What's a 4E skill challenge?

[echoVanguard]

I actually left one out (oops): It should require more than one die roll. It helps average things out, prevents a single bad roll from screwing over the players, and helps build a bit of tension. I'm thinking it should probably average 4-6 rolls, preferably with some kind of incentive for people to roll it even if they don't have any decent, relevant skills.

Allow supporting sub-tasks. The example of the rogue forging a document that later gives another player a bonus on his Diplomacy roll is perfect for this - the rogue rolls forgery, the other player rolls diplomacy.

Alternatively, if you want the tasks to tie together in some meaningful way beyond straightforward causality, produce an encounter tree (similar to a conversation tree, but with other types of skill rolls). If you don't want players to be penalized for failure, don't include any negative outcomes.

Personally, I think that what you're trying to do is not going to work out as well as you think in practice. It sounds like what you really want is a convergence puzzle, where at least X of Y things must happen in order for Beneficial Outcome to occur, and each party member is responsible for making one attempt at completing supplementary actions. This is pretty common in CRPGs - an invading army is attacking, so you have to fortify your encampment in various ways, such as bribing mercenaries, forging masonry invoices, and building traps.

echo

[Stubbazubba]

A lot of the advice I've read on Skill Challenges is for failure to not mean that the party can no longer advance their goals, but that it adds a significant complication to the task. If success is absolutely vital to the narrative, then you shouldn't use a Skill Challenge, though I don't know what they would suggest you do instead. That way 'contributing' a failure isn't as bad; the 'success' or 'failure' outcomes only determine which way the story goes, not whether or not it goes. I imagine this would get tricky to do with several successively failed Skill Challenges. OK, you failed to convince the Chancellor to let you speak to the King, then you failed your stealth challenge when you tried to sneak in and speak to the king, and then you failed to seduce the jailer into coming close enough to grab his keys. Since you have a mixed-race, mixed-gender party, that last one shouldn't be that surprising. Anyways, continuously adding 'complications' is a lot of work for the GM, and at times it simply won't make sense; if Princess Leia is going to be terminated in one hour, and the party botches the stealth challenge, then gets captured and put in their own prison cells, the DM is kind of in a bind. He'd be hard-pressed to come up with anything but a deus ex machina to keep success a possibility. An even simpler example would be; you're climbing the mountain upon which rests the sacred temple of the McGuffin. The party fails...do you all fall to your deaths, even though it was the wizard's poor climb roll that killed you all (I suppose he was at the top and knocked every one of you off as he fell?), or do only one of you fall to your deaths? Do rocks begin falling on you, starting another Skill Challenge with a harder difficulty? There's only so many ways this thing can go.

[Yep]

I'm pointing out that the difference between two skill bonuses in the same party is greater than the entire range of results on a d20.

If one person minmaxxes for one particular skill and another doesn't and actually accumulates a negative for the skill? I mean, come on, man. Your example assumes that one person minmaxes a skill and another ignores it entirely and then both of them have to use that skill, otherwise they're useless. That's just stupid; why would only one skill be pertinent in your example, if not to invalidate one specific example, and why would you ignore 3E (the only other D&D system to actually include skills as a mechanic and not an optional) doing the same thing? I can make a dude who has Diplomacy Really Insane in 3E, too, and a dude who has Diplomacy Well I Could Fuck Your Wife For You in the same system.

So, what's your point? That the D20 isn't nuanced enough for social interaction?

If you have a skill challenge mechanic where PCs need to roll against a DC 20 to succeed, a guy with a -1 skill bonus cannot succeed at that skill challenge, and a guy with a +19 bonus cannot possibly fail. This makes it impossible to set a DC for a challenge where both of those characters have a chance of success and a chance of failure. If a task is possible for the low-bonus character, then it is trivial and non-challenge worthy for the high bonus character. If it is challenging enough that the high-bonus character can fail, then it is actually impossible for the low-bonus character to succeed.

