What's a 4E skill challenge?

[Stubbazubba]

I get what Seerow's saying, and I like it. Give traps something like 'Complexity Points' which have to be reduced to make it stop.

The only problem is that if every trap is like this, then the one you encounter out of combat is going to be a one-man show for a longer time than usual. "How's that spike pit going, McThieves?" "It's only got 18 more HP, we should be good to go in...3 rounds..." That's a problem.

[Seerow]

I get what Seerow's saying, and I like it. Give traps something like 'Complexity Points' which have to be reduced to make it stop.

The only problem is that if every trap is like this, then the one you encounter out of combat is going to be a one-man show for a longer time than usual. "How's that spike pit going, McThieves?" "It's only got 18 more HP, we should be good to go in...3 rounds..." That's a problem.

Yeah, that's why A) Most traps should be a part of a larger encounter and B) Those who are not should have some way to be interracted with/stopped by other party members. (For example the explanation of encounter traps earlier in the thread said something about the fighter being able to disable a part by whacking it)

[echoVanguard]

I'd like to point out that McThieves is an awesome thief name.

That being said, the encounter trap rules in Dungeonscape do a lot to alleviate Previn's complaints - often, a trap has multiple attacks per round, and each successful disable removes that attack from the trap's arsenal. So, for example, a trap might make 6 attacks in the first round, but the rogue disables one of the spinning blades and the fighter smashes another, while the Wizard attempts to use Scorching Ray to melt a third (but doesn't deal enough damage). The next round, the trap only has 4 attacks (and would have had 3 if the wizard had rolled higher damage).

echo

[Previn]

I'd like to point out that McThieves is an awesome thief name.

That being said, the encounter trap rules in Dungeonscape do a lot to alleviate Previn's complaints - often, a trap has multiple attacks per round, and each successful disable removes that attack from the trap's arsenal. So, for example, a trap might make 6 attacks in the first round, but the rogue disables one of the spinning blades and the fighter smashes another, while the Wizard attempts to use Scorching Ray to melt a third (but doesn't deal enough damage). The next round, the trap only has 4 attacks (and would have had 3 if the wizard had rolled higher damage).

echo

I'm not complaining about diabling a trap in steps, I'm all for that. I'm just not convinced that everything and it's mother needs to be tied to a hp system.

[Seerow]

I'd like to point out that McThieves is an awesome thief name.

That being said, the encounter trap rules in Dungeonscape do a lot to alleviate Previn's complaints - often, a trap has multiple attacks per round, and each successful disable removes that attack from the trap's arsenal. So, for example, a trap might make 6 attacks in the first round, but the rogue disables one of the spinning blades and the fighter smashes another, while the Wizard attempts to use Scorching Ray to melt a third (but doesn't deal enough damage). The next round, the trap only has 4 attacks (and would have had 3 if the wizard had rolled higher damage).

echo

I'm not complaining about diabling a trap in steps, I'm all for that. I'm just not convinced that everything and it's mother needs to be tied to a hp system.

HP works. If something is expected to be done in combat, it should have hp.

I have no problem with weak or non-combat traps being one success it's gone, just like I don't have a problem with minions dying in one hit. What I don't like is every single trap being basically a minion.

[Previn]

HP works. If something is expected to be done in combat, it should have hp.

I have no problem with weak or non-combat traps being one success it's gone, just like I don't have a problem with minions dying in one hit. What I don't like is every single trap being basically a minion.

Minions and one check traps have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

You want HP for traps, so it takes multiple 'attacks' to disable them, and you can increase or decrease trap effectiveness based on that.

I say you don't need HP and added damage rolls for something that the skill system can already handle just fine using multiple/complex checks.


In example, let's say we have a 30 hp trap that gets 3 attacks each round. Now, every 10 HP reduces it's attacks by one, and every failed attack against it gives it an extra attack:

30 hp = 3 attacks
20 hp = 2 attacks
10 hp = 1 attack
0 or less hp = disabled
-10 = you can reset/control it, whatever
Failed attack = it attacks you immediately

How is that better than:

1 success = down to 2 attacks
2 success = down to 1 attack
3 success = disabled
4 success = you can reset/control it, whatever
Failed check = it attacks you immediately

I can't see a reason to have the extra complexity of damage and hp tracking as opposed to a simple success track. Nothing to do with '1 check disables the trap' in anyway, quite the opposite.

