from not being good at anything relevant to the challenge.

I've also used some with a time limit being the relevant factor - if the get enough successes in time, they succeed, if not, they lose. Failures, in this case, might mean they need more successes, or might result in penalties, new foes, or other distracting elements.

One of the other GMs within our group tends to go with a ratio method, letting a certain amount of attempts be made, and then comparing failures to successes.

Another is a fan of the Obsidian system - while it isn't to my taste, he's found it to work well for his purposes. I think it is the much easier system to simply plug in a scenario and numbers, and let it play out on the table with confidence in it being balanced and engaging, while I find the 4E base system more robust for designing more intricate challenges.

 

[functionciccio]

Easy solution, and it seems to be working out in my 4e campaign so far: drop the original skill test DCs by 5, not the 10 that WotC errata'd in place. My group has had a good (but not perfect) success rate on skill tests since then.

Exactly.

But my problem is not with the numbers. My problem/issue is how to properly run a skill challenge.

 

[Derren]

Another problem is that Skill Challenges break easily whenever a splatbook has new items/feats/powers which increases skills or skill checks.

So, enjoy skill challenges while you still can.