Except you're assuming here that DCs for every skill are static and not adjusted by the DM in any way to give the DM's party a reasonable challenge. You're being purposefully obtuse! Well done!

In the original system (page 72 DMG) the needed successes were always twice the number of allowed failures for all complexities.

Here's the "research" you wanted:

Consider someone rolling a fair d20 inside an original version skill challenge who needs to roll an unmodified 8 or better on the die to succeed at their check:

On a 1 they fail
On a 2 they fail
On a 3 they fail
On a 4 they fail
On a 5 they fail
On a 6 they fail
On a 7 they fail
On an 8 they succeed
On a 9 they succeed
On a 10 they succeed
On an 11 they succeed
On a 12 they succeed
On a 13 they succeed
On a 14 they succeed
On a 15 they succeed
On a 16 they succeed
On a 17 they succeed
On an 18 they succeed
On a 19 they succeed
On a 20 they succeed

So before the die is cast, that roll has an expected value of 7/20 (0.35) failures and 13/20 (0.65) successes.

The expected value for successes is LESS THAN TWICE the expected value of failures. Yet, to win the challenge, the PCs need TWICE as many successes as failures. So rolling the die at all is expected to move the PCs closer to overall failure than success.

Now I really don't want to go through exhaustive listing for all target numbers, so I'm gonna fail back on good old mathematical induction: When the target number goes up, the expected value for successes goes down by 1/20 for each point and yet the number of possible rolls doesn't change (there are always 20 rolls totaling to a sample space of 1.0), so the the expected value for failures goes up by that same 1/20

So for all target numbers greater than 8, the expected value of successes is LESS THAN the expected value for successes with a target number of 8. LESS THAN LESS THAN TWICE is LESS THAN TWICE by the definition of the less than operator itself.

Well done! You proved that 4E Skill Challenges RAW are fucked! Wow, man, I sure am glad I didn't say they weren't!

I guess you're passably good at math but terrible at reading comprehension?

Now this is totally different than combat - because in combat there are a very large number of ways for characters to contribute other than rolling attacks, yet in skill challenges the only way to contribute is by rolling skill checks. In a fight a character who never lands a single blow can soak up enemy attacks, provide healing and buffs to teammates, create terrain and positioning that favors their team, or make non-attack skill rolls that help their teammates.

Yes, skill challenges as written are really, really fucking stupid. Can we get past this? CR as written was even more idiotic, as were skill checks in 3E. Shit didn't improve RAW at all.

You didn't actually read the DMG did you. It's cool, you can admit it.
"Certain skills lead to the natural solutions to the problem the challenge presents. These should serve as the primary skills in the challenge. Give some thought to which skills you select here, keeping in mind the goal of involving all the players in the action. You know what skills your player characters are good at, so make sure to include some chances for every character to shine."

So, yeah, it's pretty clear that a DM sets the skills and is is instructed to give every character something to do.

Well it has been over a year since I looked at 4e, but

When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge,
go for it. If a player wants to use a skill you didn’t identify as a primary skill in the challenge, however, then the DC for using that secondary skill is hard.

So, uh, yeah, you know my above points weren't precise in their wording nor as concise as they should have been on their focus on various different iterations of skill challenges.

But rather than correct those in elucidating ways, you decided to demonstrate your own failure at comprehending game fundamentals, math and reading - all while having the audacity to accuse me of doing the same.

And just in case anyone else missed it:

but no he's not better off trying to diplomacy the water because, barring a DM call stating that there are actual entities in the water that you can negotiate with, it won't work and it's not even anything reasonable to expect in any edition.

You're not honestly argue that a player using their highest skill bonus when the skill is seemingly absurd isn't a problem with the ruleset because the DM will veto it ?!?

Yes, because that's the DM's job by default; to allow some things they may have overlooked and to deny some things because they're preposterous? Why else have a DM if they're not there to make judgement calls? Why not play NWN2?

Because we have a name for that sort of thing around here.

