skill challenges have HP?

Some concern has been expressed over keeping skill DC bonus equal to combat bonus. While I don't have issue with separating AC/DC I want to propose an option. This option assumes the skill die remains, but used slightly differently.

What if non-combat situations were created with monster stats. Instead of AC the challenge has a DC, and rather than HP we use SP (skill points). Skill Points represent the same abstraction as HP, and applies differently to each situation. Because these "skill challenges" have other base stats they can make saves and have actions. Also these SP can be used to manipulate characters as well. Let me give some examples.

The room is filling with water and the party begins looking for a way out. (trap, DC12, SP20) the Fighter Searches the mechanism to shut it off (rolls a INT check and rolls d4 SP 'damage', he's not to bright so think unarmed damage), then the Rogue moves over to the mechanism and begins to disable it (DEX check with d8 SP effect, he's skilled in disable). These actions won't defeat the trap (it still has 12SP left!), so it takes an action action to attack!

This concept can be applied to social interactions as well. Your CHA becomes your DC and you use your current HP as SP, and your skill die replaces damage rolls. So if you intimidate your opponent that you have been beating up on they are more likely to surrender, or if you started with a threat (doing SP effect) they give up once reach 0 SP. This can represent bartering with a merchant as well, whoever reach's 0 first is on the wrong end of the bargain.

Increased Critical could apply to these situations to represent skill mastery and additional effect dice could be added as well (3d8 super stealth, which when added to Sneak attack damage lowers SP enough to KO in one blow!)

not all that though out but has interesting possibilities... 

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

I don't think skill "hit points" are necessary.  The only difference between the combat and skill mechanics should be the target DC (AC for combat) in my opinion.  Since you need to whittle down hit points in combat, the DC, or AC, should be lower for combat.  Skill DCs can be higher since they will generally be an all or nothing deal.

On side note, I could see a situation where a # of successes are necessary to "succeed".  No, I'm not referring to the 4e skill challenge mechanic.  If you set a DC, since the DM should know his or her group along with their skills, around 50% success rate, you could push a skill scenario towards six or so "rounds" by requiring three successes.   
This is the type of suggestion that works well in theory, but is a metagamey, immersion-destroying disaster in practice.  In a CRPG, with all the math handled 'behind the curtain', as it were, you could get away with this.  In a tabletop game, the very idea sends me screaming into the night. 
"The Duke doesn't like our proposal?  I hit him...I mean, I talk at him again!"

Pass.
I don't think skill "hit points" are necessary.  The only difference between the combat and skill mechanics should be the target DC (AC for combat) in my opinion.  Since you need to whittle down hit points in combat, the DC, or AC, should be lower for combat.  Skill DCs can be higher since they will generally be an all or nothing deal.


Wouldn't it work the opposite way? If I'm attacking a monster, every hit or miss doesn't matter because the combat is going to last a few rounds anyways. For that reason ACs can be high and still allow for a fair fight. But if a DC is set high, there's a very large chance of failure with no option to try again.
The Oberoni fallacy only applies to broken rules, not rules you don't like. If a rule you don't like can be easily ignored, it should exist in the game for those who will enjoy it.
I don't think skill "hit points" are necessary.  The only difference between the combat and skill mechanics should be the target DC (AC for combat) in my opinion.  Since you need to whittle down hit points in combat, the DC, or AC, should be lower for combat.  Skill DCs can be higher since they will generally be an all or nothing deal.


Wouldn't it work the opposite way? If I'm attacking a monster, every hit or miss doesn't matter because the combat is going to last a few rounds anyways. For that reason ACs can be high and still allow for a fair fight. But if a DC is set high, there's a very large chance of failure with no option to try again.



Why would there only be a one shot skill roll?  

The traditional function of combat is to reduce the enemy's hit points.  I wouldn't advocate changing that basic design concept.  Yes, you can make skills work the same way.  I just don't think it would be necessary to stat out every monster with hit points and opinion points.  You reduce hit points to kill the monster.  You reduce opinion points to convince it to do something.  Then you get into wanting to change two different opinions on the monster, do you run to concurrent pools at the same time?  I just don't see it actually being as intuitive as advertised...
Nice idea, but too controversial for D&D right now. If you could apply it to an indie game and get some years of practise on the market, maybe it would be feasible for 6th edition.

