Challenge: Correct swingy

[Fwiffo86]

Correct swingy:

Rules.

1 - Must use some method for randomly determining chance of failure.

2 - Must scale with character level
2a - Scaling must NEVER produce 100% effectiveness
2b - Scaling must ALWAYS provide a challenge

3 - Must be extremely easy to understand.

4 - Does not require Multiplication/Division or Subtraction.

READY, SET, GO!!!

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'm not sure if it needs to be corrected. So far the danger of dying hasn't stopped any of the games I've played in or ran.

Lately, I think the problem is the expectation that your character will live to get a happily ever after or make it to X level. Having this expectation doesn't work with how stories or games should be made, it makes you feel like the main character to a story in which you are invincible and not a main character in which you are in danger of dying.

If you want to play a game where you are the main character and you can't die, then have the DM fiat a way out of the situation?

I'm not saying we should go back to 2e lethality but 5e at low and mid levels (7-10) aren't really any more swingy than 3e and some 4e games I played it.

[Seppo87]

Roll 3D6
In case of advantage, just roll 1 more for every advantage (max 6) and take the best 3
In case of disadvantage, just roll 1 more for every disadvantage (max 6) and take the worst 3
1 advantage die cancels 1 disvantage die

[akaddk]

I'm not sure if it needs to be corrected. So far the danger of dying hasn't stopped any of the games I've played in or ran.

Lately, I think the problem is the expectation that your character will live to get a happily ever after or make it to X level. Having this expectation doesn't work with how stories or games should be made, it makes you feel like the main character to a story in which you are invincible and not a main character in which you are in danger of dying.

If you want to play a game where you are the main character and you can't die, then have the DM fiat a way out of the situation?

I'm not saying we should go back to 2e lethality but 5e at low and mid levels (7-10) aren't really any more swingy than 3e and some 4e games I played it.

Can I +1 posts here? Can I vote them up? If not, why not? I want to vote this one up plus one. The level of player entitlement these days is staggering.

[Tehnar]

Correct swingy:

Rules.

1 - Must use some method for randomly determining chance of failure.

2 - Must scale with character level
2a - Scaling must NEVER produce 100% effectiveness
2b - Scaling must ALWAYS provide a challenge

3 - Must be extremely easy to understand.

4 - Does not require Multiplication/Division or Subtraction.

READY, SET, GO!!!

Most dice pool systems fit the bill. Shadowrun for example uses a number of d6's. You roll them, and count the number of times the dice showed a 5+. That is your amount of hits, and you compare it to the difficulty set by the GM.

You could do that for DnD as well, with a d20. Your ability modifier is the amount of dice you roll. The DM sets the DC (between 1 and 20), and you count the number of dice that got a hit (ie rolled equal or better then the DC).

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Can I +1 posts here? Can I vote them up? If not, why not? I want to vote this one up plus one. The level of player entitlement these days is staggering.

Wow thank you, but you brought up the word that apparently I couldn't think of.

Entitlement, and I think this is a root problem for players and the DM.

I

[TrexPushups]

Combat should be swingy. Dragon lairs are not petting zoos.

If you want to slay dragons you have to accept that you might end up as a delightfully crispy and ketchup coated snack.

Same goes with standing in the open while angering a horde of goblin archers.

[obryn]

Really? I don't think "entitlement" is a very good descriptor at all. Players should feel entitled to come to a D&D game and enjoy themselves. DMs should, as well.

I think it's a useless and derogatory shorthand, every bit as worthless as "special snowflakes," "ROLLplay vs ROLEplay," and the like.

[hawklost]

Really? I don't think "entitlement" is a very good descriptor at all. Players should feel entitled to come to a D&D game and enjoy themselves. DMs should, as well.

I think it's a useless and derogatory shorthand, every bit as worthless as "special snowflakes," "ROLLplay vs ROLEplay," and the like.

Sorry, but it is hard to take your claim that entitlement is not a good descriptor when you then put 'feel entitled to' in very next statement.

I will agree that players and DMs should go to a game and be allowed to enjoy themselves. The problem is this. What you might enjoy and what I might enjoy could be two very different things. That in no way, shape, or form means that my play style is better than yours, but it does make it hard for anyone to claim 'this is the way it needs to be'. I Don't agree that the rules of DnD should be changed for everyone because some people feel that it doesn't fit their idea of fun. If DnD as written is not fun for the players or DMs there are multiple different ways to fix it without forcing your ideas on the whole community.

