R&D made two significant changes to the DCs of skills in a skill challenge: the tables were changed to substantially reduce DCs, and DMs could no longer play games with the level by using hard DCs from lower levels.
Under the new rules, a skill challenge in which DC 15 checks are primarily required would be at least a level 9 skill challenge. Somehow, though, LFR authors seem to think DC 15 is either a level 4 challenge (
Show
AGLA1-4
This answers a lot of questions, as do Mike Mearls' DDI articles on skill challenges. What is written in the DMG and the updates to same are just a starting point, not the be all and end all.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4pod/20090429
This answers a lot of questions, as do Mike Mearls' DDI articles on skill challenges. What is written in the DMG and the updates to same are just a starting point, not the be all and end all.
Yeah, and the biggest question that particular podcast answers is "do the designers have a clue about what they really want out of skill challenges?" and the answer is "no."
There are a whole bunch of conflicting answers about the purpose and approach to skill challenges that we've received from the designers.
For instance, they want everyone to participate, but (since the errata) don't require everyone to participate and (as indicated in the podcast) don't want people to participate by using aid other. Based on the mechanics, it's hard to see how they want people to participate unless they are good at the appropriate skills.
They want players to use strategy "like they do in combat" but don't want players to use the basic strategies encouraged by the mechanics like "never roll a skill that's not trained and based off your main stat unless you have no choice and always use aid other" or "don't participate (except through aid other) when you have a significant chance of contributing a failure." So, apparently, encouraging strategy in social encounters is one of the goals of the skill challenge mechanic but they don't like the strategies that the mechanic encourages.
It's too bad the DDI articles are behind the DDI firewall because if there is actually anything helpful they've written about skill challenges, it's not in the DMG, errata, or the podcast. Then again, I think it likely that whatever Mearls wrote in the DDI articles is more of the same.
I believe skill challenges as a game mechanic were a major improvement in dealing with how to scale and assign xp for non-combat challenges in D&D. What WotC initially missed on was how the DM should present them. But it is not just a matter of how they are written, the DM and the players need to understand the mechanism. If in combat, one player decided to follow the example of a first, by using a greatsword, even though his character is not proficient with a greatsword, that would seem bizarre. Yet I see players who say they will independently try skill x, even though they suck at skill x, and they have not considered if there is another or better option.
The DCs are guidelines. What amazes me is the number of DMs who seem to understand the concept of a DM adjusting monsters toughness to be appropriate for a particular group of PCs, but when it comes to skill DCs, rather than wait to see what skills the PCs have, will "correct" the DCs in the adventure to the DMG errata automatically. Inconsistent behavior IMO.
For a typical group of PCs, the DMG errata skill DCs are probably 4-5 too low IMO, based upon both calculations and experimental data. Please note, I did say "typical" so individual samples may vary.
Keith
Skill challenges, however, can encourage players to do nothing on their turns, because failing their attempts is much worse than doing nothing.
This is because the mechanism of "failure" is drastically different. You don't lose a combat after X number of missed attacks. You lose if you don't do enough (damage, typically) before the other side does do enough -- the deadline factor is generally time in combat rounds. A skill challenge with the "X successes before Y failures" mechanism is just the opposite -- you can take all the in-game time you want without fail, but can't afford more than Y "misses".
To really fix Skill Challenges, you have to move away from the idea of a single failed skill check equalling Strike One/Two/Three against the team. You still need to have failure conditions, of course, but they should not always (if ever) be the result of a simple pass/fail die roll.
Like combat, skill challenges should have a deadline factor that is independent of individual failures. Frequently enough, this deadline factor can be time. Rather than "X successes before Y failures" it becomes "X successes before Y rounds (of skill checks.)" It's okay for a failed check to result in a setback at times, but instead of being tallied up toward a total failure they should effectively result in increasing the number of successes required. (Examples of this could be a failed Diplomacy check annoying/angering the person you're trying to convince, a failed Athletics check causing the rubble you're trying to move to collapse on you or someone else, or a failed Perception check leading you down the wrong set of tracks.)
You don't lose a combat after X number of missed attacks. You lose if you don't do enough (damage, typically) before the other side does do enough -- the deadline factor is generally time in combat rounds.
Interesting.
Musing along these lines, should skill challenges be more similar to combat, in that they pit one side against another?
This makes a lot of sense for some situations that frequently come up: negotiation, haggling, getting information out of a prisoner.... You could have the PCs making skill checks, and the DM making skill checks, and each side could "hit" the other to accumulate "successes". "Missing" your check wouldn't be a "failure", but it would mean you are not getting any closer to the ultimate victory condition.
This type of model doesn't work very well when there is no adversary, though. Overcoming a trap? Surviving in the wilderness? There is no-one for the PCs to fight. Yes, you could make this highly abstract and have the DM roll skill checks for the trap, as it resists the PCs' attempts to disarm it... but that doesn't make a lot of sense, even to me.
I do definitely agree that where skill challenges break down is in making "do nothing" an optimal choice in many situations. D&D is supposed to be a game of heroic action, not a game of doing nothing.
They next work for almost entirely freeform improvisation where everyone can do almost anything and it can work. Like Escape from Sembia's skill challenge where you've got Indiana Jones-esque athletics and acrobatics, talking to create distractions, and figuring out better routes out of the city, etc.
Absolute worst are things like 'This trap requires Thievery 6/3' or 'This ritual requires Arcana/Religion 8/3'.
Skill challenges sidestep that problem when there's a time limit (need X successes before 3 rounds around the table) or they're during a combat, as far as I can tell.
These should be adjusted for table size. Three times around the table is 18 potential attempts for a six player table, but only 12 for a 4 player table.
They next work for almost entirely freeform improvisation where everyone can do almost anything and it can work. Like Escape from Sembia's skill challenge where you've got Indiana Jones-esque athletics and acrobatics, talking to create distractions, and figuring out better routes out of the city, etc.
