Outside of "combat," action-resources are unlimited, so it can be very easy (and optimize success) to crunch the numbers and roll some dice. Many times, these encounters would be best served by roleplay only, rather than being forced into a Skill-Challenge format.
Where as I am the diametrically opposite viewpoint. I think that skill challenges enhance the role play experience by allowing a universal decider of the momentary outcome (a dice roll). When the players want to go beyond the simple and be outrageous, which is somewhat often, a dice roll allows for the DM to have a guide of how to respond to an action outside of the norm or planned.
In previous editions we resolved the out of combat sequences purely by trying to think through as a DM the level of skill the PC might have versus the NPC and to maybe have them make a single check where it be a old fashion 2e Wis roll or a 3e skill check, but the complexity of the situation was restrained by a single die roll in the system.
Moving forward to 4e there is a skill challenge system to allow for a more complex situation to be resolved quickly with some objective markers to allow the DM to ajudicate things more easily. After all, the more complex situations are more interesting often times.
Scenario The NPC is hiring the PC's to get back a stolen item that belongs to him and shows the PC's paperwork of ownership. In fact the NPC is actually using the PC to steal the item and the paperwork is forged.
Players will look at the story or the language I use and suspect something is wrong. In previous editions as a DM we were forced to logically think out the situation. This can be highly subjective and can be debated. The roll of the dice removed the DM from a combative context. It creates a way for the Players and DM to have a scapegoat if things go bad and allows the DM to make adjustments when super roll are made because, "the dice said so".
Also, bear in mind that in RL, we often do not make a strong decision on only one thing or only a gut feeling. We often look for multiple things to support ourselves. Multiple pieces of "evidence" also lead to a better story.
Previous edition outcome narrative: The PC's have a gut feeling that the NPC is lying, they call him out on his lie, having realized that the NPC would not look them in the eye when talking (Wis check - Evidence 1) at first denying it, but the NPC eventually conceeds he is not the owner of the item. At which point the PC's decide not to work for him.
4e edition outcome narrative: The PC's have a feeling that the NPC is lying, they ask him a few questions about the item and realize that he doesn't seem to have a good idea of the details of the piece (Insight check - Evidence 1), leading them to believe there is something amiss. They they look at the paperwork, and notice the signatory is not correct, by the ettiquette in this part of the world, a duke has a Duchy here not a Dukedom (Diplomacy check - Evidence 2). Seeing that the paperwork is fake the party pressed the NPC hard, interrogating him successfully and the NPC admits his nefarious plan (Intimidate - Evidence 3). At which point the PC's decide not to work for him.
The skill challenge system in 4e I think can makes a better narrative and it allows for more roleplay and world description through their actions and choices of skills to be used.
Where as I am the diametrically opposite viewpoint. I think that skill challenges enhance the role play experience by allowing a universal decider of the momentary outcome (a dice roll). When the players want to go beyond the simple and be outrageous
one of the big reasons that skill challenges are so easy is that we allow so many skills to be attempted. we dont need 8 or 10 skills to be available. 5 will do, and the rest can all be used to give a bonus to one of those 5. further, as long as everyone and thier dog can assist on a check by rolling against a dc10 no one should ever fail a skill challenge.
one of the big reasons that skill challenges are so easy is that we allow so many skills to be attempted. we dont need 8 or 10 skills to be available. 5 will do, and the rest can all be used to give a bonus to one of those 5. further, as long as
From the rules updates about capping numbers, to minimizing what bonuses stack and the modules from DDXP (especially the battle interactive), numbers matter. It is fine when a group has the "numbers" it needs, but when they don't, it is devastating. Controlling effects have been minimized greatly and bonuses to hit have been seeing stacking nerfs, yet Damage is off the chart in combat and seems to be encouraged. LFR is further causing a problem in creature selection to unfairly disadvantage reflex based attackers, even potions of clarity are not the same anymore to give you rerolls of those numbers for classes that attack reflex.
How does all this tie into skill challenges? We have a module in 2010 that tells the DM to assign penalties of -2 for failing assists to the primary roll. We have a module that stealth is the only path to success written into a mod, unless the DM changes it. We have a battle interactive where you are timed and have to have damage output, and the skill challenges are the same. We are being encouraged to specialize because the specialized and optimized players are being rewarded with a better experience in content.
With all the focus on combat to suggest that people spend feats with virtually no reward on skill challenges is not a good idea. If you want to keep that opinion, that is fine, but LFR is not backing up that opinion. I wish that opinion were right though.
LFR is combat driven in 2010 and centered around optimization. To even be able to experience a skill challenge at less than a break neck speed, in paragon, the party has to have the damage output from specialization. This allows combats to be shortened enough to be able to enjoy a slower pace through the skill challenge.
I don't see this perspective being shared widely. The posts you made on the BI met with more disagreement than agreement and don't reflect what I have seen in three runs of the BI. The idea that you have to be optimized to survive isn't true at all. I am sure tons of players could bring up their sub-optimal builds and share how it does just fine. (My sub-optimal builds do great!)
While we do see an emphasis on combat choices, that reflects the mentality of players, not the necessity of the campaign. Players want +blah to hit, +blah to damage, and +awesomesauce when they do xyz. It isn't needed at all. That's why those that optimize tend to start doing things a differently. Dave Kay's group, one of the strongest I know, stopped using reward cards. One of the guys in the Portland area is starting a movement to form a group that will play under tougher conditions with pumped-up monsters. But, in general, few players tend to choose the options that are not about combat. It was true in LG and it is true in LFR and LFR is way more friendly to sub-optimal builds than LG was (either at this point in LG or at the end).
I don't know of any author that is writing adventures while trying to counter player cheese. I don't see any evidence of it in playtesting. PCs are formidable all on their own but they don't need some special nerf bat via adventures - the 4E rules have built in advantages for PCs via so many flexible powers, so many magic items, and so many useful class, racial, and paragon path features. Monsters usually can't compete and the XP budget rules in LFR make it fairly hard to make things really challenging for players. The d20 is a much stronger influence on outcome, in general, than anything else in the encounter, with party composition being the likely second driver and the adventure being third. Regardless, there is no competition I can see coming from authors. Some of us have written challenging adventures when concluding story arcs or when writing Specials and BIs (as one would expect). It is easy to avoid those, and it follows the long-standing tradition behind such adventures. Having said that, many a PC that is first and foremost about RP and skills has done just fine in all of those adventures. When it comes to victory, the player's game IQ is the single most important factor that counters the challenging aspects (d20, party comp, etc.).
Sure, adventures do center around combat. There are a few out there that have as many skill challenges as combats, but they are the vast majority. This is D&D, not Legend of the Five Rings. The typical D&D player does not want the L5R experience. In LG, there was often a fairly negative reaction to adventures (outside of a few gems) where combat could be completely avoided. D&D is a combat game.
When it comes to the narrative, I again disagree. While initially it seems as if you can't have the same narrative, with a little experience it can. I don't see any reason why a 4E skill challenge can't accomplish any 3E narrative. Your example actually sounds like the skill challenge Mike Mearls was describing last month.
I don't see this perspective being shared widely. The posts you made on the BI met with more disagreement than agreement and don't reflect what I have seen in three runs of the BI. The idea that you have to be optimized to survive isn't true at all.
Just my feelings on skill challenges from my own personal experience. I play a cleric and I am not the star in combat situations. I keep my party going so they can unload on monsters. Skill challenges are very frustrating at times due to a poor skill selection that my class gets. I have a choice of 5 skills.
Evaluating them based upon my experience in the games I have played.
Arcana: uses int which is not a major stat of a cleric. Also it is knowledge of something unrelated to priesthood unless a priest of a deity of arcane nature.
Religion: Core to the class but is based on an off stat so not likely to get much boosting.
History: sometimes useful but again based on an off stat.
Diplomacy: this is the one skill I seem to have a chance to use most unfortunately it is an off stat fo half the cleric builds
Insight: Useful in roleplay but rarely used in skill challenges.
Heal: This is rarely used in skill challenges
I mention this because I rarely am able to contribute to skill challenges. I am not advocating making them easier but please consider that some characters are unable to participate in most skill challenges with high target difficulty scores. Calling for harder skill challenges is fine as long as there is an effort to broaden the skills needed beyond Athletics, Arcana, Diplomacy, Dungeoneering, Intimidate, Nature, Perception and stealth which seem to get the large share of attention in these challenges. Don't assume all characters have access to these 8 skills.
Just my feelings on skill challenges from my own personal experience. I play a cleric and I am not the star in combat situations. I keep my party going so they can unload on monsters. Skill challenges are very frustrating at times due to a poor skill
Arcana, Religion, History, Diplomacy and Insight are often used in skill challenges. Heal not so often. Insight can be used as a clue finder as to whether a line of argument might be convincing or not (how hard the DC is) to someone, or clues about the tasks and skills needed. Less often it gives direct successes, but it may give bonuses to other checks.
Being trained in a skill should typically mean your PC is at least in a good position to assist and you might be the best in any given group. If you want to be good in a skill, not just okay, then you face a choice about either putting points in that ability stat, and/or taking the feat "Skill Focus" for that skill. Having skill focus and being trained, even without having a high ability stat with respect to that skill, still puts your PC in the category of being good at the skill.
If you want another skill not in the initial cleric list, take the feat "Skill Training" in it. For a cleric, I would recommend considering Athletics or Acrobatics depending upon your preference and your PC's ability stats (Strength and Dexterity).
My 2 cents.
Keith
Veleria, Arcana, Religion, History, Diplomacy and Insight are often used in skill challenges. Heal not so often. Insight can be used as a clue finder as to whether a line of argument might be convincing or not (how hard the DC is) to someone, o
If you want another skill not in the initial cleric list, take the feat "Skill Training" in it. For a cleric, I would recommend considering Athletics or Acrobatics depending upon your preference and your PC's ability stats (Strength and Dexterity).
Unless you really want to be skilled, you should almost never be taking Skill Training - a much better route is to pick up a multiclass feat. You get a free benefit and a training in a skill.
An interesting option is taking the Bard multiclass feat(free heal with slide once per day+a skill) and then taking Bard of All Trades - this gets you a +3 feat bonus to every untrained skill.
Unless you really want to be skilled, you should almost never be taking Skill Training - a much better route is to pick up a multiclass feat. You get a free benefit and a training in a skill.An interesting option is taking the Bard multiclass feat(fr
If you want another skill not in the initial cleric list, take the feat "Skill Training" in it. For a cleric, I would recommend considering Athletics or Acrobatics depending upon your preference and your PC's ability stats (Strength and Dexterity).
Unless you really want to be skilled, you should almost never be taking Skill Training - a much better route is to pick up a multiclass feat.
Even better is using a Background to pick up a class skill. You can pick your Region as your whims decree, and then choose a General secondary background to pick up a new class skill. If you want training in the skill at all, then probably at least one of the General backgrounds that offers it will be appropriate RP-wise.
Unless you really want to be skilled, you should almost never be taking Skill Training - a much better route is to pick up a multiclass feat.Even better is using a Background to pick up a class skill. You can pick your Region as your whims decree,
I don't see this perspective being shared widely. The posts you made on the BI met with more disagreement than agreement and don't reflect what I have seen in three runs of the BI.
When I am critical of something, I am that, I critique. Being a minority opinion is ok with me. I am a gamer, I am already in the minority and have been for decades. I am a DM, again I am in the minority. I co-ordinate, again I am in the minority. I have a P2 character, again I am in the minority. I go to gaming conventions regularly, again I am in the minority. Being a poster on the forums is also a minority group among all the D&D players.
In this hobby I have almost always been in the minority, but that doesn't mean that my opinion is "less than" the majority, it simply means my opinion was voiced in an arena were it met with more dissent, such as this forum, but that is part of why I voice my opinion there. It is easy to only listen to the people you agree with. It is easy to only give my opinion when I know it will be well recieved. I don't always take the easy path. I give my opinion to benefit this hobby, not to be in the majority.
@Alphastream1 - Do bear something in mind. I'm not here to play LG. I made the choice not to play LG and 3rd edition in general. I did make the choice to play LFR and 4th edition. I hear people at conventions regularly say things like, "Yeah X is the same as it was in LG, don't you know?" No, I don't. I didn't play LG, but that shouldn't matter. Ideas like that are exclusive. I am all about being inclusive to others and the campaign should be also.
When I am critical of something, I am that, I critique. Being a minority opinion is ok with me. I am a gamer, I am already in the minority and have been for decades. I am a DM, again I am in the minority. I co-ordinate, again I am in the minority. I
If you want another skill not in the initial cleric list, take the feat "Skill Training" in it. For a cleric, I would recommend considering Athletics or Acrobatics depending upon your preference and your PC's ability stats (Strength and Dexterity).
Unless you really want to be skilled, you should almost never be taking Skill Training - a much better route is to pick up a multiclass feat. You get a free benefit and a training in a skill.
An interesting option is taking the Bard multiclass feat(free heal with slide once per day+a skill) and then taking Bard of All Trades - this gets you a +3 feat bonus to every untrained skill.
Or Bardic Knowledge which gives +2 to a variety of skills, some of which are on the Cleric list.
Unless you really want to be skilled, you should almost never be taking Skill Training - a much better route is to pick up a multiclass feat. You get a free benefit and a training in a skill.An interesting option is taking the Bard multiclass feat(fr
I mention this because I rarely am able to contribute to skill challenges. I am not advocating making them easier but please consider that some characters are unable to participate in most skill challenges with high target difficulty scores. Calling for harder skill challenges is fine as long as there is an effort to broaden the skills needed beyond Athletics, Arcana, Diplomacy, Dungeoneering, Intimidate, Nature, Perception and stealth which seem to get the large share of attention in these challenges. Don't assume all characters have access to these 8 skills.
Hi, Veleria. I can relate to what you are saying. Especially depending on what modules you play, it can easily be similar skill choices coming up over and over again. Skills like religion are touch for clerics since clerics are often Wis and Str, but it is an Int skill not Wis and a bit weird that in general a trained cleric in religion is less likely to be as knowledgeable about religion as a trained wizard.
You shouldn't have to take feats or specific backgrounds to feat to feel valuable. What would you suggest the campaign do to help a character like yours to feel more included in a skill challenge?
Hi, Veleria. I can relate to what you are saying. Especially depending on what modules you play, it can easily be similar skill choices coming up over and over again. Skills like religion are touch for clerics since clerics are often Wis and Str, but
Just my feelings on skill challenges from my own personal experience. I play a cleric and I am not the star in combat situations. I keep my party going so they can unload on monsters. Skill challenges are very frustrating at times due to a poor skill selection that my class gets.
