Untrained/trained Skills....Noooo!

[Cadfan]

Celebrim is right that in 3.x the DCs for group challenges should be set to the lowest players. If a particular fight requires the players to climb a wall to get to the badguys who are shooting at them from above (or whatever reason you've cobbled together, point is a group challenge involving the climb skill) you have basically two choices. Make the DC challenging to the best climber, or to the worst climber. In the first option, the DC is "interesting" to the best climber, and impossible for everyone else. In the second option, the DC is interesting to the majority of the players, and the player who invested heavily in the climb skill gets to rocket straight up the wall without hindrance- which is its own reward and is "interesting" in its own way.

But Mustrum Ridcully is right about opposed checks. This sort of DM management fails once those become involved.

In any case, from a flavor perspective I don't mind the idea of characters getting generally more athletic as they go up in levels. Lets say that a level 1 wizard has a climb bonus of +0 in 4e (no strength penalty, no ranks). He can climb a DC 0 challenge,

A slope too steep to walk up, or a knotted rope with a wall to brace against.

with confidence. Lets advance him 30 levels. He now has a climb bonus of +15 at level 30 (no strength penalty, half level in ranks). This lets him climb a DC 15 challenge,

Any surface with adequate handholds and footholds (natural or artificial), such as a very rough natural rock surface or a tree, or an unknotted rope, or pulling yourself up when dangling by your hands.

with confidence. I don't think there's anything wrong with this. The typical player has been out and about adventuring for 30 levels now, I'm glad he's figured out how to climb a tree.

The only problems I can see with the system are

1) sometimes its nice to have a character who is just plain supernaturally good at a skill. It looks like the highest difference between the skill checks is going to be the difference between ability scores, +5 for trained, and +5 for skill focus. I like the idea that a level 20 fighter might be able to do some basic animal tracking in a pinch, but that the ranger can be better. But sometimes I want the ranger to be ridiculously, fantastically better- the archetypal ranger with almost preternatural senses who can track a butterfly across the Serengeti. That doesn't seem well represented by a difference of 10+wis.
2) Multiclassing will be awkward. I'm interested in how this will be handled.
3) If skills are pared down to only adventure related ones, I'm going to miss the possibility of putting 5 ranks in Profession: Lawyer. Nobody ever used it, but it was nice knowing it was there.

 

[Stalker0]

1) sometimes its nice to have a character who is just plain supernaturally good at a skill. It looks like the highest difference between the skill checks is going to be the difference between ability scores, +5 for trained, and +5 for skill focus. I like the idea that a level 20 fighter might be able to do some basic animal tracking in a pinch, but that the ranger can be better. But sometimes I want the ranger to be ridiculously, fantastically better- the archetypal ranger with almost preternatural senses who can track a butterfly across the Serengeti. That doesn't seem well represented by a difference of 10+wis.

This actually can be fixed in 4e if they adjust the DCs. One of the benefits of a skill system like this is its more consistent.

For example, a designer can set a DC 15 challenge and say: "A 10th level character that doesn't have a minus in this stat will be able to take 10 and make this." This provides some consistency when creating challenges.

Further, if skill bonuses are harder to get, then its easier to set a point at which your skill can do amazing things. For example, a spot DC 40 might let you see an invisible creature. That would require a minimum +20 in the skill, which is nigh impossible for anyone but your trained focused ranger types.

Remember that as you take away extra bonuses to skills, a +1 to DC is NOT a linear scale, as there are fewer and fewer ways to obtain a +1 to the skill.

So DC 40 might become the "epic DC" and since skills are more consistent, you can easily just say that at DC 40 the skill can do something truely special. This is something you cannot do in 3.x, where diplomacy and jump checks can easily get in the 80's where other checks can only consistenly get in the 50's.

 

[Stalker0]

This is an opposed check situation. Part of the difficulty I have in answering this question is that I feel that some opposed checks are inherently broken as linearly opposed, and the perception/hide relationship would be a case in point. Part of the problem is that the current spot/listen rules are inherently abusable, so that it is easy within the rules to justify ambushes where even the guy with +20 spot doesn't stand a chance. The real fix here is in my opinion changing the way hide works and in particular how it works in relation to spot checks - but that is a totally different conversation.

It may be that spot vs high/ms is no longer an opposed check, it maybe a spot check vs 10 + hide skill, or 10+spot vs hide (I really hope they don't do the ladder, that will mean the guy in the party with the highest spot will always see stuff, making the other spot skills pointless).

 

[jasin]

What I'm saying is that if the rogue has a +20 to balance, you aren't going to set the DC even as high as DC 20 even in a SAGA-like system because you are going to have party members with around +10 to Balance, and with 4 other party members each with a 25%-50% chance of falling you are just about garuanteeing that one falls. Instead, even in a saga like system, you are going to set the DC based on the average balance check of the group, not based on the balance check of the best member.

More or less, yes.

If the difference between the best and the worst is somewhere around 10-15 rather than 30-35, this makes it much less likely that a challenge with a DC set to average is still impossible to make for the worst and impossible to fail for the best.