Mechanically, this works as well as the mathematical model lets any skill challenge work (which is to say, not very well). Conceptually, you run into a number of problems. If the wizard is always making history checks to discover hidden passages, why is everyone else jumping from rooftop to rooftop rather than taking the easy way? The more free-form a skill challenge, the more likely it is to degenerate into "I find a way to use whatever skill I'm good at with little regard for the context of the adventure and completely without regard to what everyone else is doing."
Absolute worst are things like 'This trap requires Thievery 6/3' or 'This ritual requires Arcana/Religion 8/3'.
Agreed there.
Combat encounters encourage players to do something on their turns, because even if they fail the result is very rarely worse than if they did nothing.
Skill challenges, however, can encourage players to do nothing on their turns, because failing their attempts is much worse than doing nothing.
This is because the mechanism of "failure" is drastically different. You don't lose a combat after X number of missed attacks. You lose if you don't do enough (damage, typically) before the other side does do enough -- the deadline factor is generally time in combat rounds. A skill challenge with the "X successes before Y failures" mechanism is just the opposite -- you can take all the in-game time you want without fail, but can't afford more than Y "misses".
To really fix Skill Challenges, you have to move away from the idea of a single failed skill check equalling Strike One/Two/Three against the team. You still need to have failure conditions, of course, but they should not always (if ever) be the result of a simple pass/fail die roll.
Like combat, skill challenges should have a deadline factor that is independent of individual failures. Frequently enough, this deadline factor can be time. Rather than "X successes before Y failures" it becomes "X successes before Y rounds (of skill checks.)" It's okay for a failed check to result in a setback at times, but instead of being tallied up toward a total failure they should effectively result in increasing the number of successes required. (Examples of this could be a failed Diplomacy check annoying/angering the person you're trying to convince, a failed Athletics check causing the rubble you're trying to move to collapse on you or someone else, or a failed Perception check leading you down the wrong set of tracks.)
I agree with this completely.
In reality sometimes there are consequences for failure (theivery, social skills), but sometimes there are consequences for taking too long (snowstorms, "find the lost macguffin"). The "one size fits all" mechanic of "3 failures = evil consequences" is inadequate.
Skill challenges need a mechanic such as tyweise suggests here, where there can be consequences for people doing nothing as well as consequences for failures.
That does not, however, mean that I agree with everything in the original post, because I don't.
These should be adjusted for table size. Three times around the table is 18 potential attempts for a six player table, but only 12 for a 4 player table.
Yeah, you'd probably want to scale in some way by # of people, but it may not be necessary if you're going for 'majority of successes' type success or failure, which I did run into in one skill challenge.
Mechanically, this works as well as the mathematical model lets any skill challenge work (which is to say, not very well). Conceptually, you run into a number of problems. If the wizard is always making history checks to discover hidden passages, why is everyone else jumping from rooftop to rooftop rather than taking the easy way? The more free-form a skill challenge, the more likely it is to degenerate into "I find a way to use whatever skill I'm good at with little regard for the context of the adventure and completely without regard to what everyone else is doing."
Eh, as long as everyone is having fun and not actively trying to sabotage things, it's a very good thing to do now and then. People using their good skills to do cool things is a feature, not a bug, sometimes. But, it should be with context of the adventure and rest of the party. It's not necessarily hard to manage that.
Mechanically, this works as well as the mathematical model lets any skill challenge work (which is to say, not very well). Conceptually, you run into a number of problems. If the wizard is always making history checks to discover hidden passages, why is everyone else jumping from rooftop to rooftop rather than taking the easy way? The more free-form a skill challenge, the more likely it is to degenerate into "I find a way to use whatever skill I'm good at with little regard for the context of the adventure and completely without regard to what everyone else is doing."
That's where it's up to the DM to create colorful flavor text. The wizard makes the history check to remember a hidden passageway, but it's across a gap somebody needs to jump so he can set a rope to help the others get over. The door has been hidden by time requiring a perception check. Once found there are religious symbols which then need to be interpreted, etc. Everyone participates in finding the secret way out, contributing different skills at different points of the same goal.
Doesn't always work or make sense, but it can be fun when it does.
Allen.
That's where it's up to the DM to create colorful flavor text. The wizard makes the history check to remember a hidden passageway, but it's across a gap somebody needs to jump so he can set a rope to help the others get over. The door has been hidden by time requiring a perception check. Once found there are religious symbols which then need to be interpreted, etc. Everyone participates in finding the secret way out, contributing different skills at different points of the same goal.
Doesn't always work or make sense, but it can be fun when it does.
Allen.
That depends very heavily upon the order of the checks. If someone else goes first and, for instance, starts climbing the wall, the wizard has to either give up on his "find the tunnel under it with history" idea or go off by himself into the tunnel and sacrifice the idea of having the skill challenge make sense.
It's an inherent problem with collaberative storytelling that becomes especially apparent when different characters have incentives to lead the story along different avenues. The wizard wants to avoid having to roll a failure with athletics or endurance and the fighter wants to use athletics or a similar skill as much as possible since it yields the highest probability of success.
That depends very heavily upon the order of the checks. If someone else goes first and, for instance, starts climbing the wall, the wizard has to either give up on his "find the tunnel under it with history" idea or go off by himself into the tunnel and sacrifice the idea of having the skill challenge make sense.
It's an inherent problem with collaberative storytelling that becomes especially apparent when different characters have incentives to lead the story along different avenues. The wizard wants to avoid having to roll a failure with athletics or endurance and the fighter wants to use athletics or a similar skill as much as possible since it yields the highest probability of success.
Which is why I as a DM usually interrupt as soon as players start sprouting ideas and making skill checks without discussing the situation at hand. D&D is a team game, and it does help if you come up with a plan before proceeding ;)
"I find a way to use whatever skill I'm good at with little regard for the context of the adventure and completely without regard to what everyone else is doing."
This is precisely how many players around here respond to skill challenges.
If you think about it, the mechanics encourage that: you need a success, and you are most likely to get it using your highest skill, so you need to convince your DM that your highest skill is applicable to the situation at hand, regardless of what that skill and situation are. In other words, based on SC mechanics, the best way to pass a SC is to fast talk your DM.
This is precisely how many players around here respond to skill challenges.