Yes, the name is RULE ZERO, which is especially hilarious in a forum dedicated to 'fixing' 3E through extensive houserules. YOU SEE, 3E ISN'T BROKEN IF WE MAKE EVERYONE A CASTER. That makes it extra hilarious when you insist that 4E is terrible because of a system flaw when your forums is dedicated to fixing the multitude of system flaws inherent in 3E without even touching CR.

And while I can't speak for anyone else, I personally have rather strong opinions about people who make such arguments. Rather than go into detail on those opinions, I'll keep it short: We have a winner and you can go onto ignore.

So, that's your response to anyone who dares challenge you? An ignore? Well, it's good to know that you're not interested in ever even considering anyone else's thoughts and would rather wallow in your own with no chance, ever, of being challenged! That's how you really become a better person, I hear; by saying, "NANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU," to any dissenters and ignoring any points they present.

[fbmf]

Because we have a name for that sort of thing around here.

Yes, the name is RULE ZERO, which is especially hilarious in a forum dedicated to 'fixing' 3E through extensive houserules. YOU SEE, 3E ISN'T BROKEN IF WE MAKE EVERYONE A CASTER. That makes it extra hilarious when you insist that 4E is terrible because of a system flaw when your forums is dedicated to fixing the multitude of system flaws inherent in 3E without even touching CR.

Yep, sarcasm plays better when you have some idea what you're talking about.

Claiming something isn't broken because the MC can heal it is called The Oberoni Fallacy.

Carry on, though.

Game On,
fbmf

[A Man In Black]

Claiming something isn't broken because the MC can heal it is called The Oberoni Fallacy.

Butbut... disagreeing with Yep is the Yep Fallacy! Surely they're the same thing, seeing as they both have names and all.

[Vnonymous]

So, that's your response to anyone who dares challenge you? An ignore? Well, it's good to know that you're not interested in ever even considering anyone else's thoughts and would rather wallow in your own with no chance, ever, of being challenged! That's how you really become a better person, I hear; by saying, "NANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU," to any dissenters and ignoring any points they present.

The thing is, all of your objections have actually already been answered. We've had threads dealing with that sort of stuff, and we've even got another one for you to post your crap in right here.

On topic, I'm reading about something that was apparently a part of the skill challenge rules in some revision of 4e at some point(I don't know if it was actually written down, however), that I actually enjoyed, which was the presence of obstacles which appear in combat and are solved in combat time. So in a room filled with undead, a pillar or crystal radiating negative energy every round is a "skill challenge" that the players have to deal with as part of the encounter. The rogue gets to contribute in this encounter by fucking around with the crystal and turning it off, and he does this in combat as opposed to outside of combat where the time taken doesn't matter at all.

The biggest problem I can see with this is that the mechanics for disarming a trap are pretty boring compared to the ones for combat. The rogue just makes skill attempts at something and eventually succeeds. One way to fix this would be to give all the various skill based tome feats awesome abilities to use in these sorts of situations, but that would likely require another rewrite of all the noncombat feats. Does anyone have any suggestions?

[echoVanguard]

I believe what you're referring to is the Encounter Trap rules from 3.5's Dungeonscape supplement. It was a cool idea, because they contained a set of variant trap rules - for example, some parts of a trap could be smashed or attacked with spells instead of disabled, and some components of the trap were easier to disarm than normal traps, taking only 1 round, while other parts required the full 2d4 rounds of disabling (with 1 roll each round to make progress). Most of the problems with it arose from two points - one, that the 3.5E skill system wasn't terribly well bounded on the RNG, so a dedicated trapsmith would pretty much never fail his rolls; and two, that people persistently think that rolling a skill check is somehow less intrinsically satisfying than making an attack roll, even though the mechanics are identical. I think it may have something to do with the fact that you can describe various combat hits excitingly, but "you successfully make progress on your disarm attempt" doesn't have as much variety.

echo

[JigokuBosatsu]

getting a little frustrated at his uselessness, and shouts "I DIPLOMACY THE WATER!"