So, since the DC of a group challenge depends on what is an average skill and not the best skill, does it really matter except in terms of flavor whether the balance check is DC 10 or DC 15 or DC 5?

"Except in terms of flavour"? I'm not sure that should be so easily discounted. There's a big difference between a high level party barely/mostly surviving a shipwreck in a storm even though some of them aren't trained in swimming, and a high level party barely/mostly surviving a shipwreck in absolutely calm water.

I don't think that is relevant. The only way to make a group challenge challenge the strongest individual is if the average skill of the group is very close to the strongest member. A difference of 15 (+75% chance of failure) isn't close enough to solve the problem. Besides, focused 20th level rogue with 22 dex vs. armored 20th level Paladin with 10 Dex is a difference of more like 20, which might as well be a difference of 30 or 35. I just don't see this as being necessarily a big net gain in gamability.

Yes, someone who is awesome (trained and talented and focused) at balancing with still beat the pants off someone who is crap at balancing (not talented and not trained and hindered by armour). But the difference between a typical rogue (so let's say trained in balance, but not focused) and a lightly armoured fighter will be a lot less.

This makes more of the challenges relevant for more of the characters. Isn't this obviously a good thing?

From the DM's perspective, you are trying in a group challenge to get everyone involved and from that perspective a group challenge is 'better'. But from the PC's perspective, if there is a significant risk, then it is always 'better' to turn a group challenge into an individual challenge if they can because this mitigates the risk.

Often, it's not possible to turn a group challenge into an individual challenge willingly. Getting tossed overboard, climbing a wall under fire, spotting an ambush, sneaking past guards, answering a question... these often aren't things you can just delegate to someone else.

The DM might construct situations where it is possible, because for many characters such a situation without possibility of delegation isn't a challenge but a simple notice of failure, and that's not very interesting.

But in my experience, people prefer to actually participate rather than just having the specialist deal with it, unless they know they have no option but to fail.

True, but the scout's spot check keeps your scout from being surprised in an ambush, but it doesn't (necessarily) keep your wizard from being surprised. So, even if the scout has no chance of being surprised, the wizard still has a stake in the challenge.

Not really, because the difficulties mostly scale out to keep up with the trained folks. If a spot check is called for, I'd be willing to bet money my wizard will fail.

If the parties average spot DC increases systematically, the DM will simply be encouraged to increase the DC of the challenge accordingly, but you really aren't going to ever challenge the specialist with this sort of thing if the gap is even as big as 15. Because if there is significant risk of the specialist failing, then almost certainly everyone else will as well.

A significant risk of the specialist failing and almost certainly everyone else failing is better than absolutely no risk of the specialist failing and absolute certainty of everyone else failing, isn't it?

Suppose that the difference is 35, and your bonus is +2. You are still interested in the DC 13 spot check to avoid surprise, even if the rogue has absolutely no chance of failing it. And the rogue still has no chance of failing it it the difference is 15. Ahh, but you say what if the DC is 23, wouldn't it then be more interesting if my bonus was +12. To which I respond, you as a DM choose the DC. The DC in the example is 23 because the bonus is +12; the bonus isn't +12 because the DC is 23.

If the difference is 15, a DC of 18 will make it at least mildly interesting for both the +2 and the +17 guy.

What's the DC that makes it interesting for both the +2 guy and the +37 guy?

Also bear in mind that a difference of 15 is pretty extreme in Saga. That's very talented and trained and focused compared to someone who is neither talented nor trained.

Not so much. I figure adventurers do alot more killing and drinking than log rolling.

And a lot more drinking than looking for ambushes? Even paladins, monks and wizards?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

1) sometimes its nice to have a character who is just plain supernaturally good at a skill. It looks like the highest difference between the skill checks is going to be the difference between ability scores, +5 for trained, and +5 for skill focus. I like the idea that a level 20 fighter might be able to do some basic animal tracking in a pinch, but that the ranger can be better. But sometimes I want the ranger to be ridiculously, fantastically better- the archetypal ranger with almost preternatural senses who can track a butterfly across the Serengeti. That doesn't seem well represented by a difference of 10+wis.

What you can't have is a character that can do things extremely out of things normal people do. But with a few talents or feats that grant you skill rerolls, you will get a lot more consistent in your ability. You will never have a DC that is impossible to make for a highly trained individual, but you can still succeed more often then him if you have taken such options to get "supernaturally" strong at it.

 

[jasin]

Just use the 3e rule that if you aren't trained in a knowledge skill you can only make common knowledge checks (DC 10).

It might very well be how Saga does it (I can't check, and I don't remember).

The only problem I see with saga style skill system is it has trouble representing characters who only dabble in some areas, being some where between trained and not trained.

That's true, but then, 3E often has trouble with that kind of character too, in the sense that they tend to suck. I very rarely see 3E characters with skill at less than maximum, which couldn't sacrifice that skill completely without compromising the concept much. (There are exceptions of course. One of the most fun things about my wizard is that he knows everything: at least a single rank in every single knowledge skill. )

But it could be argued that in Saga, everyone's a dabbler: in skills in which you aren't trained, you'll have modifiers somewhere between trained and not trained by 3E standards: +1/2 level, much like trained cross-class in 3E.

