D&D 4E Showing the Math: Proving that 4e’s Skill Challenge system is broken (math heavy)

[Ulthwithian]

Two: While I think most people in this thread are quite pro-4E, you must admit that there seems to be quite a contingent of people on these forums for which 'any stick will do'.

Something that seems to fall out of the math is the fact that the +5 DC makes the likelihood of succeeding in any challenge fairly remote. Therefore, I am going to try to track down what happens if you have, say, people with skills of +9, +7, +6, and +5 going into a skill challenge, and what's the chances of success.

Incidentally, the 8 cusp mark bears out the idea that Aiding Another was assumed to have a +2 bonus on the roll. As the above analysis states, if you have 4 people Aiding Another on each person's check, the expected result is a bonus of 5.2, which offsets the +5 DC and brings the 'DC 20' challenges down to the level of 'DC 15' challenges. This might shed some additional light on this admittedly murky topic.

 

[Uthred]

Double post

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

As the above analysis states, if you have 4 people Aiding Another on each person's check, the expected result is a bonus of 5.2, which offsets the +5 DC and brings the 'DC 20' challenges down to the level of 'DC 15' challenges. This might shed some additional light on this admittedly murky topic.

Assuming that every time a skill challenge comes up, all four party members Aid the fifth acting member, by rote, is really crappy design in its own right.

There is simply no way that that particular form of "optimal play" is baked into the system.

Yes, it's just that crappy. Too crappy for WotC by far. I'd rather beat them with the "bad math" stick at hand than beat them with the "godawful boring play style" stick you're offering.

 

[Nine Hands]

I think the +5 is only for singular skill checks, NOT for skill challenges. Does the math work if this is the case?

I'm in agreement with you. The DC for a skill *challenge* is listed on the chart. The additional +5 does seem to be for single skill checks.

It sort of makes sense if you look at it that way.

 

[Tervin]

I like that more complex skill challenges award a lot more XP. And I agree that they don't necessarily need to be a lot harder to succeed in order to award more XP. What I do feel is that it is important that good, creative players feel that they coming up with clever ideas is what tips the balance, and makes the complex skill challenge a success. Because if that happens, the players really have fun. If it ends up being too easy, or something that only works if you are really lucky - then the fun is lost.

For that reason it seems that the skill challenge system needs a very gentle hand from the DM, making sure that the difficulties are set just right - because when looking at the math it is clear that the window isn't that big, and cheating with the numbers in the middle of the encounter is not as easy as when a combat has turned bad.

The system as written can be used, but the instructions and examples are unfortunate, and I feel that the DM needs to check so that the players will end up needing 6-9 on their rolls, depending on how easy you want it to be, and how many special bonuses are likely to show up in play.

On another note, I wrote the following in the sister thread, but it seems needed to write it here as well:

I really, really like 4th Edition D&D. If I put all this effort into going on and on about the bad bits of a part of the new system, it is because I want it to be as good as it can be, instead of that smudge in the corner of that painting you love that you fight to ignore every time you look at it.

Also, I love the concept of skill challenges. There are other parts in the new D&D that I think are weaker points in the design, but I can simply ignore those because they are not part of what I want to do with the game. But because I love the concept of skill challenges I also want to be able to love them in play. And I am not able to do that if they seem like they are based on some unfortunate math, and come with bad instructions.

 

[bert1000]

Not at all. We all tried to come up with "creative" uses for the other skills the characters had (Intimidate - no, expressly forbidden by one of the skill challenges; Althletics, Acrobatics, Stealth, Perception - none really seemed terrribly applicable to any of the players - or at least they were unable to come up with any creative uses of the skills that weren't just stupid, given the circumstances).

Besides, as someone else pointed out, all of these secondary skills would have used the hard DC (25). Even with a +10 in a skill (unlikely at 1st level), that's effectively only a 1-in-4 chance of success. As I already stated, the rules made those players afraid to try, because it was much more likely to lead to failure than success...

I favor a loose version of the skill challenge, and would prob accept:

Player: "I try to use history to see if I know something useful about the prison's history -- like it's former uses, contruction, etc."
DM: "Ok, but this is not going to be easy." [Hard DC]
Player: rolls a success
DM: "You remember that this prison is incredibly old, and that it has has numerous repairs done on it over the years. Perhaps that discolored patch on the rear wall is not as solid as it originally looked..."
OR "This prison is known for its corrupt guards. Perhaps a well placed bribe may work..."

