New 4e DM Suggestion: Skill Challenges

[Vortalism]

Hey Playgrounders!

First time caller, long time listener.

So I'm introducing some of my non-gaming buddies to my "mysterious pastime", Dungeons & Dragons. I was thinking of using 4th Edition to ease them into the process, since I was inducted via 3e and that was like jumping into a snake pit. So I just have a question about Skill Challenges (since I'm fairly familiar with the rest of it, it's surprisingly simple) and assigning XP rewards.

Do I need to use them? Or can I just sort of "wing it" like I usually do with my old 3.5 group. As in I just sort of "do it" (which has always worked in the past for me) or is the system not supportive of me just cutting out stuff that I don't need?

Thanks in Advanced.

[Kurald Galain]

Do I need to use them?

No, you don't. In fact, they're one of the more controversial game elements in 4E, and quite a number of DMs don't want to use them (or in some cases, use the same skill encounters as in every other RPG and just call it a SC). Don't worry about it, the game plays fine without them.

[tcrudisi]

Basically, they are a game mechanic to give non-combat xp to the players for accomplishing goals through skill use.

[Ashdate]

I like skill challenges (the Rules Compendium version at least; the DMG one is severely lacking), but no, they're not necessary.

Before discarding them completely, I would try the Rules Compendium version (or an alternative, like the Obsidian Skill Challenge system that you should be able to google online) and see how you/the group likes them. Don't worry about using them in the very first session; it's something new you can try in the 2nd or 3rd session. If it clicks, great! If not, well, no real harm done.

[neonchameleon]

Do I need to use them?

Not in the slightest. They are a useful toolkit for when the party comes up with "A-Team style plans"* to borrow a phrase. But if you're not sure you want to use them, don't.

* Plans that involve multiple moving parts that the DM couldn't have prepared for, and that can be brought back on track by improvising if there are a couple of screw-ups along the way.

[Tegu8788]

In my experience, winging it is the perfect time for skill challenge. One way to think about it, is that they use their skills instead of their powers to defeat the counter. When they talk, out run, or disable the fight, they've beaten it nonetheless. I find it useful to reduce murder hobo behavior.

[Dimers]

I would implore you to encourage and reward skill USE, but skill CHALLENGES aren't a needed part of the game and can be awkward to apply, even some of the improved variants.

[Vortalism]

Thanks for the advice.

I was asking mostly because I just couldn't understand why the game needed this mechanic in the first place, it seemed fine without it. Skill checks and random dialogue could've easily done what Skill Challenges could've accomplished.

[Kurald Galain]

I was asking mostly because I just couldn't understand why the game needed this mechanic in the first place,

That's a tough one :)

I believe the mechanic was created based on the notion that every character must always participate in everything (indeed, the original print of the SC rules mandates this; later errata has rescinded this) and based on that it's just not fair if your teammates' actions can invalidate yours (indeed, the original print of the SC rules makes this impossible). But to find out for certain, you'd have to dig up the prerelease documents for 4E, and filter for marketing hype.

At any rate, WOTC's design team has since gone on public record stating that SCs should "die in a fire". I told you it was controversial :smallbiggrin:

[Tegu8788]

I'd go roughly by the rule of three. If three players are making skill rolls, it's a challenge.

[INDYSTAR188]

Can I piggy-back off OP's original question with a follow-up? How do you handle it when you are in a situation and a PC or you, the DM, mention a skill and everyone else is like, "Oh, Arcana? Pssh, I got that too! 24!" Or even worse... "We need to get through this door! I have thievery so I'll pick the lock." Then, another player, "Wait, I have a ritual for literally every possible situation! Let me take 10 minutes to an hour to cast that..."

Basically, how do you deal with multiple players all wanting to roll for something?


*Edited to fix my grammar.

[Ashdate]

I was asking mostly because I just couldn't understand why the game needed this mechanic in the first place, it seemed fine without it. Skill checks and random dialogue could've easily done what Skill Challenges could've accomplished.