Caligula was infamous for failing Diplomacy checks with the water. And entering combat with it.

[Swordslinger]

The biggest problem I can see with this is that the mechanics for disarming a trap are pretty boring compared to the ones for combat. The rogue just makes skill attempts at something and eventually succeeds. One way to fix this would be to give all the various skill based tome feats awesome abilities to use in these sorts of situations, but that would likely require another rewrite of all the noncombat feats. Does anyone have any suggestions?

Encounter traps are the best way to make that sort of thing interesting. And to do that, the trap has to actually get sprung.

Traps need to go away from a one shot poison needle or spear trap, and evolve to slowly descending crushing ceilings and rooms filling with poison gas.

[Seerow]

The biggest problem I can see with this is that the mechanics for disarming a trap are pretty boring compared to the ones for combat. The rogue just makes skill attempts at something and eventually succeeds. One way to fix this would be to give all the various skill based tome feats awesome abilities to use in these sorts of situations, but that would likely require another rewrite of all the noncombat feats. Does anyone have any suggestions?

Encounter traps are the best way to make that sort of thing interesting. And to do that, the trap has to actually get sprung.

Traps need to go away from a one shot poison needle or spear trap, and evolve to slowly descending crushing ceilings and rooms filling with poison gas.

And bonus points if there's monsters attacking while this happens. So the rogue is in the corner desperately trying to disable the trap while the rest of the party tries to keep the monsters away from him so he can work.


Also: Maybe traps could work a little bit more like actual combat? Like disabling the trap takes more than X successes. Like say traps have some abstracted HP-esque mechanic that the rogue is bringing down a bit pretty much every round. Bring it below a certain threshold to stop the trap. Another threshold to reverse/reset it, and possibly change the trigger (so you could catch some enemies in it later), and a final threshold to disable the damn thing permanently. With the penalty for failure on a roll simply being triggering the trap if it wasn't already triggered. Or maybe failure gives the trap some HP back (potentially retriggering the trap if you had already stopped it and were trying to reset it/disable it).

[Previn]

Also: Maybe traps could work a little bit more like actual combat? Like disabling the trap takes more than X successes. Like say traps have some abstracted HP-esque mechanic that the rogue is bringing down a bit pretty much every round. Bring it below a certain threshold to stop the trap. Another threshold to reverse/reset it, and possibly change the trigger (so you could catch some enemies in it later), and a final threshold to disable the damn thing permanently. With the penalty for failure on a roll simply being triggering the trap if it wasn't already triggered. Or maybe failure gives the trap some HP back (potentially retriggering the trap if you had already stopped it and were trying to reset it/disable it).

So you just want an X successes to disable the trap that has each success do something minor until it's finally down? I'm really not sure why a HP mechanic is needed when you can just base it all off the skill checks.

[RobbyPants]

Also: Maybe traps could work a little bit more like actual combat? Like disabling the trap takes more than X successes. Like say traps have some abstracted HP-esque mechanic that the rogue is bringing down a bit pretty much every round. Bring it below a certain threshold to stop the trap. Another threshold to reverse/reset it, and possibly change the trigger (so you could catch some enemies in it later), and a final threshold to disable the damn thing permanently. With the penalty for failure on a roll simply being triggering the trap if it wasn't already triggered. Or maybe failure gives the trap some HP back (potentially retriggering the trap if you had already stopped it and were trying to reset it/disable it).

It's been one or two years sine I've read it, but I think that's pretty much the same thing as the encounter trap concept in Dungeonscape.

[Seerow]

Also: Maybe traps could work a little bit more like actual combat? Like disabling the trap takes more than X successes. Like say traps have some abstracted HP-esque mechanic that the rogue is bringing down a bit pretty much every round. Bring it below a certain threshold to stop the trap. Another threshold to reverse/reset it, and possibly change the trigger (so you could catch some enemies in it later), and a final threshold to disable the damn thing permanently. With the penalty for failure on a roll simply being triggering the trap if it wasn't already triggered. Or maybe failure gives the trap some HP back (potentially retriggering the trap if you had already stopped it and were trying to reset it/disable it).