1) Talk with the other players and DM, in your group and do the minimum change of the rules to get to what everyone finds fun

2) Find a new group who are more like minded in what you consider fun

3) Play a Different game that actually fits your idea

The worst thing people do though is demand that their play style must be put into the standard DnD books. Or to try to force through tantrums and threats ("I will quit if it isn't this way!") to get their way, especially when they demand a change that would alienate a larger majority of players.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for more on topic, give the players Luck Dice for each day (long rest). These extra dice can be used for any D20 roll or to Add to AC before the enemy rolls damage.

Start them with a d4 at first level and at levels 4,8,12,16,20 let the players pick 1 of 2 options
Upgrade the Dice by a level (d4 -> d6 -> d8)
Add one more die too their pool (1 die, 2 dice, 3 dice)

If the DM feels that that the dice are not enough, they can add more to the pool or upgrade the dice automatically.

If the DM feels that players are too powerful, they can give a special reversal of fortune idea. Anytime a player uses good Luck, their next roll (or DM discretion) is modified down by the exact same amount.

Lady Luck favors no one for long.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Really? I don't think "entitlement" is a very good descriptor at all. Players should feel entitled to come to a D&D game and enjoy themselves. DMs should, as well.

I think it's a useless and derogatory shorthand, every bit as worthless as "special snowflakes," "ROLLplay vs ROLEplay," and the like.

The problem, and root cause, for many DM and player problems are from entitlement.

But most bad practices from DMs, such as railroading or extreme use of fiat, comes from the DM feeling as if they are entitled to have THEIR game ran THEIR way and disregards the group.

Just like with players who get whiny when everything doesn't go their way, they feel entitled to have everything go as they planed or for other players to go along with what they want to do, because they are the star of the show and entitled.

Sure I want a set of base rules that aren't traps or broken. But in a game of kill and/or be killed, a little bit of swinginess is absolutely needed for not only realism within a setting, but to keep PCs and DMs on their toes. Without swinginess of battle, D&D battles becomes a math equation where the players and the DM (not the monsters and PCs) have little or no say in the outcome.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the D20 for many thing. Initiative is way to swingy for me, compared to all the bonuses you get one PC's d20 (without mods) can usually beat out someone else's d20+mods.

But I hear people complain about swinginess of the game like it is a disease that needs to be cured. Swinginess, at least the amount I've seen from 5e, isn't a horrible thing but in fact helps the game.

/shrug

[obryn]

Sorry, but it is hard to take your claim that entitlement is not a good descriptor when you then put 'feel entitled to' in very next statement.

I will agree that players and DMs should go to a game and be allowed to enjoy themselves. The problem is this. What you might enjoy and what I might enjoy could be two very different things. That in no way, shape, or form means that my play style is better than yours, but it does make it hard for anyone to claim 'this is the way it needs to be'. I Don't agree that the rules of DnD should be changed for everyone because some people feel that it doesn't fit their idea of fun. If DnD as written is not fun for the players or DMs there are multiple different ways to fix it without forcing your ideas on the whole community.

1) Talk with the other players and DM, in your group and do the minimum change of the rules to get to what everyone finds fun

2) Find a new group who are more like minded in what you consider fun

3) Play a Different game that actually fits your idea

The worst thing people do though is demand that their play style must be put into the standard DnD books. Or to try to force through tantrums and threats ("I will quit if it isn't this way!") to get their way, especially when they demand a change that would alienate a larger majority of players.
'Entitlement" as akaddk was using it is a poor and derogatory descriptor for the mismatched expectations he was talking about, with a heavy seasoning of "those darn players". I was using it in the conventional sense. :smallsmile:

As for the rest - yes, players and DMs should of course reach a common ground for the game they're playing. I'm pretty sure I didn't say otherwise? And I haven't the slightest idea where anyone's "forcing ideas on the community."

[Person_Man]

I can't meet your challenge.

But I would encourage you to look at Star Wars Saga edition. It uses 1d20 + 1/2 your class level + Ability Score + Proficiency Bonus + other bonuses (rare, small, usually don't stack) + Destiny Point bonus (very limited). Defenses are 10 + all the same stuff, so they scale by default as well. I don't have the time to run down the full math, but the math works very very well. The one "down side" is that at high levels everyone has a base level of competency in everything, but that's fitting for a heroic setting.