I think the idea originally came from this concept that in 4e, it shouldn't be about individual characters, it should be about working as a team. This can be seen in how each class has been given a "primary" role to play (i.e. striker, defender, leader, etc.), but also in the very mechanics of the game, where individual monsters are (generally) too strong for a single PC to take out single-handedly with ease. Thus the controllers and defenders play crowd control, while the strikers whittle the enemy down, while the leader keeps everyone healthy and positioned well.

The point of skill challenges is not to substitute singular rolls with a complex system that requires multiple rolls to succeed. The point is to allow player characters as a team to solve complex problems.

For example:


the players are trying to track down a man in the Sigil who they believe has a portal key to the "Isle of Black Trees". Rather than letting the rogue with the good Diplomacy and Streetwise check find him while the rest sit back and drink some brewskies at Quake's Place, the PCs are encouraged to help track this berk down together. They know he's likely a barmy (crazy) and was last seen under the care of the Bleak Cabal faction.

The DM decides which skills he thinks are primary to finding a person: he figures diplomacy, intimidate, streetwise make the most sense, and adds Insight, figuring that trying to understand the mind of a mad man might help the PCs. Next he adds some secondary skills; knowing about the Bleak Cabal he figures would be a history check, pretending to be a Chaosmen to hear some of the "chant" would be a bluff check, breaking into a Harmonium hold with information they have about the Hive Barmies would be a Thievery check, while a Heal check might allow them to help patch up a Hiver who got injured and has been brought into the care of the Bleak Cabal , to see what they know.

If the PCs succeed on the skill challenge, the find the Barmy right before a shadowy group with a sinister plan for Hive Barmies get to him, potentially allowing them to protect the man and get some information out of him. If they fail, they arrive too late; the barmy has been killed (actually under the effects of a Feign Death ritual, but the PCs won't likely be aware of that), and their forced to fight in a disadvantageous position.

Now, the rules you use to simulate the above have gone through a few revisions; like I said earlier, I wouldn't use the DMG skill challenge rules as printed. The Rules Compendium ones work well however, and failing having access to them, you can probably find some fixes online fairly easily.

Again, are they necessary? No, but they can provide some structure for new DMs, and offer some out-of-combat XP to boot. I would also point out that 4e is not the only ones to do this; Spirit of the Century has something similar as well. It won't be to everyone's taste, but I'd rather have them in 4e than without.


Basically, how do you deal with multiple players all wanting to roll for something?

Two ways:

1) Use the Rules Compendium suggestions, which limit the use of any one primary skill to the complexity of the challenge (i.e. if the complexity is a 2, then allow only a primary skill to be used twice).

2) Allow it! It's maybe a bit boring, but if you designed a skill challenge where using Arcana is important, don't blame the three players with a pumped up Arcana check from wanting to search for magical clues!

(allowing rituals would depend on the timed nature of the challenge, if any. I would err on allowing the players to use the tools they have; if they've got a ritual for the situation and there's no reason why they can't spend the time to use it, why deny them the opportunity to do so?)

[Vortalism]

Basically, how do you deal with multiple players all wanting to roll for something?


I let whoever has the most applicable or the roll which would probably give the highest chance of success. This may just be something that I picked up from another system, but I allow players to make backup rolls to support other players in their endeavours or assist them. This is usually more useful if no one else chose a particular skill and one of the players just happens to have it. Unfortunately, my experience has been that the players hardly come up with any interesting strategy for situations and challenges, they're more of the "straight forward" kind of people. :smallsigh:

But I see what you mean. Ultimately I just thought that the whole idea of a skill challenge was a given, since we have a skill system to begin with. It's a bit redundant.

[Telok]

The DM decides which skills he thinks are primary to finding a person: he figures diplomacy, intimidate, streetwise make the most sense, and adds Insight, figuring that trying to understand the mind of a mad man might help the PCs. Next he adds some secondary skills; knowing about the Bleak Cabal he figures would be a history check, pretending to be a Chaosmen to hear some of the "chant" would be a bluff check, breaking into a Harmonium hold with information they have about the Hive Barmies would be a Thievery check, while a Heal check might allow them to help patch up a Hiver who got injured and has been brought into the care of the Bleak Cabal , to see what they know.