Yeah, I agree, clerics do get a bit of the short end of the stick when it comes to skills and skill challenges.
Of the five "cleric skills": - Two are based off of what is likely a good stat for you (Heal and Insight), but are infrequently a "lead stat" for skill challenges - Three are more useful in skill challenges (Arcana, Religion, Diplomacy), but aren't keyed to what's likely to be a strong stat for a cleric.
What's more, they need to take a feat (or use a background) to get the oppportunity to be trained in any physical skill (i.e., Atheletics, Acrobatics, Endurance, etc.)
A general rule of thumb for 4E character creation is to attempt to have your PC be strong in at least one "knowledge" skill, at least one "physical" skill, and at least one "interpersonal" skill. The set-up for the cleric makes this rather challenging.
Yeah, I agree, clerics do get a bit of the short end of the stick when it comes to skills and skill challenges.Of the five "cleric skills":- Two are based off of what is likely a good stat for you (Heal and Insight), but are infrequently a "lead stat
I am not saying that I can't figure out how to use skills I am merely reminding those who were arguing for harder skill challenges that they have to take into account there are many players out there who are playing classes that are not skill challenge friendly. Raising the bar because of a few popular classes that use popular skills may increase the difficulty of some skill challenges but it runs the risk of excluding others who are not min maxed.
I am not saying that I can't figure out how to use skills I am merely reminding those who were arguing for harder skill challenges that they have to take into account there are many players out there who are playing classes that are not skill challen
Just my feelings on skill challenges from my own personal experience. I play a cleric and I am not the star in combat situations. I keep my party going so they can unload on monsters. Skill challenges are very frustrating at times due to a poor skill selection that my class gets.
Yeah, I agree, clerics do get a bit of the short end of the stick when it comes to skills and skill challenges.
Of the five "cleric skills": - Two are based off of what is likely a good stat for you (Heal and Insight), but are infrequently a "lead stat" for skill challenges - Three are more useful in skill challenges (Arcana, Religion, Diplomacy), but aren't keyed to what's likely to be a strong stat for a cleric.
What's more, they need to take a feat (or use a background) to get the oppportunity to be trained in any physical skill (i.e., Atheletics, Acrobatics, Endurance, etc.)
A general rule of thumb for 4E character creation is to attempt to have your PC be strong in at least one "knowledge" skill, at least one "physical" skill, and at least one "interpersonal" skill. The set-up for the cleric makes this rather challenging.
Also don't forget that using heavy armor or a shield adversely affects physical skills as well.
Yeah, I agree, clerics do get a bit of the short end of the stick when it comes to skills and skill challenges.Of the five "cleric skills":- Two are based off of what is likely a good stat for you (Heal and Insight), but are infrequently a "lead stat
Yeah, I agree, clerics do get a bit of the short end of the stick when it comes to skills and skill challenges.
I agree that clerics have a poor skill list, in that (1) it's short, and (2) most of those skills key off a dump stat, intelligence. The same, in fact, applies to the fighter: two of their five skills key off charisma, which is otherwise a dump stat.
However, this shouldn't affect skill challenges at all: in any social skill challenge, or indeed anything involving people, you can use insight. In any physical skill challenge, you can use heal.
Also don't forget that using heavy armor or a shield adversely affects physical skills as well.
That penalty is not really significant - you are unlikely to ever notice it affecting gameplay.
I agree that clerics have a poor skill list, in that (1) it's short, and (2) most of those skills key off a dump stat, intelligence. The same, in fact, applies to the fighter: two of their five skills key off charisma, which is otherwise a dump stat.
Assigning skills to classes that use ability stats other than what are primary abilities for the class powers is part of the designer's method to push some choice or decision on the player as to how do you want to design your PC. If you want to design a PC that is really optimized for something, chances are they pay a price (opportunity cost) somewhere else. If you had no choice, then it would be a different story IMHO.
Keith
Assigning skills to classes that use ability stats other than what is exclusively prime abilities for the class powers is part of the designer's method to push some choice or decision on the player as to how do you want to design your PC. If you w
Assigning skills to classes that use ability stats other than what are primary abilities for the class powers is part of the designer's method to push some choice or decision on the player as to how do you want to design your PC.
Sure. But it's not a very even decision. For instance, as a cleric, you can either increase your wisdom (which affects every attack and damage roll you make, as well as your healing, and perception, insight and heal skills; this easily applies a dozen times every combat), or you can increase your intelligence, which... well... boosts two or three skills that you are unlikely to need much, and that another party member is likely to be better at anyway.
Boosting your primary stat is such an obvious choice that it is a far cry from being "really optimized for something". Sure, beginning players sometimes try to make e.g. a fighter with low strength but high diplomacy skill, but that tends to get frustrating after the very first session.
Sure. But it's not a very even decision. For instance, as a cleric, you can either increase your wisdom (which affects every attack and damage roll you make, as well as your healing, and perception, insight and heal skills; this easily applies a doze
You don't need to be 'low strength'. If you do not boots Wis to the max (start with a 16 instead if 18, then boost it with a +2 racial bonus), you can easily take a few other stats at 14. That doesn't make you crippled or something.
And let's not be overdramatic about skills: there are plenty of SCs where Heal or Insight can be used. Not everywhere, no. Some skills simply are easier to implement in a SC. That's how it goes. That doesn't mean you can't use it if you are ot super great in it, mind. I mean, yes, an optimized cahracter may make a skill check even on a 1, but with a trained skill and a reasonable ability (12+) you'll make the DCs most of the time.
Gomez
You don't need to be 'low strength'.If you do not boots Wis to the max (start with a 16 instead if 18, then boost it with a +2 racial bonus), you can easily take a few other stats at 14. That doesn't make you crippled or something.And let's not be
You don't need to be 'low strength'. If you do not boots Wis to the max (start with a 16 instead if 18, then boost it with a +2 racial bonus), you can easily take a few other stats at 14. That doesn't make you crippled or something.
That is correct. But taking some other stat at 14 rather than 12 doesn't noticeably increase your skills, either.
If you want to reducing your primary attributes to slightly increase your skills, then the problem isn't that doing so cripples your character (because of low primaries) but that it doesn't actually help your skills much.
That is correct. But taking some other stat at 14 rather than 12 doesn't noticeably increase your skills, either.If you want to reducing your primary attributes to slightly increase your skills, then the problem isn't that doing so cripples your char
Almost half of the encounters your character is likely to face are skill challenges. There's nothing wrong, and a lot of right, in actually taking that into account with character design. You get a lot of feats, and an investment of even 1 feat makes a big difference, and 2 can make a huge difference. Everyone gets a background, and it's an easy sure-fire way to quickly net some competence by shoring up a weak skill or opening up some other good options.
In addition, everyone gets reward cards - if your particular character has difficulty hitting certain DCs, consider taking along a That'll Do or two. An off-stat trained skill like Religion for a cleric is very often a success on a 10. The same applies for an on-stat untrained skill like Nature or Perception.
Str clerics can be good at physical challenges. Cha clerics can be good at social challenges. All clerics can easily be great at outdoors challenges by training either Perception or Nature.
Almost half of the encounters your character is likely to face are skill challenges. There's nothing wrong, and a lot of right, in actually taking that into account with character design. You get a lot of feats, and an investment of even 1 feat makes
Almost half of the encounters your character is likely to face are skill challenges. There's nothing wrong, and a lot of right, in actually taking that into account with character design. You get a lot of feats, and an investment of even 1 feat makes a big difference, and 2 can make a huge difference. Everyone gets a background, and it's an easy sure-fire way to quickly net some competence by shoring up a weak skill or opening up some other good options.
Yes, that's the point. If you want to become good at skills, you do that by using feats, backgrounds, and reward cards, because lowering your primary attributes doesn't actually help all that much.
It's not like a character needs to have a large amount of high-ranked skills in order to participate in SCs.
Yes, that's the point. If you want to become good at skills, you do that by using feats, backgrounds, and reward cards, because lowering your primary attributes doesn't actually help all that much.It's not like a character needs to have a large amoun
Almost half of the encounters your character is likely to face are skill challenges. There's nothing wrong, and a lot of right, in actually taking that into account with character design. You get a lot of feats, and an investment of even 1 feat makes a big difference, and 2 can make a huge difference.
My firesoul genasi wizard is great with knowledge skills, but, other than Insight, was horrible with any interpersonal skills. As the character developed through the first few levels of play, I realized that her personality was such that Intimidate made sense for her -- she becomes very, well, "hot-headed" in combat, and this often translates to bullying prisoners which are being interrogated after combat, before she gets a chance to calm back down.
So, I took Skill Training in Intimidate...it's not really an optimal build, and I pick and choose when I use it (Intimidate being a double-edged sword in many LFR skill challenges), but it's fun, and it fits the character. (Heck, most of her fellow PCs are intimidated by her...)
My firesoul genasi wizard is great with knowledge skills, but, other than Insight, was horrible with any interpersonal skills. As the character developed through the first few levels of play, I realized that her personality was such that Intimidate
And let's not be overdramatic about skills: there are plenty of SCs where Heal or Insight can be used. Not everywhere, no. Some skills simply are easier to implement in a SC. That's how it goes. That doesn't mean you can't use it if you are ot super great in it, mind. I mean, yes, an optimized cahracter may make a skill check even on a 1, but with a trained skill and a reasonable ability (12+) you'll make the DCs most of the time.
I think some of the point that Veleria has is also in the parts of the campaign dealing with the story of the module. Especially when it comes to skill challenges, I think that we as a community should expect the bar to be better than, "Some skills simply are easier to implement".
As a DM, yes it is obvious that if the challenge is to climb a chain, that athletics should be used. What isn't obvious and what I think we should expect of those editting the author's work is to suggest to the author, "Yes, include athletics, but maybe we should include heal, it is a long climb up the chain and someone could use heal to help people stretch or give them an herb that has a little energy boost or mend some pulled muscles on the trip up." This is the kind of information a DM might not think of in a skill challenge.
That editor of the mod could also look at the skill challenge and say to themselves, "For the good of the campaign since people have such wildly different characters let's try to think up how each SC can have a skill based off every stat. This way, even if no one in the group is trained in a particular skill hopefully someone will have a high ability score anyway."
It really is not so burdensome to look at the author and mention in feedback that a particular skill challenge doesn't have enough different abilities represented. Add some skills into the mix as primaries or secondaries or change the skill challenge slightly to allow it.
This is a campaign of heroes. People need to feel that their characters are useful in the campaign in all facets. LFR is also an international campaing. At a con, a full table, can all be strikers or all be defenders, it happens.
The reason we need to include everyone is so that we have 6 PC's roleplaying through non combat encounters, not 2 people while 4 go get drinks and hit the head. Everyone can talk. Everyone can climb or swim or bluff. We need to keep every player engaged, in their character, in the adventure experience, not just the combat experience.
I think some of the point that Veleria has is also in the parts of the campaign dealing with the story of the module. Especially when it comes to skill challenges, I think that we as a community should expect the bar to be better than, "Some skills s
I'd like to see more group checks and potentially, increases in the DCs when you have a larger group (and conversely, lower DCs for small groups). If you've got 4 people, they'll have a narrower skill range. If you've got 6 people, they'll probably have a wider skill range, and even if they don't, success at aid another becomes a given as you reach higher levels. There's scaling for combat encounters. Why not skill challenges?
I'd like to see more group checks and potentially, increases in the DCs when you have a larger group (and conversely, lower DCs for small groups). If you've got 4 people, they'll have a narrower skill range. If you've got 6 people, they'll probably h
Not every SC can encompasses every skill, or even ability stat. It is unrealistic to expect that. Some kinds of SCs occur more often. They are a more common challenge in these kind of stories, so they occur often - they are sometimes even expected. That is not to say you can't have new and existing SCs, but you won't have them every time. The SC does have to serve the story, and skills should make sense and not be shoehorned in. Climb is Athletics. You may find ways for Acrobatics or Endurance, but if you want to add Heal, there should be something in the challenge that asks for it.
And again: SCs are mot ment to be played solely by people ubertwinked in the skills. That is how players tend to approach it, but the reason DCs are low is so that anyone can participate. If you are trained in a skill, or a high stat or a racdial bonus, you have a fair chance.
We do try for a wide range of skills., but we can' t - and shouldn't - include everything, always. There should be enough options for the PCs to try. Using scenes, you can actually cover quite a few skills in a SC. Besides that, the DM has a responsibilty to cover any remaining uses of skills.
Gomez
Not every SC can encompasses every skill, or even ability stat. It is unrealistic to expect that.Some kinds of SCs occur more often. They are a more common challenge in these kind of stories, so they occur often - they are sometimes even expected.Tha
But taking some other stat at 14 rather than 12 doesn't noticeably increase your skills, either.
7 additional build points (taking 16 base instead of 18) rises a 10 stat to 14 and another to 12. That adds a +2 to one range of skills, and a +1 to another other set. It also increases defenses (bt +2 and +1) and sometimes has other benefits (i.e. base attack bonuses, damage bonuses, initiative, hit points, and some side-effects in powers). Being a savant can be fun. But there are benefits to being wellrounded.
Gomez
7 additional build points (taking 16 base instead of 18) rises a 10 stat to 14 and another to 12.That adds a +2 to one range of skills, and a +1 to another other set. It also increases defenses (bt +2 and +1) and sometimes has other benefits (i.e. ba
As a DM, yes it is obvious that if the challenge is to climb a chain, that athletics should be used. What isn't obvious and what I think we should expect of those editting the author's work is to suggest to the author, "Yes, include athletics, but maybe we should include heal, it is a long climb up the chain and someone could use heal to help people stretch or give them an herb that has a little energy boost or mend some pulled muscles on the trip up." This is the kind of information a DM might not think of in a skill challenge.
I'm sure that clever players could find a way to climb the chain using Perception, History, Arcana or Religion, too.
It boils down to this: either the DM takes a handful of skills that can be used and arbitrarily bans all other skills; this means that groups that don't have that handful of skills will simply fail. Or, the DM allows all skills, which means that everybody gets to use their best skill (whichever that is), and the group will easily breeze through.
You need a group of players that's either ignorant of SC mechanics (not counting the DM), or that deliberately ignores SC mechanics, for them to work well.