If you think about it, the mechanics encourage that: you need a success, and you are most likely to get it using your highest skill, so you need to convince your DM that your highest skill is applicable to the situation at hand, regardless of what that skill and situation are. In other words, based on SC mechanics, the best way to pass a SC is to fast talk your DM.
Such an approach is taking the RAW a little bit too extreme. There are still limitations in place on what you can and cannot use. The DMG examples might be limited, but in one regards they are correct: you cannot use every skill to deal with every challenge. What is more, you still need to describe HOW you are using a skill to achieve that success. In short, just using the skills you are good at should not help you achieve a success in the skill challenge just as much as an Arcana check should not prevent. a PC from drowning.
I agree with the original poster that several of the recent adventures in the 1-4 level band that I reviewed should have made more use of DC 10/11 instead of DC 15/16 and I am taking a look at revising those skill challenges.
DC 10/11 is pretty low though. Anyone with a decent stat and trained makes those near automatically. It works for group checks, where not everyone is trained, but it falls down if the check can simply be made only by the PC with the highest score, which can be up to +16 at level 1.
Btw, I am not sure if it is that clear what the limitations in a skill challenge are.
The new format makes it much clearer what skills (as noted in the adventure) grant successes and which not, but those shgoudl not get on the way of clever solutions, which is a big part of a roleplaying game.
In the end it is still up to the DM to decide whether a particular skill use does to does not contribute and in what way. A good DM will recognize when a particular action is useful enough for a success, and when not.
Gomez
Such an approach is taking the RAW a little bit too extreme.
Yes, I am aware of that, and I'm not saying that players should do this or that DMs should fall for it, but the point is that they do.
What is more, you still need to describe HOW you are using a skill to achieve that success.
Yes, I get that. That's where the "fast talk" comes in. For instance, a player might argue that he's using Prestidigitation to create air, since the spell explicitly can produce small items as well as gust of wind, and roll arcana to see how well he does that.
The game is full of handwaving and finding excuses for things, and the rules encourage that. It's frequently not possible to counter such excuses with the rules, other than with Rule Zero. So yes, the arcana skill can save you from drowning.
DC 10/11 is pretty low though. Anyone with a decent stat and trained makes those near automatically.
I agree with you in principle; I think DC 10/11 is too low. But as a reviewer my hands are somewhat tied. The core rules say that DC 10 is the moderate DC for level 1 skill checks. If a skill challenge is written to be a level 1 skill challenge (i.e. if the author only wants to award 100 XP times the complexity), then DC 10 is the baseline DC. So if the adventure offers a "level 1/3" skill challenge for low tier/high tier I would expect to see 10/11 as the typical DC.
The DMG says that if you want to use primarily the hard DCs, you should increase the level of the challenge by 2; so if the author wanted to use mostly DC 15/16 checks then according to the DMG, the adventure should award level 3/5 XP for that challenge instead of level 1/3 XP. That would change the XP value of (say) a complexity 2 skill challenge from 200/300 XP to 300/400 XP which might or might not fit with the author's plans for how to assign XP to the combat encounters.
Certainly by the time an adventure hits my desk, I am much less eager to restructure the combat encounters to remove 100 XP and add that 100 XP to the skill challenge rewards, as opposed to just changing the skill challenge DCs from 15/16 to 10/11 which preserves the overall allocation of XP the author wanted. Making that change obviously makes the skill challenge much easier, but if the author wanted to use DC 15/16 then he or she should have allocated the higher amount of XP to the skill challenge in the first place (which would also save me the trouble of having to second-guess what was intended).
Such an approach is taking the RAW a little bit too extreme. There are still limitations in place on what you can and cannot use. The DMG examples might be limited, but in one regards they are correct: you cannot use every skill to deal with every challenge. What is more, you still need to describe HOW you are using a skill to achieve that success. In short, just using the skills you are good at should not help you achieve a success in the skill challenge just as much as an Arcana check should not prevent. a PC from drowning.
That's why the really relevant skill is "fast talk the DM." (Which is closely followed by "remind the DM that the errata says that you don't have to make a check" for when you can't fast talk the DM.) Because using a skill that you are not good at is a good way to fail the skill challenge, fast talking the DM with a description of how you are using said skill that you are really good at is the real key skill in the challenge (and descriptions range from plausible when it is actually appropriate to utterly ridiculous). If you succeed at fast-talking the DM and he lets you use arcana to float a small bubble of air down to the PC who is drowning to let him take one breath he wouldn't otherwise be able to take, then you contribute a success to the skill challenge. If, on the other hand, you fail to fast talk the DM and he doesn't let you use arcana to prevent a PC from drowning, then your best option is often to do nothing.
All told, the "fast talk the DM" angle of skill challenge strategy is why, contrary to what a number of notable DMs and designers say, I would argue that saying "no" is a far far more important skill in running a skill challenge than saying "yes." (Of course, my opinion is also that the DM should start by saying "no" to the skill challenge rules in general, but even if you decide to keep them entirely, saying "no" is what keeps treks through the desert from degenerating into a series of arcana checks from the wizards (keeping cool with magic you know) and religion checks from the clerics (praying to Aumanator to make the sun a little cooler where they are walking).
But yeah, that's troubling.
If you are holding up the skill challenge mechanic as an end to itself, rather than as a means to an end, then it is of course something that can be painted as shady. If you are using the skill challenge structure as a loose guide to seeing how the players hope to accomplish certain tasks or navigate from Point A to Point B, then the DM should encourage the players to attempt to use their wits and imaginations to tell the story, and if saying "Yes" brings enjoyment to the table as whole (myself included), then I say "Yes."
Now you are going to make me say, "When I was young . . ."
When I was young, we didn't have these fancy skills for our PCs. All we had were abilities and the DM's sense of story. We told the DM what we wanted to do, and the DM figured out if it worked. As far as I am concerned, the skill challenge mechanic is just a way to help the DM prepare a little ahead of time in figuring out what worked, and gives suggested DCs for what it takes to accomplish those goals.