The two main failings of the 4e skill challenge systems are the characters and the failure method. What I didn't see (back when I did play 4e) in the DMG was mention of the fact that you must tailor your skill challenge to the group. If your party lacks diplomacy and the only intimidator is the 8 Chr warrior you need to take this into account. The failure method can become an issue in this sort of a chellenge as well. If one person fails the History check to remember a historical detail it penalizes the team, likewise someone failing to Heal a stranger hurts your team as well. You can come up with reasons for the penalty after the fact, but that will sound like an excuse.

These issues will come up again and again in skill challenges. First the challenge must be tailored to the party, at least 3/4 of the party must be able to contribute to primary skill successes on rolls of 11+. Failure here may well result in half your players popping on their smart phones and losing track of what's going on. Second, the individual failures of characters that are not connected to the team effort or would not normally and rationally reflect or influence the team effort should not penalize it. For example, if you are doing a chase scene challenge and one person splits off from the group to take a short-cut and then fails his Streetwise check and gets lost, his solo failure should not penalize the group's further efforts.

Now my group didn't didn't play 4e long enough for the last couple iterations of skill challenges to get out. But these were the primary reasons we didn't use the skill challenge system persented. We went back to other, much older, roleplaying books and cribbed some extended contest guidelines from there.

[tcrudisi]

I let whoever has the most applicable or the roll which would probably give the highest chance of success. This may just be something that I picked up from another system, but I allow players to make backup rolls to support other players in their endeavours or assist them. This is usually more useful if no one else chose a particular skill and one of the players just happens to have it. Unfortunately, my experience has been that the players hardly come up with any interesting strategy for situations and challenges, they're more of the "straight forward" kind of people. :smallsigh:

But I see what you mean. Ultimately I just thought that the whole idea of a skill challenge was a given, since we have a skill system to begin with. It's a bit redundant.

It's not redundant. Don't look at a skill check and a skill challenge the same way.

The skill check is simply when you need 1 or 2 rolls to complete something.

The skill challenge is when the players are attempting to do something that is encounter-level (even if it doesn't have monsters) using only skill checks. It allows you to weave multiple skill checks into a mini-story and finish by rewarding them xp. So what's the definition of "encounter-level"? That's up to you. Maybe it's sneaking into a castle to interrogate their only "ally" (enemy of their enemy) in there while the guards are on high-alert. That would cover multiple roles (Perception, Stealth, Acrobatics, Athletics, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and maybe a few others) and allow you to weave the story as the skill challenge progresses.

It is VERY difficult to get it right without the players feeling like "Oh, gee, we're in another skill challenge. Let's just all roll and get it over with." That's why so many people hate it. But if you can get it right and make it feel like more of an interactive story, it's an amazing tool in the DM's kit. It just takes a while to master as even WotC couldn't figure out what to do with them early on.

[neonchameleon]

Thanks for the advice.

I was asking mostly because I just couldn't understand why the game needed this mechanic in the first place, it seemed fine without it. Skill checks and random dialogue could've easily done what Skill Challenges could've accomplished.

A skill check is a single challenging action. A skill challenge is a framing tool for an entire scene. To use two of the more memorable skill challenges I've run, one was "Disguising the young dragon that had just switched sides as a plague cart and taking it across the city to the safe house" and "Three of the PCs disguising themselves as minions of Blibbloppool, God of Troglodytes as a distraction while the ranger sneaked in the back".

These were both plans that I couldn't have forseen (the wyrmling only turned thanks to a couple of natural 20s in exactly the right places), using objects and scenery that were logically there within the game but not established and where I was trying to keep up with the players' slightly insane plan. Each was handled almost effortlessly as a skill challenge - and the first was my third ever session DMing 4e and about my sixth session DMing, total.

[Kurald Galain]

It is VERY difficult to get it right without the players feeling like "Oh, gee, we're in another skill challenge. Let's just all roll and get it over with." That's why so many people hate it. But if you can get it right and make it feel like more of an interactive story, it's an amazing tool in the DM's kit. It just takes a while to master as even WotC couldn't figure out what to do with them early on.
I'm really not seeing the point here. If you do an SC wrong (which can be as easy as "having a single player notice that it is one"), it becomes "Let's just all roll and get it over with." And if you do it right, the only benefit it has over a regular skill encounter is that it has a given XP value if you eyeball the amount of successes required. In any other system, you simply eyeball the amount of XP given, and you get the same result without the danger of your players making decisions based on the fact that they're in an SC.