I'm sure that clever players could find a way to climb the chain using Perception, History, Arcana or Religion, too.It boils down to this: either the DM takes a handful of skills that can be used and arbitrarily bans all other skills; this means that
Not every SC can encompasses every skill, or even ability stat. It is unrealistic to expect that. Some kinds of SCs occur more often. They are a more common challenge in these kind of stories, so they occur often - they are sometimes even expected.
I disagree.
I believe that nearly every skill challenge can be writen in such a way as to allow every or nearly every ability stat. One reason I believe this is so possible is because 4e D&D and LFR is not a simulation, it is a game. We write and experience a fictional story with fictional characters in a shared fictional campaign that the roots are literature and mythology about great deed and epic fights with creatures that though romantic do not actually exist. The goal is to be emersive.
If there are narrowly tailored skill challenges then it more easily allows for those players with narrowly built character to "check out". We should be striving for a more connected experience for all players regardless of their character build. It is not about easy or hard, it is about having an avenue where a player can engage their character more easily. The Admins and editors of the campaign should make suggestions to authors on how to better achieve this.
Since I do want to be constructive, maybe the writing directors could cultivate groups of people to help with an effort like this if they believe the philosophy is good but more manpower is needed. Maybe we need to piece up modules for assistance by allowing groups of dedicated volunteers to offer suggestions on way to augment a written skill challenge. The group doesn't have to be told the whole situation but instead a slice of the experience and can offer options on additional ways to look at that skill challege for success, failure, and other skills that can create interesting avenues to sucesss.
Besides that, the DM has a responsibilty to cover any remaining uses of skills.
That is very true, the DM does have a responsibility to the players to ajudicate a specific situation. However, the Author, Admins, and Writing Directors have a responsibility to the DM to make the running of the module easier. This responsibility to the DM should really be about giving tools to the DM to be able to handle a wide array of situations, not just the most obvious.
Even just a list of all skills broken into Primary, Secondary, and Terriary with the DC's for each listed would be a great help to the DM. After all, the DMG says that the dice should do the talking. If the PC wants to use a Terriary skill to the skill challenge and the dice roll up high enough to do it, let it happen, it makes it more fun for the player and the DM gets to be a hero for running it that way.
I disagree. I believe that nearly every skill challenge can be writen in such a way as to allow every or nearly every ability stat. One reason I believe this is so possible is because 4e D&D and LFR is not a simulation, it is a game. We write and exp
It boils down to this: either the DM takes a handful of skills that can be used and arbitrarily bans all other skills; this means that groups that don't have that handful of skills will simply fail. Or, the DM allows all skills, which means that everybody gets to use their best skill (whichever that is), and the group will easily breeze through
There is a big difference between a PC needing a 16 DC for a primary skill and say a 21 DC for the skill being a non primary. The point is to allow players to run with their ideas and be creative, not beat them down for trying to think laterally.
Some stories are great because the protaganist forges ahead valiently through the valley of death. Some stories are great becasue the protaganist finds a way to fly over the valley of death and avoid it.
There is a big difference between a PC needing a 16 DC for a primary skill and say a 21 DC for the skill being a non primary. The point is to allow players to run with their ideas and be creative, not beat them down for trying to think laterally. So
Eh, I'm a big fan of a breadth of options, especially among types. I also think there should be multiple scenes per SkC, so that if you are particularly unsuited for one, you get through it and onto the next you are good at...
But I seriously don't need to see the following happen for every single SkC: Religion: I pray for guidance from my god on what to do. History: I remember how this kind of situation worked in the past. etc.
Skills should be strongly connected thematically. It should be okay to fail. Frankly, failure should be _interesting_, and should happen more often, even if just in terms of momentary failures that heighten tension.
Eh, I'm a big fan of a breadth of options, especially among types. I also think there should be multiple scenes per SkC, so that if you are particularly unsuited for one, you get through it and onto the next you are good at...But I seriously don't ne
But I seriously don't need to see the following happen for every single SkC:
Always bear in mind that though you might not need to see a more exhaustive list, many newer DM may need to. This can also be very helpful to people running a mod cold.
Skills should be strongly connected thematically. It should be okay to fail. Frankly, failure should be _interesting_, and should happen more often, even if just in terms of momentary failures that heighten tension.
Connecting a skill thematically is more about the technical craft of writing than what the actual setting and scenario might be.
Failure is fine, I don't have a problem with failure. This has nothing to do with failure, but has everything to do with an engaging moment at the table. I put a premium on allowing the players to bring an idea to fruition about how to succeed instead of forcing them to roll what they don't want even if it does succeed. The illusion of choice is very important in adventures.
Always bear in mind that though you might not need to see a more exhaustive list, many newer DM may need to. This can also be very helpful to people running a mod cold.Connecting a skill thematically is more about the technical craft of writing than
But I seriously don't need to see the following happen for every single SkC: Religion: I pray for guidance from my god on what to do. History: I remember how this kind of situation worked in the past.
No kidding. I'm sorry, but if your character needs to climb a rope, I, as DM, am *not* going to let you climb it with, "I remember how Storm Silverhand once climed a similar rope."
I might let you use a History check to give you a bonus, or use other powers or things to try and circumvent having to make a skill check (or even tying a rope around your 8-Strength laser cleric's waist and making the fighter roll the Athletics check to pull your wimpy butt up). But, if you want to make a skill check to climb that rope...sorry, a Knowledge skill just ain't gonna cut it at my table.
If you can figure out a different way to get up to where the rope leads, and can make a reasonable case for applying a different skill to that...I'm willing to listen.
No kidding. I'm sorry, but if your character needs to climb a rope, I, as DM, am *not* going to let you climb it with, "I remember how Storm Silverhand once climed a similar rope." I might let you use a History check to give you a bonus, or use o
I think there is a distinction though we should make when looking at a skill challenge. Are we asking each character to climb a chain or are we asking the group to succeed at a skill challenge where they climb a chain.
Let me give you a set-up to a paragon level skill challenge involving a party climbing a chain and see if you think a knowledge check would apply.
The lands of Turmish are awash in fear for only a tenday earlier the citadel of elemental chaos has appeared. A beacon shines Eastward towards Akanul causing the Genasi to riot in the streets as madness has overcome this elemental race. A beacon shining in ribbons of fire, wind, water, and earth, encircling a void core that sucks in the light around it stabs through the sky towards the capital city.
Having taken up the quest from Darnesus, your employer, you must now find a way up into the citadel to stop this beam. It seems there is a shield stopping teleportation and flight. Darnesus has provided you an ancient scroll that he believes offers a key to entrance. The Citadel is chained in place by five anchors. The chains though are not able to be seen by the naked eye. One of fire, wind, water, and earth each will be challenging to climb, but one of metal which it is believed is the best path for success. You must choos the right chain and then begin the journey to the Citadel.
I think a knowledge check could easily be used to figure out which is the metal chain to climb at some point in the skill challenge.
I think there is a distinction though we should make when looking at a skill challenge. Are we asking each character to climb a chain or are we asking the group to succeed at a skill challenge where they climb a chain.Let me give you a set-up to a pa
Dunno, I'm not seeing a way for my changeling to use Bluff on that skill challenge. That's my skill of choice to use to get through every single SkC. Let me know when you change that challenge to let me do that every one. Insight for another character.
More broad skill challenges are good. Incorporating every skill every challenge is bad.
Frankly, I'd still rather see multiple scenes. So you have your 'Research' phase for the chains where knowledge is good, then your 'Climbing phase' which could actually be a group Athletics, or an Athletics/Acrobatics/Endurance/Heal. Or somewhere in between. And maybe after everyone makes one check from one list with some options, you get a certain distance up and then have to make Perception/Thievery/Arcana to avoid certain defenses... maybe Heal helps overcome penalties from failure there. Etc. Everyone gets a chance to do something, but you still end up using a broad variety of skills, and there is a real difference in how things go based on what you take, or don't take.
Dunno, I'm not seeing a way for my changeling to use Bluff on that skill challenge. That's my skill of choice to use to get through every single SkC. Let me know when you change that challenge to let me do that every one. Insight for another characte
I believe that nearly every skill challenge can be writen in such a way as to allow every or nearly every ability stat.
Sir, you are entitled to your opinion, but I do not agree with the philosophy or approach, nor do I think it likely most of the Writing Directors will agree.
Like it or not, 4e introduced the skill challenge mechanic to address non-combat challenges in a structured, controlled fashion. Although it is not perfect, I think it was a vast improvement over no structure.
They should still be a challenge. If a PC (or set of PCs) have been optimized for skills, yes, they will likely walk through a skill challenge encounter, much like PCs optimized for combat will walk through most combat encounters (except for a few created by optimizing authors).
The challenge should often be, well, how do we solve this problem? What do we need to know? What assets do we have? Any ideas? Being creative and as much as possible, to my taste, remaining in character. Of course, some gamers don't like to role play so they won't.
Ideally, yes, the author & Writing Director have already thought of every reasonable possiblity that a player would envison and try, but we have been discouraged from describing our spin on all possible outcomes of all possible variations. (It would be rather long.) Typically, we aim for 3-4 primary skills for each scene or task, which we think are the most reasonable, perhaps with 1-2 secondary skills which give a bonus to the skill check(s). Where appropriate, we may use group checks of various design, or a single check by an individual.
Yes, we want all players to become engaged in all encounters, but that does not mean we want to or are willing to nerf the challenge in all encounters to make that happen.
The DM is the on-site presenter/deliverer of the adventure experience to the players, not the author or the Writing Director. The DM is empowered to adjust for the makeup of the PCs (all skill experts, or can't tie their shoes) and the players (we love SC, we hate SC), much like they can adjust the combat challenge. The DM can (we hope) adjust for the players being creative, and having come up with an approach that the author/Writing Director/playtesters did not think of/document, he/she decides if that is plausible, fun and good enough to reward creativity.
No, I don't think someone recalling via history check, that Fred once climbed a chain, will help. On the other hand, for example, I could see a bard telling an inspirational tale (like the story of Robert the Bruce and the spider) that rallies the PCs spirits and they get a bonus to their climb checks. Absolutely. Could I see a PC intimidating another PC up the chain? Sure--I remember that from junior high school (a long time ago). Might be a significant bonus.
Keith
Sir, you are entitled to your opinion, but I do not agree with the philosophy or approach, nor do I think it likely most of the Writing Directors will agree. Like it or not, 4e introduced the skill challenge mechanic to address non-combat challeng
There is a big difference between a PC needing a 16 DC for a primary skill and say a 21 DC for the skill being a non primary. The point is to allow players to run with their ideas and be creative, not beat them down for trying to think laterally.
Sure, but the math doesn't work out. Even with that big five-point difference, it still makes it easier for the PC to use his best skill than to use whatever the primary skill of the challenge was.
For example? Suppose it's a social skill challenge and the primaries are bluff, diplomacy, and insight. If I'm a fighter, I could easily have +5 to +6 in those three skills, and +14 in athletics. So using athletics at DC 21 is much better for me than using a social skill at DC 16, in every social challenge. The SC rules encourage such things.
But I seriously don't need to see the following happen for every single SkC: Religion: I pray for guidance from my god on what to do. History: I remember how this kind of situation worked in the past.
I agree that we don't "need" this, but the point is that it does happen a lot. And it's easy to see why: doing this strongly increases the odds of success for the SC, and players do want success. The DM has no recourse against such cheese players that doesn't hinder "non-cheese" players more.
Sure, but the math doesn't work out. Even with that big five-point difference, it still makes it easier for the PC to use his best skill than to use whatever the primary skill of the challenge was.For example? Suppose it's a social skill challenge an
There is a big difference between a PC needing a 16 DC for a primary skill and say a 21 DC for the skill being a non primary.
Yes. The difference is that DC 21 can be trivial for a skill upon which you're focused, while DC 16 might be very difficult for a skill in which you're untrained, with a low stat and for which you have no other bonuses.
A 1st level half-elf paladin could easily have a +11 with Diplomacy, but a -4 with Athletics. If the PC can simply talk his way around any physical obstacles (50/50 chance, and auto-succeed with That'll Do), he'll do that every time over only succeeding on a 20.
I am fine with allowing assistance and bonuses due to creative uses of skills. Ultimately, however, success or failure in overcoming an obstacle should be based on skills that make sense to the DM as directly overcoming the obstacle.
Yes. The difference is that DC 21 can be trivial for a skill upon which you're focused, while DC 16 might be very difficult for a skill in which you're untrained, with a low stat and for which you have no other bonuses.A 1st level half-elf paladin
Remember there is a whole range of skills between the 'twinked out' skills and the skills based on your dump stat and with armor check penalties and you didn't even bother to be trained in it. You may have a +11 in Diplo and a -3 in Athletics (if you dump STR and take plate - I have no idea how you get to -4 though). You likely also have a +4 on Intimidate, a +7 on Insight, and a +5 on Religion. Those can still contribute, even if there is a chance of failure
Gomez
Remember there is a whole range of skills between the 'twinked out' skills and the skills based on your dump stat and with armor check penalties and you didn't even bother to be trained in it.You may have a +11 in Diplo and a -3 in Athletics (if you
[For example? Suppose it's a social skill challenge and the primaries are bluff, diplomacy, and insight. If I'm a fighter, I could easily have +5 to +6 in those three skills, and +14 in athletics. So using athletics at DC 21 is much better for me than using a social skill at DC 16, in every social challenge. The SC rules encourage such things.
And for good reason...
If you're a melee character and it is a ranged combat, you can't actually choose (generally) to not participate. You have to help out somehow. No one likes the combat where the guy who had no ranged options whatsoever sits there and sulks about how bad the combat is because there's no option for him to participate. No one complains about how using a thrown weapon to have a ranged attack power is somehow unfair to those who specialized in ranged powers. They're still not as effective.
Skill Challenges are no different. What generally happens in Skill Challenges is that some characters won't be able to roll well on any of the listed skill checks. Sometimes, perhaps half the table. If the DM doesn't give any leeway, they don't participate.
So take a look at what you just said - assuming there's a face in the party, he probably needs a 3 or better to succeed on the skill rolls. You still require a 7 or better. You rolling isn't actually making your overall chance of success better. You're not as good as a specialized face at the task. You're just able to participate without feeling like you're going to torpedo the party's chance of success.
And for good reason...If you're a melee character and it is a ranged combat, you can't actually choose (generally) to not participate. You have to help out somehow. No one likes the combat where the guy who had no ranged options whatsoever sits there
I believe that nearly every skill challenge can be writen in such a way as to allow every or nearly every ability stat. One reason I believe this is so possible is because 4e D&D and LFR is not a simulation, it is a game.