It's a give and take with the players. I'd rather have players come up with the interesting uses of the non-primary skills "I use intimidate to make sure the street folks don't tell the guards which path I went down", but at times I'll let a more general statement like above work with a Hard DC.

None of this solves the problem of the math, however, which I agree is whack. I'd like:

Primary skills - moderate DC -- high degree of success for a skilled player with primary attribute

"Unlocked skills" -- easy or moderate DC -- can only be used once per challenge -- high degree of success for a skilled player with primary attribute

Secondary skills -- if allowed by DM, Hard DC, can only be used once per challenge -- good degree of success for a skilled player with primary attribute and a better choice than aiding another. This is important to me, as I want to encourage a player to try to use their best skill (sometimes they'll be able to, sometimes not)

All skill rolls taken as a whole should lead to success about 70% of the time.

 

[abeattie]

DMG 4th edition, pg. 72, second column, fifth paragraph

"Level and complexity determine how hard the challenge is for your characters to overcome".

Considering complexity returns a greater reward than a difficulty increase (and further down that paragraph we see "Set the complexity based on how significant you want the encounter to be.") its clear that complexity is the main metric for difficulty in skill challenges.

I disagree with that interpretation. I don't think it jives with the surrounding text either.

I'm hesitant to quote too much text out fo the book -- but page 72, directly following the second quote you gave suggests that, indeed, complexity is about how many rolls you make -- and a specific reference is made to higher complexity yielding more xp as an encounter with more monsters.

Do two more monsters make a challenge more difficult? Sure.. but more than taking the same number of monsters and making them higher level? I don't think so.

Like in a combat challenge, ramping up the level boosts the DCs, or you can raise the level of the challenge by decreasing the number of allowable failures.

- - -

I think we've also reached the point where we have to agree to disagree because the text is there before us and we disagree on it's meaning. I'm sure we're get a WotC comment over on their boards eventually.

 

[Lurker37]

Something just occurred to me.

My books have yet to arrive, but the Skill Challenge excerpt had an example where intimidate was automatically a fail, no matter what you rolled. Is that still in?

I'm asking because none of the numbers I've seen so far have taken into account that there can be one or more auto-fails.

If there can still be counter productive actions in a skill challenge, then how does that affect the probabilities, and are there any notes about whether complex challenges are more likely to have these?

Turning to the continuing debate over DCs and player tactics, here's my opinion, for whatever it is worth:

I can't believe that skill challenges are meant to be failed more often than not. Players enjoy overcoming obstacles, not repeatedly falling to them. The DM telling them that failure isn't fatal to them isn't going to improve the mood at the gaming table. Repeated failure isn't what most players are looking for in a game. They want to achieve goals, not fall short of them. Certainly not on a regular basis.

So a system designed to make players fail under anything less than perfect conditions just doesn't make sense to me. It's not a rewarding gaming experience, and I am absolutely confident that WoTC know this.

If the problem is in the player tactics, then why is there no mention that players will generally need to aid another to succeed? And is aiding another really the answer? The additional skill challenge posted by WoTC for KoTS specifies that one or more party members will attempt it while the rest are otherwise engaged. If those DCs are assuming no aid another, then how are PCs meant to achieve them?

Come to think of it - that skill challenge has been roundly criticised in this very forum for being too damn hard - as in almost impossible for the characters engaging it. That being the case, is it really a shining example of a correctly-balanced skill challenge?

As I understand it, the current argument is that the +5 should be applied to the table of DCs, with the (undesirable for many) result that aid another is required to pass these challenges. It strikes me that this is exactly the opposite of every playtest that has been described to us. Add that we have at least one example where those DCs are intended to be achieved by a solo character, and I must conclude that aid another is not intended to be the norm. Indeed, it would be far more dynamic and exciting if each character attempted completely different actions, and that is what we all expected to be happening in skill challenges until we saw this table.

So many are using this to support their argument that the +5 should not be added, despite the web example appearing to use it. That, effectively, the web supplement is in error. Given the errors that have appeared in other excerpts, I cannot rule it out. I'm reluctant to write it off without hearing from the writer, however.