[Dimers]

It is VERY difficult to get it right without the players feeling like "Oh, gee, we're in another skill challenge. Let's just all roll and get it over with."

Hm! That hasn't been a problem for the groups I'm in. I've gotten plenty of blatant skill challenges and I just say "Yay, now I get to be inventive and use something other than combat stats!"

[obryn]

Yeah, the skill challenge rules in the Rules Compendium are neither "controversial" nor burdensome. 4e's improved considerably since its initial release, and this is one area they finally nailed down.

Don't worry if your players notice it's a skill challenge. It's really not a big deal.

While the rules work great in general, my personal favorite ways to use them are in the following situations...

(1) Travel through hazardous terrain. In this case, I use the "group skill challenge" option where everyone's rolling on the same skill and it's a "pass" if at least half the party succeeds. Other skills can be used in addition, there can be individual penalties for failure, etc. For example, I've used this for a walk across the silt "reef" off the coast of Giustenal and (more recently) travel through the Forest Ridge.

(2) As a sub-goal of a larger encounter. Say, disarming wards in the middle of a fight.

In both cases, the framework, established DCs, known challenge levels, etc. help out a great deal. I'm not a huge fan of standalone skill challenges for stuff like diplomacy, but that's more a playstyle preference than any glaring flaw in the rules.

Some folks just can't get past 2008's poorly implemented skill challenges. That's not where the game is now, though.

-O

[Hal]

Can I piggy-back off OP's original question with a follow-up? How do you handle it when you are in a situation and a PC or you, the DM, mention a skill and everyone else is like, "Oh, Arcana? Pssh, I got that too! 24!" Or even worse... "We need to get through this door! I have thievery so I'll pick the lock." Then, another player, "Wait, I have a ritual for literally every possible situation! Let me take 10 minutes to an hour to cast that..."

Basically, how do you deal with multiple players all wanting to roll for something?


At my table, the first player to ask about something will get a "Roll [skill] to see if you know it." Why? Because he asked. If a second player chimes in, he can roll to assist the first player. Having everyone roll a knowledge check until one person succeeds means you should have just given them the success in the first place without asking for rolls.

As for rituals, making a place for them at the table is the responsibility of both the GM and the players (and a discussion unto itself, beyond the topic of this thread.) Suffice it to say that, in general, a situation where a ritual will replicate an action done by a skill check, the ritual has a higher (or guaranteed) chance of success over a skill check. (I'm assuming you're imagining Knock vs. Thievery.)


Hm! That hasn't been a problem for the groups I'm in. I've gotten plenty of blatant skill challenges and I just say "Yay, now I get to be inventive and use something other than combat stats!"

In the games I've played where Skill Challenges were used, "inventive" is certainly the appropriate word, in the sense that players used whatever obscure reasoning they could devise to use their 3-5 trained skills for the challenge, related or not. (I'm not excluding myself from the category of BS-artist, mind you.)

[obryn]

Suffice it to say that, in general, a situation where a ritual will replicate an action done by a skill check, the ritual has a higher (or guaranteed) chance of success over a skill check. (I'm assuming you're imagining Knock vs. Thievery.)
While there's costs to rituals, low-level ritual costs can become trivial at higher levels. As a general rule, though, classes in 4e aren't defined by their skill load, and there's no intended skill-based niche protection anywhere in the system, fortunately.


In the games I've played where Skill Challenges were used, "inventive" is certainly the appropriate word, in the sense that players used whatever obscure reasoning they could devise to use their 3-5 trained skills for the challenge, related or not. (I'm not excluding myself from the category of BS-artist, mind you.)
Under the RC rules, there's some restrictions in play on this. First off, the DM can outright veto, but I usually prefer not to unless it's just silly. After all, that's one way to increase participation across the table and avoid the "one guy rolls every check" problem.