Several of the WDs have responded to this in the way that I think is best, but I wanted to also comment on these two lines.
a) I think I'm very glad you're not a writing director. Not just because I disagree with you, but also because modules would grow in page length to rather unnecessary proportions to contain all the explanations you'd have to add to make the first sentence's proposition be at all ... palatable to many folks.
and b) LFR (and D&D which it is based on) -are- simulations. All games are simulations. What I think you meant was that not all games/simulations have to have the same verisimilitude with reality. And some folks choose to approach even the same game with different levels of suspension of disbelief.
Some folks like the fact that in D&D characters can jump 40 feet into the air (which is not realistic) but don't believe it is reasonable that a person that can do so should be able to go bounding about the living room of a noble and add to a diplomacy check (which is a simulation of the social interaction between your PCs and the NPCs). You may feel that it -is- reasonable. But that's simply because you've chosen to draw the line of suspension of disbelief in different places.
This doesn't make you wrong, or them, wrong. It is literally apples to oranges comparisons. It also doesn't make those writers or WDs, that don't write the SCs in such a fashion, non-inclusive. It is actually up to you as DM, via DME (to the extent you feel it does or doesn't allow you to do things) to change the module as written to be a game experience that the Players you're with will enjoy. If you choose to take the output of the Writers/Campaign Staff and allow such (bounding about the living room via athletics to add to a diplomacy check) in the games you run, feel free. But to be completely honest, that's not the game everyone is going to enjoy and not the game that the staff/admins are currently producing (or so it seems). You can keep asking for it, but I think by now you should realize, and I hope personally that the staff continues in this path, that that is just not the style of play they are going for.
Several of the WDs have responded to this in the way that I think is best, but I wanted to also comment on these two lines.a) I think I'm very glad you're not a writing director. Not just because I disagree with you, but also because modules would gr
I like a variety. It is nice to have some SCs, particularly ones with higher complexity (more successes needed) to have a breadth of skills. This is especially true if the skill challenge is more informative than challenging (the level is low and the author's intention is for this to be a mild challenge).
It is nice from time to time to have skill challenges with a small set of applicable skills, so as to let specific talents shine. This is especially true of low complexity skill challenges. If an author is trying to make things challenging, this can also be a way to escalate difficulty - fewer options means less capability for the average party to optimize. That can work well as a mix, such as one scene that is very specific and another that is very broad, so you add in some difficulty in certain scenes but give chances for more participation in others. Swapping skill areas between skills, such as physical and charismatic, can work well.
But, regardless, there is a fine line between a DM allowing a player to use a non-mentioned skill to do something creative and the party cheesing every challenge with whatever skill they want. The former is clever, the later boring and detracts from the intention of the game. Many players can't help but metagame, so I feel it would be very bad for the game to have a consistent rule of allowing all skills for all challenges.
I don't personally blame anyone if a skill challenge is narrow in focus. I prefer not to see a very complex SC have a narrow focus. A lot of it depends on the exact situation and the premise of the adventure, as well as the desired challenge level. There are a lot of ways the encounter can be off because of so many variables to skill challenge design. There is, to me, no mantra of a narrowly focused SC being a problem.
I like a variety. It is nice to have some SCs, particularly ones with higher complexity (more successes needed) to have a breadth of skills. This is especially true if the skill challenge is more informative than challenging (the level is low and the
there is a fine line between a DM allowing a player to use a non-mentioned skill to do something creative and the party cheesing every challenge with whatever skill they want.
Exactly the issue with Skill Challenges, summed up in one sentence.
Sure, I'd love to be able to find a way for my vestige-pact warlock with +16 Endurance to use that big skill in every challenge. I'm even clever enough that I can probably come up with some halfassed way to make it seem appropriate. Do I expect that every challenge should come pre-written with a way to do so? Of course not. Do I expect every DM to let me weasel my way into using it? Also of course not. But if I can actually come up with something unique and clever? Then yeah, I think a DM should allow it. But I don't expect the adventure itself to contain an exhaustive list of every conceivable use of every possible skill - just the most obvious ones.
Perhaps something that might be a compromise would be a single paragraph copy-pasted into every skill challenge (not just in the boilerplate at the start of the module - nobody EVER reads those, not even first-time DMs - but included in the actual SC) encouraging DMs to allow creative uses of other skills if appropriate. I know a lot of folks, especially folks with less experience DMing LFR, stick pretty rigidly to the provided skill list, to the detriment of genuine innovation.
Maybe even a standard addition to the list of recommended skill checks.
Other, DC *Moderate for tier* (0 successes). Consider allowing other skills to provide a +2 bonus to further checks if roleplayed appropriately.
Other, DC *Hard for tier* (1 success per skill). Consider allowing other skills to provide successes if roleplayed appropriately.
Exactly the issue with Skill Challenges, summed up in one sentence.Sure, I'd love to be able to find a way for my vestige-pact warlock with +16 Endurance to use that big skill in every challenge. I'm even clever enough that I can probably come up w
This may be a little off-topic, but I think the problem with narrow or limited skill choices in skill challenges come from the skill challenges' goal being too narrow. Broader skill challenges are both more inclusive and, IMO, more interesting.
For example, a skill challenge goal of "get into the castle without starting a fight" is sufficiently broad to allow physical, intellectual, and interpersonal skills to be used without mandidating the use of any set of skills. In constrast, a goal of "sneak over the castle wall without getting caught" is more narrow and less interesting. If the party lacks physical skills then this skill challenge is pretty much a failure.
Broader goals increase the burden on the writer and the GM but they make the game more interesting. Don't tell me how to accomplish something -- tell me what you want accomplished and let me accomplish it my way.
edit -- spelling is gud
This may be a little off-topic, but I think the problem with narrow or limited skill choices in skill challenges come from the skill challenges' goal being too narrow. Broader skill challenges are both more inclusive and, IMO, more interesting.For
Broader goals increase the burdon on the writer and the GM but they make the game more interesting. Don't tell me how to accomplish something -- tell me what you want accomplished and let me accomplish it my way.
We have one adventure that can go like that: IMPI1-4, Bandits on the Farm.
The last time I played that module, it was at a convention with a DM who apparently did not have a grasp on skill challenges beyond those of the "You're in a skill challenge. The primary skills are..." variety.
He visibly radiated frustration during the entire session and spent a good deal of it telling us how much the module sucked. He ended the game after two hours, after hand-waving a combat because he either didn't know he was supposed to play it out or didn't want to. It was not a pleasant game.
I like skill challenges. I have done a MyRealms where, aside from a two-minion combat where the goal was to get surprise and finish the combat in the surprise round, the entire adventure was composed of skill challenges. I had a blast and will probably do it again some time.
Not all DMs like or can handle free-form skill challenges. I would be a fan of putting in sidebars where you can give options for experienced DMs to broaden the scope of the challenge, but making them more free-form as the default isn't the way to go.
We have one adventure that can go like that: IMPI1-4, Bandits on the Farm.The last time I played that module, it was at a convention with a DM who apparently did not have a grasp on skill challenges beyond those of the "You're in a skill challenge.
I have done a MyRealms where, aside from a two-minion combat where the goal was to get surprise and finish the combat in the surprise round, the entire adventure was composed of skill challenges. I had a blast and will probably do it again some time.
That sounds like a great idea. May have to swipe it.
That sounds like a great idea. May have to swipe it.
I hope not, I really, really hate group checks. The reason why someone goes above and beyond to get a good check at skill X is certainly not to have it trivialized by having to take the average modifier between him and the other 4 who can't match his bare bonus even if they roll a 20 on top of their's.
I hope not, I really, really hate group checks. The reason why someone goes above and beyond to get a good check at skill X is certainly not to have it trivialized by having to take the average modifier between him and the other 4 who can't match hi
Perhaps something that might be a compromise would be a single paragraph copy-pasted into every skill challenge (not just in the boilerplate at the start of the module - nobody EVER reads those, not even first-time DMs - but included in the actual SC) encouraging DMs to allow creative uses of other skills if appropriate. I know a lot of folks, especially folks with less experience DMing LFR, stick pretty rigidly to the provided skill list, to the detriment of genuine innovation.
I absolutely know where you are coming from, but I disagree. Just as some combats might be heavy on artillery and another on leaders, and both still work if done right, some SCs should be tough with few options allowed and some should cover tons of skill options. I really think that what we should shoot for is for authors (and their editors) to think through the skill challenge and how best to achieve the results they are aiming for in a fun way.
This post I wrote for D&D Encounters may be worthwhile (though I'm sure misses plenty and reflects my bias). A lot of this thread influenced what I wrote there, because I think there is a need for DMs to interpret the intentions of the author. Conversely, the author should try to explain their intent. For all the time that has passed, we are all still trying to learn how to do SCs right. Just as an author probably should say "this is a hard fight but try some of the following to keep it fun and doable", an author should probably say "this is supposed to be a difficult skill challenge where failure is a real possibility. If a PC wants to use a skill not mentioned, you may only want to allow it with a very difficult DC of..." (and, in reverse, state when options should be encouraged, etc.).
In retrospect, I wish I had been clearer about what I was aiming for. The core goal is for the PCs to win trust while learning about the culture. It is supposed to be really easy and more about RPing with the NPCs and achieving the goals than about the rolls. I could have done it better mechanically, but that would have been helped if I had explained my intent a little better.
I absolutely know where you are coming from, but I disagree. Just as some combats might be heavy on artillery and another on leaders, and both still work if done right, some SCs should be tough with few options allowed and some should cover tons of s
It is nice from time to time to have skill challenges with a small set of applicable skills, so as to let specific talents shine.
Yes, but note that many DMs require that each player in turn participates, even if that player doesn't have that small set of applicable skills. I'm aware that's not what the rules say, but it is a common approach.
But, regardless, there is a fine line between a DM allowing a player to use a non-mentioned skill to do something creative and the party cheesing every challenge with whatever skill they want. The former is clever, the later boring and detracts from the intention of the game.
Precisely. However, as you say, many players can't help but metagame: the problem then is that when the rules are being metagamed, SC rules break down really fast, and most other rules do not.
The bottom line is that while SCs look like an easy mechanic, they actually come with a whole slew of pitfalls and caveats. That means that a good DM can make them work, but a good DM doesn't need the mechanic anyway; it also means that a poor DM is likely to screw them up. Ultimately it's a rule that's not needed for good DMs, and detrimental to poor DMs.
Yes, but note that many DMs require that each player in turn participates, even if that player doesn't have that small set of applicable skills.Precisely. However, as you say, many players can't help but metagame: the problem then is that when the ru
You may have a +11 in Diplo and a -3 in Athletics (if you dump STR and take plate - I have no idea how you get to -4 though).
You're forgetting the shield - 10 or 11 Str, -2 Plate, -2 Heavy Shield. So sad
Well, anyone who equips a heavy shield while climbing a rope deserves any penalty he can get...
Gomez
You're forgetting the shield - 10 or 11 Str, -2 Plate, -2 Heavy Shield. So sad :)Well, anyone who equips a heavy shield while climbing a rope deserves any penalty he can get...Gomez
I really, really hate group checks. The reason why someone goes above and beyond to get a good check at skill X is certainly not to have it trivialized by having to take the average modifier between him and the other 4 who can't match his bare bonus even if they roll a 20 on top of their's.
And this is why I really, really like group checks. Unlike virtually every other mechanic in the game, they do not reward specialization. It seems reasonable to me to have one subset of one type of challenge reward jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none characters. If they were every challenge I'd absolutely agree with you, but I like to see different styles of, well, basically everything ... including skill challenges, combats, etc.
I am strongly in favor of Alphastream1's suggestion that the SC clearly state its objective to help the GM adjudicate the encounter, and I think this fits in here, too. SCs are halfway between freeform [roleplay encounters] and fully-ruled [combat encounters], and being halfway is tricky. Advice for the freeform part is as helpful as rules for the rule-based part. I can usually guess the intent of the author, but a straight statement would be very helpful. Consider a skill challenge where the party is trying to get an item placed on altar, with the following different advice:
SK1: This skill challenge is intended to get the characters moving into the room and spread around; try and get all the characters involved -- be generous in all uses of skills. The group checks for acrobatics have very low difficulty and should be stressed as being easy to encourage players to try fun things.
SK2: In this challenge the likelihood is that one or two skilled characters will attempt the placement, with the rest helping. Allow any creative use of non-listed skills, but only to provide a +2 bonus to the main skills (make sure the players known that failure on these checks does not count as a skill challenge fail). The group stealth check is somewhat tricky; it is likely to be failed. Use this to increase the tension and focus the players on giving the primary characters the best possible assists.
SK3: This challenge will prove seriously tricky for many parties, especially those with no physical skills. If the party is exceptionally poor at this, consider lowering DCs by 2, but do not be afraid of having the group fail. Non-listed skills should be allowed only when a very reasonable use is allowed, and then at a -5 check (As always, GM discretion applies. A great idea should always be rewarded). Allies cannot aid each other and note the rule that states that if a character does not try moving deeper into the room, they MUST make a stealth check to remain unseen by the guards outside.
These would help me a tremendous amount -- and I've been running different systems for two decades. For new GMs I cannot but think they would be invaluable. In summary, skill challenges are half-ay between freeform and rule-based play and so I think they need not just rule-based descriptions, but advice on running the freeform part.
And this is why I really, really like group checks. Unlike virtually every other mechanic in the game, they do not reward specialization. It seems reasonable to me to have one subset of one type of challenge reward jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none c
I still think, and will repeat until I convince someone, that the problem with skill challenges is that they are too binary.
Since, mathematically, skill challenges are more easy to fail than combat, DMs and authors are under the obligation to ensure that failing is still fun. I hate that we have to use the term "failing" anyway, because success vs. failure makes gamers go bananas.
The general design of skill challenges shouldn't be "do they succeed or do they fail," but, do they advance the story by doing X or by doing Y—ensure that failure is still doing something, even if it's just RP.
I still think, and will repeat until I convince someone, that the problem with skill challenges is that they are too binary.Since, mathematically, skill challenges are more easy to fail than combat, DMs and authors are under the obligation to ensure
It is nice from time to time to have skill challenges with a small set of applicable skills, so as to let specific talents shine.
Yes, but note that many DMs require that each player in turn participates, even if that player doesn't have that small set of applicable skills. I'm aware that's not what the rules say, but it is a common approach.