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

I don't think skill "hit points" are necessary.  The only difference between the combat and skill mechanics should be the target DC (AC for combat) in my opinion.  Since you need to whittle down hit points in combat, the DC, or AC, should be lower for combat.  Skill DCs can be higher since they will generally be an all or nothing deal.


Wouldn't it work the opposite way? If I'm attacking a monster, every hit or miss doesn't matter because the combat is going to last a few rounds anyways. For that reason ACs can be high and still allow for a fair fight. But if a DC is set high, there's a very large chance of failure with no option to try again.

When did it ever become impossible to retry a Skill check?

I like this idea.

I will add that you add your associated ability score modifier to the skill points damage if you are trained.

So untrained skill die = d4
Level 1 - 6 and trained = d6+modifier SP damage.

Makes extended rolls and contested rolls more dynamic and interesting.  Also means you could do things like deadly strike for skill use, a good way to make skill monkey classes like bards and rogues better at skills than other classes.  It would also help with bounded accuracy because things that might normaly grant a skill bonus could now just grant a bonus to skill point damage keeping the whole d20+X lower. 

Remember this is a public forum where people express their opinions assume there is a “In my humble opinion” in front of every post especially mine.  

 

Things you should check out because they are cool, like bow-ties and fezzes.

https://app.roll20.net/home  Roll20 great free virtual table top so you can play with old friends who are far away.

http://donjon.bin.sh/  Donjon has random treasure, maps, pick pocket results, etc.. for every edition of D&D.

When did it ever become impossible to retry a Skill check?

When the check was to cross a rope over a lava pit.
To the OP: it's an idea worth a try for complex checks.

Convincing the Duke is an example. I'm a salesman and I know that convincing somebody else is very often a process that goes through several steps. First of all you set the mood of the conversation, then you go into details of an offer, then you tweak them, fend-off all the exceptions and comments coming, and if everything goes well then find an agreement. It's a sort of battle and it's modeled better by the system you proposed. By the way this gives more room for all PCs to participate:

- the faceman (bard, rogue) sets the mood
- the tactician (fighter, warlord, wizard) explains the plan
- the quick thinker (whoever it is) makes the tweaks and rebukes comments

and so on.     

I would keep both ways of making a check. This for complex checks and the standard one for simple ones. Up to the DM to decide which system he applies.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)

Asylum's entire scene system works similar to this idea, actually. Characters generate variable "Impact" on any skill roll, even combat rolls. Scenes can be structured in such a way so that the Narrator (what we call the GM) can use the total Impact to determine both when and how a scene is resolved. It's basically a dramatic pacing mechanism as well as resolution system.

Now, the metagame aspect that professordaddy mentions hasn't been a problem with our playtesters, but we've also been careful about what information we share and withold during the scene. Understanding the full structure of the scene not only hurts immersion, but it also removes the uncertainty and investigative analysis that our target players enjoy.

The "hit/talk to him again" issue only exists if the Narrator has constructed the scene to have no constraints or consequences. Put simply, the Narrator can design a scene so that certain tasks only contribute to the outcome from the first X rolls, or (more often) by setting a limit to the Impact of the task.
BASH! uses a system for Extended Checks, because some things can't be complete with a single roll. So another possibility is an increased DC and every roll subtracts from that DC. Say unlocking a door has a difficulty of 60, it may take a lesser Rogue 4 rounds to pick while the master may complete in 2 rounds.

As to immersion, that is on the DM to keep the rules hidden no matter what RPG you use. The key is to find a system that plays intuitively. As it stands the only time D&D attempted to codify skill checks was in 4e and it was clunky but needed I think. Made Traps and Diplomacy so much more interesting.
  

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

This is the type of suggestion that works well in theory, but is a metagamey, immersion-destroying disaster in practice.  In a CRPG, with all the math handled 'behind the curtain', as it were, you could get away with this.  In a tabletop game, the very idea sends me screaming into the night. 
"The Duke doesn't like our proposal?  I hit him...I mean, I talk at him again!"

Pass.



+1.

I never want diplomacy to be a matter of just constantly beating the NPC with an idea until he runs of hit points.

This is the type of suggestion that works well in theory, but is a metagamey, immersion-destroying disaster in practice.  In a CRPG, with all the math handled 'behind the curtain', as it were, you could get away with this.  In a tabletop game, the very idea sends me screaming into the night. 
"The Duke doesn't like our proposal?  I hit him...I mean, I talk at him again!"