Even in the case where a non-standard skill is allowed, the Hard DC is suggested and it's a maximum one-time use. So Gutboy Barrelhouse may indeed get to use his killer Athletics check to try and knock down a magical barrier (assuming he can give a convincing rationale) but he can't knock down the whole barrier like this.

-O

[Kurald Galain]

How do you handle it when you are in a situation and a PC or you, the DM, mention a skill and everyone else is like, "Oh, Arcana? Pssh, I got that too! 24!"
In terms of knowledge or perception checks, I either don't let anyone roll and simply tell the player with the highest score what he knows or notices (I have a cheat sheet for that, of course); or I simply ask everyone to roll at the same time, and say "everybody who had <value> or more has spotted the trap".

In terms of physical tasks, characters can try one by one, with the note that all of it costs time (and failures may have consequences). It is obvious that for a task that everybody is likely to try, you may have to raise the DC if you want the outcome to be uncertain. Note that I never do "plot lock" skill checks, i.e. a place where the PCs must succeed at a certain check for the plot to proceed.
Also note that I don't generally allow players to retry a skill until they get it right. Just get creative and try something else already.


Or even worse... "We need to get through this door! I have thievery so I'll pick the lock." Then, another player, "Wait, I have a ritual for literally every possible situation! Let me take 10 minutes to an hour to cast that...".
I would handle this in character. I simply make a quick round past each of the characters and ask each what they're going to do. In this case, the likely result is that the wizard starts casting, then the rogue picks the lock in two or three rounds, then I tell the wizard he can stop casting now. Because let's face it, every character has their chance to shine, but in the case of lockpicking-skill-vs-knock-ritual it's clearly the rogue that wins.



In the games I've played where Skill Challenges were used, "inventive" is certainly the appropriate word, in the sense that players used whatever obscure reasoning they could devise to use their 3-5 trained skills for the challenge, related or not.
Yes. To any mathematically-inclined player, it is obvious that doing so is the best way to win a SC, so players have a strong incentive to try this.

[Tegu8788]

I recently played in one challenge, because I had expressed an interest in a purely roleplay fight. The goal was to entertain the crowd, with the rules that you couldn't use the same skill as the previous player, nor use the same one twice. The DC was relatively low, and several of my skills would give me an automatic win.


And where is the fun in that? Perhaps I'm one of the weird people that wants to play the game instead of beat it. As the party face, I used Nature to have my Owlbear to give the +7 level Swordmage a big hug. Great fun.

[Kurald Galain]

And where is the fun in that? Perhaps I'm one of the weird people that wants to play the game instead of beat it.
At least in my area, most players who want to "just play" find that they highly mechanical nature of SCs gets in the way of that. After all, the rules explicitly spell out that the scene continues not when you play it out (as happens in basically every other RPG on the market), but when you score X successes.

So players who want to "just play" have a strong incentive to get the SC out of the way so they can get back to actual roleplaying.

[Dimers]

I like the idea of the party using skills until a task is done or they've totally blown their chances in an in-character way, whether that's two attempts or twenty. And I feel experience should be granted based on the importance and difficulty of the task, not some flat level-based number. I can certainly understand some players not being willing to trust their DM's judgement and preferring that she stick to some kind of published rules instead ... I just wouldn't happen to play in a group like that. Sadly, I mostly get DMs that want to use only published material and not "wing it" when it comes to success in skill scenarios, statted monsters, homebrew feats, et cetera ...

Shout-outs to Meltheim for being one of the more flexible people I've ever played with! Wooooooo! :smallcool:

[Hal]

Sadly, I mostly get DMs that want to use only published material and not "wing it" when it comes to success in skill scenarios, statted monsters, homebrew feats, et cetera ...


Oh, I completely understand that impulse. Generating your own campaign is difficult; reading box text is easy. If your players don't like something, you can always cop out with, "Don't blame me, that's what the adventure text says. I didn't design it!"

[Vortalism]

It's not redundant. Don't look at a skill check and a skill challenge the same way.

The skill check is simply when you need 1 or 2 rolls to complete something.