[Seerow]

I can't see a reason to have the extra complexity of damage and hp tracking as opposed to a simple success track. Nothing to do with '1 check disables the trap' in anyway, quite the opposite.

Because not everybody does 10 damage per attack? Someone really good at fucking up traps might be more effective than someone who's not? And is it really that much harder to track 30 hp vs 3 successes anyway?

And once again, it's for further integration with the rest of the game. We're talking about traps that are a part of a larger encounter with monsters and shit involved. Why have a trap with a X hit threshold before he goes down while having a monster with Y hit points? Why not have both with hit points? It's a unified mechanic, and it's one that works. So why not use it?

[Previn]

Because not everybody does 10 damage per attack? Someone really good at fucking up traps might be more effective than someone who's not? And is it really that much harder to track 30 hp vs 3 successes anyway?

I never specified 10 damage per attack, I set the threshold for how much damage effects the trap in what way.

Doing damage basically gives you 3 out comes:
- You disable it in someway because the damage you dealt passed a threshold (or multiple ones)
- You did damage and nothing happened because you didn't do enough to move from one threshold to another
- You failed the attack and 'something bad' happened

Now you're tracking double, or triple digits of hp for traps, and adding in an extra roll for damage, and adding in a another effect that doesn't actually do anything but drag out the encounter (i.e. hit but didn't do enough damage to do anything). You can cover multiple thresholds with a single skill check, so that's not a plus for HP.

And once again, it's for further integration with the rest of the game. We're talking about traps that are a part of a larger encounter with monsters and shit involved. Why have a trap with a X hit threshold before he goes down while having a monster with Y hit points? Why not have both with hit points? It's a unified mechanic, and it's one that works. So why not use it?

Because it's unnecessary complexity and you're going to have all the headaches of hp for no gain that I can easily discern. Everything you're saying you want, besides it being unified with hp, seems to me to be handled more quickly and cleanly by keeping it on the skill system.

[Seerow]

This argument is going in circles. It's basically just you saying "It's the same thing" and me saying "No it's not".

While you never specified 10 damage per attack, you implied it was equivalent by putting forth a trap with 30hp and 3 thresholds 10 apart, and saying it was the same as a trap that you just need 3 successes for.

What if a really badass disable device guy could trash that whole 30 hp from the trap in one success? What if a shitty guy needed like 5 rounds on it, and probably needs help from the fighter guy who lacks the skill but can bash parts of the trap as needed.

[ModelCitizen]

-There's no reason to have two rolls unless that complexity adds tactical depth. Like if you could choose to trade one for the other (+4 Disable and 1d6 damage vs +2 disable and 1d10 damage).

-Your traps will have two HP numbers. One for being a trap that you reduce with thieves' kits, and one for being an object that you reduce with axes. That's confusing.

-Trap skills would matter more if they covered a broader set of things. I can't consistently contrive reasons the party has to fight monsters in a swinging blade hallway, but it wouldn't matter if a rogue could Disarm to turn off an iron golem or screw with the IFF on a Glyph of Warding. Your system makes it hard to write really broad uses for Disable Device because it only works on things that are arbitrarily statted as traps.

[Seerow]

-There's no reason to have two rolls unless that complexity adds tactical depth. Like if you could choose to trade one for the other (+4 Disable and 1d6 damage vs +2 disable and 1d10 damage).

-Your traps will have two HP numbers. One for being a trap that you reduce with thieves' kits, and one for being an object that you reduce with axes. That's confusing.

-Trap skills would matter more if they covered a broader set of things. I can't consistently contrive reasons the party has to fight monsters in a swinging blade hallway, but it wouldn't matter if a rogue could Disarm to turn off an iron golem or screw with the IFF on a Glyph of Warding. Your system makes it hard to write really broad uses for Disable Device because it only works on things that are arbitrarily statted as traps.

1) I was thinking more along the lines of the better trained you are (more skill ranks, higher skill classification, whatever), the better your damage is. Also possibly the ability to increase damage done on a success, but increase the amount healed on a failure by an equal amount.

