I'm big fan of skill challenges. That said, there is something weird on its implementation - the chances of a party succeeding on a skill challenge of apropriate level are pathetic, and seem to get worse the "easier" the skill challenge is supposed to be. I've wondered if "it's only me", but on other boards, I discovered that everyone is having the problem, except with the help of house rules ou "personal interpretations" of the rules as written.
Now, for the math:
Skill challenges use the table on pg. 42 of 4E DMG to calculate DCs. According to it, the moderate DC for a level 1 skill challenge is 20, level 11 is 26, and level 21 is 31.
Assuming a character with default array ability scores, its skill bonuses on a trained skill are +5 to +9 at level 1, +10 to +15 at level 11, and +16 to +22 at level 21. Let's assume an average of +8 at level 21, +13 at level 11, and +20 at level 21.
It's easily seen that odds are terrible. 50% or less of chance of succeeding a trained skill check on a skill challenge. Worse: to beat skill challenge, the number of successes must be at least the double of the number of failures.
And this is for moderate DC skillS. To beat a hard DC skill - the skills that DM didn't list as primary skills, thus enter in the "player's creativety" field, the chances go below 25%. This is punishing creativity, not rewarding it, as the creative player is likely to worsen the situation instead of improving it.
Reducing the complexity of the skill challenges, although reduces the awarded XP, actually can make things more difficult. A low complexity skill challenge is lost after 2 failures; on the skill challenge I DMed on previous sunday, the PCs failed the first two checks, thus they would have immediately "lost" if the skill challenge had lower complexity.
Plus, if the PCs have more than 50% chance of succeding a check, the skill challenge becames easier the more complex it is, as you reduce randomness by increasing the number of dice rolled.
My personal house rules for skill challenges are:
- The number of failures is 4, regardless of the complexity of the skill challenges
- Reduce all DCs by 5
Thoughts?
My personal house rules for skill challenges are:
- The number of failures is 4, regardless of the complexity of the skill challenges
- Reduce all DCs by 5Thoughts?
I've seen this on other boards as well and have seen some very talented people pretty much prove the issue.
That said I think your solution is very simple and elegant. Lets hope that WotC implements an erratta and soon as I want skill challenges in official product.
Keith Baker blogged some thoughts on skill challenges that might spark some thoughts as well.
Not really the best blog IMO, he's basically all over the place and there really are no concrete solutions here. Basically Keith has told us how he house rules this on a case by case basis to make it work. Fine for your home game and a few ideas (you can spend action points) maybe should be official positions but this is not the solution to the problem. Keith's suggestions won't make Skill Challenges easy to incorporate into official product.
|
Not really the best blog IMO, he's basically all over the place and there really are no concrete solutions here. Basically Keith has told us how he house rules this on a case by case basis to make it work. Fine for your home game and a few ideas (you can spend action points) maybe should be official positions but this is not the solution to the problem. Keith's suggestions won't make Skill Challenges easy to incorporate into official product.
Very true for some of his points. I was thinking more along the lines of the "aid another" considerations. The DCs seem high until you think of all the resources you can use for the challenge. Another big one - situational modifiers and roleplaying bumps. A DM needs to give credit when it is due.
I think the DCs can be met if all of these are taken into account.
Not really the best blog IMO, he's basically all over the place and there really are no concrete solutions here. Basically Keith has told us how he house rules this on a case by case basis to make it work. Fine for your home game and a few ideas (you can spend action points) maybe should be official positions but this is not the solution to the problem. Keith's suggestions won't make Skill Challenges easy to incorporate into official product.Very true for some of his points. I was thinking more along the lines of the "aid another" considerations. The DCs seem high until you think of all the resources you can use for the challenge. Another big one - situational modifiers and roleplaying bumps. A DM needs to give credit when it is due.
I think the DCs can be met if all of these are taken into account.
Aid Another is something I think should only be allowed if its specifically mentioned as an option in a skill challenge. Used moderately sparingly its fun. If your using it with almost every option where it is not obvously impossible its just a whole bunch more rolls that are tacked on to every attempt to pass a skill challenge.