Pass.



+1.

I never want diplomacy to be a matter of just constantly beating the NPC with an idea until he runs of hit points.




+1 here as well.  I think it is a clever concept for traps and other terrain obstacles but not a good idea for interactions. Kind of takes the role playing out of the rpg.
Ever read/played the Dying Earth systems conflict resolution methods?
Differing styles of rhetoric being advantages vs others..  for instance.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I think it is a clever concept for traps and other terrain obstacles but not a good idea for interactions. Kind of takes the role playing out of the rpg.



That's just it though, obviously such a system isn't meant to replace roleplaying but as a tool to augment it. No one is asking for the GM to strip the scene of common sense and creative expression.
Seems like needless complexity.

Instead of seperate damage, why not subtract successful skill check totals? The numbers or higher but it also means a really good success is better than a minimal roll. 

Or just track successes, and potentially count high rolls as two successes. Like the 4e system.
 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

Seems like needless complexity.

Instead of seperate damage, why not subtract successful skill check totals? The numbers or higher but it also means a really good success is better than a minimal roll. 

Or just track successes, and potentially count high rolls as two successes. Like the 4e system.
 



What you're talking about is basically how we ended up handling it, as there's only one die-roll for determining success and Impact in the Asylum system. D&D players, however, are already used to rolling for success on a d20 while rolling a seperate die for quality of success. So we're talking about a level of complexity that the players already handle, just in a different situation. Whether they actually want it or not is a totally different question.
We could take the opposite way and get rid of HPs.

Like skills, there's no middle ground with attacks in D&D. hit or not hit.
And HPs have no impact on the combat until you stop having them.

A resilience checks system can replace HPs.
More dice rolled instead of HP tracking.

As a side note, there was a discussion exactly on the same subject.
I already played a houseruled D&D with Mental and Social pools of "HPs". We tried all HPs as daily and another time as encounter ressources. Encounter work better in any ways, but it needs special 'lasting wound rules' in top of them (physical, mental and social).
A big problem was to have a more complex character sheet and convert spells to target the right "HP pool" or to inflict social or mental damage.

IMO, D&D would be better served by getting rid of HPs and using more rolls and narration. 

If you think my english is bad, just wait until you see my spanish and my italian. Defiling languages is an art.

I think if its presented as a method to handle a complex task it would be fine. Of course every situation doesn't have to be resolved the same way. However, the DMG should offer a easy method to handle situations that require more then a single check.

Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of Random Stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad. (Fixed!)

At least it appears we all agree that some sort of skill challenge feature should be a part of Next. Social Challenges are the toughest because of the two camps (role-play only vs. make a check). I have to go to the make a check side with role-play granting advantage because not all of us are naturally good at interactions but the character we play (CHA 18) is. Another example is INT puzzles, I personally am not smart enough to perform higher math equations but my Wizard with 18 INT is.

If Next is going to have different DCs for skill checks then adding a rule where beating the target by 10 cuts the time it takes to perform the skill in half seems like an option. Imagine the Rogue picking the lock so easily that it takes him a Reaction rather than an Action to complete! 

So what would be a workable codified system for frightening or charming an opponent? I know some say telling a player they cannot attack something is unfair but I disagree, what is role-playing if you cannot accept the role your placed in? In this case you have been charmed so role-play that out. I like the 4e disease rules and feel it could be applied to charmed condition (maybe adding a 'friendly' condition in between).

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t...

Scroll to the second post for an intersting look at the diplomacy skill, and how it can work well with roleplay.
The Oberoni fallacy only applies to broken rules, not rules you don't like. If a rule you don't like can be easily ignored, it should exist in the game for those who will enjoy it.
www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t...

Scroll to the second post for an intersting look at the diplomacy skill, and how it can work well with roleplay.

I can't open it. Don't have access??

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t...

Scroll to the second post for an intersting look at the diplomacy skill, and how it can work well with roleplay.

I can't open it. Don't have access??



You werent diplomatic enought or a smooth enough talker to convince the DM 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t...

Scroll to the second post for an intersting look at the diplomacy skill, and how it can work well with roleplay.

I can't open it. Don't have access??


It works for me, I'm not sure why it isn't working for you.