2) Why do you need separate hp pools for what can be hit by what? That's an extra level of complexity I never really said anything about. Most likely I'd have something like a swift action that someone with disable device can do to direct others to vulnerable parts they can hit (thus enabling those without DD to deal damage to the traps without making DD useless)

3) Something like what you describe is pretty cool. Being able to use DD to disable a golem, is a good idea: And one that supports using an HP mechanic, because now you just add a keyword to that golem and it can be affected by DD attacks. I'm not sure how what you described is really an argument against me so much as something extra to consider.

[Previn]

While you never specified 10 damage per attack, you implied it was equivalent by putting forth a trap with 30hp and 3 thresholds 10 apart, and saying it was the same as a trap that you just need 3 successes for.

Because it is the same. It doesn't matter where you put the thresholds for damage, you don't care unless you're passing a threshold, or failing an attack, because the result of "I did 8 damage and nothing happened" is not only really boring, but it drags it out for no reason when you've already doubled the amount of time you'll spend rolling by adding in damage.

You don't care about doing 3 damage to the trap's HP because it doesn't do anything, so you don't need a threshold chat that looks like:

30 = 3 attacks
29 = 3 attacks
28 = 3 attacks
27 = 3 attacks
26 = 3 attacks
25 = 3 attacks
24 = 3 attacks
23 = 3 attacks
22 = 3 attacks
21 = 3 attacks
20 = 2 attacks
etc....

That's why I only listed thresholds at 10 as an easy to follow example. I could have set them to 4 or 14 or 3, 7 and 12 or whatever.

What if a really badass disable device guy could trash that whole 30 hp from the trap in one success? What if a shitty guy needed like 5 rounds on it, and probably needs help from the fighter guy who lacks the skill but can bash parts of the trap as needed.

Say you have Guy A {Badass} with a +28 skill check, and Guy B {Shitty} with a +8. Set the DC at roughly 18 and require 3 successes (disclaimer : math is off, but it's an EXAMPLE so don't get pissy) and for every 5 above the DC, you get an extra success. Guy B takes roughly 5 rounds to disable it with average rolls, Guy A can pop it in 1 round with a bad roll.

{Edit: We should probably split this off into another thread if we're going to continue.}

[Seerow]

While you never specified 10 damage per attack, you implied it was equivalent by putting forth a trap with 30hp and 3 thresholds 10 apart, and saying it was the same as a trap that you just need 3 successes for.

Because it is the same. It doesn't matter where you put the thresholds for damage, you don't care unless you're passing a threshold, or failing an attack, because the result of "I did 8 damage and nothing happened" is not only really boring, but it drags it out for no reason when you've already doubled the amount of time you'll spend rolling by adding in damage.

So what you're saying is you don't like the HP mechanic. Because if that is disappointing to you, it's probably every bit as disappointing when you attack that troll with a sword, deal 10 damage, and he's still standing there just fine.

If you can accept HP as a valid mechanic at all, then it is fine for traps, and leads to better streamlined design. If you want to pretend like HP for monsters is good, but for traps it's just a waste of time, then I have nothing really to say. Because you're never going to agree with me or reach any sort of meaningful compromise.

[Previn]

So what you're saying is you don't like the HP mechanic. Because if that is disappointing to you, it's probably every bit as disappointing when you attack that troll with a sword, deal 10 damage, and he's still standing there just fine.

You're adding more rolls, more book keeping, and more math, and frankly more time doing nothing to a game that already has a lot of that for basically no gain besides being able to say 'it's a unified mechanic.'

Explain to me how HP are better than a complex skill check, or can do something better or faster than a complex skill check that doesn't involve 'it's a unified mechanic.'

[RadiantPhoenix]

Explain to me how HP are better than a complex skill check, or can do something better or faster than a complex skill check that doesn't involve 'it's a unified mechanic.'

How are HP better than using the complex skill check mechanic for killing monsters?

[tzor]

Explain to me how HP are better than a complex skill check, or can do something better or faster than a complex skill check that doesn't involve 'it's a unified mechanic.'

How are HP better than using the complex skill check mechanic for killing monsters?

The purpose of HP in the case of "killing monsters" is because there are a near infinite number of ways of killing the monster. In more complex combat systems you could wound an appendage, damage a midsection, break bones, sever bood vessels, etc. All nice and complex but every monster is in some way "HEROIC." This means that they all take damage differently, and this is reflected through the HP mechanic.

The simpliest way to "disable" a monster is with a single "saving thrrow."