Better to drop the +5 part of the Skill DCs and then mostly drop Aid another except as occasional flavour, IMO. Adding role playing bonuses is cool - but its not really something you can add to the core mechanic except to mention that (of course) DMs are allowed to use it.
|
|
Aid Another is something I think should only be allowed if its specifically mentioned as an option in a skill challenge. Used moderately sparingly its fun. If your using it with almost every option where it is not obvously impossible its just a whole bunch more rolls that are tacked on to every attempt to pass a skill challenge.
Better to drop the +5 part of the Skill DCs and then mostly drop Aid another except as occasional flavour, IMO. Adding role playing bonuses is cool - but its not really something you can add to the core mechanic except to mention that (of course) DMs are allowed to use it.
It will definitely depend on the skill and the situation. So yes, aid other will not always work out so well. I guess this is one area of the game that will be difficult to craft and GMs (and writers) will need some time to get used to.
Assuming a character with default array ability scores, its skill bonuses on a trained skill are +5 to +9 at level 1, +10 to +15 at level 11, and +16 to +22 at level 21. Let's assume an average of +8 at level 21, +13 at level 11, and +20 at level 21.
Here is the basic problems with you math.
A) You're looking only at 1st level characters in the first example.B) You've forgotten a very important factor here: Aid Other.
If you have five players in a game, and you're doing a Nature/Endurance based uncomplicated skill challenge, such as treking through the woods. Chances are only 1 player will have a trained Nature skill check, and someone will have a trained Endurance check. At first level, based on the normal array, those checks will likey have a +8 and a +9. Not that great, until you consider that there are going to be three characters with about a +2 check making aid other checks. Likely, two of those people will succeed, granting both of the people making the primary checks a +2 bonus. Making a +10 and +11 check isn't too bad. You'll have a tough time of it, yes, but by no means impossible especially if you DM gives roleplaying bonuses or the player's race grants a +2 skill bonus to the relative check.
But, when you look at that same party at level four, those checks will be raised to +12 and +13 once boosted by the other players. More over, the support players have becomes extreamly likely to make the DC 10 aid other check, so much so that it would be a real surprise if they failed.
If the players really really want to succeed on the checks, then only one person would roll each time, while everybody else would assist, and they'd have a +15 check. (+3 stat, +2 lvl, +5 trained, +8 assist bonus) Very easy to make more successes then failures in that circumstance.
Once players are level 11 and 21, failing an Aid Other roll is practically impossible. In fact, the players are getting to the point where they can easily boost their assist bonus to +3 or +4, meaning that making even the raised DC check is fairly simple.
All of this ignores the possibility of players making the easy skill check rolls that the DM is supposed to build into these challenges. My wilderness example coudl allow a player to make a Religion check at DC 10 to notice the Elven symbles carved into trees which mark and otherwise hidden path.
Yes, skill challenges are hard at first level, and become less so at higher levels. Most things do in a roleplaying game. but they are hardly impossible at the current DC levels.
It's when say a fighter who has a 10 in CHA and it only increases it at the tier breakpoints and uses a CHA-based skill in a skill challenge that the math goes off the rails
I'm not sure this shouldn't be the case. If a Fighter with a CHA of 10 is engaging in a skill challenge that is based on CHA, then he ought to have a pretty hard time getting over the challenge if it is any difficulty other than easy.
I guess it depends on how many skill challenges you use in a 1st-level adventure, because at 2nd-level everything gets a +1, you get another feat as well and if skill challenges are a big deal you could always have someone burn it on a skill booster.
The warlock gets Beguiling Tongue, which gives you a +5 bonus on a skill check. It can be either Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate, but you only get one use per encounter.
There was also one under the paladin that affected Diplomacy (checking under the paladin, its astral speech, and it grants a +4 to Diplomacy checks for the entire encounter). When I saw that power for the first time, thats all I figured it was good for: skill challenges.
This isnt bad at all when you consider that by 4th-level yes, your stuff also gets kicked up by 2 points (thus keeping pace with it all), except that you can always take feats to gain either training in a skill and/or a flat bonus on top of that, powers that grant bonuses to skill checks, and even magic items that grant bonuses on top of that.
The higher level you get, the better your ability scores get as well, and there comes a point where they DCs start creeping up by one point, barely keeping pace with your bonuses.