The skill challenge is when the players are attempting to do something that is encounter-level (even if it doesn't have monsters) using only skill checks. It allows you to weave multiple skill checks into a mini-story and finish by rewarding them xp. So what's the definition of "encounter-level"? That's up to you. Maybe it's sneaking into a castle to interrogate their only "ally" (enemy of their enemy) in there while the guards are on high-alert. That would cover multiple roles (Perception, Stealth, Acrobatics, Athletics, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and maybe a few others) and allow you to weave the story as the skill challenge progresses.

It is VERY difficult to get it right without the players feeling like "Oh, gee, we're in another skill challenge. Let's just all roll and get it over with." That's why so many people hate it. But if you can get it right and make it feel like more of an interactive story, it's an amazing tool in the DM's kit. It just takes a while to master as even WotC couldn't figure out what to do with them early on.

Thank you for the clarification. I may try and give a swing in the upcoming sessions.

[Yakk]

Skill Challenges:

1) There must be a consequence to failure that makes sense in-world. Time pressure is a classic one, or traps that attack back.

2) There should be a reason why more than 1 person trying is a good thing. If the best way to solve something is to stick a single rogue on it and wait for them to succeed, it isn't a skill challenge.

3) The scale of how much a single skill check "can accomplish" depends on the skill challenge. If you are trying to do something in 10 minutes, 10 hours, or 10 weeks, the scale of the activity you cover with the check varies. Usually doing things quickly is harder, but that can be reflected with higher DCs and/or a more complex challenge.

4) Doing nothing should be almost as bad as failing. If the best move for the fighter is to "sit it out and let the experts handle it", maybe rule #2 applies.

You can and probably should map failures and successes into in-game fiction, and not success/failure counts. When you plan a skill challenge, have some intermediate states and complications that can develop. You'll need enough of these to be able to describe distinct states for each player success -- a 11 success/3 failure skill challenge needs at least 15 distinct sub-states that the attempted solution can get into, and possibly more like 30+. You can improvise this, but be careful you don't say "ok, that was a success point. Does anyone else want to do something?", or "that was a failure -- fail 2 more times and you lose the challenge".

5) Use the revised DCs, not the ones in DMG1. They rejiggered the math to make it work better.

[Telok]

To expand on Yakk's excellent summary I was once in a skill challenge that violated all those points (well, not number 5, but that's because we can do basic math and the DM chose his own skill DCs).

A six person party needed to sneak into a castle that was situated within a city, it was a 3 success over 2 failures challenge. The druid immedately turned into a bird (daily power) and flew over the wall, he then turned into a dog and hid in the kennels while waiting for the others to arrive. The fighter sat the challenge out, he had Athletics, Endurance, and Heal trained with his Str and Con being his only stats over 12 (Charisma was an 8). The ranger and cleric rented a small warehouse and started a plan involving a wagon of imported rugs, some prostitutes, and a burning hay-cart. It was a good plan and they would get the fighter in too. While they were gathering their props the wizard went to a library to check for maps of the city sewers to see if there was a way in from underneath, he failed a History check. The rogue snuck around to the back wall of the castle and tried to climb it. His bonuses to stealth were higher than the guards passive Perception but he failed an Athletics check to climb the wall.

With those two failures the challenge was lost. The DM had to come up with an ex post facto reason for it because nobody knew what we were up to. A bird had flown over the castle, an adventurer had failed to find a map of the sewers, nobody had witnessed the rogues failure to climb a wall, and the other three had bought a hay-cart, a wagon, and three mules. The scripted penalty for failure was a raid by the guards followed by descriptions of us and a reward for information leading to our arrest.

[Epinephrine]

Basically, how do you deal with multiple players all wanting to roll for something?

We modified the "aid other" for skill checks to also include penalties if the people helping you are significantly worse at it. I got tired of people rolling to give a +2 bonus with untrained/crappy skills, so if you can't get within 5 of the skill check you actually hamper the person making the check. Too many cooks spoil the broth.

[Yakk]

Aid Another was revised. Aid Another is a DC of (10+1/2 helper's level), with a +2 on success and -1 penalty if you fail.

I'd be tempted to change it to a +10 bonus to your Aid Another check against the same DC as the main check, with a +2 bonus on success and -1 on failure.

[Kurald Galain]

Aid Another was revised. Aid Another is a DC of (10+1/2 helper's level), with a +2 on success and -1 penalty if you fail.

