Dynamic Skill Checks

[Gy Aldrin]

Being a Technician in real life I found the Skill check mechanic very unrealistic in my Starfinder game. I created the "Project Skill Check" to create a more in-depth technical feel to common skill checks.

A "Project Skill Check" consists of 4 phases:
Diagnose
Access
Repair (Manipulate)
Complete

I apply this to nearly every technical skill use in my game, from Computers to Medicine checks. My experience with this method has been that skill checks are more challenging and feel more rewarding. As most technical challenges will take at least 4 combat round to complete (hopefully). And as GM I do my best to describe the challenges the PC faces at each phase which creates a deeper connection with the PCs chosen profession. And also has the protentional to create some truly memorable moments in the game.

Thoughts?

[Milo v3]

I feel like these sort of mechanics only really work if there is something to encourage people to be doing a different thing in the different phases, but with starfinder most of the time people will just be using the same skill each time for each of those phases. So the primary result is just "you have a higher chance at failing the action".

[Wesrolter]

Milo has a point. If you are increasing the number of checks to 4, are you dropping the DCs to compensate? If the DC is 25 and I have a skill of 14, that gives me a 50% chance to succeed, if I have to do that test 4 times, then my chance of succeeding in all 4 is drastically lower.
I have done sections myself where it needed 4 checks, but that was for the big challenge, if every test such as hacking a door is split into 4 different checks, then chances are I will fail.
You mention Medicine checks, what about ones which have benefits for beating the DC by 5 or more? Do I need to do that on all 4 of the checks or is there just one specific?
Also as a balance thing, peoples abilities where they get to do a re-roll or double roll say once per day are going to be a lot less useful. So how would you make those abilities worth considering?

[Taja the Barbarian]

Milo v3 wrote:

I feel like these sort of mechanics only really work if there is something to encourage people to be doing a different thing in the different phases, but with starfinder most of the time people will just be using the same skill each time for each of those phases. So the primary result is just "you have a higher chance at failing the action".

Yes, needing to succeed on multiple rolls drastically reduces your chances of succeeding.

Your odds of getting 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 successes in a row for a given required roll on a d20 is:
16: 25.00% / 06.25% / 01.56% / 00.39%
11: 50.00% / 25.00% / 12.50% / 06.25%
06: 75.00% / 56.25% / 31.64% / 23.73%
02: 95.00% / 90.25% / 85.74% / 81.45%

Given there is no way this could work in game if PCs needed to succeed at all four checks (even a "don't roll a 1" checks have a nearly 20% chance of failure), I'm assuming there is more to this system (maybe you can keep retrying a step until you succeed, but that's going to stretch things out even longer).

[Cellion]

Replacing few skill checks with more skill checks doesn't seem any more fun to me. There doesn't appear to be any decision making or gameplay - just roll dice four times instead of once. Certainly more challenging (or rather, with a greater chance of failure), but I don't see how it's more rewarding.

[Metaphysician]

Suggestion: requiring multiple skill checks certainly would represent a hard challenge better, but it makes it harder to succeed. So, if you replace one skill check with four, they need to be easier checks. My idea is to borrow the "multiple opponents" rules and use them when calculating the DCs.

Example: Lets say I want to have a CR 10 skill challenge of "Repair a ship's engines", and want it to be Medium difficulty. I would normally calculate this as if it were an opposed skill check from a CR 10 opponent with a Medium skill. So, 1 1/2 x 10 + 5, or 20, add to 10 for equivalent of a take 10 dice roll, thus, DC 30. However, I want it to be four total checks, for dramatic reasons ( AKA the ship is under fire ). I thus use the multiple enemies table, and see that 4 critters adding up to CR 10 have to be individually CR 6. Thus, I recalculate the numbers and find 1 1/2 x6 + 5, which gives a DC of 24 for each separate check.

Alternate idea: Steal from the Trap/Hazard table. If you want four skill checks to solve a problem of CR 10, look up the entry on the Trap table for CR 6, and use those numbers to create the target DCs ( and consequences for failure ).

[Lord_Ball]

I think the best use of something like this would be keeping the final roll as the only one that actually matters, but the rolls prior could be used to add modifiers (both positive and negative) to that final roll (perhaps with a -2 to -5 to the DC for those prior rolls, making them a bit easier, since they are functionally less important). You get your sense of "realism", without making it just a greater chance of failure.

[Milo v3]

The best use would be something that involves multiple different skills & approaches. Rolling for modifiers to roll is sorta "making things take longer for no benefit".

[Taja the Barbarian]

I think the most basic issue with this idea is the first handful of words from the OP: 'Being a Technician in real life...'

