WotC_Shoe: He DM's, but his pc's don't fight!

[Insight]

In the end just the number of successes count, not what actually happened in the game. The skill system fails when teh PCs come up with a plan where they can get to their goal with just 3 skill checks but challenge requires 5 successes. Likewise when the PCs have a plan which is essentially fool proof the challenges also fail.

Coming up with a good plan is not very important anymore because you can get the same results with rolling enough successes so the PCs just have to make sure they always roll their good skills.

Where has incontrovertible proof been provided regarding how skill challenges work from a mechanical perspective? How do we know x number of challenges = win?

EDIT: Also, how do we know for certain that all skills can be used for all skill challenges? I highly doubt this is the case. For example, let's say you have to impress the local baron. I find it unlikely stealth or insight could be used for this. The DM is most likely going to set a range of skills usable for each challenge.

 

[Derren]

Reading all the "Escape from Sembia" playtest reports would be a good start.

And when you can use Knowledge: Religion to escape from guards (example in one of the reports) you can certainly find a way to use stealth to impress the baron.

 

[lukelightning]

I don't know the details about the crunch, but everything I've seen points to emphasizing multiple skills being able to achieve similar results. Hooray! No more "ok, Mr. Wizard, make a diplomacy check to influence the librarian to get The Secret MacGuffin Book." Now you just say "the librarian seems reluctant to talk about the book" and let the players think of things such as "I try to impress him with my knowledge of history so he'll trust us that we're really scholars" etc.

Even without sticking to hard and fast rules about skill challenges, the fact that they are more involved than 3e's skill checks means that non-combat stuff will be more fun. It's not just "roll-and-see-if-you-pass" but gives you multiple chances to roll and more importantly, more chances to roleplay and modify your choices during the process. If history isn't helping to get the book, then perhaps streetwise might.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It doesn't really matter how 3e did it.

What matters is how 4e is going to do it.

From where I'm sitting, the skill system looks very good. A definate feather in the cap of 4e design. Something yoinkable no matter what games you run, because it helps you use skills to achieve success without being too limiting or binary, and while still letting you inject some creativity.

4e looks like the skill system is going to kick some butt.

Whatever your skill system in 3e was doesn't matter so much.

 

[Lacyon]

Reading all the "Escape from Sembia" playtest reports would be a good start.

And when you can use Knowledge: Religion to escape from guards (example in one of the reports) you can certainly find a way to use stealth to impress the baron.

There is no Knowledge: Religion on any of the 4E character sheets.

 

[Derren]

Even without sticking to hard and fast rules about skill challenges, the fact that they are more involved than 3e's skill checks means that non-combat stuff will be more fun. It's not just "roll-and-see-if-you-pass" but gives you multiple chances to roll and more importantly, more chances to roleplay and modify your choices during the process. If history isn't helping to get the book, then perhaps streetwise might.

4E skills are in no way more involved than 3E from what we have seen. All what 4E does is forcing (as much as the rules can force someone) the DM to use skills in a certain (rather good) way instead of letting the DM decide it for himself.

There is no Knowledge: Religion on any of the 4E character sheets.

I think its only called "Religion" in 4E.

 

[lukelightning]

4E skills are in no way more involved than 3E from what we have seen. All what 4E does is forcing (as much as the rules can force someone) the DM to use skills in a certain (rather good) way instead of letting the DM decide it for himself.

I was interpreting from the concept of extended skill challenges (i.e. not just a single roll to achieve something); while this isn't novel to D&D, it seems to me that it will be more frequently implemented.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

It is a legitimate question, however. What, if anything, is differentiating this situation from the same situation under 3e rules?

And what about the 4e ruleset makes it different?
Put some meat on that bone.

I would think that the simple presence of a system for resolving the checks that gives a bit more certainty than opposed roles. Particularily when you consider the chance of success for un untrained check in 3rd edition drops to a non factor in 3rd edition, while in 4th edition you will probably have at least a reasonable success. Also consider that the difficulty scale that causes the DM not to discount the approach out of hand due to trivial Min / Maxing, as with the static nature of the Diplomacy check.

In 3rd edition, you could try this with a combination of Bluff, Gather Information, Intimidate, Diplomacy, Forgery, Disguise, and Sense motive.

But while opposed rolls are a fine and balanced way to do things, there is a massive amount of variance. If you have a +3 and your opponent has a +4, the difference in your skill levels will not matter at all unless you roll within 2 points of one another. Otherwise you may as well be playing paper / rock / scissors. On the Dm side, a character with maxed Diplomacy and Bluff at about level 6 becomes essentially unstoppable by those without ranks in Sense Motive. With 4th editions untrained check, your 8th level elite guards wont get bluffed out by a 4th level rogue who happened to have maxed out bluff with a high charisma, max skill ranks, and the Skill Focus feat.

People like to crap on 3rd editions Diplomacy skill because when used exactly as written, it was broken. But the existence of a broken skill meant you could choose to focus your character on that, and the DM would probably just choose to modify the adjudication somehow. A broken skill is better than no skill, since it will at least cause a discussion betwee the DM and the player,and cause the DM to at least consider to account for it as a viable approach.

The existence of a well written and well balanced rule will let the DM change gears much more easily if he is caught off guard, and will probably be enough for him to not just hand wave a failure right off the bat.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Derren]

The existence of a well written and well balanced rule will let the DM change gears much more easily if he is caught off guard, and will probably be enough for him to not just hand wave a failure right off the bat.

Now its my turn to ask for your advanced copy of the PHB/DMG. We don't know if the rules will be well written and balanced.

 

[Voss]

Why does everything have to be different than 3e? 3e was perfectly good at roleplaying, not so good at some other things. If they didn't bother modifying the parts that worked well, isn't that a good thing?

It doesn't, necessarily, but they're trying to sell it that it is different, so I want to know what the differences are. Not just a 'doesn't this thing I did for my players sound cool' blurb.