Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="NewfieDave" data-source="post: 4315089" data-attributes="member: 56969">Sort of. I think the current system lays a good framework for what skill challenges should do, but it has two flaws...The first flaw is that a table of DCs can't model every possibility (although it can certain serve as a handy guideline). Yes, you can map the roll probabilities and use all the advanced statistics you want to come up with a perfectly balanced table. That's the &quot;science&quot; half of things, but how do you account for the &quot;art&quot; side of playing D&amp;D? Player creativity and smart thinking the DM didn't account for (it's happened to all of us at one time or another) requires free-form and intuitive thinking on the DM's part.The second flaw is that the only thing complexities add to skill challenges is... complexity. And limitations. I would rather leave the number of successes and failures as open variables with a page explaining what adjusting those variables does to success rates. What if I want a skill challenge with 7 successes and 5 failures? What if I want to allow failures to be overcome by secondary rolls?There are so many potential applications of the skill challenge system, and even more ways that it could be modified. Unfortunately, the current complexity system does not support that very well. I think the reason we have the complexity table instead of an open variable approach is to make the game more streamlined (2X Successes = X Failures is pretty easy to remember).I'm hoping we'll see lots more expansion on the skill challenge system in future supplements like the DMG2.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="NewfieDave, post: 4315089, member: 56969"] Sort of. I think the current system lays a good framework for what skill challenges should do, but it has two flaws... The first flaw is that a table of DCs can't model every possibility (although it can certain serve as a handy guideline). Yes, you can map the roll probabilities and use all the advanced statistics you want to come up with a perfectly balanced table. That's the "science" half of things, but how do you account for the "art" side of playing D&D? Player creativity and smart thinking the DM didn't account for (it's happened to all of us at one time or another) [B]requires[/B] free-form and intuitive thinking on the DM's part. The second flaw is that the only thing complexities add to skill challenges is... complexity. And limitations. I would rather leave the number of successes and failures as open variables with a page explaining what adjusting those variables does to success rates. What if I want a skill challenge with 7 successes and 5 failures? What if I want to allow failures to be overcome by secondary rolls? There are so many potential applications of the skill challenge system, and even more ways that it could be modified. Unfortunately, the current complexity system does not support that very well. I think the reason we have the complexity table instead of an open variable approach is to make the game more streamlined (2X Successes = X Failures is pretty easy to remember). I'm hoping we'll see lots more expansion on the skill challenge system in future supplements like the DMG2. [/QUOTE]

Verification