And if you want to model a jack-of-all-trades as distinct from the default omnicompetent hero in Saga, you might do it by way of class abilities. +2 to all untrained skill checks? Reroll all untrained skill checks (always, a certain number of times per day, or a certain number of times per encounter)? Allow a certain number of skills that can be used for trained-only uses even if you're untrained?

 

[Celebrim]

If the difference is 15, a DC of 18 will make it at least mildly interesting for both the +2 and the +17 guy.

What's the DC that makes it interesting for both the +2 guy and the +37 guy?

18.


UPDATE: Ok, maybe that's a bit too snarky. A better stated version of the question is, are there more interesting DC's if you have a +2 and a +12 guy compared to a +2 and +22 guy. And I agree that the answer to that is, "Yes." In the first case, anything between about 14 and 20 is 'interesting' to both. In the second case, you don't really have any overlapping area of challenge. That's not always a problem (in fact sometimes its what you want), but it does give you some added flexibility in designing challenges. However, I'm not sure that that is necessarily worth what you are giving up.

 

[Castlin]

But there are only so many collapsing castles or the like you can do in a campaign before it becomes silly.

If an adventure doesn't end with a collapsing castle, I write it off as a failure~ It is possible I have played too much Castlevania.

I was surprised nobody mentioned starting occupations. I know they're not in SWSE, but even if they don't make it into 4E (and I have no reason to suspect one way or another that they will), they would be an easy thing to houserule. There you go, you've got your farmers and crafters and lawyers etc. etc. Your minmaxers can take "adventurer" or "military" backgrounds and get a free Brawl feat or somesuch.

Personally, I'd be glad to see something like SWSE skill rules. I like that nigh-everything has a baseline advancement; it makes for more heroic games that I tend to enjoy more. The differences between what you can do trained and untrained are already there in 3.x, so its not like we're adding anything new there. Rerolls instead of static bonuses scale with levels nicer.

 

[Remathilis]

a) Send the stealthy guy in solo to retrieve the gizmo/coup de gras the BBEG.
b) Disguise (or hide) the party as something believable and then use the party spokesperson to bluff his way in. This turns a group challenge into an individual challenge. Use a wagon if necessary.
c) Bribe the guards, or offer to negotiate, or forge a pass, or otherwise do what it takes to make it one focused character's skill check vs. some low level guys opposed check.
d) Forget about the skills. Plan a careful assault and attempt to overwhelm the camp.

I honest fail to see how ANY of these are good design policy. At best, you're boring the pants off 3 other people who came to role-play (and didn't all spend their skill points EXACTLY the same way) while Stabby McRogue has a solo adventure. I played a HL rogue, I know how it is. Its BORING to everyone else. When my rogue goes into sneak mode, my fellow players grab their Gameboys, cuz its about a half-hour of doing nothing except waiting for me.

Its also poor since AIB: Alone is Bad. The rogue (not usally your best combatant) goes in alone into a situation he may not be ready for (scout down the halls, roll low on stealth, tip off frost giants, roll up new rogue). I'd rather have some people keeping up with me (or just far enough back) to save my bacon vs. those giants.

Sure, you can use guile or trickery, but that doesn't always work (and not because of the die roll). And all you've done is shift the dice rolls form the rogue to the bard. (or other diplomat). Either way, the other PCs are sitting around while ONE player gets to have all the fun. Yawn. When do I get to roll initiative?

Speaking of which, storm the camp eh? That's not a bad idea if you have some reconnaissance (hello Rogue solo adventure) or you are certain the DM isn't putting a ton of frost giants in there (because you'd NEVER use a monster above their encounter level, right?) and don't mind completely invalidating the rogue's job (next time play a fighter pal, you'll live longer).

Sorry, you can argue about arbitrary DC levels and desert nomads doing the backstroke and have a valid point, but when you actually argue its better for the game for one character do do ALL the work while the rest sit around like bored cheerleaders, I call shenanigans. Players like to roll dice and feel they are contributing something to the scene (even if its a crap shoot of a d20 roll with a small scaling bonus). Otherwise, its going to be a long night, bring a Gameboy...

 

[Greg K]

I honest fail to see how ANY of these are good design policy. At best, you're boring the pants off 3 other people who came to role-play (and didn't all spend their skill points EXACTLY the same way) while Stabby McRogue has a solo adventure. I played a HL rogue, I know how it is. Its BORING to everyone else. When my rogue goes into sneak mode, my fellow players grab their Gameboys, cuz its about a half-hour of doing nothing except waiting for me.

Thank god, the people I play with are actually entertaining and the GMs actually understand how to switch between groups at different locations and keep them occupied. On the occassions where someone in our games ends up sitting out for a time, they are engrossed in what is going- laughing, groaning or praying/rooting that the character(s) involved actually pull off what ever they are attempting.