You should also look at FUDGE/FATE. The math is even more rock solid and intuitive, and it includes a nifty "shift" mechanic where higher exceeding the target result leads to better outcomes, so you never "waste" a high attribute. The "down side" with FUDGE is that there aren't really class levels to speak of. You just get more options as you gain experience.

[hawklost]

'Entitlement" as akaddk was using it is a poor and derogatory descriptor for the mismatched expectations he was talking about, with a heavy seasoning of "those darn players". I was using it in the conventional sense. :smallsmile:

As for the rest - yes, players and DMs should of course reach a common ground for the game they're playing. I'm pretty sure I didn't say otherwise? And I haven't the slightest idea where anyone's "forcing ideas on the community."

I wasn't targeting you after the first statement, I apologize if you feel I was.

When I was saying people are trying to force ideas on the community, I am pointing out about those people who keep yelling and screaming that 5e "broken" because it doesn't fit their personal idea of Balance. I don't mind people pointing out a flaw in a system, but screaming it across multiple forums over and over gets very frustrating.

[Friv]

Correct swingy:

Rules.

1 - Must use some method for randomly determining chance of failure.

2 - Must scale with character level
2a - Scaling must NEVER produce 100% effectiveness
2b - Scaling must ALWAYS provide a challenge

3 - Must be extremely easy to understand.

4 - Does not require Multiplication/Division or Subtraction.

READY, SET, GO!!!

100% effectiveness at what? I mean, the system already allows starting characters to be 100% effective at DC 5 rolls. Do you mean it should never be possible to have a 100% chance of succeeding at the most difficult roll, or that it should never be possible to hit a human conscript on a roll of 1?

[Knaight]

On player entitlement - I don't know where the idea that people should generally perform closer to their level of skill somehow got connected to entitlement, but it's ridiculous. Among other things, it actually makes superior foes (which are routine in D&D) more effective against the PCs.


You should also look at FUDGE/FATE. The math is even more rock solid and intuitive, and it includes a nifty "shift" mechanic where higher exceeding the target result leads to better outcomes, so you never "waste" a high attribute. The "down side" with FUDGE is that there aren't really class levels to speak of. You just get more options as you gain experience.

With Fudge it's pretty easy to create class structures if you really want to. I don't particularly like classes, but I have used things like gift chains which cover some of the more special things classes do. Attach those to pre-set skill advancements, and you've got your classes.

As for making things less swingy - switching to 3d6 curves things pretty nicely, as does 2d10. Another option would be to replace the d20 with a dice pool system - you have a base 4 dice, they have a 50% chance of success, each success is a +5, keep bonuses as is. It's a bit sloppy, as it keeps the modifiers around, but it does work.

With that said, I would like to have subtraction, multiplication, etc. available as tools here - there are a number of very nice options that come in once subtraction gets introduced. For instance, you can add 10 to all bonuses, then use 3df*3 for the roll. This gets a slightly narrower distribution (1-19), but introduces a substantial curve, gives new options to work with (for instance, blank dice might be used as some sort of recharge mechanic), and fixes the swinginess as it goes.

[Millennium]

My (quick, dirty, and untested) solution breaks Rule 2, because it is 100% effective when the players want it to be, and thus it doesn't need to scale with level. However, I believe it may still be worth considering. This is based on the Death Flag mechanic from e6.

tl;dr Version By default, you can't die.
At any time, you can trade your Inspiration mechanic for a Conviction score that works exactly like Inspiration, except that it can be saved up. But as long as you have a Conviction score, you can die.
You can undo this trade, within certain limits.

The Death Flag All PCs have a death flag, which can be up or down.
When a PC is first created, his death flag is down.
A PC may raise his death flag (set it to up) if it is down, or lower it (set it to down) if it is up. Neither of these counts as an action, and a death flag may be raised at any time, but lowering a death flag is subject to some restrictions (see "Lowering the Death Flag", below).

When the Flag is Down No effect can increase your number of failed death saves above two. Even if you fail a death save when you already have two failed death saves, your number of failed saves does not rise above two.
Any effect (other than old age) that would cause you to die instead causes you to become dying with two failed death saves. This does not otherwise prevent the effect from taking place: it only prevents your death (and anything that would be caused by your death).
No effect can force a PC to raise his death flag. However, if a PC is about to attempt something extremely dangerous, the DM may ask the player to raise the PC's death flag first. This should not be done without allowing the player a chance to back out.