So you just want an X successes to disable the trap that has each success do something minor until it's finally down? I'm really not sure why a HP mechanic is needed when you can just base it all off the skill checks.

Well what I'm saying is X successes is boring.

Giving it X hp and each success can do Y hp is different, and more analogous to how actual combat works. Like you could have disable device be an action that as a baseline deals 2d6+dex damage to the trap or something, with a bonus for using masterwork tools. If you fail to hit the trap, heal it for something like 3d8. Perhaps have this increase/decrease with level, or have utility powers that can make that more effective.

Meanwhile what the trap is actually doing is taking its action doing its thing each turn. (Whether that thing is slowly moving the walls closer together to crush the party and everyone else, or making spikes pop up and down on random spots in the floor or shooting fireballs at people, or flooding the room with water) Particularly nasty traps may be self resetting, effectively healing itself each turn (like a fast healing type effect).


Basically the idea is instead of traps being a straight up skill check, bring it in as an actual part of combat, more like another monster than something totally separate. Traps should be a point in encounters, not an encounter by itself.



Then again, I also liked PhoneLobster's use HP for social combat, so I am generally in favor of streamlining how things pcs do get resolved.

[Seerow]

Also: Maybe traps could work a little bit more like actual combat? Like disabling the trap takes more than X successes. Like say traps have some abstracted HP-esque mechanic that the rogue is bringing down a bit pretty much every round. Bring it below a certain threshold to stop the trap. Another threshold to reverse/reset it, and possibly change the trigger (so you could catch some enemies in it later), and a final threshold to disable the damn thing permanently. With the penalty for failure on a roll simply being triggering the trap if it wasn't already triggered. Or maybe failure gives the trap some HP back (potentially retriggering the trap if you had already stopped it and were trying to reset it/disable it).

It's been one or two years sine I've read it, but I think that's pretty much the same thing as the encounter trap concept in Dungeonscape.

Is it? About the only thing in Dungeonscape I ever read was the Factotum. Any idea how that particular mechanic actually worked with groups?

[tzor]

getting a little frustrated at his uselessness, and shouts "I DIPLOMACY THE WATER!"

The more I think of this the more I am starting to like it. It does have a Baron Munchowsen like feel to it.

"My dear good river, you seem to be blocking our path. Would you kindly stop running for a moment so we can cross?"

[echoVanguard]

Is it? About the only thing in Dungeonscape I ever read was the Factotum. Any idea how that particular mechanic actually worked with groups?

It worked reasonably well in most of my groups. You can find more information in my previous post.

echo

[shadzar]

getting a little frustrated at his uselessness, and shouts "I DIPLOMACY THE WATER!"

The more I think of this the more I am starting to like it. It does have a Baron Munchowsen like feel to it.

"My dear good river, you seem to be blocking our path. Would you kindly stop running for a moment so we can cross?"

but he would say "my dear good Lady...", as the river would mean he was talking to Uma Thurman, which would result in more than just talking to water...

now like Burtold i shall run away fast....

[fectin]

I saw that movie when I was very small (in theaters, I think), later spent a while trying to figure out what movie it was, and finally concluded it was a dream.

Two years ago, CWRU showed it for sci-fi marathon. My mind? Blown.

[RobbyPants]

Is it? About the only thing in Dungeonscape I ever read was the Factotum. Any idea how that particular mechanic actually worked with groups?

I haven't gotten to try it out yet. I got Dungeonscape a bit after I took a break from DMing. I'm getting back into DMing, but just for a solo game. I may try some of these at some point, though.

[Psychic Robot]

FACTOTUM IS TIER ONE BETTER THAN WIZARDS FONT OF INSPIRATION MULTIPLE ACTIONS

[RobbyPants]

FACTOTUM IS TIER ONE BETTER THAN WIZARDS FONT OF INSPIRATION MULTIPLE ACTIONS

Well, Jaron thinks it's tier 3. It's just he thinks they're better than rogues because... they get access to certain types of cheesy optimization and rogues don't? I think that's how it works. I know he doesn't consider X cheesy for factotums but does if X is used for rogues. I think this includes things like item familiars, warbeasts, and Iajutsu Focus.

