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

[Magus Coeruleus]

I asked CustServ to comment on this issue, and their reply:

"We are aware of the issues concerning Skill Challenges at this time. However we’ve passed this along to the good folks that make the games and hopefully we’ll see some errata covering this situation soon. Until then, it is up to your Dungeon Master to determine how he/she wants to handle this particular situation in their campaign."

Thank you for contacting them!

 

[two]

I asked CustServ to comment on this issue, and their reply:

"We are aware of the issues concerning Skill Challenges at this time. However we’ve passed this along to the good folks that make the games and hopefully we’ll see some errata covering this situation soon. Until then, it is up to your Dungeon Master to determine how he/she wants to handle this particular situation in their campaign."

Seems to indicate that the design team is aware of the problem, or in their words, "we are aware of the issues concerning Skill Challenges."

Sometimes it happens. As you recall, 3e was released with a version of the "Haste" spell which was nutsoid powerful. WOTC recognized this and fixed it in 3.5. I expect that some errata will soon be distributed which tweaks the Skill Challenges and fixes the problem (which is, I think, overall less serious than the old 3e "Haste" issue).

I hope they include a few examples, too.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Nah, I mean there are multiple pages of arguing of how bad the math is.

So, all I'm saying is decide what you want, and use the skill challenge rules as a guide.

Do you want your players to succeed more, lower the DC or increase the number of failures they can get.

Ok, I want them to succeed more. I want to lower the DC. I want to increase the number of failures they can get.

BY HOW MUCH?

You don't know, and you can't answer it if you "forget the math."

Somebody has to pay attention to the math. Preferably, that task falls to the game designer. That's, you know... pretty much the job description.

 

[Uthred]

We'll likely see some official errata and some nice article in Dragon available sometime. The designers see the problem too.

I wouldnt be getting overly excited just yet, theyre aware of a problem but it may not be the same "problem" we think/hope it is. They could after-all just be clarifying the +5 or something like that

 

[WyzardWhately]

Seems to indicate that the design team is aware of the problem, or in their words, "we are aware of the issues concerning Skill Challenges."

Sometimes it happens. As you recall, 3e was released with a version of the "Haste" spell which was nutsoid powerful. WOTC recognized this and fixed it in 3.5. I expect that some errata will soon be distributed which tweaks the Skill Challenges and fixes the problem (which is, I think, overall less serious than the old 3e "Haste" issue).

I hope they include a few examples, too.

Umm, I think that it's rather difficult to say a single overpowered spell is more serious than the central mechanic for non-combat challenges being broken.

 

[diamabel75]

Without going back and reading 17 pages of stuff, how many variables were taken into account with the formula? Because initiative can be a big factor.

Ex: Let's say you have 6 players in a group and in a skill challenge ( DC 20 ) their best associated skill bonuses are such: 8/9/10/11/12/13.

If your playing a level 1 skill challenge (4 successes before 2 failures) then you are more likely to succeed if the order is such 13/12/11/10/9/8 than if it is 8/9/10/11/12/13.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Without going back and reading 17 pages of stuff, how many variables were taken into account with the formula? Because initiative can be a big factor.

Ex: Let's say you have 6 players in a group and in a skill challenge ( DC 20 ) their best associated skill bonuses are such: 8/9/10/11/12/13.

If your playing a level 1 skill challenge (4 successes before 2 failures) then you are more likely to succeed if the order is such 13/12/11/10/9/8 than if it is 8/9/10/11/12/13.

Your question is answered in the first post. Initiative order is irrelevant.

 

[Ipissimus]

I think there's a point here that might have been missed (if someone else said this in the pages I haven't read, I apologize).

The problem with skill challenges is getting the players involved. I think the aim of the designers was to force players to come up with creative solutions in order to succeed.

See, just straight die rolls become tedious (like in 1-3e combat). "The merchant doesn't want to give you the item." "I make a diplomacy check." -everyone rolls- "The merchant gives you the item." No fun.

Putting the players behind the 8-ball forces them to think: 'How do I wring all the bonuses I possibly can out of the situation.' The way the DMG recommends getting those bonuses? Teamwork (aid another), analyzing the situation (Perception, Insight, Knowledge skills, etc), clever ideas (persuading the DM to give you a bonus). In other words: skill challenges require all the players to be involved to succeed. No more slacking off while the skill monkey solves everything or players getting bored and falling asleep because they're combat optimized and have nothing to do.

From the sounds of things, the big problem is that this isn't really explained adequately in the DMG.