This is a sad holdover from the printed DMG vs. the errata. Going around the table is usually a really bad idea unless you are doing a group check (in which case it adds tension... part of the reason I really like group checks... you seldom see the party on the edge of their seat during a skill challenge unless it is a group check).
I agree with RCanine on the binary nature, but I don't think that needs to be the thing that rises to the top. At their core, a SC should first and foremost be about the story. As a DM I've been increasingly trying to think through that story first and making sure that the play will convey that story correctly. What the dice do should become part of the story and not some abrupt on/off switch. With that last D&D Encounters session, it was very cool to have the latitude to describe a huge chess board room, the PCs taking actions to do things ranging from deactivating an opponent piece to figuring out how they should move with history, etc. and then describing how it played out. Going back to WATE1-1 at Gen Con '08, I was fortunate to have my DM run it in a way that was not binary at all. We didn't even know we were truly in a skill challenge, we did things naturally, the DM described things organically, reacting to rolls, and we were truly just finding information. Even if we know it is a skill challenge, it is nice to not know if the roll matters or not and to be encouraged to do stuff IC rather than metagame.
Yes, but note that many DMs require that each player in turn participates, even if that player doesn't have that small set of applicable skills. I'm aware that's not what the rules say, but it is a common approach.This is a sad holdover from the prin
The reason I like group checks (in moderation) is that it means everyone at the table is involved. Even if some of them end up failing their individual checks, a group check isn't failed unless the majority fail. That means sometimes, the clumsy minotaur in hide armor rolls 17 on the die and succeeds at the group Stealth check, while the untrained but dexterous githzerai monk manages to roll a natural one and miss the DC. Heck, for those people who have optimized that skill check, they sometimes succeed on a 1 or 2, which is its own style of fun.
Too often, I see people unwilling to even try a skill that they don't have trained (and preferably, that matches up with a primary or secondary ability). Since the DMG was changed so that people aren't required to participate each "round", there's too much "I assist him" and not enough "Well, I'm not great at it, but I'll give it a try". That's my opinion; I recognize others disagree.
That makes me think of another skill challenge that I like - time-based. If you're not done in N rounds, you fail regardless of successes achieved. Failure may be partial or absolute, but it still encourages people to try.
The reason I like group checks (in moderation) is that it means everyone at the table is involved. Even if some of them end up failing their individual checks, a group check isn't failed unless the majority fail. That means sometimes, the clumsy mino
You may have a +11 in Diplo and a -3 in Athletics (if you dump STR and take plate - I have no idea how you get to -4 though).
You're forgetting the shield - 10 or 11 Str, -2 Plate, -2 Heavy Shield. So sad
Not really. You take off a heavy shield during a skill challenge, unless you're right in the thick of combat. Espeically if it's an athletics check to climb or similar: a lot of people forget that you can't use a heavy shield hand for anything other than holding the shield. That includes climbing. So you take it off, both for verismillitude and the mechanical bonus.
(As an aside, I've often seen players attempt to climb a wall with a weapon in one hand and a heavy shield in the other. And no-one's noticed.)
You're forgetting the shield - 10 or 11 Str, -2 Plate, -2 Heavy Shield. So sad :)Not really. You take off a heavy shield during a skill challenge, unless you're right in the thick of combat. Espeically if it's an athletics check to climb or similar:
It is nice from time to time to have skill challenges with a small set of applicable skills, so as to let specific talents shine.
Yes, but note that many DMs require that each player in turn participates, even if that player doesn't have that small set of applicable skills. I'm aware that's not what the rules say, but it is a common approach.
This is a sad holdover from the printed DMG vs. the errata. Going around the table is usually a really bad idea unless you are doing a group check (in which case it adds tension... part of the reason I really like group checks... you seldom see the party on the edge of their seat during a skill challenge unless it is a group check).
I see this all the time. The two major issues I see with the way skill challenges are run is either the DM sticks rigidly to what's printed (it says here diplomacy: 2 successes, bluff: 1 success, history: 1 success. You're not passing the skill challenge unless you roll precisely those successes) or goes around the table making everyone roll a check, even characters that have nothing to add.
The major issue I see with players, and this comes out of the mechanic, is not only the 'trying to use my trained skills only', but the complete fear of rolling anything with a greater than 40% chance of failure. I've seen people almost shouted at for rolling a check on a skill they're not trained in during a skill challenge, because they casually say 'I want to roll history to see if I've heard of this guy.' or some such throwaway remark.
Unfortunately skill challenges encourage this. During the 'gather information' non-skill challenge social encounter you'll see uncharismatic PCs roleplaying conversations (and deliberately being belligerent), ignorant characters rolling knowledge checks etc. Then when the skill challenge begins everyone shuts up, only the guy with Cha 18 and trained social skills is allowed to make social checks, only the wizard makes knowledge checks, and only the fighter makes physical checks. The party succeeds, but has a lot more fun in non-skill challenge RP encounters.
It also makes little sense to me that SCs are always three failures max, and that, say, rolling history to see whether you remember something and fail counts as a failure. If you're against the clock, and the history check represents library research, where you fail to find anything and just waste time, a failure is fair enough. But I feel as though DMs should emphasise and allow incidental checks which won't contribute necessarily to success or failure.
The other problems I see are the mass spamming of aid another, sometimes justifiedly, sometimes not, and problems when designated 'face' characters are played by players (like myself) who don't have the silver tongue their character does. Many DMs still insist that you roleplay conversations in full and can only make a diplomacy check if you, the player, can come up with a convincing argument: the notion 'my character would come up with something' is frowned upon. Whereas no DM would ask a player to actually open a lock when his character wants to make a thievery check. This then leads to the problem that the most confident player in the group often does the talking, regardless of their character's charisma.
What I'm getting at here is that I wish both DMs and players showed more flexibility, rather than slavishly adhere to what's printed.
Yes, but note that many DMs require that each player in turn participates, even if that player doesn't have that small set of applicable skills. I'm aware that's not what the rules say, but it is a common approach.This is a sad holdover from the prin
Unfortunately skill challenges encourage this. During the 'gather information' non-skill challenge social encounter you'll see uncharismatic PCs roleplaying conversations (and deliberately being belligerent), ignorant characters rolling knowledge checks etc. Then when the skill challenge begins everyone shuts up, only the guy with Cha 18 and trained social skills is allowed to make social checks, only the wizard makes knowledge checks, and only the fighter makes physical checks. The party succeeds, but has a lot more fun in non-skill challenge RP encounters.
Typically, we aim for 3-4 primary skills for each scene or task, which we think are the most reasonable, perhaps with 1-2 secondary skills which give a bonus to the skill check(s). Where appropriate, we may use group checks of various design, or a single check by an individual.
There is a difference between a skill challenge and a scene. A scene is just a optional tool to write skill challenges. Scening doesn't mean that the skill challenge is better. It just means it has scenes. Also, when viewing skill challenges only as scenes and not seeing the whole is an easy way for scening to go wrong.
You can easily put in 3-4 primaries per scene. (though it doesn't seem that this is the norm. 1-2 seems like it is more accurate by memory.) Scenes make up parts of a skill challenge. So, when we add all the scenes up they should equal a single skill challenge. That single skill challenge is recommended to have the number of different primary skills equal to the number of players at the table +2. This should be 6-8 different primary skills in a skill challenge. This is straight from the DMG2.
What I have seen is not 6-8 different primaries but instead the same 2 or 3 spammed throughout the scenes multiple times with maybe 1-2 others used once.
However, if you are matrixing the scenes instead of doing a linear progression and have more successes possible through scenes than successes in the skill challenge, then you also need to account for how each scene will progress together. The danger in the matrix style is that the players will pick the wrong scenes and fail the rolls, there-by failing the skill challenge if the scenes are too narrowly tailored. In a matrix enviroment it is even more important to have a wider selection of primaries per scene where it isn't just a single ability score driven encounter.
Yes, we want all players to become engaged in all encounters, but that does not mean we want to or are willing to nerf the challenge in all encounters to make that happen.
Skill challenges can both offer challenge and be engaging. However, it is where we put the importance that I think we disagree. I believe making the experience more fun starts with engaging players. I believe you can help engage players by giving them something they have confidence in, that they can roll, that skill, and succeed. They don't have to be optimized in that skill, just that they can have confidence. Confidence is not about numbers it is about perception. It doesn't matter if a fighter can make the Diplomacy check with a roll of a 8 if the Bard can do it on a roll of 1. The numbers are deceptive because they fighter will compare herself to the bard instead of the DC because success and failure are so tied to only two results.
This is why I believe it is so important to offer a wide variety of primary skills to choose from. In part, it is being asked that the party be ok with the Fighter making the diplomacy roll and possibly losing the table XP when the Bard auto makes it is one that leads to contention. I believe the blame in making to party fracture along this line is not in the players or DM or authors. It is the admins and writing directors that are in charge of the campaign to look at the situation and say to the authors that this is an international campaign. We write the campaign to bring people together and have fun. Causing the players to have animousity against each other is not what we are looking for in LFR.
Just as an example, it has taken over a year for people to even accept rituals as counting towards success in a SC and it is still somewhat uncomfortable it seems for many. The perception of rituals being allowed in skill challenges are changing, but they were as applicable on day 1 of 4e as they are over a year later. I believe we need to think of more than just numbers and look at the perceptions people have and write into the modules things that help make the scope of perceptions larger.
The DM is the on-site presenter/deliverer of the adventure experience to the players, not the author or the Writing Director. The DM is empowered to adjust for the makeup of the PCs (all skill experts, or can't tie their shoes) and the players (we love SC, we hate SC), much like they can adjust the combat challenge. The DM can (we hope) adjust for the players being creative, and having come up with an approach that the author/Writing Director/playtesters did not think of/document, he/she decides if that is plausible, fun and good enough to reward creativity.
I have been in the RPGA for a long time. I remember attending a seminar on "How to be a better Judge for LC" and I remember a recent seminar on "DM Tools for Everyone". It is striking to me that each seminar offered their biggest piece of advice right up front, "read the module". Think about that for a moment. Seminars designed for RPGA DMs have to remind DMs to read the module. This is about 15 years apart and the key advice hasn't changed.
RPGA living campaigns have a habit of being many DM's first experience as a DM and also their first time playing D&D. DM Empowerment is in many ways a paper tiger. Just because DME has a column doesn't mean it will be used by newer DMs that are unsure about how to do it. We can't write modules with the backup plan being DME will fix everything when 4e has brought many new gamers into the fold.
I think having more ability scores represented in primary selection or listing all skills for a challenge tiered by easy, moderate, or hard for the DC increases is a start though. It at least gives a newer DM a reference. A lot of us here on the boards and involved in the RPGA have 20+ years experience being a DM. We don't need the references, the newer DMs do need those references. The campaign needs new DMs, we should encourage that by helping them make better play experiences.
There is a difference between a skill challenge and a scene. A scene is just a optional tool to write skill challenges. Scening doesn't mean that the skill challenge is better. It just means it has scenes. Also, when viewing skill challenges only as
I guess I have trouble with the entire premise... the thread is called "Are skill challenges too easy", with the majority of the discussion saying "yes". Then you are advocating making skill challenges easier so that they are more inclusive. That logic doesn't really hold up. Nor does the logic of blaming writing directors or admins, especially in a campaign that should use core rules.
Now, that aside, I do agree with you that the game is better off with more participation. The fear of failure effect you describe where the non-charismatic suddenly stop talking when the encounter is revealed to be a diplomatic skill challenge is very real. It isn't an RPGA issue, though we see it here as well.
There are two general options. The first is to basically accept the rules and think of the skill challenge as basically taking turns with PCs shining. Most skill challenges are set up this way. You have a problem and it requires the application of skill. PCs take turns doing that. It can feel more organic, but that is the basic framework.
The second option is to play with the organization and add bits and pieces beyond the rules. For example, there could be an initial assessment phase where PCs can do various things to pick up information, such as to reveal the skills that are applicable, and none of these are failures or successes. When it gets down to the real rolling, then the normal rules are engaged. This allows for more collaboration. With several scenes or types of rolls it could feel very participatory. I could see this for something like ADCP1-1, for example. At the end of the day, turning off the magic sigil really does require arcana or thievery and will have repercussions if the wrong PC attempts the job. While you say 4E has been out for a while, I do see SC design as in its infancy - we are all still playing around with ideas for what can be done around the core rules.
Make no mistake that this is really a lot of work for authors. In a home campaign you can wing all of this stuff and your buddies forgive what works and what doesn't and you adjust on the fly as well. I'm really enjoying D&D Encounters because I can make these types of changes as a judge - and the adventure often gives DMs latitude to do this type of stuff.
For RPGA, as an author you have to write it all down in a way that every DM on the planet will have clarity and run it well and that everyone will have a good time. This is extremely hard. It is extremely hard to just do it from an RP perspective, as I found with SPEC2-1 P2... even without rolls there was intense feedback on what are proper scenes and ideas for that tier of play... without any mechanics! To say I spent hours is an understatement. It isn't some simple task to go beyond the typical skill challenge format when you have to write it so all DMs get it. And it isn't any easier for admins or for other editors to come up with solutions - it is probably harder. (And the SC is already working in terms of core rules... we're talking about making a beyond-rules change).
And maybe that's my biggest comment on what you wrote. It is all written in the style of "why in the Devil's name aren't you guys fixing these obvious problems?" instead of being helpful and encouraging. Criticism is less constructive and the reader less likely to want to incorporate feedback when it is written that way.
I guess I have trouble with the entire premise... the thread is called "Are skill challenges too easy", with the majority of the discussion saying "yes". Then you are advocating making skill challenges easier so that they are more inclusive. That log
Note that we do try out different ways and more flexible ways to use and run SCs. I.e. we have several SCs that end when the PCs reach the goal - regardless of nr of successes. The difficulty of the SC is determined by assuming an average nr of successes needed to succeed, but if you reach the goal with less, you 'win'. After all, specially in an investigative encounter, you cannot exactly predict how many skill checks a party needs to make to reach their goal. We also used challenges where the players can determine the route (and thus scenes) to their goal, SCs where scenes give successes regardless of how the PCs overcome them (as long as they do), SCs where rituals, favors, or specific actions grant successes, etc. We can try out a fair amount of this, but ultimately DM and players should use the possibilities and make the encounter. Including all skills in a SC is not going to happen unless WotC changes the entire SC layout and setup. We have limited place, and describing how to use Thletics in an audience with the uppity noble is likely not going to be useful in the majority of cases - incorporating such skill checks is the task of the DM. If a DM refuses to do so, he may need retraining.
