Samurai
Adventurer
Stalker, I included much of your system (with some of my own tweaks) in my house rules pdf here: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=230016, and I made sure to give you credit.
Stalker0's New Skill Challenge System (Version 1.0)
FireLance
Legend
I had my concerns about the skill system too, especially seeing the high skill checks needed to disable a trap in the Worldwide Game Day module (the two groups that I ran it for yesterday failed them all, by the way). Your system looks much better than the one in the books. Kudos! 
A couple of issues about Aid Another, though: would it break the system very much if the following changes are made:
1. If the character could choose who to give the skill check bonus to instead of being required to give it to the next character?
2. If instead of only one character per round being able to attempt an Aid Another action, the rule was that a character could only benefit from one Aid Another action in a round? This would prevent the possibility of stacking large bonuses on to a single character, while removing the (somewhat artificial, IMO) limitation of only one Aid Another action per party per round.
A couple of issues about Aid Another, though: would it break the system very much if the following changes are made:
1. If the character could choose who to give the skill check bonus to instead of being required to give it to the next character?
2. If instead of only one character per round being able to attempt an Aid Another action, the rule was that a character could only benefit from one Aid Another action in a round? This would prevent the possibility of stacking large bonuses on to a single character, while removing the (somewhat artificial, IMO
) limitation of only one Aid Another action per party per round.ZombieRoboNinja
First Post
Nice job Stalker, but I'd suggest two changes:
1. Remove the Daredevil Stunt mechanic and change the Critical Success text as follows :
The reasoning here is that you want skill specialists to be able to "win big" without always forcing them to take bigger risks to do so. Also, if you're going to stick in a whole "super-success" mechanic, you might as well let it happen more than 5% of the time.
I renamed it because I was rolling the natural 20 component in with something else, so the "critical" nomenclature might be misleading.
I also simplified the mechanics a bit because the "if the roll would have been a success" thing seemed a needless complication, given that I'd already abandoned the "critical" symmetry.
2. Roll back the change on non-allowed skills. Those skills are only good for one success per challenge anyway, so I don't see it becoming a huge problem for skill monkeys trying to "game the system" (especially since the DM can just tell them "no" if that becomes a problem). I get that the original non-allowed skills system can harm the party's chance of success, but the added creative possibilities more than make up for it, I'd say. If the wizard's player can think of a way to apply his arcane lore to the diplomatic negotiations, more power to him.
Obviously these are my opinions, more based on the "feel" of skill challenges than on the cold hard math, but there it is.
1. Remove the Daredevil Stunt mechanic and change the Critical Success text as follows :
The reasoning here is that you want skill specialists to be able to "win big" without always forcing them to take bigger risks to do so. Also, if you're going to stick in a whole "super-success" mechanic, you might as well let it happen more than 5% of the time.
I renamed it because I was rolling the natural 20 component in with something else, so the "critical" nomenclature might be misleading.
I also simplified the mechanics a bit because the "if the roll would have been a success" thing seemed a needless complication, given that I'd already abandoned the "critical" symmetry.
2. Roll back the change on non-allowed skills. Those skills are only good for one success per challenge anyway, so I don't see it becoming a huge problem for skill monkeys trying to "game the system" (especially since the DM can just tell them "no" if that becomes a problem). I get that the original non-allowed skills system can harm the party's chance of success, but the added creative possibilities more than make up for it, I'd say. If the wizard's player can think of a way to apply his arcane lore to the diplomatic negotiations, more power to him.
Obviously these are my opinions, more based on the "feel" of skill challenges than on the cold hard math, but there it is.
Celebrim
Legend
a) I approve. This does sound like a much better system, and if I was ever going to run 4e - and if I was ever going to run 4e and limit myself with the stupid restrictions implied by the skill challenge system - then I'd definately be using your house rules.
b) I love your table of DC's and complexities. The reason I love it is because it so eloquently illustrates why, when they started promoting 4e and said that they had 'fixed the math', that it was 'simple', and 'it just worked', it immediately offended me to the point that I lost all interest in 4e. Quite obviously, looking at your table, fixing the math such that it is easy and intuitive isn't in fact easy. Intuitive numbers end up having very counter intuitive effects. Actually fixing the math often has 'ugly' results from a design perspective, but I think everyone would agree that it is better to have elegant gameplay than elegant design.