When the Flag is Up As long as your death flag is up, death works according to the normal D&D rules.
You lose Inspiration (if you had it) as soon as you raise your death flag is raised, and you cannot gain Inspiration as long as your death flag is up. Instead, you have a Conviction score; see below for details.

Conviction The moment you raise your death flag, you gain a Conviction score, initially set to 3.
If you raise your death flag when you have Inspiration, then you lose Inspiration just before the flag is raised, but your Conviction is initially set to 4 instead of 3.
If you have a Conviction score, then anything which would cause you to gain Inspiration instead raises your Conviction by 1.
If you have a Conviction score, then anything which would cause you to lose Inspiration instead reduces your Conviction by 1, to a minimum of zero.
As long as your Conviction score is greater than zero (and nothing else prevents you from doing so), you may voluntarily lower your Conviction by 1 to do something which would otherwise require you to give up Inspiration.
For the purposes of all spells and effects, a creature with a Conviction score greater than zero counts as a creature who has Inspiration.

Lowering the Death Flag You may only lower your death flag during your turn.
You may not lower your death flag if your Conviction is less than 3.
When you lower your death flag, you lose your Conviction score (and any points saved up in it), and you do not have Inspiration.
After you lower your death flag, your Inspiration works according to the normal D&D rules.

Like I said, this is quick, dirty, and untested (though it's based on something which isn't). I'd be interested to know if anyone has tried anything like it, though.

[obryn]

Like I said, this is quick, dirty, and untested (though it's based on something which isn't). I'd be interested to know if anyone has tried anything like it, though.
It's interesting. Looks to be a pretty good way to handle it, actually.

I think it's more appropriate for games with interesting character arcs than it is for dungeoncrawlers, but that'd be about my only caveat. In a dungeoncrawler, it's pretty much death-or-glory. In something like an adventure path or epic campaign, it'd be a good way to help continuity.

[Kurald Galain]

2b - Scaling must ALWAYS provide a challenge

I don't believe that "a die roll with a noticeable chance of failure" constitutes a challenge.

[Tholomyes]

I don't believe that "a die roll with a noticeable chance of failure" constitutes a challenge.

Whether you agree on the wording or not, having resolution mechanics with a chance of success and failure is important to a lot of people (I'd wager most players and DMs would agree with this notion). As such, it's a valid design goal for this challenge.

[Kurald Galain]

Whether you agree on the wording or not, having resolution mechanics with a chance of success and failure is important to a lot of people

Obviously. That doesn't mean, though, that climbing a wall or swimming across a river should be considered a challenge.

Seriously, that's important. There are several of WOTC's writers who believe that an exciting scene in an adventure is that everybody has to repeatedly roll until they succeed at a DC 20 climb check. It turns out that numerous players don't actually find that exciting at all!

"Challenge" doesn't mean "random chance of failure". Don't conflate those terms.

[hawklost]

Obviously. That doesn't mean, though, that climbing a wall or swimming across a river should be considered a challenge.

Seriously, that's important. There are several of WOTC's writers who believe that an exciting scene in an adventure is that everybody has to repeatedly roll until they succeed at a DC 20 climb check. It turns out that numerous players don't actually find that exciting at all!

"Challenge" doesn't mean "random chance of failure". Don't conflate those terms.

Sure, Climbing a 7-8 foot wall that you can jump up and grab the top of and then scramble over is not a challenge. But if you actually look at the challenges most DnD adventures give, they aren't so simple.

Climbing a wall becomes a challenge when a dog is chasing you and you have to do it quickly.
Climbing a wall becomes a challenge when you have to get past the sharp rocks at the top of it.
Climbing a wall becomes a challenge when you have to do it without easy handholds or climb a higher.

Lets say you are a good enough swimmer to go across a nice river without a chance of failure (we will ignore random cramps or other craziness). Now lets take you and throw you into one of these scenarios below.

Swimming a river becomes a challenge when the water is moving fast and you could be pulled under by an undertow.
Swimming a river becomes a challenge when you are wearing 80 pounds of extra weight.
Swimming a river becomes a challenge when there is debris coming from upstream you have to dodge randomly.

Can you really honestly claim that you have no chance of failure in these scenarios?

[Tholomyes]

Obviously. That doesn't mean, though, that climbing a wall or swimming across a river should be considered a challenge.

Seriously, that's important. There are several of WOTC's writers who believe that an exciting scene in an adventure is that everybody has to repeatedly roll until they succeed at a DC 20 climb check. It turns out that numerous players don't actually find that exciting at all!