You can use Aid Another, which is a good way to accumulate bonuses, especially at low levels (at least, thats what my players always did when looking for loot, secret doors, and Diplomacy rolls).
As part of allowing a player make use of a secondary skill, it says that you can up the DC, or make it good for only one shot. In the example right under that, it allows both the cleric to make a hard DC, but the fighter to make an easy DC. In both cases, they only get to do that once, but they werent both hard rolls.
If you or your DM really likes him some skill challenges, then its probably a good idea to invest in Skill Training and/or Skill Focus (a +3 bonus to a skill), skill boosting magic items, and skill boosting utility powers. You can always retrain them into something else if you feel confident that you dont need them anymore, as well.
Perhaps a magic item to get an extra kick out of a skill: a circlet of authority grants a +2 to Diplomacy, acrobat boots dole out a +1 to Acrobatics (boots of balance are level 22 and grant a +5 to the check), rogue's gloves give a +5 to Thievery checks, and a dynamic belt gives a +2 to Acrobatics and Athletics checks.
Using some basic guidelines, its easy to make new items that grant bonuses to other skills.
At 1st-level you probably have a bonus of around +8 to +10 depending on if your trained skill(s) is also a racial skill (such as a dragonborn fighter with Endurance). This means that you'll have about half-and-half chance of pulling it off reasonably. Depending on the skill, you can roll out a +2 bonus from Aid Another, increasing your odds to about half or better. If you DM allows this, you could potentially pile on more bonuses to ramp this up to a likely success.
If you took Skill Focus, then your bonus is probably somewhere around +11 to +13. Better odds, and we're still not counting any Aid Another bonuses.
Oh, if you have a half-elf in your party, add another +1 when it comes down to Diplomacy.
Now, at 2nd-level the DCs are still the same (20), but now your base bonus is around +9 to +11 (or +12 to +14 for Skill Focused skills). Everyone gets a shiny new feat, which could also be used to snag Skill Focus if you didnt already have it. You also get a utility power, so at least in those social instances the guys likely to do the talking are probably around +13 or better, not counting Skill Focus (which would make it around +16). These are very good odds, and I'm still not considering Aid Another checks.
Once the party hits 4th level, the DCs shoot up by 2 (22 total). All of your checks go up by 1, and you get to boost two ability scores by 1, meaning that you could see a potential increase of 1. Meaning that at this point, its likely that at best you have a net gain of +1 from 1st level, not counting utility powers, racial boosts (like the half-elf), but also not counting magic items. Some items are as low as 5th-level and can grant a +1 continually (actually, there is a set of level 2 boots that grant +1 to Acrobatics): catstep boots are level 3 and grant a daily boost of +5 to Acrobatics or Athletics, which is a valid use during a skill challenge.
I dont think that the math on skill challenges is broken, I think that just going by some basic numbers it might appear to be extremely hard on paper. As the section on Skill Challenges says, dont design them in a way where the adventure just stops if the party fails. Make it harder, but not impossible to continue. Reward them for clever thinking, which could be an easy DC to grant a one-time success, a bonus to another check, or unlock the use of another skill.
Here is the basic problems with you math.
A) You're looking only at 1st level characters in the first example.
Not quite. The chances are better at higher levels, but slightly. They are still crappy when you use a secondary skill.
B) You've forgotten a very important factor here: Aid Other. If you have five players in a game, and you're doing a Nature/Endurance based uncomplicated skill challenge, such as treking through the woods. Chances are only 1 player will have a trained Nature skill check, and someone will have a trained Endurance check. At first level, based on the normal array, those checks will likey have a +8 and a +9. Not that great, until you consider that there are going to be three characters with about a +2 check making aid other checks. Likely, two of those people will succeed, granting both of the people making the primary checks a +2 bonus. Making a +10 and +11 check isn't too bad. You'll have a tough time of it, yes, but by no means impossible especially if you DM gives roleplaying bonuses or the player's race grants a +2 skill bonus to the relative check.