That depends very heavily upon the order of the checks. If someone else goes first and, for instance, starts climbing the wall, the wizard has to either give up on his "find the tunnel under it with history" idea or go off by himself into the tunnel and sacrifice the idea of having the skill challenge make sense.
If a mod has a skill challenge where I think this type of interactive story telling makes sense, I ask people what their top skills are. I can then tailor the story to the people and their skills.
Allen.
I'm not a fan of that, whereas I am a fan of the group storytelling aspect and even had planned to run a module where I find out the group's skills well in advance and tailor the challenge appropriately.
Well, those might be reasonable triggers for the 'allow a skill to give a +2, once' too.
The problem with that is that as soon as your players are reasonably versed in statistics, they realize that this is not an action worth taking, as in the vast majority of cases it's the equivalent of "doing nothing". It's the rules saying "hey, you thought of something clever, let us reward it by giving you something meaningless". Not exactly encouraging.
So, the thing I find troubling about his example is the inherent concept that you could use Arcana or Religion for _ANYTHING_ you might accomplish, blowing those skills wide open for what they can do.
Oh, not just those, either. In case of drowning, "slow breathing techniques" could be covered by anything from athletics to nature to heal (other than the obvious, endurance). You might try using thievery to keep a bubble of air underneath an airtight piece of clothing. Using perception to look for a "solution" for whatever the situation is, is another classic; as is using history to try and remember how people in the past tackled a similar situation.
Whether any or all of this makes sense (or at least, makes sufficient sense to allow a check) is, of course, up to the DM. But in a game where you can prone oozes and stab skeletons in their vulnerable organs, why shouldn't he at least consider it?
I might say that is the player and the DM drawing upon one of the greatest features of the game: group storytelling.
Well, there's one obvious difference: if you're doing group storytelling, what you do is based on the world and on your character, and what exactly the rules are isn't really important. If you're fast talking the DM, you're doing things that make no sense at all in the world or for your character, but are based on what will likely work according to the technicalities of the rules.
If you are holding up the skill challenge mechanic as an end to itself, rather than as a means to an end, then it is of course something that can be painted as shady.
You've hit the nail right on the head: the skill challenge mechanic is the end to itself, because the mechanic decides when you've passed the obstacle. I'm sure we've all seen the situations where the players have had some clever ideas and are already in the castle, but still need three more successes on their rolls - or conversely, where the players have scored plenty of successes on history and architecture checks, but haven't done anything yet to actually get in the castle.
Again, I'm not saying that this is a good way of playing, but point of fact is that many DMs do play it that way, and that the SC rules encourage that. Whenever a SC comes into play, the players must not satisfy the goals of the story, but must roll X successes on their dice regardless of what that means in-game.
When I was young, we didn't have these fancy skills for our PCs. All we had were abilities and the DM's sense of story. We told the DM what we wanted to do, and the DM figured out if it worked.
...and what you describe here is a much better mechanic than SCs are.
I'm sure we've all seen the situations where the players have had some clever ideas and are already in the castle, but still need three more successes on their rolls - or conversely, where the players have scored plenty of successes on history and architecture checks, but haven't done anything yet to actually get in the castle.
If the PCs suceed at the goal, they win the skill challenge. I try to set up SCs such that you ether have a way to extend it until successes are needed, OR it is set up such that the victory condition is not 'X successes'but 'reach condition Y', where I have made an estimate on how many successes, on avarage, you need for condition Y.
Note that skills that do not get actually you you closer to the goal should not give successes, merely bonuses or open up skills. I try to pay attention to this, which occasionally may result in a skill challenge with a low complexity where you can still use a lot of skills.
Another way to do this - and to add story element - is to break things up in scenes. You can have some fun scenes with much roleplay opportunity. In some cases, you can also not tie successes to skills but to scenes itself such that each successfully completed scene earns you a set number of successes - no matter how you resolve that scene. That way, you can even add non-skill challenges in a skill challenge.
Gomez
The DMG says that if you want to use primarily the hard DCs, you should increase the level of the challenge by 2; so if the author wanted to use mostly DC 15/16 checks then according to the DMG, the adventure should award level 3/5 XP for that challenge instead of level 1/3 XP.
Double-check the errata. They deleted the sentence about being able to use the hard version and just increase the level by 2. Now, if you want an easier or harder challenge, you're supposed to use the moderate skill checks for another level.
If you think about it, the original system didn't make an awful lot of sense. A skill challenge with DC 14 checks is a Level 8 skill challenge (moderate difficulty for L7-9), but a skill challenge with DC 15 checks is a level 4 skill challenge?
But, sure, a DC 10-based skill challenge may indeed be far too easy for a L2 party... depending on what assumptions you make about the level of participation in the challenge, the level of cooperative storytelling you're comfortable with and the failure rate you think optimal.
If skill challenges are, for example, to be "ride the skill horse to victory", allow players to always weasel their way into using their best skill, but have a goal of around 75% success rate, then DC 10 won't cut it.
If skill challenges are striving for full player participation, largely restrict players to the primary skills for the challenge and are trying for a 95% success rate, perhaps DC 10 is about right.
I could not tell you what the purpose of the D&D skill challenge is at this point. I'm not entirely sure you could get a coherent consistent answer from the game designers, and I'm rather certain that there is great divergence of opinion among LFR authors.
Until you know the purpose of a system, it's rather difficult to tell whether the method of implementation is accomplishing those goals.
Double-check the errata. They deleted the sentence about being able to use the hard version and just increase the level by 2. Now, if you want an easier or harder challenge, you're supposed to use the moderate skill checks for another level.
Well, it's unclear exactly what they did with the errata, if you compare the original DMG, the "Deluxe" DMG (which is supposed to include the errata) and the actual errata document. The errata (I'm looking at the version dated 1/20/2009) says:
Replace the sixth paragraph of the section, which begins "Set a level...," with the following text: “For an easier or a harder challenge, use DCs from the row that corresponds to a lower or a higher level, and assign the challenge’s level as the midpoint of that level range. For example, if designing an easier challenge for an 8th-level party, you could use the DCs from the "Level 4–6" row. That would adjust the challenge’s level to 5th.
Remove the seventh paragraph.
