Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="NewfieDave" data-source="post: 4313356" data-attributes="member: 56969">I keep seeing complaints about skill challenges (and DCs/defenses in general) being too easy/too hard. I've read through some detailed math that shows the system is flawed, and it makes a compelling argument. This seems strange to me. How could such a flawed system make it through playtesting? Why don't I hear as many complaints about the system from playtest reports as I do from statisticians?The answer is that D&D is not 100% math (to most people). There's a lot of art to it as well. In a game where your imagination is the only limiting factor, designing a system to account for every possible variable and complexity is impossible. The tables in the DMG for setting skill challenge and other DCs are merely reasonable guidelines to follow when crafting your own encounters. The best encounter is one that engages the PCs and makes the session fun for everyone.So ultimately, the best "fix" for the skill challenge system is very simple: know your group.Don't put a skill challenge involving jumping over 50 pits of lava against a group a PCs who are all untrained in Athletics/Acrobatics. Don't force a reasonable PC choice to go against an out-of-whack DC just because the tables tell you "that's the way it is, so buck up!"Do put the PCs up against challenges that are related to their abilities and jive with their personalities/goals.A good rule to follow is the 70% rule. A roll against moderate difficulty should succeed 70% of the time. In d20 terms that makes the DC 7 + Skill Mod. On the flip side, harder checks should have around a 30% success rate (DC = 14 + Skill Mod). These numbers are averages, and it's recommended to deviate from these averages (both up and down) to make things more interesting.The other complaint about skill challenges (and perhaps it's the more valid complaint) is that the complexity system is out of whack. I'm going to be ignoring the complexity tables altogether when I DM because it seems like an unintuitive approach. I'm comfortable with letting common sense be the final arbiter on where the party succeeded or failed because the complexity system math doesn't model the art very well. It shouldn't be how many failures the party has earned that ends the skill challenge; it should be how they failed that ends the skill challenge.</blockquote>

Verification