The point is, would you allow the PCs to used Aid Another on skill challenges? Remember that the PHB mentions that Aid Another only works on combat and some specific situations. The purpose of Skill challenges is to encourage every player to participate in a non-combat encounter. If on a social interaction, everybody just aids the character with highest Diplomacy and lets him do all the talk with the NPCs, then you truly have a single player participating on the scene. The rest are just rolling dice because it's mechanically more advantageous to "Aid" then creatively try to find their own ways of contributing to solve the problem. In other words, you are just doing things like on 3.5E.
There is no single example of using Aid Another on the Skill Challenges chapter on the DMG. I conclude that using it is far away from the "default" assumption. I would allow Aid Another on combat and when the players have serious time constraints - like a chase. But when the players have plenty of time to try ways of solving a problem - I would encourage them use creativety rather then going for the mathematically optimal solution of "Aid another".
...
I understand that PCs can become better at Skill Challenges by investing on feats and magical items. But, wasn't one of the design principles of 4E that players don't have to choose between being "good at combat" and "good at everything else"? Is reasonable to expect that PCs would need to "optimize for skill challenges" only to have, perhaps, more than 50% chance of winning them?
I was using the wrong term - aid other is a combat thing. I was thinking of cooperation. Up to four PCs can aid in a skill check, DC10 gets you a +2. That is a potential +8 bump as previously mentioned. In fact the DMG takes that into account when it talks about group checks.
But the problem remains the same. If the PCs don't have time constraint for skill challenge (i.e. it's not in the middle of combat or similar situation), what would forbid, in every round, to have only a single PC performing the check and the rest only using Aid Another, as it's obviously the most advantageous approach?
If that's the default assumption (and don't seem to be, given the examples in the DMG), then I'm disappointed with the skill challenges system as it's no better than on 3.5E where it's mechanically better to just let the character with highest Diplomacy do all the talk, rather than let everyone try to find their own way of contributing to the situation.
...I understand that PCs can become better at Skill Challenges by investing on feats and magical items. But, wasn't one of the design principles of 4E that players don't have to choose between being "good at combat" and "good at everything else"? Is reasonable to expect that PCs would need to "optimize for skill challenges" only to have, perhaps, more than 50% chance of winning them?
I dont think that a character needs investment in combat feats to be "good" at combat, or feats in skills to be "good" at skills. With the extra feats characters can invest feats in both areas, but it seems that the longer they hold out the less its going to become a necessity.
Pretty early on characters can snag magic items that grant bonuses to skill checks, and using those guidelines its not far-fetched to give them items that enhance other skills as well. For example, some kind of talisman that adds to Nature checks.Its entirely possible to have a fighter with Skill Focus (intimidate) and not hamper your combat capabilities in a huge way. Almost always when I made a fighter in 3rd Edition, I would snag Weapon Focus since it would always be used, but also necessary for fighter-only feats later on. Now, its not that big of a deal. Sure, it gives +1 to damage, but there are other feats that also seem equally useful (including many racial ones).
I could easily see many characters picking up Skill Focus at least once (especially clerics, warlocks, and wizards for help in rituals). Really the feat that makes the biggest difference is Skill Focus, and its only one feat out of oh, 18 or so that everyone gets (and is useful at all levels to boot).
Otherwise its just a matter of time until some new books come out that introduce more "official" skill boosting items, so I dont think that dropping the DCs is a good idea. Maybe by one or two points if you use a lot of skill challenges, your party doesnt assist eachother, and they have a hard time overcoming them.
|
|
But the problem remains the same. If the PCs don't have time constraint for skill challenge (i.e. it's not in the middle of combat or similar situation), what would forbid, in every round, to have only a single PC performing the check and the rest only using Aid Another, as it's obviously the most advantageous approach?
If that's the default assumption (and don't seem to be, given the examples in the DMG), then I'm disappointed with the skill challenges system as it's no better than on 3.5E where it's mechanically better to just let the character with highest Diplomacy do all the talk.
I guess it comes down to the situation at hand. Since all of the rules for skill use apply during a challenge (even taking 10) then it comes down to the specifics and the DM's own judgement.
That being said, I agree that lowering the DC may be a good thing. I would want to try it for a while unmodified to see if it really is going to be a big problem.