If you really want to view it go to giantitp.com, look to the left under gaming and click "looking for the gaming articles". It should be the second post in the thread. 
The Oberoni fallacy only applies to broken rules, not rules you don't like. If a rule you don't like can be easily ignored, it should exist in the game for those who will enjoy it.
www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t...

Scroll to the second post for an intersting look at the diplomacy skill, and how it can work well with roleplay.

I can't open it. Don't have access??


It works for me, I'm not sure why it isn't working for you.

If you really want to view it go to giantitp.com, look to the left under gaming and click "looking for the gaming articles". It should be the second post in the thread. 



Thanks for the find Bob. I think I'm going to try that out in my next session.

Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of Random Stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad. (Fixed!)


Thanks for the find Bob. I think I'm going to try that out in my next session.


You're quite welcome. I hope your group has fun with it.
The Oberoni fallacy only applies to broken rules, not rules you don't like. If a rule you don't like can be easily ignored, it should exist in the game for those who will enjoy it.
bobinchese-
I was on my phone so it couldn't open it. Next would require a simpler approach but that article is on the right track.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

This idea could also help with the whole odd stats are meaningless problem.

Break the bonus up into two parts one an action bonus that applies to d20 checks, the other an affect bonus that applies to other dice type rolls like damage and skill damage checks.

12 = +1 to action/ +0 to affect dice
13 = +1 to action/ +1 to affect dice
14 = +2 to action/ +1 to affect dice
15 = +2 to action/ +2 to affect dice 
ect...

I like this idea alot for a skill challenge system I hope that WoTC notices this, the OP has a great idea here I think. 

Remember this is a public forum where people express their opinions assume there is a “In my humble opinion” in front of every post especially mine.  

 

Things you should check out because they are cool, like bow-ties and fezzes.

https://app.roll20.net/home  Roll20 great free virtual table top so you can play with old friends who are far away.

http://donjon.bin.sh/  Donjon has random treasure, maps, pick pocket results, etc.. for every edition of D&D.

When did it ever become impossible to retry a Skill check?

When the check was to cross a rope over a lava pit.



lol
This idea could also help with the whole odd stats are meaningless problem.

Break the bonus up into two parts one an action bonus that applies to d20 checks, the other an affect bonus that applies to other dice type rolls like damage and skill damage checks.

12 = +1 to action/ +0 to affect dice
13 = +1 to action/ +1 to affect dice
14 = +2 to action/ +1 to affect dice
15 = +2 to action/ +2 to affect dice 
ect...

I like this idea alot for a skill challenge system I hope that WoTC notices this, the OP has a great idea here I think. 


But why is this better then a standard progression?

Nevermind, I misread your post. 
The Oberoni fallacy only applies to broken rules, not rules you don't like. If a rule you don't like can be easily ignored, it should exist in the game for those who will enjoy it.
So how does one fail? In combat, the monsters can hit back. With a trap, the trap might only hit back once. With other skill challenges, there might be no mechanism at all to strike back (unless the characters also have SP and all challenges can strike back, at which point you're just adding more stuff to track for not much gain).

I'm not sure what this really gains over the normal skill challenge framework.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
So how does one fail?

Perhaps, skill challenges could run off of Sanity Points?

Instead of "no, you fail, and can't do it again", "no, you failed and lose 1d6 SAN.  Keep trying until exasperated."
I can't remember the exact game  but there is a social combat system out there that has social hit points so the Duke you are trying to negotiate with does social damage to you while you do it to him whatever side hits zero first looses the negotiation.

I could also see it has you have so much time to do X, if you can't get the needed skill success points before time runs out you fail.

As for crossing a rope over lava base the total points needed on the distance needed to cover.  If you fail a check along the way before you have crossed do whatever you would do now when they fail a check, this system just replaces the need for making 3 success with get 18 skill damage total. 

Remember this is a public forum where people express their opinions assume there is a “In my humble opinion” in front of every post especially mine.  

 

Things you should check out because they are cool, like bow-ties and fezzes.

https://app.roll20.net/home  Roll20 great free virtual table top so you can play with old friends who are far away.

http://donjon.bin.sh/  Donjon has random treasure, maps, pick pocket results, etc.. for every edition of D&D.

So how does one fail? In combat, the monsters can hit back. With a trap, the trap might only hit back once. With other skill challenges, there might be no mechanism at all to strike back (unless the characters also have SP and all challenges can strike back, at which point you're just adding more stuff to track for not much gain).