I can understand the desire to make these skill checks more interesting, but the OP's idea basically requires an actual technician to run or write for the desires to be met: Not every GM has the Real Life experience to describe these checks in an interesting fashion (by which I mean not falling back on the same four descriptions for every single check).

Honestly, at best this feels like something my group would play with for a little while and then discard as 'it was fun for the first couple of checks, but then became just as boring as the base system but slower...'

Once we get past all of this, then we get to the 'how does this actually work mechanically?' questions that we have no answers for at this point...

EDIT: I just noticed this thread is in the Playtest forum and should probably be in the Starfinder Homebrew forum instead. I have flagged it to be moved...

[Tim Emrick]

Your idea reminds me of the skill challenge mechanic in D&D 4E. Essentially, a skill challenge replaces a simple skill check with a series of checks, making it an encounter unto itself. The basic idea crops up occasionally in Pathfinder and Starfinder in various ways, such as multiple checks to defeat layers of security on a computer system, a series of obstacles in a chase sequence, or multiple attempts to influence NPCs in a social encounter.

Here are some questions to consider:

Is this check important enough to make into its own encounter? Or is it just one small part of a scene/encounter? If it's important and interesting enough to justify being its own scene, a skill challenge makes sense. But if it's just one small piece, keep it simple, and keep the action moving along.

Does the series of checks all require the same skill, or can a variety of skills be used? Repeated use of the same skill can get boring quickly, and leaves out characters who lack training in that skill. A variety of skills (such as you see in most 4E skill challenges and Pathfinder chase scenes) allows more of the party to participate--and often requires diverse skills for success.

Finally, will the players have fun making more checks? If the skill checks are essentially acting as a tax of time and resources in order to get to the real fun (like hacking a computer to get the clue you need for the next scene), then don't dwell on them any more than you have to. If they are the fun, and you think you can pull off delivering on that, then give it a try and see how your group receives it.

[Xenocrat]

Several Paizo adventures (SFS scenarios, and lately APs) feature social encounters that can require several different skill checks to succeed. First you'd use a skill to identify what your social target cares about, then use those identified skill(s) to influence them one ore more times to achieve success. Often they're bluff, diplomacy, and/or intimidate, but they can also be something like a profession skill or engineering/mysticism to engage with them on a hobby or professional interest or demonstrate your competence in a field they care about.

Usually you're allowed a few failures along the way or alterate paths to success, plus aid from PCs is always an option.

[Driftbourne]

Taja the Barbarian wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

I feel like these sort of mechanics only really work if there is something to encourage people to be doing a different thing in the different phases, but with starfinder most of the time people will just be using the same skill each time for each of those phases. So the primary result is just "you have a higher chance at failing the action".

Yes, needing to succeed on multiple rolls drastically reduces your chances of succeeding.

Your odds of getting 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 successes in a row for a given required roll on a d20 is:
16: 25.00% / 06.25% / 01.56% / 00.39%
11: 50.00% / 25.00% / 12.50% / 06.25%
06: 75.00% / 56.25% / 31.64% / 23.73%
02: 95.00% / 90.25% / 85.74% / 81.45%

Given there is no way this could work in game if PCs needed to succeed at all four checks (even a "don't roll a 1" checks have a nearly 20% chance of failure), I'm assuming there is more to this system (maybe you can keep retrying a step until you succeed, but that's going to stretch things out even longer).

Not sure how the OP runs the checks, but by your math, it looks very hard for just a simple one-time pass/fails type check. But for a more difficult check, especially if time is a factor, I can see this being more interesting where each failed role causes a delay in time waiting for the reroll attempt.

[Metaphysician]

Hmm, on consideration, there is one way that "multiple checks required" could work even if there are no direct consequences of failure: your measuring success in an effort not by dice roll but by total number of successes. So, say the players are trying to repair a crashed ship, and don't have any particular short term time limit. You let them roll four times, and how many times they succeed determines the quality of the results. You just need a little chart arranged beforehand for the encounter, where you decide stuff like:

"0 Sux: This ship is never flying again, PCs need to pursue Alternate Transport Option A

1 Sux: The ship can be repaired, barely, but they need a critical part, see Salvage Run Encounter B

2 Sux: The ship is operable by the end of the week, roll twice on Random Encounter Table

3 Sux: The ship is fixed in just three days, roll once on Random Encounter Table

4 Sux: As above, but the ship is in remarkably spiffy condition, helpful in Next Chapter"

Maybe also specify that exceeding the DC by 10 or more counts as double sux, and critically failing means both missing a sux chance and an immediate roll on Random Encounter.