"Challenge" doesn't mean "random chance of failure". Don't conflate those terms.Those cases are when I say you shouldn't roll, but instead, assume after a period of time, everyone is able to make it up the cliff face or across the river, or what have you. However, when there is some consequence or complication gained from failure, then it's more exciting, and why you have the necessity for a chance at both success and failure.

[Kurald Galain]

Climbing a wall becomes a challenge when a dog is chasing you and you have to do it quickly.
Climbing a wall becomes a challenge when you have to get past the sharp rocks at the top of it.
Climbing a wall becomes a challenge when you have to do it without easy handholds or climb a higher.

The point you're missing is that whether or not these are challenging depends on HOW GOOD YOU ARE.

Why on earth should a moderate-level ranger be challenged by a climb without easy handholds? He's been climbing all his life, you think he can't handle that? He would be a pretty lame ranger if he can't, really.

[Fwiffo86]

The point you're missing is that whether or not these are challenging depends on HOW GOOD YOU ARE.

Why on earth should a moderate-level ranger be challenged by a climb without easy handholds? He's been climbing all his life, you think he can't handle that? He would be a pretty lame ranger if he can't, really.

I'm not trying to start an arguement, but a ranger is not a rock climber. His skill set is far wider than just climbing rocks. Isn't it logical to think that he isn't an expert climber at any level, just a competent one?

Just my own view of possible flawed logic.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm not trying to start an arguement, but a ranger is not a rock climber.
And that's precisely the point. Whether a ranger is good at climbing should depend on his dexterity and whether or not he's trained in the relevant skill - NOT on whether the DM arbitrarily decides that rangers don't need to roll for climbing things.


Those cases are when I say you shouldn't roll, but instead, assume after a period of time, everyone is able to make it up the cliff face or across the river, or what have you. However, when there is some consequence or complication gained from failure, then it's more exciting, and why you have the necessity for a chance at both success and failure.
A good DM doesn't need this particular opportunity to complicate things for the players, because he has plenty of other opportunities. Indeed, this is just denying a player his moment to shine.

Here's the key: to challenge a character, it's good DMing attack his weak points - not to fiat away his strong points.

[akaddk]

With that said, I would like to have subtraction, multiplication, etc. available as tools here - there are a number of very nice options that come in once subtraction gets introduced.
Nice for you, maybe. But there is a reason why I don't use RPG systems with such mechanics and that's because I don't feel like they're "nice" at all. That, and I'm not very smrt.

[Tholomyes]

A good DM doesn't need this particular opportunity to complicate things for the players, because he has plenty of other opportunities. Indeed, this is just denying a player his moment to shine.I fail to see how climbing things is a ranger's "moment to shine" but that's just me.

Here's the key: to challenge a character, it's good DMing attack his weak points - not to fiat away his strong points.[/QUOTE]I argue that both are necessary. Attacking a character's weak points is one way of challenging a character, but denying access to their strong points is also a way of challenging them, by making them rely on secondary strengths or other ways to get around a problem. Granted both of them should be used relatively sparingly, since it's not fun to have the DM throw challenges at you which do one or both, at every opportunity. This, also, is a reason why I want martials to have greater options and narrative power. Often times martial classes, especially the fighter, are made into relatively one-trick-ponies, to the point that challenging them with things that deny them access to their strong points doesn't mean they rely on secondary strengths, because they don't really have them. Instead, it just means they're relatively worthless in those situations.

[Lokiare]

I wasn't targeting you after the first statement, I apologize if you feel I was.

When I was saying people are trying to force ideas on the community, I am pointing out about those people who keep yelling and screaming that 5e "broken" because it doesn't fit their personal idea of Balance. I don't mind people pointing out a flaw in a system, but screaming it across multiple forums over and over gets very frustrating.

I find it equally annoying when people continuously shrug off those kinds of complaints by saying go play another game or quit complaining its not valid or posts like the above where they equate pointing out flaws as something that's negative instead of positive. I also find it annoying when they assume people are screaming it out, instead of the normal friendly conversational tones that people like me post in. Its just sad that people have been taught that anything that isn't a glowing statement for the subject is somehow an attack on that subject. I really wish critical thinking was taught as early as the 3rd grade rather than waiting for college.

Edit: Almost forgot. To the OP:

Some things should challenge characters and some things shouldn't. Some things should be trivially easy and other things should be impossible. Some characters should find things trivial that others find challenging or find some things challenging that others find impossible. No one class should trivialize everything though.