In fact, it seems to me that it all boils down to one question:

When is the +5 NOT added? I assume that WoTC did not subtract five from every number in a table just for giggles. If it does apply to both standalone skill checks and to skill challenges, what is left for it to apply to?

Until we know when exactly the +5 does not apply, we're all at risk of misinterpreting these rules. Those of you who already have the DMG (you lucky,lucky people) is there any text, anywhere at all, that clarifies which DCs the +5 does not apply to? Any examples in the rulebooks?

What we desperately need is some official statement to clarify this. We can't be the only ones confused by this.

 

[Delgar]

Forget the math. It's all about the scene. We're not playing a computer game here, were using it as a tool to help make cool scenes. If you need to up the failures or lower the DC's so that players aren't all aiding one player to beat the math, then do it. Or put them in situations where aiding one player just doesn't make sense. Besides the players don't know how many failures they can get or how many successes they need.

Whatever you do, take a page out of Hong's book and make it cool.

Below was an example skill challenge I typed out to show my players how the system could work.

The walls begin moving slowly together. Roll Initiative:

Dave: 10
Mike: 25 WOOT, I rock!
Jon: 12
Tim: 1

DM: Okay Mike what do you want to do the walls are closing in on you.
The door behind you slammed shut and is locked.

Mike: Alright I start looking for some sort of mechanism to try and shut this thing down.

DM: Okay go ahead and roll a perception check, it's going to be very hard.

Mike: Oh come on, I do this for a living! Roll Sweet 18+12 in perception is 30, that's got to be good enough.

DM: Nice, okay you spot a small imperfection on the right side of the door, because you succeeded at a hard check you can choose another skill to try and use, and you get a +2 bonus to it.

Mike: OH hell yah, I'll start working on the panel see if I can figure this thing out.

DM: Okay well if you want to start disarming it with Theivery it will be difficult, BUT if you want to try and use your insight to try and figure out how it's working it will make further Thievery rolls easier.

Mike: Okay I'll study the mechanism. Insight of 12+7=19 is that good enough.

DM: Yes, you figure out how the mechanism is working, any theivery attempts to disarm it now will be a normal check instead of a hard one.
Okay that's two successes for you guys so far. Jon your up.

Jon: Alright I'll use my Knowledge: Dungeoneering to see if I can give Mike any help with disarming this trap. Roll 1+8=9 crap I failed.

DM: Okay you've never seen or heard of anything quite like this before.
That's 2 successes and 1 failure. Dave your up the walls are still moving in on you.

Dave: Alright, I want to take a look at the mechanism and see if I can help figure it out. Is it possible for me to gamble on a difficult Insight, to give us some more information?

DM: Sure why not go ahead and roll

Dave: Alright woot 16+10=26. Is that good enough?

DM: Sure is, you can definitely tell Mike what levers are responsible for the walls moving. Okay because you succeeded at a hard check you get to try another skill at a +2 bonus.

Dave: Hmm, I think I'll just take another look around and make sure we didn't miss something, we don't want to be surprised by anything.
Perception 12+7=19.

DM: Taking another quick scan of the room, your pretty sure that you can see a trap door in the ceiling, perhaps another way out if all else fails. That's 4 successes and 1 fail. Your up Tim.

Tim: Well I'll try to use my brute strength to slow the progress of the wall to give us some more time. I'll use my athletics skill.

DM: Okay but that's definitely going to be difficult.

Tim: That's okay I'll try it. Roll 15+10=25

DM: That's just good enough to make it, you dig in and use all your might to slow the progress of the wall. Okay Mike back to you. You guys have 5 successes and 1 failure.

Mike: Well here goes nothing guys. I'll attempt to rig the levers to move the wall back into it's original position.

DM: Okay go for it.

Mike: Thievery roll 10+12=22. Good? Good?

DM: You manage to move the levers into the apporpriate position and the wall, comes to a stop and slowly moves back into it's original position.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Forget the math.

Hell, if the rules don't work, why not just forget them all?

It's all about the scene. We're not playing a computer game here, were using it as a tool to help make cool scenes.

You seem to be angling for a diceless game.