The thing is that by any 4E math I've seen so far, Aid Another is clearly less effective than simply making your own skill check. Whenever the DM explains "if you roll skill X, the next player will get a +2 bonus", most players I know respond with "oh never mind, I'll do something else".

[Epinephrine]

The thing is that by any 4E math I've seen so far, Aid Another is clearly less effective than simply making your own skill check. Whenever the DM explains "if you roll skill X, the next player will get a +2 bonus", most players I know respond with "oh never mind, I'll do something else".

You really need a failure penalty to make it worth doing; if you have a limited number of failures that are allowed you aren't better off letting everyone roll, and if Aid Another has a penalty for not making the DC (glad to see it was updated, that's what we went with as well - +2 on a success, -1 on a failure) it's not optimal necessarily to have the guy with a +2 modifier roll in case he can get an 18+ on his roll.

Skills used with time limits and/or penalties for failure are about the only time when you really force people's hand on skills.


I'd be tempted to change it to a +10 bonus to your Aid Another check against the same DC as the main check, with a +2 bonus on success and -1 on failure.

That's sorta what we were going for; we are checking the base DC for Aid Another but also getting within 5 of the DC (so a +5 bonus essentially, making up for training or a solid attribute), with +2 for making it or -1 for failing.

[obryn]

The thing is that by any 4E math I've seen so far, Aid Another is clearly less effective than simply making your own skill check. Whenever the DM explains "if you roll skill X, the next player will get a +2 bonus", most players I know respond with "oh never mind, I'll do something else".
...Unless you only get one shot as a group and there's a cost or consequence for failure. If you anger the Duke with your failed Intimidate, a second Intimidate isn't necessarily going to help.

Aid Another is either situational, or called for by the circumstances. (Say, everyone's trying to lift a heavy rock together.)

-O

[Kurald Galain]

You really need a failure penalty to make it worth doing; if you have a limited number of failures that are allowed you aren't better off letting everyone roll, and if Aid Another has a penalty for not making the DC (glad to see it was updated, that's what we went with as well - +2 on a success, -1 on a failure) it's not optimal necessarily to have the guy with a +2 modifier roll in case he can get an 18+ on his roll.

Actually those two parts are contradictory. Because a character needs to be reasonably skilled in order to assist, he is generally better off making his own check. This is because the standard strategy is "roll successes fast", and an acting character simply has better odds doing so than an assisting character.

[Yakk]

In a skill challenge, the proper strategy is "maximize success:failure ratio".

Aid another is effectively an exploit, because it boosts the chance of success without generating any chance of a failure.

Only in situations where "doing nothing is almost as bad as failing" is aid another at all questionable (ie, time pressure, challenge that attacks back, etc).

Even the "get a +2 if you win, and a -1 if you miss by more than 5" is better than making a skill check. If you have an X% chance of succeeding, the success:fail ratio is (X)/(1-X) of making a check.

The success:fail ratio for an aid another is X*(+10% to success) / (1.25-X)*(-5% to failure) for the next player.

Suppose bob has a 50-50 chance at success, as does alice.

If alice aids another there is a 50% chance the situation changes to 60-40, a 25% chance the situation is unchanged, and a 25% chance the situation changes to 45-55.

0.5375:0.4625, which is better than 50:50.

At 25% chance of success for both, it becomes 25% 35/65, 25% 25/75, 50% 20/80. The end chance of success remains unchanged (25/75).

If bob's chance is 75, while alice's is 50, we get 50% * 85% + 25% * 75% + 25% * 70% = 78.75%, a ratio boost on Bob, and definitely better than both Alice and Bob trying.

Add in time pressure, and aid another becomes much more desperate.

Hence the +10 thing.

Aid another is only useful when doing nothing is harmless, and failure is punishing. A +10 to the check makes it somewhat useful when doing nothing is mildly punishing as well: you are giving up an action to aid someone, and unless your actions are worthless, it should have some advantage.

This works well in combat as well -- one soldier can aid another solider at attacking, but only if they can get within 10 of the target's AC. You could even let this recurse, where one soldier can aid another soldier's aid another and get +20 bonus.