If then you do want to challenge someone but tone down the swing of the roll the answer is to have them make multiple rolls against the same DC with the same bonuses and then decide if they succeed or not based on if they have more successes than failures. This will challenge them mathematically and remove the swing.

We can already see this in action with combat. It takes multiple rolls of attack and damage to remove an enemy from the field. It takes removing multiple enemies from the field to defeat an encounter.

If you were to make skills work this same way then there would be no swing to the rolls.

Early level combat doesn't work the way I stated combat does above. It is very binary, in that whoever goes first will usually win. This is because any given character can be taken out (both sides) with just a single roll or two. A lucky crit can instantly take out any character. To fix this we need to add in more rolls. If all characters and creatures add their constitution score to their hit points at 1st level and don't get con mod bonuses as they level then this would solve the problem nicely.

[hawklost]

I find it equally annoying when people continuously shrug off those kinds of complaints by saying go play another game or quit complaining its not valid or posts like the above where they equate pointing out flaws as something that's negative instead of positive. I also find it annoying when they assume people are screaming it out, instead of the normal friendly conversational tones that people like me post in. Its just sad that people have been taught that anything that isn't a glowing statement for the subject is somehow an attack on that subject. I really wish critical thinking was taught as early as the 3rd grade rather than waiting for college.

Pointing out a flaw? Thats good and fine.
Claiming everything that isn't to your liking is a flaw? Not good
Using every single post to attack the system? Not fine at all

Note, one persons flaw is another persons perfectly acceptable way of doing something.


Sorry, as long as WotC keeps parroting the line about 5E being for all players of previous editions we are going to continue to point out where it doesn't allow our play styles and one of the components of many play styles is the ability to outclass other characters at a task.
Since this is your claimed opinion, I don't find your comments to be anything other than trying to troll the boards more than trying to be constructive. (Bolding added by me)

[Lokiare]

Pointing out a flaw? Thats good and fine.
Claiming everything that isn't to your liking is a flaw? Not good
Using every single post to attack the system? Not fine at all

Note, one persons flaw is another persons perfectly acceptable way of doing something.


Since this is your claimed opinion, I don't find your comments to be anything other than trying to troll the boards more than trying to be constructive. (Bolding added by me)

That's pretty hilarious. You can verify the facts I'm claiming if you care to by simply reading the L&L blog that mearls has.

Oh yeah, also I find your posts to be trolling too, because they don't agree with mine. Ha I was more flippant than you! :smalltongue:

[SpawnOfMorbo]

That's pretty hilarious. You can verify the facts I'm claiming if you care to by simply reading the L&L blog that mearls has.

Oh yeah, also I find your posts to be trolling too, because they don't agree with mine. Ha I was more flippant than you! :smalltongue:

Dude, you troll so much on this forum that they should rename the post count level to "Lokaire in the playground".

:smallbiggrin:

[Lokiare]

Dude, you troll so much on this forum that they should rename the post count level to "Lokaire in the playground".

:smallbiggrin:

I stay well within the bounds of the rules. Just because I don't pull punches doesn't mean I'm trolling...:smallbiggrin:

[da_chicken]

Obviously. That doesn't mean, though, that climbing a wall or swimming across a river should be considered a challenge.

Seriously, that's important. There are several of WOTC's writers who believe that an exciting scene in an adventure is that everybody has to repeatedly roll until they succeed at a DC 20 climb check. It turns out that numerous players don't actually find that exciting at all!

"Challenge" doesn't mean "random chance of failure". Don't conflate those terms.

100% agreed. I'm increasingly of the opinion that a good rule of thumb for many skills is that unless the players are supposed to be earning XP, they probably shouldn't be rolling dice. When you look at something you have to ask, "Is this something that I intend to challenge the party?" If the answer is "No," then you have to come up with another reason if you want to make players start rolling dice than "because skills exist". You shouldn't have to roll a die to do what an adventurer should be able to just do. That's not what the skill system should be for.

[Slipperychicken]

Seconding WoD/Shadowrun-style diepools.

Distribution approximates Normal/Bell-curve (distribution is wide, but concentrated near the average)
Simple ("Throw this many dice, count the fives and sixes")
Throwing piles of dice can be fun.
Failure chance can be very small, but never zero.
Scales indefinitely, but counting hits can get a bogged down with huge diepools.
"Critical Failures" (i.e. all dice come up as 1) happen to everyone, but are extremely unlikely with larger diepools.