Now I assume that the errata is referring to the text of the first printing of the DMG. So if you look at the original text of the DMG, the last three paragraphs of "Step 2" (on page 73) are as follows:
Set a level for the challenge and DCs for the checks involved. As a starting point, set the level of the challenge to the level of the party, and use moderate DCs for the skill checks (see the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table on page 42.)
If you use easy DCs, reduce the level of the challenge by one. If you use hard DCs, increase the level of the challenge by two. You can also adjust the level of the challenge by reducing the number of failures needed to end the challenge. Cut the number of failures needed in half, and increase the level of the challenge by two. (You can also mix DCs in the same challenge, as described on page 74.)
Example: A complexity 3 challenge using hard DCs and cutting the number of failures needed in half increases this skill challenge's level by four.
Now look at the corresponding text in the "deluxe" DMG (which supposedly includes the errata). Again, we are on page 73:
For an easier or a harder challenge, use DCs from the row that corresponds to a lower or a higher level, and assign the challenge’s level as the midpoint of that level range. For example, if designing an easier challenge for an 8th-level party, you could use the DCs from the “Level 4–6” row. That would adjust the challenge’s level to 5th.
If you use easy DCs, reduce the level of the challenge by one. If you use hard DCs, increase the level of the challenge by two. You can also adjust the level of the challenge by reducing the number of failures needed to end the challenge. Cut the number of failures needed in half, and increase the level of the challenge by two. (You can also mix DCs in the same challenge, as described on page 74.)
So the original paragraph that began "Set a level [...]" did indeed get replaced with the text specified in the errata, and another paragraph (beginning "Example:") did get deleted, but there is that text in the middle which persisted across both versions (and just happens to be the text we're talking about here). So did the person who wrote the errata mis-count the number of paragraphs, or did the person who spliced the errata into the text of the book when creating the Deluxe version do so incorrectly?
To me, it appears that the way WotC "implemented" the errata was by replacing the paragraph that begins "[s]et a level [...]" with the paragraph specified in the errata. The paragraph which they then deleted (per the instructions in the errata) is the "Example" which followed in the first printing and is completely gone in the deluxe version.
So the question is, how are we supposed to read the DMG errata? (It can't purely be a patch for the Deluxe version, because the changes specified by the errata already exist in the Deluxe version.) The PH has had multiple "patches" applied such that the Deluxe PH is no longer even the most current version, but the DMG hasn't. My understanding is the Deluxe DMG represents the original DMG + the errata.
If you think about it, the original system didn't make an awful lot of sense. A skill challenge with DC 14 checks is a Level 8 skill challenge (moderate difficulty for L7-9), but a skill challenge with DC 15 checks is a level 4 skill challenge?
Well, I'm not sure that I agree with the way the actual tables are set up (for example, if I were designing the system, I wouldn't use three-level ranges for the DCs, when PCs get to add +1/2 levels to their skill checks). But I don't see a problem with the same DCs being repeated across level ranges; a skill challenge with DC 14 checks is an easy Level 8 challenge, but a challenge with DC 15 checks is a hard Level 4 challenge. I don't see that as being fundamentally any different from the notion that two encounters can have the same EL but represent a different level of combat challenge depending on the level of the PCs.
I do hope that DMG2 will shed a lot more light on this subject.
The moderate DCs are too easy if you have someone who's trained and got a primary in the skill in the party, but the hard DCs are way too high if you haven't. Since there's often no way in LFR to ensure that you have a well-balanced party skills-wise before sitting down to a table, the authors have a problem. What probability of failure do you want for a skill challenge? Because of the X success before 3 failures set-up, if you have a high complexity skill challenge, you almost end up with a binary - if you have a PC who's really good at the skill, you pass, if you don't, then you fail (since you need a 90% odd success rate per roll to pass a 12 successes before 3 failures challenge, at a rough estimate).
The way round this, I feel, is to make the DCs easier, but to build in mechanics that force other players to participate. Whether it's because a PC becomes suspicious of one character doing all the talking and asks his silent companion a question, or because the PCs have to get over an obstacle and all have to climb (maybe that would be a hard check for PC1 to climb up, then he can tie a rope and drop it down, reducing the DC to easy for everyone else...), it encourages participation and helps the DC issue.
As an aside, I really hate it when players stop doing anything when they realise they're in a skill challenge. In a non-challenge RP encounter, typically you'll see questions flying - the wizard wants to roll history to see if he's heard about the noble who's just hired them, so everybody rolls just in case they have - after all, five heads are better than one, right? In the skill-challenge encounter, only the wizard player would roll that check, while everyone else, just sits there.
Another way round it would be if some checks could contribute to success but not to failure, but it's only one attempt per PC. The knowledge check is an example. For example, as above, how can one PC trying to remember something and failing harm the PC's cause if someone else remembers the information? Doesn't make any sense.
Skill challenges are much better when they're integrated seamlessly into roleplaying, but as a DM I now always announce when a skill challenge is occurring, otherwise players will roll too many untrained checks in the course of normal RP and fail.
As an aside, I really hate it when players stop doing anything when they realise they're in a skill challenge. In a non-challenge RP encounter, typically you'll see questions flying - the wizard wants to roll history to see if he's heard about the noble who's just hired them, so everybody rolls just in case they have - after all, five heads are better than one, right? In the skill-challenge encounter, only the wizard player would roll that check, while everyone else, just sits there.
This. Very much so. Once players realize they're in a skill challenge, they break immersion and start thinking mechanically, because they have to.
I think the patch was poorly applied.
Note that there is little use in having easy/moderate/hard DCs if you are supposed to take DCs from higher levels.
"Cut the number of failures needed in half" does not make a lot of sense with the new errata though (where all failures are set to 3). I think the patch was poorly applied.
But we still have to figure out a way to work with it.
Note that there is little use in having easy/moderate/hard DCs if you are supposed to take DCs from higher levels.