Note that we do try out different ways and more flexible ways to use and run SCs. I.e. we have several SCs that end when the PCs reach the goal - regardless of nr of successes. The difficulty of the SC is determined by assuming an average nr of succe
Some posters have made some out of date claims. One, the outcome of a skill challenge is always binary and two, three failures always ends a skill challenge. DMG2 codified in the D&D rules that exceptions to both are possible. For instance, you can build a graduated skill challenge where you continue to some set number of successes (or perhaps number of rounds), and the total number of failures determines the outcome, so it can be more varied. The special option allows great flexibility for the designer.
While I stated that the DM is the person who presents or delivers the play experience, and I know of no way to change that, I agree not all DMs are as proficient as I would like.
Keith
Some posters have made some out of date claims. One, the outcome of a skill challenge is always binary and two, three failures always ends a skill challenge. DMG2 codified in the D&D rules that exceptions to both are possible. For instance, yo
I've been running some MYREs (18 or so) lately, and even using very high DCs, as in the equivalent of level 14 challenges on level 6 characters - they've never failed a skill challenge.
That includes when I do group Nature checks and only one person has it trained, and when I have the 10 Charisma barbarian making talking checks. I've had challenges against every skill, and some skills like Heal and Insight are absolutely useful. (Actually, I'm still a bit shocked to see Insight earlier considered not a very useful skill)
Sure, they know up front that the MYRE campaign I'm running has lots of skill checks and challenges, so I think of 12 cards they are packing 4 That'll Do's... but I think mostly it's that they put some thought into their abilities so that they can function in a variety of situations.
I've been running some MYREs (18 or so) lately, and even using very high DCs, as in the equivalent of level 14 challenges on level 6 characters - they've never failed a skill challenge. That includes when I do group Nature checks and only one person
I guess I have trouble with the entire premise... the thread is called "Are skill challenges too easy", with the majority of the discussion saying "yes". Then you are advocating making skill challenges easier so that they are more inclusive. That logic doesn't really hold up. Nor does the logic of blaming writing directors or admins, especially in a campaign that should use core rules.
I am not an advocate of making skill challenges easier, such as by DC. I am an advocate that skill challenges need to be easier to role play and even roll play, by making them more inclusive. If someone rolls and fails the DC, I am fine with that. If someone doesn't feel they should role play for fear of a roll, I am not ok with that. I think a lot of people agree with this, including most here on the forum. The issue is more about what to do.
I am not an advocate of making skill challenges easier, such as by DC. I am an advocate that skill challenges need to be easier to role play and even roll play, by making them more inclusive. If someone rolls and fails the DC, I am fine with that. I
I think that we can all agree that there are many, many DMs that need retraining or that are not proficient enough.
We all want published works in the RPGA to be better.
Alpha is right that encouragement is probably the best way to go to help each other. We have at least two writing directors posting on this thread and I don't know how many writers and lots more players and DMs that are passionate. We all care about skill challenges or we wouldn't even be reading and posting here.
Maybe we need to work out a different way to include tools and ideas into skill challenges instead of talking abstractly. I think it might be beneficial to have a shared experience here where we can try to fix issues with skill challenges by people working on a skill challenge openly.
Start vague and flesh out and narrow down the skill challenge as we go, including ideas people have about augmenting skill challenges. Begin with a basic concept like, "The PCs have to smuggle 5 NPC's from place X to place Y." As long as the concept is wide enough in scope it doesn't matter.
Then just go from there exploring different ways to make the concept work.
I think that we can all agree that there are many, many DMs that need retraining or that are not proficient enough.We all want published works in the RPGA to be better.Alpha is right that encouragement is probably the best way to go to help each othe
I've been running some MYREs (18 or so) lately, and even using very high DCs, as in the equivalent of level 14 challenges on level 6 characters - they've never failed a skill challenge.
That includes when I do group Nature checks and only one person has it trained, and when I have the 10 Charisma barbarian making talking checks. I've had challenges against every skill, and some skills like Heal and Insight are absolutely useful. (Actually, I'm still a bit shocked to see Insight earlier considered not a very useful skill)
Sure, they know up front that the MYRE campaign I'm running has lots of skill checks and challenges, so I think of 12 cards they are packing 4 That'll Do's... but I think mostly it's that they put some thought into their abilities so that they can function in a variety of situations.
We do have an unusually high amount of skill focus (concept, not feat) in that party -- I had noticed that at the previous session. Out of 4 players, two of us have Bard of All Trades (which, I believe I've said, is a lot like cheating), we have pretty much all areas covered by someone, and several of us (ok, maybe just me) have noticable item-investment in skills.
I'm definitely going to start keeping a That'll Do in reserve in case of unplanned meeting with Cressida, though. :-)
That game might be a place to experiment with ``only one of each card'', although it might feel a bit punitive to the skill-obsessed bard.
We do have an unusually high amount of skill focus (concept, not feat) in that party -- I had noticed that at the previous session. Out of 4 players, two of us have Bard of All Trades (which, I believe I've said, is a lot like cheating), we have pr
This is what i said in a topic i created today but i have been directed to this thread so i shall repeat myself. --- Ok they are way too easy , even chars with 10 in an attribute and untrained are making most checks with ease, i'm running a 4-7 tomorrow which is dc13 playing high! i mean come on they are called skill challenges yea!? ---
I shall continue after reading through some of the above. Skill challenges are the one part of 'roleplay' that remains with dungeons and dragons yes but letting parties get through them too easy just for storyline/gameflow sakes is wrong in my opinion. A dm can fit roleplay during encounters aswell as inbetween (giving reasons/details for things or adding something for fun etc.) easy enough.
It has got to the point now where the only thing a party worries about is the combats(often not even that.) and the skill challenges are becoming somewhat of a joke.Personally i would drop the amount of exp gained from skill challenges just so that they can be made harder and not have such an effect on the exp budget.
If its something like a party has to cross a small slow flowing river then thats not even a skill challenge at all a dm can just roleplay that in asking for a quick party roll, but if its a big strong flowing river a party should have some difficulty instead of waltzing across it like its a simple task.
This is what i said in a topic i created today but i have been directed to this thread so i shall repeat myself.---Ok they are way too easy , even chars with 10 in an attribute and untrained are making most checks with ease, i'm running a 4-7 tomorr
There is one other thing that could help to solve this problem (and it is a problem i think all are agreed on that.)
Ban assists because it helps to make the low dcs even easier to achieve and also means a player has to do something making it more likely a party can fail a skill challenge sometime this year (shock horror a party may not get max exp!)
There is one other thing that could help to solve this problem (and it is a problem i think all are agreed on that.) Ban assists because it helps to make the low dcs even easier to achieve and also means a player has to do something making it more li
Ban assists because it helps to make the low dcs even easier to achieve and also means a player has to do something making it more likely a party can fail a skill challenge sometime this year (shock horror a party may not get max exp!)
Do bear in mind that there are a lot of complexity 1 skill challenges in LFR. Especially at a convention, you can have the skill challenge completed in four rolls. If there are six players, then the only way that the other two players get to contribute "mechanically" is through assists.
Banning assists does mean that we cut out the only mechanic available to include all players in every skill challenge encounter. Skill challengese are an encounter, the same as combat is an encounter. As an encounter every player should be given the chance to participate.
Consider applying the loss of a mechanic to include everyone in a skill challenge encounter and apply it to a combat encounter. Would it be favorable to create a combat encounter where 1-2 players are exlucded from participating in the combat? I believe the answer is, "no". That is why I also believe that no encounter should exclude players. As the game is now, no encounter absolutely does exclude anyone from participation.
Do bear in mind that there are a lot of complexity 1 skill challenges in LFR. Especially at a convention, you can have the skill challenge completed in four rolls. If there are six players, then the only way that the other two players get to contribu
Ban assists because it helps to make the low dcs even easier to achieve and also means a player has to do something making it more likely a party can fail a skill challenge sometime this year (shock horror a party may not get max exp!)
Do bear in mind that there are a lot of complexity 1 skill challenges in LFR. Especially at a convention, you can have the skill challenge completed in four rolls. If there are six players, then the only way that the other two players get to contribute "mechanically" is through assists.
Banning assists does mean that we cut out the only mechanic available to include all players in every skill challenge encounter. Skill challengese are an encounter, the same as combat is an encounter. As an encounter every player should be given the chance to participate.
Consider applying the loss of a mechanic to include everyone in a skill challenge encounter and apply it to a combat encounter. Would it be favorable to create a combat encounter where 1-2 players are exlucded from participating in the combat? I believe the answer is, "no". That is why I also believe that no encounter should exclude players. As the game is now, no encounter absolutely does exclude anyone from participation.
True enough. Perhaps make the exp gained from skill challenges less and the minumum number of sucesses to pass 6 or something.
I'm only coming up with ideas because in my opinion something clearly needs to be done about this and every player i game with regular and at conventions agrees skill challenges are too easy even for the untrained and with no bonuses from stats..
Do bear in mind that there are a lot of complexity 1 skill challenges in LFR. Especially at a convention, you can have the skill challenge completed in four rolls. If there are six players, then the only way that the other two players get to contribu
Perhaps make the exp gained from skill challenges less and the minumum number of sucesses to pass 6 or something.
I'm repeating myself, but we can't change Core rules. We can tweak them, and play a bit with possibilities. But skill challange difficulty is failry well defined. 6 successes (or a system that would approximate that) is a difficulty 2, and the xp for such a challenge is set by the core rules. I don't think we can deviate too much from that.
Gomez
I'm repeating myself, but we can't change Core rules. We can tweak them, and play a bit with possibilities.But skill challange difficulty is failry well defined. 6 successes (or a system that would approximate that) is a difficulty 2, and the xp for
Perhaps make the exp gained from skill challenges less and the minumum number of sucesses to pass 6 or something.
I'm repeating myself, but we can't change Core rules. We can tweak them, and play a bit with possibilities. But skill challange difficulty is failry well defined. 6 successes (or a system that would approximate that) is a difficulty 2, and the xp for such a challenge is set by the core rules. I don't think we can deviate too much from that.
Gomez
Ok, well perhaps the only way to do this is to push the dcs up. so that everyone can stil get involved and the mechanics are kept the same. If i remember correct the dcs of skill challenges have been altertered once already from when 4th was first released..
I'm repeating myself, but we can't change Core rules. We can tweak them, and play a bit with possibilities.But skill challange difficulty is failry well defined. 6 successes (or a system that would approximate that) is a difficulty 2, and the xp for
Once again, this is a core rule you're suggesting a change to, not LFR.
One creative work-around is "Scenes" where each scene counts as a success/failure overall, but it could take several checks to complete a scene.
However, I'm not sure I understand the point of the discussion. It seems that your point is that skill challenges are "easy" because it doesn't take high rolls to succeed. I don't think the purpose of a skill challenge is to differentiate between tables who roll better-than-average vs. tables who roll poorly.
Once again, this is a core rule you're suggesting a change to, not LFR.One creative work-around is "Scenes" where each scene counts as a success/failure overall, but it could take several checks to complete a scene. However, I'm not sure I understan
Once again, this is a core rule you're suggesting a change to, not LFR.
One creative work-around is "Scenes" where each scene counts as a success/failure overall, but it could take several checks to complete a scene.
However, I'm not sure I understand the point of the discussion. It seems that your point is that skill challenges are "easy" because it doesn't take high rolls to succeed. I don't think the purpose of a skill challenge is to differentiate between tables who roll better-than-average vs. tables who roll poorly.
No i'm talking about tables who roll a 2 and still pass with flying colours. The dc's are way too low, read back on this thread some guy who runs 18 games and not one skill challenge failed, i think that is a common theme, and ofcourse with assists a skill challenege will never be failed anyway if the players do it right according to the rules.
Going back through the replys i see that indeed the problem lies with the core rules (which have already been changed once regarding skill challenges.) If they won't be changed again then this is a problem through the heart of 4th edition.I will continue to play it as ive played every d&d system since my early teens.. i can see now why strikers are so popular, deal damage on a tabletop.
No i'm talking about tables who roll a 2 and still pass with flying colours. The dc's are way too low, read back on this thread some guy who runs 18 games and not one skill challenge failed, i think that is a common theme, and ofcourse with assists a
No i'm talking about tables who roll a 2 and still pass with flying colours. The dc's are way too low, read back on this thread some guy who runs 18 games and not one skill challenge failed, i think that is a common theme, and ofcourse with assists a skill challenege will never be failed anyway if the players do it right according to the rules.
DC's are not a Core Rules problem. DC's are a campaign problem. DC's are attached to the level of the encounter, weighed by how easy the challenge should be to complete with that particular skill (easy, moderate, hard).
The higher level the skill challenge, the higher level the DC.
The more complex the skill challenge, the more successes it requires.
Just as there are creature fights that are well above the level of the PC's, there can be skill challenges the same way. That the campaign has choosen not to avail itself of the core rules, is a campaign and writing issue, not core rules.
Also, the campaign has chosen not to scale the skill challenges by number of players. Skill challenges are not based on 5 players and when you have one less you drop the complexity or 6 players adding to the complexity.
DC's are not a Core Rules problem. DC's are a campaign problem. DC's are attached to the level of the encounter, weighed by how easy the challenge should be to complete with that particular skill (easy, moderate, hard).The higher level the skill chal
Banning assists does mean that we cut out the only mechanic available to include all players in every skill challenge encounter. Skill challengese are an encounter, the same as combat is an encounter. As an encounter every player should be given the chance to participate.
Of course there are a large number of players, at least in my area (I'd guess about 40%, give or take), who'd be glad to be excluded from skill challenges that have already succeeded without their help.
Of course there are a large number of players, at least in my area (I'd guess about 40%, give or take), who'd be glad to be excluded from skill challenges that have already succeeded without their help.
[/quote] Here in lies a large part of the problem, the skill challenge comes out of the 'exp budget' along with the combat encounters, to make one harder effects how easy the other becomes.
Amysrevenge has a point alot of players would be happy to stand back unless perhaps muscle is required but the theme with skill challenges is 'everyone takes part' i kinda agree with both sides on this.. all i know is that to make the game more solid something has to be done.
Here in lies a large part of the problem, the skill challenge comes out of the 'exp budget' along with the combat encounters, to make one harder effects how easy the other becomes.Amysrevenge has a point alot of players would be happy to stand back u
Skill challenge authoring continues to evolve for everyone, from WotC to freelancers to LFR authors. There are a lot of possibilities for what can be done to beter shape/portray/etc. the encounter. For LFR, authors have to follow budget rules (XP for one thing takes away from somewhere else) and core rules. That still leaves some periodic use of some new mechanic - such as having a different way of counting what is a success for a particular scene.