c) That said, identifying and fixing the problem (or if not fixing it then at least improving it compared to what was printed) took all of like 3 days? Maybe a week or two tops? Like I said, with no extensive open play test, 'the 4.5 edition' was pretty much gauranteed to be just around the corner. By the end of next year, they are going to be marketing 'new and improved D&D 4e, don't be left out'. By the end of next year, they are going to be saying how '4e made big improvements in the game, but let's face it, there was alot of it that was just ugly. Well, 4.5 edition fixes all that. It really fixes the math, and we mean it this time.'
b) I love your table of DC's and complexities. The reason I love it is because it so eloquently illustrates why, when they started promoting 4e and said that they had 'fixed the math', that it was 'simple', and 'it just worked', it immediately offended me to the point that I lost all interest in 4e. Quite obviously, looking at your table, fixing the math such that it is easy and intuitive isn't in fact easy. Intuitive numbers end up having very counter intuitive effects. Actually fixing the math often has 'ugly' results from a design perspective, but I think everyone would agree that it is better to have elegant gameplay than elegant design.
c) That said, identifying and fixing the problem (or if not fixing it then at least improving it compared to what was printed) took all of like 3 days? Maybe a week or two tops? Like I said, with no extensive open play test, 'the 4.5 edition' was pretty much gauranteed to be just around the corner. By the end of next year, they are going to be marketing 'new and improved D&D 4e, don't be left out'. By the end of next year, they are going to be saying how '4e made big improvements in the game, but let's face it, there was alot of it that was just ugly. Well, 4.5 edition fixes all that. It really fixes the math, and we mean it this time.'
ZombieRoboNinja said:
The first is an elegant suggestion, the question is of course how much it affects the math. I am currently working on my new version which is incorporating a brand new rule. Once that is complete, I will run models and simulations on your idea, and see if I can make it work, because I do like the concept.
To the second, if I can get the variance down to where one roll at a high DC doesn't mess with the win rate as much, I may do this. Right now, the model is still too sensitive.
Primitive Screwhead
First Post
I like this concept, altho the requirement to have a critical success seems to be a bit weird to me. Bascially this rule would be used so infrequently that no-one would remember it!Stalker said:
I suggest changing to to something like:
Skillful Recovery: As an immediate reaction you may attempt to negate a failed skill check. Attempt an approved skill versus the failed checks DC +4. If you succeed, the failed check does not count. If you fail, both your check and the failed check count as failures.
special Each time beyond the first that you attempt a skillful recovery in a given skill challenge, you gain a -4 penalty to your roll.
This gives the party a reasoin to be glad the skill money is around, but the choice carries danger.
And.. I like the system and will probably adapt for my game.. and talk to my DM about adapting in his
Any chance of posting a pdf/word version once you finish looking at it the second time?
Magus Coeruleus
Explorer
Awesome possum. I have zero idea if/how it could work with your model, but I agree with above post that it would be great if skillful recovery worked differently for logical/roleplaying purposes. That is, right now you have it as something you can "purchase" only with potentially unrelated and purely random critical successes, with no drawback if you fail in the recovery attempt. I would much prefer something you can attempt if it seems viable to the DM regardless of critical successes and that there are negative consequences for failure and something to discourage attempting recovery every time.
Stalker0 -
I've set up a wiki for some contributors over at the Penny-Arcade boards - we're basically starting a sort of Creative-Commons, open source, non-for-profit game publishing company.
I love your system, and would love your permission to host it on our wiki, with full credit to you.
Send me an e-mail at bartlow.3 <at> osu.edu
Thanks! Great work! I look forward to seeing this new idea, too!
I've set up a wiki for some contributors over at the Penny-Arcade boards - we're basically starting a sort of Creative-Commons, open source, non-for-profit game publishing company.
I love your system, and would love your permission to host it on our wiki, with full credit to you.
Send me an e-mail at bartlow.3 <at> osu.edu
Thanks! Great work! I look forward to seeing this new idea, too!
Wow this is excellent.
My solution to the skill challenge math-woes had gradually eroded into 'just wing it', which has worked well enough, but with this system I can actually get excited about both the general concept of the skill challenge and the rules behind it. Will start using it immediately and report back
I run a twice-weekly game with players who are by now well familiar and warmed-up to the concept of skill challenges, so hopefully we'll be able to contribute some actual-play insights.
My solution to the skill challenge math-woes had gradually eroded into 'just wing it', which has worked well enough, but with this system I can actually get excited about both the general concept of the skill challenge and the rules behind it. Will start using it immediately and report back
I run a twice-weekly game with players who are by now well familiar and warmed-up to the concept of skill challenges, so hopefully we'll be able to contribute some actual-play insights.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