There is also little use in having easy/moderate/hard DCs if you are never supposed to use the hard DCs. At the same time, if there is no increase in challenge level / XP award for using hard DCs vs. moderate DCs, then there is little use in having moderate DCs, because authors who think the moderate DCs are too low will always use the hard DCs. And surely it cannot be the case that a level 1 challenge with all DC 10 checks is assumed to be exactly the same level of difficulty as a level 1 challenge with all DC 15 checks. That's why I think they intended to leave the text in there about awarding +2 levels worth of XP for using the hard DCs instead of the moderate DCs. But that is just speculation on my part since I don't see any real way to tell from the combination of the errata and the current (deluxe) DMG text.
The worst part is that they deleted the only paragraph which stated that the default expectation was to use moderate DCs. If you read the text of the deluxe (post-errata) DMG it never actually says anywhere that you should use the moderate DCs as the starting point. But it still says that you should increase the level of the challenge if you use the hard DCs, and it still says that you should lower the level of the challenge if you use the easy DCs, so from that one can reasonably conclude that moderate DCs must be the default.
Well, it's unclear exactly what they did with the errata, if you compare the original DMG, the "Deluxe" DMG (which is supposed to include the errata) and the actual errata document.
You're right, the errata tells us to delete that entire paragraph, and the deluxe DMG does not do so. One or the other appears to be wrong.
Removing just the "example" paragraph seems incorrect since, if the paragraph the errata says to delete doesn't get deleted, the example paragraph is still completely true.
But I don't see a problem with the same DCs being repeated across level ranges; a skill challenge with DC 14 checks is an easy Level 8 challenge, but a challenge with DC 15 checks is a hard Level 4 challenge. I don't see that as being fundamentally any different from the notion that two encounters can have the same EL but represent a different level of combat challenge depending on the level of the PCs.
Sure, except I would expect that a hard 4th level standard creature should still be easier than the average 5th level standard creature. At the very least, if any (non-elite, non-solo) 4th level creature was tougher than the average 8th level creature, I'd say something was seriously wrong.
And, keep in mind that the DC 14 skill challenge is the average 8th level skill challenge, not an easy one.
If a level 2 skill challenge has DC 10 checks, and a level 5 skill challenge has DC 12 checks, then it makes no sense at all that a level 4 skill challenge has DC 15 checks.
If you want to disagree with the entire initial premise--that a challenge with DC 10 checks is appropriate for level 2--that's one thing (though, of course, the campaign is kind of stuck with the core rules) but once you start with that premise, authors being able to choose either a +3 level modification for a +2 DC bump or a +2 level modification for a +5 DC bump makes no sense.
Well, I'm not sure that I agree with the way the actual tables are set up (for example, if I were designing the system, I wouldn't use three-level ranges for the DCs, when PCs get to add +1/2 levels to their skill checks).
I've thought the same, but the more I contemplate it, I think it's more a feature than a bug.
Going from level 2 to 29, moderate DCs add +18. In the same timeframe, all PCs add +14 to their skill checks (+13 from level, +1 from paragon/epic stat bumps); PCs focusing on the stat the skill is based upon gain another +3 from stat bumps, so there's only a +1 left to make up with feat, item or other bonuses.
Or, to put it another way, DCs going up by 2 every 3 levels instead of 2 every 4 levels is a way of indicating that being average at a skill at epic level requires more than just being average at a skill at 1st level and getting older, you have to either get better with the relevant statistic or focus on that skill specifically.
However, the fact that PCs typically only get a +1 skill bump in two levels is something that campaign staff should keep in mind when looking at low-tier/high-tier skill challenges, as many seem to think that a PCs should be gaining a +2 bonus to their skills in that time frame, judging by the DC differences between low- and high-tier in many adventures.
You're right, the errata tells us to delete that entire paragraph, and the deluxe DMG does not do so. One or the other appears to be wrong. [...] Removing just the "example" paragraph seems incorrect since, if the paragraph the errata says to delete doesn't get deleted, the example paragraph is still completely true.
The more I look at it, the more I think that (at least) two people worked on the errata, and they didn't count the paragraphs the same way. If the person who turned over the initial errata just said "replace the sixth paragraph and delete the seventh paragraph" it is possible that the person who then wrote the errata document counted differently and added the "clarifying" text that the sixth paragraph starts with "[s]et a level [...]" so that it would be really obvious to the layout guy (doubtless a third person) exactly which text to replace/remove. But the first person might really have meant to replace the seventh paragraph and delete the eighth paragraph. (You could easily miscount the number of paragraphs depending on whether or not you consider the text underneath the "Skill Challenge Complexity" table as a separate paragraph.)
If you take the text of the errata, but ignore the part that tells you what the sixth paragraph starts with, and assume that the original writer really intended to refer to "the last two paragraphs of that section" but miscounted how many paragraphs there actually were, you would end up with this:
Replace the next-to-last paragraph of the section with the following text: "For an easier or a harder challenge, use DCs from the row that corresponds to a lower or a higher level, and assign the challenge’s level as the midpoint of that level range. For example, if designing an easier challenge for an 8th-level party, you could use the DCs from the "Level 4–6" row. That would adjust the challenge’s level to 5th."
Remove the last paragraph.
I realize that there are a lot of assumptions and what-ifs in everything I just said, but I think it makes a lot of sense and also fits with the somewhat chaotic nature of errata (one person writes the document, another person reviews the document, and a third person actually does the layout).
If you apply the "modified" errata I just proposed to the original text of the DMG, you would end up with the following text, which I suspect is what was actually intended to be the text of the deluxe DMG:
Set a level for the challenge and the DCs for the checks involved. As a starting point, set the level of the challenge to the level of the party, and use moderate DCs for the skill checks (see the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table on page 42).
For an easier or a harder challenge, use DCs from the row that corresponds to a lower or a higher level, and assign the challenge’s level as the midpoint of that level range. For example, if designing an easier challenge for an 8th-level party, you could use the DCs from the "Level 4–6" row. That would adjust the challenge’s level to 5th.
That makes the most sense from where I am sitting. (I just can't see why they would have deleted the paragraph telling you that you should choose a level for the challenge and start with the moderate DCs in the corresponding row. There's nothing controversial about that paragraph. It's the rest of the section where the real scaling problems occur.)
