Trap-disabler Wanted: Optimized halflings need only apply?

[Dave Turner]

Zerakon,

Read the first post in this thread (at the least, you can read more if you like): http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=230357

It points to the same problems you've identified.

 

[Mike000]

I think the people who are saying "it's okay for the dabbler to be worse than the specialist" are missing the point of the dramatic shift in the math regarding success vs. failure.

Not exactly:

The semi-skilled dabbler having 2/3 the bonus of the optimized character is fine, in-and-of-itself.

However...

All Skill Challenges are broken - that's the issue there, and I don't see anyone arguing against that, specifically. They flop from insanely difficult (about a 15% success rate, optimized) to stupidly easy (about an 85% success rate, untrained, with a penalty) with little ease of predicting the actual difficulty without a spreadsheet.

IOW, Skill Challenges are looking to be the polymorph of 4th ed.

 

[Keltheos]

Wouldn't it be easy enough for skill challenges to apply a +2 to each successive step of the challenge for each step successfully passed?

I.e. if it's a 4/2 challenge it'd be a +2 then +4 then +6 then +8 for the stages, it would presumably make sense that someone who is doing well at something would gain insight into the next step in a process.

I'd suggest leaving associating some sort of penalty with a failure to avoid placing a challenge back out of reach of the participant, but if someone felt it appropriate, a failure can only wipe out one +2 bonus already achieved. Therefore there would be no penalty if the first check was failed, only after at least one successful check was made would the penalty be applied on a failure (which would bring it back in line with the RAW as they stand now - not give further penalties).

I'm sure someone will bring me up to speed on why this won't work if the math doesn't support it (the math threads give me fits).

 

[Zerakon]

Wouldn't it be easy enough for skill challenges to apply a +2 to each successive step of the challenge for each step successfully passed?

It's easy enough to apply that, and it's not a terrible idea on the surface, but like Mike000 said its the ease of predicting success without a spreadsheet that is one of the problems with the skill challenge system. In other words, it's a problem of transparency. Also when you throw skill challenges into traps, I'd argue it's a double-transparency issue, because a rogue player could look at the Thievery descriptions and DC chart on pages 188-189 of the Player's Handbook and design his character to have a reasonable chance of success, only to later learn that he has unreasonable odds with skill challenge traps.

The other problem is that the specialist(s) doesn't need the help in many cases -- making it easier for him/them is lowering the dramatic tension even more because they already had a really good chance of success.

 

[Keltheos]

So, really, when it comes down to it it's a question of how much metagaming a player is willing to put into their character?

I'm finding the specialist/dabbler argument holding more weight in light of how few skills are now available to the classes. I like the idea (still deciding how much 'like') but the cracks show through when they try to parcel out abilities in situations like these.

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

A 4th-level fighter that dabbles in disabling traps has a “only” 25% chance of succeeding. Interesting.

You have obviously never played Original D&D. I don’t have the original rules at hand, but I do have Labyrinth Lord, which is close enough.

Turning to page 13 and the “Thief Skills Table”, we see the Thief class (now called a rogue, but still dedicated to picking locks, moving silently, etc.) has only a 23% chance of picking the lock at 4th level.

I don't think halfings could pick locks. They could hide and smoke pot though.

And yes, I think the new way is better than the old way. Thieves are never very useful until they hit 7th or 8th level. That’s a lot of game time playing a lame character.

That’s also a lot of game time playing a lot of thieves when you consider that it’s damn-near a miracle to get a character past 2nd or 3rd level in Original D&D.

 

[Zerakon]

A 4th-level fighter that dabbles in disabling traps has a “only” 25% chance of succeeding. Interesting.

A lot of people are getting mentally stuck on the "fighter" and "dabbler" words of the first post.

The same problem presents itself for a 4th-level human rogue, trained in Thievery.

 

[Balgus]

I dont see a problem here. The halfling has Skill Focus, and the pirate doesnt. Is it really fair to compare two characters when one is designed to do something, while the other is MC fighter? And MC anything should not be as good as any pure class at what they are designed.

If the pirate wants to be good at traps, then invest a feat. Otherwise, his skill is at par with other people/ class who are just dabblers.

Byronic:
Let the other characters assist in disarming the traps. Four people can help you at the same time and each one that gets a 10+ on their roll (assuming an average Dex bonus of 1 this means they have to throw a 7 or higher) will give you a +2 bonus for disarming.

I dont know how this could help. Like too many cooks in the kitchen, I can only see your friends who dont have training only getting in the way. If I were disarming a trap that took total concentration, and for which I know I can only accomplish 50% of the time, I sure as heck dont want people with lower skill telling what to do, or sticking their hands into the trap... And if they have higher skill, then they can disarm the trap themself.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

As a DM this seems pretty straightforward... the only person in the party who's specialized in handling traps isn't fully optimized in it. That says that they aren't really interested in those kinds of challenges, so I'd just use lower DC traps so he could reasonably disarm them, and just give less XP proportionately (since they're easier traps). I figure if it makes sense to tone down combats for a smaller than normal group, noncombat challenges can be tweaked the same way.

If on the other hand you feel the trap DC should be "objective" based on the rules of the game world, then you might say to the player "Hey, you're going to want to take Skill Focus so you can handle traps, you might see some tough ones."

I figure for most groups one of those would probably work for 'em.

 

[Keltheos]

I dont know how this could help. Like too many cooks in the kitchen, I can only see your friends who dont have training only getting in the way. If I were disarming a trap that took total concentration, and for which I know I can only accomplish 50% of the time, I sure as heck dont want people with lower skill telling what to do, or sticking their hands into the trap... And if they have higher skill, then they can disarm the trap themself.

That's the problem with the rules allowing for 'helpers' to pitch in. This is an issue in most games. Mostly it simply makes little practical (versimilitudinous )sense, but if the players can come up with good reasons as to how they're helping (vs. just 'I'm rolling, can I help?') more than happy to let them - anything that makes for a good story is a good rule in my book.