[Psychic Robot]

item familiars are shit anyhow, it's like saying WELL THE TRUENAMER IS REALLY GOOD BECAUSE YOU CAN GET A CUSTOM +30 ITEM AND AN ITEM FAMILIAR

[Kaelik]

item familiars are shit anyhow, it's like saying WELL THE TRUENAMER IS REALLY GOOD BECAUSE YOU CAN GET A CUSTOM +30 ITEM AND AN ITEM FAMILIAR

No the purpose of item familiars is to get a sentient item that casts Grease with it's own action (if you are a rogue) Yeah, you also get free XP, and free GP, and free bonuses to skills, but that's no where near as important as the free actions.

Factotums... can use it for the same thing, but JaronK isn't smart enough to do that.

But he will whine for 5 pages about how if you take away Item Familiar it's not fair to the Factotum before you even get to the part where you then use Item Familiar for the Rogue and it's OP.

[Previn]

Giving it X hp and each success can do Y hp is different, and more analogous to how actual combat works. Like you could have disable device be an action that as a baseline deals 2d6+dex damage to the trap or something, with a bonus for using masterwork tools. If you fail to hit the trap, heal it for something like 3d8. Perhaps have this increase/decrease with level, or have utility powers that can make that more effective.

Forgive me, but I'm still not seeing how that's really different from just using successes. It looks like you're just adding in variable numbers as what the rolling of a 'success' does.

I can say a trap takes 5 success to 'disable.' If you fail at an attempt, the trap gets an extra action to do whatever it's doing as per your example. I'm not seeing any benefit from saying 'this trap has 45 hp, and you'll do 2d6+2 damage each success to it and thus disable it in an average of 5 rounds.'

It's not really the success that's boring, it's that nothing happens until you hit that threshold, if I'm reading you right. I don't see a need to add hp in to get 'you speed up the trap' or 'part of the trap fails' when I can tie that to the existing X successes mechanic and save some space.

[Seerow]

Giving it X hp and each success can do Y hp is different, and more analogous to how actual combat works. Like you could have disable device be an action that as a baseline deals 2d6+dex damage to the trap or something, with a bonus for using masterwork tools. If you fail to hit the trap, heal it for something like 3d8. Perhaps have this increase/decrease with level, or have utility powers that can make that more effective.

Forgive me, but I'm still not seeing how that's really different from just using successes. It looks like you're just adding in variable numbers as what the rolling of a 'success' does.

I can say a trap takes 5 success to 'disable.' If you fail at an attempt, the trap gets an extra action to do whatever it's doing as per your example. I'm not seeing any benefit from saying 'this trap has 45 hp, and you'll do 2d6+2 damage each success to it and thus disable it in an average of 5 rounds.'

It's not really the success that's boring, it's that nothing happens until you hit that threshold, if I'm reading you right. I don't see a need to add hp in to get 'you speed up the trap' or 'part of the trap fails' when I can tie that to the existing X successes mechanic and save some space.

Let me put it this way: Would combat feel the same to you if everything used 4e minion rules? You successfully hit them, they die. Maybe you get fancy and make some tougher monsters, if you successfully hit them three times, they die. Doesn't matter what you hit them with or what you do, 3 successes on the attack roll, they die.

More or less that's what traps are now. Giving them HP and having disable device makes traps basically more like another monster in the encounter. Which is the point: To streamline traps into other combat mechanics. Disable Device is no longer a save or die vs traps, but combat vs a trap.

Reading the info posted earlier on encounter traps from dungeonscape gives some ideas on how that could be expanded upon to work with the rest of the party, so other members who can't use disable device could also help with disabling the trap attacking other parts of it directly.