 

[TwinBahamut]

You know, there are professional game designers and skilled mathematicians here, too. And just because something is easier for you to believe, doesn't make it the truth.

I don't doubt the mathematical skill of the people involved in this thread, but the gap in time and energy spent on this problem between people like the OP and the guys at WotC is still immense. More importantly, most of the people here are just learning the rules, and may not fully understand the intricacies of the rules yet.

Anyways, I understand that things that are easier to believe are not necessarily true, but that doesn't change the fact that I am still not convinced the system by the RAW is broken. I have read through all the math laid out in this thread, and it is all been done with certain assumptions beyond the agreed-upon RAW.

I was going to cut you some slack, but by your own admission you don't even have the books and haven't even read the relevant sections. If you had stopped after your fourth paragraph you would have been fine. But everything you say after that is pretty much due to you not having read the book so you don't know better. Especially, your last paragraph. Because all of the things you mention in it do, in fact, exist in the system as written, and it still doesn't work right.

Now you are simply misunderstanding what I was saying.

I know that the things I mentioned are in the system as written. That is why I mentioned them in the first place. The problem is that they are not being accounted for in the OP's "proof" of the flaw in the system as written. Go back and look at the original "proof" yourself. It specifically says that it assumes things like a particular skill modifier (based only on skill training and a high stat, nothing else) and nothing but normal checks (not the easy and hard check that the DM ay throw in).

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask a mathematician to go through additional calculations with different reasonable assumptions in order to see how it affects the result. That is all I did. After all, having a greater variety of modifiers and a mix of easy, normal, and hard checks is something that is going to be closer to actual play experience than the OP's starting assumptions.

Anyways, all I have done is reference information made freely available in this thread, so I don't see why my lack of knowledge of the contents of the books affects my points. It merely limits my ability to do this all myself. I would run the calculations myself if I could.

Really, I get your point.

I am not sure you do. I apologize if I was a bit unclear earlier. I was posting late at night right before going to sleep, so I may have been incoherent.

And if there was an easy fix, I'm sure everyone would be all over it. Also, the system that the OP created is by no means a scrapping of the entire concept at all. Yeah, coming in here and bashing the creators isn't constructive. But the majority of this thread isn't about bashing the creators, it's about trying to find a fix for the problem and trying to understand why they did the things they did.

I never said there was an easy fix, merely that the system may work in unexpected ways. In fact, the RAW may only work under particular assumptions not outlined in the book itself (which would be serious problem with the books). I think this thread would be better suited trying to see if such assumptions exist (so they could enlighten people who want to run the game), rather than assume they don't exist and cast the whole system aside.

I read the sections in the DMG several times before I decided to come into this post and make my own suggestions/comments. I don't understand how someone can come in and suggest something without having read it all.

Enough information about the system is mentioned right here in this thread to make what few points I have made. All I am doing is trying to exercise a bit of skepticism in an attempt to dissuade a potentially flawed hasty conclusion.

And to use your own words against you, it seems to me like you are making bold claims about the posters in this thread and the rules you haven't read yet, maybe you should should take a minute to re-evaluate your assumptions.

What assumptions do you mean? The assumptions I asked people to re-evaluate were things like "every check will be a Normal check" and "the bonus for level 1 characters will be +9". Since I have not put forward a mathematical model myself, I have not made any assumptions for that model.

Sorry if I offended, but I didn't much care for the tone of your comment, even if I imagined it.

I certainly didn't intend any kind of hostile or belittling tone, I can assure you that. However, I will say that some of your implications that I have no right to comment without owning the books and that I am somehow a rude and terrible person for being a little skeptical and asking someone to attempt a set of mathematical calculations under different conditions were indeed offensive.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

I certainly didn't intend any kind of hostile or belittling tone, I can assure you that. However, I will say that some of your implications that I have no right to comment without owning the books and that I am somehow a rude and terrible person for being a little skeptical and asking someone to attempt a set of mathematical calculations under different conditions were indeed offensive.

The calculations were made under a model that is already very favourable to the players. There are two ways to go from there: Even more advantageous, and less advantageous. I believe more advantageous has been touched on, if briefly. It makes skill challenges rather pointless. Logically, one can infer that less advantageous conditions will be worse for the players than they are now. And the odds are not great for the players now.

No, not every single situation needs to be addressed. I can correctly infer that burning my hand on an oven means I will burn my hand on anything at least that hot. I don't need to stick my hand in a fire, on an engine manifold, or in boiling water to determine that each of those will also burn my hand.