So 100 level 1 archers (+5 vs AC, 4 damage) attacking a level 32 dragon (48 AC) could do a 3-deep aid another.

Aid Aid Aid gives +35 total, hitting on a 13+. Every 2.5 archers grants a +2 to the Aid Aid archers.

Every 2.5 aid aid archers with a +10 bonus grants a +2 to the Aid archers.

Every 2.5 aid archers with a +10 bonus grants a +2 to the Archers.

Every 2.5 archers hit once.

So 2.5 archers hit once, each aided by 2.5 aid archers. 6.25 aid archers.
Each of the 6.25 aid archers is aided by 2.5 aid aid archers. 15.625 aid aid archers.
Each of the 15.625 aid aid archers is aided by 2.5 aid aid aid archers. 39.0625 aid aid aid archers.

So every 63.4375 archers (call it 64), you get 1 hit on the level 32 dragon. The level 32 dragon has about 280*4 HP, so it takes 280 hits to down the dragon.

So it takes ~17920 archers to kill a level 32 dragon in one volley, or ~4480 in 4 rounds.

The XP value of a minion level 1 archer is 25 XP, so 112000 XP worth of archers can drop a level 32 dragon in 4 rounds. A level 32 dragon is worth about 150,000 XP (give or take, I don't have the numbers right here).

That's pretty close. :)

(And yes, I would not model it this way -- but doing a ridiculous corner case modeling and checking that it works is a fun sanity check).

... bah, I neglected the -1 penalty from failed checks. So it would actually be steeper. But level 1 archers should have more than a +5 bonus vs AC I think, so maybe it would work out. ;)

[Kurald Galain]

I see the issue here. What I've frequently seen in SCs is that characters cannot "aid another" but they can use a "secondary skill" (generally a different skill than the one being aided). Using a secondary skill successfully gives another character +2 to his next check; but failing one does count as a failure. Clearly that is not a good deal.

Otherwise, given no time pressure, it is indeed the case that having the best character roll everything and having everybody else assist him gives the greatest chance of completing the SC successfully. Probably not what the designers intended, but there you go.

The thing with time pressure, though, is that if e.g. the SC damages the party at the end of each round, then two characters making their own checks will get the task completed faster than one character and one assistant. The same applies in combat; two characters attacking will do more average damage than one attacker and one assistant (in both cases, assuming level-appropriate threats).

[Alejandro]

Are you familiar with the skill challenge rules in Star Wars Saga Edition's system? They incorporate a lot more things that can go wrong or right.

[allonym]

One point in favour of skill challenges which is relevant to the OP being a new DM is that I have found them to be a good first step.

When I first started running 4e, despite being an otherwise experienced GM, I included some skill challenges, both to get a feel for the system, and because most of my players had little-to-no roleplaying experience. They just wanted to bash monsters in a glorified board game, which is fair enough. By providing them with a simple framework which allowed them to use their skills, and encouraged creativity in approach, I got them thinking in character and more invested in narrative ideas.

In essence, things that, to experienced players, are problematic (such as the very valid complaint that a basic skill challenge can become a game of "justify shoehorning in my highest skill modifier") can be very useful for new players, as working out why they could use intimidate in a chase scene can be a very useful first step in roleplaying.

The same sort of thinking is there for DMs. An experienced DM might roll their eyes, improvise like a champ and react fluidly to player actions, but a newer DM will be more comfortable knowing there's a solid, rules-based framework backing them up, since a stilted and slightly artificial non-combat roleplaying encounter is by far preferable to a shambles.

Indeed, the various fixes for, modifications to and moves away from the skill challenge system suggested in the thread are indicative of their usefulness as a DMing 101 tool. Once you, or your players, feel more comfortable with the basics, you can adapt them to create a deeper narrative.

My advice, therefore, would be to stick with the (errata'd) skill challenge rules to begin with, then consider the ideas proposed in this thread once you've got a handle on the basics, rather than feeling you need to incorporate ideas which, while valid, may simply be too wide a departure to be easily understood from the get go.

This is of course not to say that, if you feel confident playing around and using what'd been posted, you shouldn't go for it; nothing here is intended to be patronising.