The discontent tends to come in several forms. First and foremost seems to be RP vs cold mechanics. SCs can seem cold and mechanical or metagame-heavy. A lot of this is completely driven by the DM and how they choose to portray the story. If the story is cool, and this is portrayed as story first, then the fun is there. The periodic rolling should not take away from this and has not when the story is engaging. Because of this, I always advocate first reading a skill challenge for the story, then going back to see how to best insert the roles as an organic part of that. Calite wrote something similar here.
The next complaint is the ease. Players want a challenge as they experience with combat. "I mean, I'm balancing across this deadly gorge... but I can make it with my eyes closed!" This is a tough one. At its core, we can step back and see that SCs are not just one thing. Some are meant to be challenging, in which case you can take steps to do that (reduce skills applicable, prohibit assists, target different ability score areas/classes, add interesting twists, etc.). Just as we might look at authoring P2 and say "wow, damage expressions are terrible, how can I make this a challenge?", we can do the same for SCs. We have to be careful, though, because the cheese can be really rough. Cheese a failure and you might have the D20 give you to more and fail at making something challenging and instead make something seem unfair. The core rules hinder what you can do and a lot is predicated on very careful writing/editing/playtesting. It is very easy to make mistakes.
We should also consider that many SCs are not meant to be failed. The same is true of combat encounters. You might have the mod start with an initial "establishing" encounter that warms things up, establishes the threat, etc. Similarly, an SC might be about the story and NPC interactions, not about the threat of failure. You are supposed to succeed. That is completely ok. As with a combat, it is important for DMs to know that (looking at complexity and level the same way they look at this for combats. I talked about this a bit here. When the SC is meant to be easy, it should be even more story driven and steps taken to include as many players as possible. It should be interesting if investigative, RP-heavy if social, etc.
Others criticize the mechanics, which can leave some players out of the action or force failure if the DM runs them incorrectly (such as going around the table) or if skills are not clear and PCs fail early. This is also largely in the DM's hands, though authors can take steps. First an foremost, the author can explain the intent and the DM can determine it. This lets them know if announcing the SC is a good idea, if skills should be advertised, and so on. And, selecting the skills is a big part of the author's jobs. Too few will make it be all about a few PCs and will stand a greater chance of a table that is ill-equipped for it. Too many will make it very easy. Including a lot of bonus-granting skills (but perhaps not allowing assists) is one way to make an SC more inclusive but still difficult if few primary skills are used. With the right write-up, it can be RP-heavy and the assisting PCs feel valuable IC and OOC. For example, researching a ritual could require some preliminary secondary skill use to find clues, which then allow the primary arcana or religion check. By providing story elements as the ritual is unraveled, it can all feel like a rich shared experience, even if it might be down to two primary skills for a few PCs.
That's really about all I can say on the topic. I would just be repeating myself after this. SCs are fine. We are all getting more experience at them. I hear a lot of people having fun with them now because everyone (players/DMs/authors) are getting better at them.
Skill challenge authoring continues to evolve for everyone, from WotC to freelancers to LFR authors. There are a lot of possibilities for what can be done to beter shape/portray/etc. the encounter. For LFR, authors have to follow budget rules (XP for
And, selecting the skills is a big part of the author's jobs. Too few will make it be all about a few PCs and will stand a greater chance of a table that is ill-equipped for it. Too many will make it very easy. Including a lot of bonus-granting skills (but perhaps not allowing assists) is one way to make an SC more inclusive but still difficult if few primary skills are used.
A bolt of force shaped like a missle, is flung though the air, striking at the enemy!
What did I just describe? Is it maggic missle? Sure it could be. It could also be a javelin or a spear if you look at it a bit differently. LFR is a fantasy game, a high fantasy game no less and perception is key. We percieve our characters to be heroes even through there are many things in LFR where if we stop, it seems like we are not heroes, not even just decent people.
I bring this up because there are many ways to solve most problems. There are also many ways to view problems. The author might try to think of 5 or 10 ways, but when the module is published to the world, there will be thousands of unique viewpoints of that problem. There is no reason why there can not be thousands of unique solutions to that problem.
Though the author can not percieve of every possible outcome, some authors demand restricting the use of skills to only a few. This seems foolish to me. There are many examples in history of times when a person comes up with a different solution. This is called invention. To society, this is technology.
Players will come up with solutions the author may never had dreamed about. We should write modules to help DM's adjudicate what the author did not think of. Choice and the perception of Choice is EXTREMELY important in role playing games. Both are needed. The more you limit skills in a SC the more you are limiting both.
To make skill challenges more difficult I think we should use the core rules. Raise the level of the challenge. I hardly ever see this done. Raise and lower the complexity, again rarely done and never does it scale with the party. Assign skills by easy, moderate, or hard. Again hardly ever done, but it is a core rule.
Other things we could do is to write skill challenges that split the party when appropriate. Allow the party to limit themselves, but write advantages for making it harder.
Right now, it seems most modules are about telling players what happens when they rolls a skill success instead of informing them of wheather or not their idea was successful.
A bolt of force shaped like a missle, is flung though the air, striking at the enemy!What did I just describe? Is it maggic missle? Sure it could be. It could also be a javelin or a spear if you look at it a bit differently. LFR is a fantasy game, a
To make a skill challenge difficult for most tables you must limit choice. Otherwise, it is too easy for the table to find a PC that will auto-make the roll. Your average table will have a few skills that are significantly higher than normal trained skills (usually getting +4 to +6 above a typical 18 stat + trained + level benefit). Allowing the PCs to go that route will make every skill challenge easy. You can create the illusion of choice, and you can vary things across scenes, but just allowing a ton of skills for primary roles is really a bad idea if you want the SC to be a challenge.
You can increase the level within a certain range as an author, but it uses the already preciously rare commodity of XP from your budget. Do it for a complex enough SC and you are basically forced to have a two-combat mod. I find most three-combat mods tell a better story and are enjoyed more than two-combat mods, even if there is good RP in each encounter. Then there is the question of what you paid for...
Let's look at the numbers. A level 1-4 adventure is 2nd/4th in encounter level at low/high tiers. Per LFR guidelines, you can add up to 2 to the encounter level (or subtract 2).
Level 2 (low tier): Skill challenge DCs are 5/10/15 Level 3: same Level 4 (hardest low tier; high tier): 7/12/17 Level 5: same Level 6 (hardest high tier): same
So, you can make a level 4 challenge "harder" and have no change in difficulty! You can make the low tier SC higher level, basically bumping it to high tier... for a whopping +2 to the DCs! And yet, if you also allowed all skills, you probably just let the party gain +4 to the roll...
This is true of any adventure level's skill challenge, because the target levels mimic DC increase levels (all coming off of the same concept of increasing difficulty). You will always, at best, grant +2 to the difficulty for increasing the level. (There may be an exception at rare level bands, but I didn't quickly see one in heroic/paragon).
To make a skill challenge difficult for most tables you must limit choice. Otherwise, it is too easy for the table to find a PC that will auto-make the roll. Your average table will have a few skills that are significantly higher than normal trained
Ok thankyou for the feedback on this issue, i have been studying the mechanics between dmg2 and the myre pdfs and yes i will admit with a little effort a writer/dm can make it work. However this isn't what the players have witnessed so far, we can only hope for improvment in the future. I have recently started working on my 1st myre adventure.
So a level4 complex2 dc17 (4x2) = 350exp level2 complex2 dc15 (2x2) = 250exp
Unless im mistaken in my calculations that a bit more like it as far as the dcs go, even though its a chunk out of the budget..
Ok thankyou for the feedback on this issue, i have been studying the mechanics between dmg2 and the myre pdfs and yes i will admit with a little effort a writer/dm can make it work. However this isn't what the players have witnessed so far, we can on
No i'm talking about tables who roll a 2 and still pass with flying colours. The dc's are way too low, read back on this thread some guy who runs 18 games and not one skill challenge failed, i think that is a common theme, and ofcourse with assists a skill challenege will never be failed anyway if the players do it right according to the rules.
Going back through the replys i see that indeed the problem lies with the core rules (which have already been changed once regarding skill challenges.) If they won't be changed again then this is a problem through the heart of 4th edition.I will continue to play it as ive played every d&d system since my early teens.. i can see now why strikers are so popular, deal damage on a tabletop.
What about the combats against a bunch of orcs at low levels where the leader/striker/whatever role really only needs to roll a 2 to hit a chosen stat?
It seems to me you only don't like the difficulty becasue you don't like the DC, but you're not equating the DC to the other type of encounter, the combat encounter, where the difficulties to hit are often as easy as the difficulty to pass a skill challenge. I've regularly seen 1-4 tables with +12 - +15 to hit AC 17, isn't this just as easy?
Often 6 successes (or hits) are all that's required to defeat a monster worth as much XP as a skill challenge. And you don't have any real threat of failures in many combats.
I know for my diplomatic Ardent I much prefer social skill challenges to combat encounters becasue it's made to talk not fight.
I think we need to keep the skill challenge argument in perspective.
What about the combats against a bunch of orcs at low levels where the leader/striker/whatever role really only needs to roll a 2 to hit a chosen stat? It seems to me you only don't like the difficulty becasue you don't like the DC, but you're not eq
No i'm talking about tables who roll a 2 and still pass with flying colours. The dc's are way too low, read back on this thread some guy who runs 18 games and not one skill challenge failed, i think that is a common theme, and ofcourse with assists a skill challenege will never be failed anyway if the players do it right according to the rules.
Going back through the replys i see that indeed the problem lies with the core rules (which have already been changed once regarding skill challenges.) If they won't be changed again then this is a problem through the heart of 4th edition.I will continue to play it as ive played every d&d system since my early teens.. i can see now why strikers are so popular, deal damage on a tabletop.
What about the combats against a bunch of orcs at low levels where the leader/striker/whatever role really only needs to roll a 2 to hit a chosen stat?
It seems to me you only don't like the difficulty becasue you don't like the DC, but you're not equating the DC to the other type of encounter, the combat encounter, where the difficulties to hit are often as easy as the difficulty to pass a skill challenge. I've regularly seen 1-4 tables with +12 - +15 to hit AC 17, isn't this just as easy?
Often 6 successes (or hits) are all that's required to defeat a monster worth as much XP as a skill challenge. And you don't have any real threat of failures in many combats.
I know for my diplomatic Ardent I much prefer social skill challenges to combat encounters becasue it's made to talk not fight.
I think we need to keep the skill challenge argument in perspective.
That's a valid point, as a dm i often tell the players i've not done my job unless everyones taken damage and by the end atleast half their healing surges are gone because if it's that easy what's the point in playing. Me and one mate often joke that this other group of players we know aswell as many other players would be happy to just skip to the end and get the reward..
What about the combats against a bunch of orcs at low levels where the leader/striker/whatever role really only needs to roll a 2 to hit a chosen stat? It seems to me you only don't like the difficulty becasue you don't like the DC, but you're not eq
Though the author can not percieve of every possible outcome, some authors demand restricting the use of skills to only a few.
Who then? Afaik, NO SC says that no other skills can be used. It is entirely up to the DM to allow a skill, or to grant a success for a certain action. There are - or should be - no adventures out there that explicitly limit the skills (though I may except teh intial adventure batcha s by the nobodyw a suse dto SCs and thus mistakes were easily made - some things I did in my adventures I would not do now).
If you only use hard DCs, the level of the encounter goes up. On average, you should use moderate DCs. I generally mix them, I use easy DCs mostly for group checks (which a majority or everyone should make), harder DCs mostly for primary skills that I judge should be more difficult , and moderate DCs for most others. Note that group checks can make a SC more difficult.
As Alphastream indicated, you can use 'scene' successes, where you earn a success (or two) for completing a scene. This also allows you for PCs to use other means to succeed. I.e. if a Scene is to cross a chasm, then Climb/Jump or rope-walking may work - obviously skill checks - but so would a ritual that creates a bridge or the ability to fly or teleport the required distance. When I create a time-sensitive SC, I often have the SC allow for at least one ten-minute ritual to be cast and still earn a success. I feel strongly that we should encourage use of rituals in adventures.
Gomez
Who then? Afaik, NO SC says that no other skills can be used. It is entirely up to the DM to allow a skill, or to grant a success for a certain action. There are - or should be - no adventures out there that explicitly limit the skills (though I may
Though the author can not percieve of every possible outcome, some authors demand restricting the use of skills to only a few.
Who then? Afaik, NO SC says that no other skills can be used. It is entirely up to the DM to allow a skill, or to grant a success for a certain action. There are - or should be - no adventures out there that explicitly limit the skills (though I may except teh intial adventure batcha s by the nobodyw a suse dto SCs and thus mistakes were easily made - some things I did in my adventures I would not do now).
If you only use hard DCs, the level of the encounter goes up. On average, you should use moderate DCs. I generally mix them, I use easy DCs mostly for group checks (which a majority or everyone should make), harder DCs mostly for primary skills that I judge should be more difficult , and moderate DCs for most others. Note that group checks can make a SC more difficult.
As Alphastream indicated, you can use 'scene' successes, where you earn a success (or two) for completing a scene. This also allows you for PCs to use other means to succeed. I.e. if a Scene is to cross a chasm, then Climb/Jump or rope-walking may work - obviously skill checks - but so would a ritual that creates a bridge or the ability to fly or teleport the required distance. When I create a time-sensitive SC, I often have the SC allow for at least one ten-minute ritual to be cast and still earn a success. I feel strongly that we should encourage use of rituals in adventures.
Gomez
Yes i see what you saying, i'm just looking for ways to get the dcs up and then play that into the adventure, 350 exp isn't too bad for dc17.I think personally i'm going to look to avoid easy dcs like the plague except possibly for occasional group checks and ofcourse encounters like 'spot the ogre in a room of halflings' type encounters
Who then? Afaik, NO SC says that no other skills can be used. It is entirely up to the DM to allow a skill, or to grant a success for a certain action. There are - or should be - no adventures out there that explicitly limit the skills (though I may
Yes, i am positive that i can write some good adventures with sc dcs more to my liking now after careful study and reading all the feedback, the skill challenges are really the only area of the game i needed to clarify.
Now all i need to do is make sure i find creatures to provide a combat challenge with the remaining points allowed. It's a tight budget to work with but it is possible, thanks again. (looking fowards to finishing my 1st myre) atleast if i write my own stuff i wont be able to complain about low dcs so much hehe, i have just been so frustrated by such low dcs in adventures ive ran which is why i found this topic.