I'm not sure what this really gains over the normal skill challenge framework.

Time limit? Or if it is a contest the opponent wins when they defeat your SP.

Some cases are pass or fail with one roll. This is for extended checks to see how long something takes. I can fix a car, but a skilled mechanic fixes it faster... 

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

So how does one fail? In combat, the monsters can hit back. With a trap, the trap might only hit back once. With other skill challenges, there might be no mechanism at all to strike back (unless the characters also have SP and all challenges can strike back, at which point you're just adding more stuff to track for not much gain).

I'm not sure what this really gains over the normal skill challenge framework.

Time limit? Or if it is a contest the opponent wins when they defeat your SP.

Some cases are pass or fail with one roll. This is for extended checks to see how long something takes. I can fix a car, but a skilled mechanic fixes it faster... 



Right, the real question is what are the relevant limitations and consequences? If there's no chance of failure, or at least a meaningful gradience of success, then why are you rolling?

Of course, not all skill scenes naturally have constraints, and that's okay too. Many GM's are only asking for a roll in a skill scene because they're looking for an arbitrary mediator for their occasional interjections. In such a case the PC's are bound to succeed, so the purpose of proposing skill rolls is only to add some narative color. This is similar to how most of your conversation tree choices in a Bioware game have no bearing on the outcome or plot, but instead express the personalities and preferences of the protagonists.
I'm not sure what this really gains over the normal skill challenge framework.


I agree.  Furthermore, I'd love to see skill challenges reprinted for DDN (with improvements where necessary).

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I'm not sure what this really gains over the normal skill challenge framework.


I agree.  Furthermore, I'd love to see skill challenges reprinted for DDN (with improvements where necessary).


Skill challenges are a 4e thing right? How do they work?
The Oberoni fallacy only applies to broken rules, not rules you don't like. If a rule you don't like can be easily ignored, it should exist in the game for those who will enjoy it.
I'm not sure what this really gains over the normal skill challenge framework.


I agree.  Furthermore, I'd love to see skill challenges reprinted for DDN (with improvements where necessary).


Skill challenges are a 4e thing right? How do they work?


There is a simple and a complex answer to that.

Simple: there are five levels of difficulty, with level 1 being the weakest and level 5 being equivalent to a normal encounter at the party's level.  You use skills to try to accumulate successes before you accumulate too many failures.  The difficulty level of the challenge dictates how many successes you need and how many failures result in a failed challenge.

Complex: Some people say that skill challenges didn't work very well or at all.  I found that they worked very well, but you have to plan for them.  Consider the potential uses of every skill in the challenge (something that was easier with 4e's shorter, consolidated skill list), even unconventional uses.  Also, consider the effects of things that aren't skills.  For example, a bribe might be an automatic success or an automatic failure depending on the amount of the bribe (too low might be seen as an insult) and the nature of the NPC in the challenge (attempting to bribe a morally upright NPC should probably be an automatic failure regardless of the amount offered).

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I'm not sure what this really gains over the normal skill challenge framework.


I agree.  Furthermore, I'd love to see skill challenges reprinted for DDN (with improvements where necessary).


Skill challenges are a 4e thing right? How do they work?



The DM assigns a "Complexity Rating" to the challenge and sets DC's for various applicable skills. If the Characters gain successes equal to 3+Complexity before they net 3 failures then they succeed in the challenge. Some skills can only contribute once for the scene, and some skills contribute double.

What's interesting about this setup is that party size is almost irrelevant to success or failure. One definite downside though is that their math for Complexity is just awful because they didn't seem to account for the fact that anytime you don't net a success then you're accumulating a failure. Therefore, unless your DC's are very low then any high Complexity scene has a surprising high rate of failure.

Edit: I should note that I like Skill Challenges in theory and careful application. I just think that their execution and presentation in modules needed more consideration and refinement. 
I'm not sure what this really gains over the normal skill challenge framework.


I agree.  Furthermore, I'd love to see skill challenges reprinted for DDN (with improvements where necessary).


Skill challenges are a 4e thing right? How do they work?



  They don't, hence this thread.  angrydm.com/2010/05/put-away-your-skill-...

@mikemearls don't quite understand the difference

I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down. - Eric Cartman

Enough chitchat!  Time is candy! - Pinky Pie

Sign In to post comments