This would also remove some of the other inconsistencies with DCs / challenge levels / difficulty levels that you point out, as it would eliminate all ways of changing the level of a skill challenge other than picking a different row in the table. (However, it would leave no guidance as to whether or when to use easy or hard DCs instead of moderate DCs within the same row, or what the consequences of that choice should be from an XP standpoint.)
Unfortunately even if you buy into the hypothetical scenario I just proposed, it's still not clear how the first two sentences of the (original) next-to-last paragraph about decreasing the level by 1 for easy DCs and increasing the level by 2 for hard DCs survived the errata process; according to the errata, that entire paragraph was either supposed to be replaced or deleted, but what actually happened is that those two sentences survived and the rest of the paragraph disappeared. So it's possible that this is actually the intended final version:
Set a level for the challenge and the DCs for the checks involved. As a starting point, set the level of the challenge to the level of the party, and use moderate DCs for the skill checks (see the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table on page 42). If you use easy DCs, reduce the level of the challenge by one. If you use hard DCs, increase the level of the challenge by two.
For an easier or a harder challenge, use DCs from the row that corresponds to a lower or a higher level, and assign the challenge’s level as the midpoint of that level range. For example, if designing an easier challenge for an 8th-level party, you could use the DCs from the "Level 4–6" row. That would adjust the challenge’s level to 5th.
I'm not sure which, if either, of those hypothetical post-errata versions is better. As I said, I really hope the DMG2 sheds some additional light on this subject.
However, the fact that PCs typically only get a +1 skill bump in two levels is something that campaign staff should keep in mind when looking at low-tier/high-tier skill challenges, as many seem to think that a PCs should be gaining a +2 bonus to their skills in that time frame, judging by the DC differences between low- and high-tier in many adventures.
Well, you would see a +2 bump any time the low-tier/high-tier version of the skill challenge crosses rows in the table. For example, suppose that you wanted to write a skill challenge where the low tier is a level 3 challenge and the high tier is a level 5 challenge. According to the table, the moderate DC for a level 3 challenge is 10, and the moderate DC for a level 5 challenge is 12. (The easy DCs alternate +1 and +2 bumps in the table, but the moderate and hard DCs always increase by +2 per row.)
As an aside, I really hate it when players stop doing anything when they realize they're in a skill challenge. In a non-challenge RP encounter, typically you'll see questions flying - the wizard wants to roll history to see if he's heard about the noble who's just hired them, so everybody rolls just in case they have - after all, five heads are better than one, right? In the skill-challenge encounter, only the wizard player would roll that check, while everyone else, just sits there.
This is a failure on the part of the author, not the skill challenge system.
Taking an action during a skill challenge requires just that, an action. If you are not actively doing something which has the potential for a positive or negative reaction, then it should not count as a success or failure.
Rolling a History check to determine if you have heard of someone -> not a success or failure; not knowing just means you're standing around silent like the rest of the group, knowing might allow you to aid someone else's check, but simple knowledge in and of itself has no impact.
Rolling a History check in order to carry on a conversation in which you make references to someone's past exploits -> the conversation may go well or poorly, and you can't determine which until you're in the middle of it.
Rolling a History check in order to research someone in a library -> you may or may not find what you're looking for, but in either case, you've spent the time.
Yes, a large number of LFR skill challenges make this mistake, so the smart thing for a player to do is shut his mouth and only use skills he's practically guaranteed success on.
A few amusing examples of this, from CORM1-2:
CORM1-2, Gangs of Wheloon
An otherwise quite enjoyable module, but some of the skill challenges egregiously violated this principle, with some skills being actions and some being passive knowledge checks, e.g.:
Intimidate (DC 17/18): You terrify the gang into obedience.
History or Religion (DC 17/18): The “Lady” of the Lady’s Marauders refers to Mystra, an ancient goddess of magic. It is her statue that stands in the central square.
and
Streetwise (DC 15/16): You track down the friend of a friend of an uncle of one of your gang members who has seen Navish around.
Religion (DC 13/14): Wheat is a symbol of Chauntea, the Great Mother. Temples to Chauntea are sometimes known as Harvest Halls.
Intimidate (DC 17/18): You terrify the gang into obedience.
History or Religion (DC 17/18): The “Lady” of the Lady’s Marauders refers to Mystra, an ancient goddess of magic. It is her statue that stands in the central square.
and
Streetwise (DC 15/16): You track down the friend of a friend of an uncle of one of your gang members who has seen Navish around.
Religion (DC 13/14): Wheat is a symbol of Chauntea, the Great Mother. Temples to Chauntea are sometimes known as Harvest Halls.
Warning: Wall O' Text incoming....
I think one of the problems of Skill Challenges is that the designer's intent isn't clear enough. How often did the designers intend for the party to fail or succeed any given skill challenge?
When you go from a Complexity 1 to a Complexity 2, 3, ... Skill Challenge, how does that impact the party's chance of success?
When you use the Hard DCs instead of Medium, how does that impact the party's chance of success?
Some of this can be discovered by mathematical scrutiny, but (1) most people can't or won't do that, and (2) even if they can, we still don't know what the designers intended. The designers may have intended for the party to succeed on skill challenges 50% of the time... or 90% of the time... but maybe they screwed up the math. We don't know.
Of course, there will never be any agreement on how often the party should succeed on a skill challenge. Some people will want it to be close to 100% of the time; some people will want it to be, well, less than that.
Another weird thing about skill challenges, that separates them from combat: skill challenges don't (usually) use up any resources, but combat (almost) always uses up resources (in the form of Healing Surges and possibly Daily Powers) unless it is a total cakewalk. Oh sure, sometimes in a skill challenge someone will burn a Daily utility power, but that is not nearly as significant a resource as Healing Surges.
Now, some skill challenges do cost you surges when you fail individual checks or the entire challenge, which can be OK if it makes sense. The problem is that for a lot of challenges, this doesn't make any sense at all: you do a bad job deciphering the ancient map, so you lose a surge? Uh, what?
I can hear someone objecting that skill challenges use up the resource of time. Well, in most adventures, time is very nebulous. Whether you beat the skill challenge in one round or in 100 rounds doesn't matter; the only thing that matters is success or failure.