Yes, i am positive that i can write some good adventures with sc dcs more to my liking now after careful study and reading all the feedback, the skill challenges are really the only area of the game i needed to clarify.Now all i need to do is make s
Below is my rational why near all skills can be represented in a skill challenge. Training does not mean someone will always want to use their trained skill. In actuality two of the biggest boneses to any roll are Items/tools and roleplaying. If someone really wants to metagame a skill challenge, they should roleplay and use tools for a +4 combined plus to their roll.
Many people start their skill challenge math with, "18 sat + trained + half level". I think this is where it starts to go awry. There are lots of tables without arcane or religion or even diplomacy, but so many critics feel they have to include the training (+5) in the math. The SC Math should be based on a 16 stat + half level. If people are specialized and trained, yes they will make it much easier, but we shouldn't base module writing on assuming the table has a character that is 18 stat + trained + half the level,.
If a 3rd level character (playing high), with a 16 Stat, and untrainded in the skill of choice is rolling, then you have a +4 to the roll. The Moderate DC is a 12. So they need to roll an 8. At roll of 8 is a 65 % chance or 2/3. This means one average 1 out of 3 rolls is a failure.
If the same character uses a skill they are trained in, just to use the skill they are trained in, that is a Hard DC for that same exmple, then they would roll with a +9 to the roll, with a Hard DC of 17, needing an 8. An 8 is a 65% chance.
In a complexity 2 skill challenge of 6 successes before 3 failures an untrained party at Moderate DC can easily fail, but does have a better than average chance of succeeding. A trained party at Hard DC has the same exact chance.
If the party doesn't work together and doesn't roleplay and doesn't use tools they have about decent chance at success.
If that same party roleplays, uses tools, and helps each other by working as a team, they have an extremely good chance of success. The true optimization of a skill challenge on the side of the party isn't who is trained or who isn't trained, it is teamwork, roleplaying, and imagination (tools).
If you look at the DC chart and adjust a base stat of 16 up at someone levels through paragon and epic, you will find very simliar results. The number on the roll needed is between 8 and 11.
Just like one character isn't going to win almost any combats if they fight alone, as a team they almost always win. Skill challenges can be set up the same way.
Below is my rational why near all skills can be represented in a skill challenge. Training does not mean someone will always want to use their trained skill. In actuality two of the biggest boneses to any roll are Items/tools and roleplaying. If some
And if everyone participating in skill challenges has a 1/3 chance of failing, and is called on to make 3 checks per adventure, and has one That'll Do (which automatically turns a failure into a success), then your chance of failing one skill challenge per adventure is very very small (probably no larger than 1/27).
Without the That'll Do, it's maybe 1 in 9 adventures. But if you do assists or colorful uses of off skills, then the chance of a failure goes from 1/3 to 1/10, so we're back into that 1 out of 30 adventures bit again.
Personally I actually avoid assists and try to maintain pace so that folks don't feel a big need to do them, and I've only seen two skill challenges failed completely (all 3 failures) out of, dunno, 200 rounds of LFR? Both times using all "hard" DCs. One time in a 'skill challenge goes around the table each person doing a skill', where I think we even couldn't repeat skills, most had no cards, and it failed before it got to me. One time where the skill challenge (and the adventure itself) was very badly described, so we had to get 3 successes on Wis-based skills and we needed a 10 on the person who was trained but not a Wis-based character and the DM didn't allow assists, and he had one That'll Do, which didn't help much when he rolled under 10 four consecutive times If assists had been allowed, we'd have made that one. If the situation had been described in the module well at all, we'd have done something different and used Charisma-based skills where we needed a -4 on the die to pass. So, eh, there's the two failures I've witnessed.
I've seen a lot more skill challenges get a failure or two, but that final failure is pretty elusive.
And if everyone participating in skill challenges has a 1/3 chance of failing, and is called on to make 3 checks per adventure, and has one That'll Do (which automatically turns a failure into a success), then your chance of failing one skill challen
Exactly my previous point. This is not a core rules problem, this is a campaign issue.
If I understand the guidelines and alphastream's comment, the LFR guidelines are for how to use the core rules not substitutes for the core rules. He was commenting on how high a challenge can be "leveled". By the core rules if I as a GM really want to set the PCs against a Level 10 SC, I could. But 1) that would be a lot of XP, 2) it would in fact be too hard and 3) it would be "wrong". All the guidelines are effectively saying is "you have a budget of so many XP, don't go over it".
So no, this is not a campaign issue any more than not letting the writers put Level + 12 Elites into encounters. Is it a core rules issue? Depends on whether you see the failure to fail as an issue.
Exactly my previous point. This is not a core rules problem, this is a campaign issue.If I understand the guidelines and alphastream's comment, the LFR guidelines are for how to use the core rules not substitutes for the core rules. He was commenting
Yes. The guidelines are made to closely approximate the intended leveling progression - how many encounters you should play before leveling - which is then converted to adventures.
The core rules themselves are often abandoned in home campaigns. We might use what would be intended, then add two skill challenges on top. If we are actually counting XP, the PCs level faster, perhaps skipping a level. In our home campaigns there tends to be no close tracking, so it is all free XP for the DM to use and the PCs just level up every x sessions of play. We can't do that in LFR, but that is for a good reason.
The LFR guidelines aren't wrong, from that perspective. I do think they are slightly under the XP we should aim for to sufficiently mirror expected core challenge level, though they are likely fine advancement-wise. It isn't an easy thing to reconcile, since I'm pretty positive the 1-4 adventures don't need to be harder and still award the same XP.
Yes. The guidelines are made to closely approximate the intended leveling progression - how many encounters you should play before leveling - which is then converted to adventures.The core rules themselves are often abandoned in home campaigns. We mi
Yes. The guidelines are made to closely approximate the intended leveling progression - how many encounters you should play before leveling - which is then converted to adventures.
And, of course, the levelling progression is designed for a campaign intended to span eighteen months of a module per week, with equal time spent at each level. To the extent that this is not the goal of the LFR campaign, it would be nice if they modified things accordingly.
In particular (and off the topic), as we're probably at the point where plans are starting to be made for epic modules, I would strongly advocate an across-the-board halving of the amount of XP given out there, so that PCs do not rocket across the final level band.
And, of course, the levelling progression is designed for a campaign intended to span eighteen months of a module per week, with equal time spent at each level. To the extent that this is not the goal of the LFR campaign, it would be nice if they m
And, of course, the levelling progression is designed for a campaign intended to span eighteen months of a module per week, with equal time spent at each level. To the extent that this is not the goal of the LFR campaign, it would be nice if they modified things accordingly.
In particular (and off the topic), as we're probably at the point where plans are starting to be made for epic modules, I would strongly advocate an across-the-board halving of the amount of XP given out there, so that PCs do not rocket across the final level band.
Would you advocate using less XP as well, or just giving out less but still constructing with twice what is given out?
Just curious. I can't think of too many people that understand the subject like you do.
Would you advocate using less XP as well, or just giving out less but still constructing with twice what is given out?Just curious. I can't think of too many people that understand the subject like you do.
Yes. The guidelines are made to closely approximate the intended leveling progression - how many encounters you should play before leveling - which is then converted to adventures.
What I think is being forgotten is that we are not just playing any campaign. We are playing LFR. Living Forgotten Realms is a high fantasy / high adventure campaign. The most recognizable shift away from a core rules campaign is that PC's can regularly obtain and use magic items 4 levels above the level of the character. This is a drastic difference in power level of the PCs versus a campaign where PCs use items of their level or lower.
For this reason the encounter levels the PCs face are suppose to be harder than normal. Again, Forgotten Realms is a high fantasy / high adventure campaign world. Saying that a level 4 players, playing a H2 mod low, might have to face a level 7 skill challenge isn't that out of line if the skill challenge is a pivotal part of the module. If it is a pivotal part of the module then XP should be spent on that part of the module anyway. If no skill challenges are ever used as the pivotal part of a modules then that is bad campaign construction.
As for leveling progression and epic play, I think people get so wrapped up in XP that the style of encounter is pushed to the side. Heroic Tier should have a scope of a village / city, Paragon Tier a country / region, and Epic a world / planer scope of setting. There is another concept that runs parallel.
The Stratagem of the antigonists is suppose to increase as the level increases. In Heroic tier, the adventures are designed to be more straight forward less tactics by the antagonists. Begining players spend the first 10 levels learning how powers and rules and tactics can be used against the NPCs.
Paragon is suppose to be more tactical, where the antagonists are more thoughtful of their approach in each encounter. Think more period military tactics like the PCs starting in the middle of a map instead of the edge because the NPC's have 3 flanks covered. Paragon is more about the players seeing tactics used against them.
Epic though, is no longer about just tactics, it is about strategy. When looking at an epic experience you are looking at every encounter influencing outcomes of the strategy of the antagonists. Encounters could have scouts, scouting the combat encounters to report back the tactics the PC's use and use those tactics against them in the final combat. NPCs might be spies to find out which PC's have the diplomacy skills and try to assassinate / curse / debuff / abduct them in combat so that the diplomat of the party won't be nearly as able to then go into a negotiation and be at their best. There could even be story awards in higher level epic play that when you play the continuation module the story award tells the DM how the NPCs would attack that PC because of what the learned about the PC in the first module.
When asking how to make Epic more well...epic. Do it by the story and the level of organization of the NPCs not just by XP. In epic play, my suggestion would be to morph the viewpoint of antagonists thinking, "We succeed as bad guys by killing the PCs" and shift the concept to, "We succeed as bad guys by causing the PCs to fail."
To me an epic villian might be the villian that thinks.... "Let the PCs that fail live, I know I can beat them again. I fear the PC's that I don't know and who could defeat me. Wa ha ha."
As an aside - The use of a skill challenge with a map might be interesting. A skill challenge that is contested by the NPCs. Where the PCs have to move around the board working together to counter the NPCs and to succeed in the end.
What I think is being forgotten is that we are not just playing any campaign. We are playing LFR. Living Forgotten Realms is a high fantasy / high adventure campaign. The most recognizable shift away from a core rules campaign is that PC's can regula
In particular (and off the topic), as we're probably at the point where plans are starting to be made for epic modules, I would strongly advocate an across-the-board halving of the amount of XP given out there, so that PCs do not rocket across the final level band.
If you halve the XP wouldn't have be approximately 60 weeks (1 module per week) of play before you could start and fullfill the epic destiny of your character?
If you halve the XP wouldn't have be approximately 60 weeks (1 module per week) of play before you could start and fullfill the epic destiny of your character?
Going from 21 to 30 is 9 levels. At 2.5 sessions per level, let's call that 22 sessions of play. So, halving it would bump that to 44.
I think I'm mostly okay with 22 sessions of play to finish up the character, but some folks would go through that in 5 weeks, so eh.
Going from 21 to 30 is 9 levels. At 2.5 sessions per level, let's call that 22 sessions of play. So, halving it would bump that to 44. I think I'm mostly okay with 22 sessions of play to finish up the character, but some folks would go through that
Would you advocate using less XP as well, or just giving out less but still constructing with twice what is given out?
I'm as in the dark as to the best way to construct epic combats as most, having little practical experience at that tier. Not that such stops me from having opinions, of course.
Going by what looks good on paper, I'd like to see combats constructed with twice the XP that is given out. This is more from a campaign benefit point of view, in that I think players would prefer to have more time to savor playing their epic-level PCs before hitting level 30, and in that otherwise the rate at which characters advance would substantially outpace the campaign's ability to release quality epic adventures while still providing for the previous tiers.
In part, this is also because I believe the best fit for epic adventures will be double-length modules. Story-wise, I think they'll need that length to get any type of proper epic feel. Combat-wise, the sheer number of daily powers and abilities available to epic PCs means that the number of combats that can comfortably fit in a four-hour slot (generally two hard or three moderate) will be insufficient to challenge them--I think we underestimate the effect of players roughly knowing how long the adventuring day will be and when they can safely unload all of their daily resources, and the impact of this is only going to get worse as PCs gain more daily resources.
Assuming this does turn out to be the case, combining standard XP awards with double-length modules would mean that PCs will be leveling two out of every three times they play, which seems like a pretty rushed end to a character's career.
I'm as in the dark as to the best way to construct epic combats as most, having little practical experience at that tier. Not that such stops me from having opinions, of course. ;)Going by what looks good on paper, I'd like to see combats construct
In part, this is also because I believe the best fit for epic adventures will be double-length modules. Story-wise, I think they'll need that length to get any type of proper epic feel.
Assuming this does turn out to be the case, combining standard XP awards with double-length modules would mean that PCs will be leveling two out of every three times they play, which seems like a pretty rushed end to a character's career.
You could possibly do the same system that is used for Scepter Tower of Spellguard. Core4-X and Core 4-(X+1) You must play the first module to play the second and you have to play that second module after the first module. Just release them on the same day. Put them togethr for one 8 hour slot or for those places that can't run 8 hour slots, do them as 2, 4 hour slot.
You could even use the story award sysem to check off which loot options that character will earn in the second mod and backload the treasure and quest XP for the second mod so there isn't a benfit to not playing the second mod regardless.
You could possibly do the same system that is used for Scepter Tower of Spellguard. Core4-X and Core 4-(X+1) You must play the first module to play the second and you have to play that second module after the first module. Just release them on the sa
What I think is being forgotten is that we are not just playing any campaign. We are playing LFR. Living Forgotten Realms is a high fantasy / high adventure campaign. The most recognizable shift away from a core rules campaign is that PC's can regularly obtain and use magic items 4 levels above the level of the character. This is a drastic difference in power level of the PCs versus a campaign where PCs use items of their level or lower.
That is not a drastic shift away from the core rules campaign. The treasure parcels for a level 1 group include a level 5 magic item and a level 4 magic item, for example. While there's a minor shift insofar as every LFR PC has the chance to get such an item, rather than it being one PC per level per group, it's not as big a deal as you imply.
I agree with the rest of your post.
That is not a drastic shift away from the core rules campaign. The treasure parcels for a level 1 group include a level 5 magic item and a level 4 magic item, for example. While there's a minor shift insofar as every LFR PC has the chance to get such
If assists had been allowed, we'd have made that one. If the situation had been described in the module well at all, we'd have done something different and used Charisma-based skills where we needed a -4 on the die to pass. So, eh, there's the two failures I've witnessed.