I dont think that a character needs investment in combat feats to be "good" at combat, or feats in skills to be "good" at skills. With the extra feats characters can invest feats in both areas, but it seems that the longer they hold out the less its going to become a necessity.
Pretty early on characters can snag magic items that grant bonuses to skill checks, and using those guidelines its not far-fetched to give them items that enhance other skills as well. For example, some kind of talisman that adds to Nature checks.Its entirely possible to have a fighter with Skill Focus (intimidate) and not hamper your combat capabilities in a huge way. Almost always when I made a fighter in 3rd Edition, I would snag Weapon Focus since it would always be used, but also necessary for fighter-only feats later on. Now, its not that big of a deal. Sure, it gives +1 to damage, but there are other feats that also seem equally useful (including many racial ones).
I could easily see many characters picking up Skill Focus at least once (especially clerics, warlocks, and wizards for help in rituals). Really the feat that makes the biggest difference is Skill Focus, and its only one feat out of oh, 18 or so that everyone gets (and is useful at all levels to boot).
Otherwise its just a matter of time until some new books come out that introduce more "official" skill boosting items, so I dont think that dropping the DCs is a good idea. Maybe by one or two points if you use a lot of skill challenges, your party doesnt assist eachother, and they have a hard...
Well, you convinced me that the difficulty is skill challenges is reduced at higher levels. At low levels, I don't think it's fair to make the player spend feats and magic items on Skill-boosting stuff just to have the slightest chance of winning a skill challenge.
My problem with the skill challenge system appeared on real play (Lv5). The PCs failed the challenge, even through they were very creative and excelled on role-playing. I don't think it's nice to punish players who are creative and love role-playing, but don't want to "optimize their characters for role-playing", just like they didn't want to play bards on 3.5E.
Maybe I will give a "level-based" reduction on skill check DC... such as -5 for levels 1-5, -4 for levels 6-10, and so on.
|
|
My problem with the skill challenge system appeared on real play (Lv5). The PCs failed the challenge, even through they were very creative and excelled on role-playing. I don't think it's nice to punish players who are creative and love role-playing, but don't want to "optimize their characters for role-playing", just like they didn't want to play bards on 3.5E.
Did the PCs get any bonuses for their roleplaying?
I'd also take a que from the DMG and make some checks automatic, grant a bonus (or penalty) to others, or make some very easy to garner a success or bonus to another check.
Ways to reward creative thinking:
*Assign an easy DC to a skill, even if its only usable once.
*Allow the skill to be an automatic success, even if its only usable once.
*Allow the use of one skill to open up the use of another skill, or to grant a bonus to another skill use.
*Reward the player by granting a +2 bonus to the check (not as extreme as shuffling the difficulty around) if they give a good case as to why it might work.
Also, allow the use of a healing surge to eliminate a potential failure, to grant a bonus, or even to grant a success (again, even if only usable once): in Keep on the Shadowfell, a healing surge can be burned in such a manner when trying to stop the ritual.
Use the skill challenge DCs as what they are: guidelines. If you feel you have to or want to, move the DCs up or down by a point or two, even if its just for that particular challenge.
|
This was from Mearls about skill challanges (copy and pasted from another site so im not sure were the origonal went up)
Mearls actually commented about skill challenges being borked:
Quote:
Hey all,
We had a meeting about skill challenges on (cue creepy music) Friday the 13th. We came to a few conclusions on what happened, what our intent is, and what we're going to do about it.
The system went through several permutations as we worked on it, and I think there are some disconnects between the final text, our intentions, and how playtesters and internal designers use skill challenges.
Not quite. The chances are better at higher levels, but slightly. They are still crappy when you use a secondary skill.Here is the basic problems with you math.
A) You're looking only at 1st level characters in the first example.
Why would you be using a secondary skill?? Each skill challenge has some primary skills, true, but you are free to try and use other ones, you just have to link them into the challenge. The DMG shows this readily in it's example skill challenges. Given the fact that every class has a decent selection of skills, there should always be one you can find a way to use.
Unless, of course, you decide to run with 8s in multiple skill amping stats, and in that case you deserve to be missing your own rolls.
And, as the DM, you can give a bonus based on the characters Roleplay of his action.