I think the fact that there is so much discussion and disagreement about skill chalenges is very telling. It indicates, to me, that the rules for skill challenges simply don't work.
Notice that you don't see discussion after discussion after discussion about "how does combat work?" That's because the rules for combat are well thought out, well defined, and for the most part the math works.
The rules for skill challenges were not well thought out, they are not well defined, and nobody knows if the math works or not because nobody knows what the designers were trying to accomplish.
The errata on how skill challenges work was issued in January 2009. I think we're a little past the point where authors should be using the new rules.
R&D made two significant changes to the DCs of skills in a skill challenge: the tables were changed to substantially reduce DCs, and DMs could no longer play games with the level by using hard DCs from lower levels.
IMO, they went to far in the opposite direction. Lowering the DCs was a good idea, but they should have kept the footnotes.
The idea should be to engage players into thinking how to apply their best skills to the situation.
As it is a level 1 character with an 8 attribute and no training or other bonuses would have a 50% chance of success (11+) with a moderate DC check. To me that seems to high for something that a character has neither any aptitude nor training in. I'd expect it to be about a 30% success rate for moderate checks and nearly impossible (5% or impossible) to do something that was hard.
As it is a level 1 character with an 8 attribute and no training or other bonuses would have a 50% chance of success (11+) with a moderate DC check. To me that seems to high for something that a character has neither any aptitude nor training in. I'd expect it to be about a 30% success rate for moderate checks and nearly impossible (5% or impossible) to do something that was hard.
I think it depends on the skill in question. I don't think there's anything wrong with someone with decent Charisma but untrained Diplomacy having a 50%+ chance to talk their way through one roll in a social skill challenge.
FWIW, I apply errata to the early modules and I tell my table I'm doing it; I also note that one reason for this is 'cause it allows untrained characters to participate in skill challenges without screwing life up for everyone else at the table. So far I've been pretty consistently seeing wider participation in skill challenges as a result -- again, looking at social skill challenges, it's nice when the gruff dwarf feels free to react as he wants to. Sometimes it's a failure, sometimes it's a success, but people don't stress about it as much.
I will also admit I'm pretty loose about rolls. Maybe this is bad DMing, and I'm open to criticism! If half the table rolls a skill and blurts out their results, I just key in on whoever spoke first or whoever actually described what their character was doing, though. I want skill challenges to feel more like the non-skill challenge roleplay described earlier in the thread. If the PCs are digging up some historical fact, why shouldn't they all get to roll? If it seems appropriate to count failures as failures -- that's cool too. Failing a skill challenge is not (or shouldn't be) the end of the world.
If you think about it, the mechanics encourage that: you need a success, and you are most likely to get it using your highest skill, so you need to convince your DM that your highest skill is applicable to the situation at hand, regardless of what that skill and situation are. In other words, based on SC mechanics, the best way to pass a SC is to fast talk your DM.
I wanted to go back to this original post on the subject of fast-talking. I really disagree with the wording here on two levels. First, it isn't what I see in play except with really new players. New players that fail to understand the system might think they can just choose a random skill and prove how it would fit, but it is likely that this would earn it a hard DC and may carry additional riders from the DM. Players, new or old, certainly can come up with an unusual skill, but they probably are better off using a skill they actually think applies.
Second, true 'fast-talking' is likely to be detected, which will be likely to get either a "No" from the DM or at least draw their scrutiny. It isn't a smart option, again, unless the party is so bad off-skill wise that they think cheating/bending the DM to their will is the answer.
A much better way to play is to just understand the system well but to have fun. If you want to try an off-the-wall skill, do it because it would be fun, and because your PC would do it. Be transparent with the DM. As a DM, be open to ideas, but assess their intent. If the reason is fun, reward creativity. If the reason is a lack of knowledge, explain. if the reason is an attempt to fast-talk, deny the request or make it hard, such as a hard DC or a 2-part check requiring two rolls. Explain before requiring the roll, allowing them to go the orthodox route instead.
Example:
"DM, my warlock is pretty big on intimidation. He's good at it, of course, but it is also what he likes to use. Could he use intimidation instead of arcana, going to various arcane stores and forcing the owners to tell him the answers he needs?"
DM then decides to allow it, using it as an opportunity for RP to take place and working to incorporate the other PCs as well, even tying some of the other parts of the skill challenge as a guard happens to walk into the last arcane shop.
Regardless of whether the DCs are moderate or hard, the 'ride the skill horse to victory' is still the best method of succeeding in any challenge, if the DM lets you. I have a warlock for example who is a complete Cha skill-monkey. At moderate DCs he can't fail when he uses one of six different skills (and he can't fail hard diplomacy checks). Bards can probably pimp their skills even harder than that. In that situation, is it any wonder that the party goes with the 'let the warlock do all the talking', both in character and out?
This is pretty much what we had in earlier editions too. When it comes to talking, you let the one that is skilled at talking talk. Logical!
Now, what we are seeing is that a good skill challenge incorporates more than one type of skill so you involve at least a couple and hopefully several PCs. Sure, the 'face' is needed for some diplomacy to gain their trust, but then they ask for proof that you are talented in arcana and that you are tough enough for the task.
But due to the preponderance of 'gather information by talking to people a lot' skill challenges in LFR, he's been the only one participating in several skill challenges I've played. Which is not a good thing.
IMO, they went to far in the opposite direction. Lowering the DCs was a good idea, but they should have kept the footnotes.
The easiest way to adjust the DC's should have been to axe the footnotes.
I allow other skills not on the list if the player can roleplay a good reason, then it's just at a higher DC.
The thing with skill challenges is they can't shouldn't cover all possible avenues that the players may take, otherwise it's a railroad. This causes problems for adventure writers, because they need to explain what is likely to happen to the plot.
Really all they need is the goal, possible outcomes besides pass/fail, possible setbacks, list of skills with possible uses/DC's and a disclaimer stating that the DM should use common sense in allowing other skills at higher DC's...
Wouldn't solve all the issues, but maybe some... ;)