Fourth edition created a skill system that was easy and fluid to allocate bonuses and then, seemingly as an afterthought, created DCs to go with it. Maybe this is harsh, but there is a reason the DC table keeps changing. The newest iteration accurately challenges characters of different ability at a given DC, but is just terrible for the game as a whole. It isn’t the DCs fault, though, the DCs just happen to reveal the underlying weaknesses of the skill system as a whole. The system is bad and should be replaced.
D&D is a game about parties of adventurers going out, facing challenges, killing things, and taking their stuff. Across the many challenges they face, some characters shine while others fall back into support. Giving each player a chance to shine is *good* for the game. But the key is that each character has something they can provide to the challenge. If the ability between two characters grows too disparate, they cannot both be challenged and that is *horrible* for the game.
I’m not decrying the scenario where only Doug the Rogue can climb the wall and lowers a rope for the rest of the party; that’s great. But achieving that result by increasing DCs so high that only Doug can hope to succeed is bad because you’ve now replicated the “only Doug” scenario into *all* skills. Many skills, most skills, you want to be able to challenge the entire party and challenge them reasonably. Think of the impact of the “only Doug” model of skills with skill challenges; the only solution is to introduce gimmicky ways to use variant skills in the skill challenge so that everyone has *something* they can do. That defeats the purpose of a skill challenge.
Let’s walk through the following chart. Columns A-C show the 4e suggested DCs by level and difficulty. Column D shows the gap between the Hard and the Easy DC. Columns E and F show the expected skill modifier by subtracting 8 from the DC (this is given in the text of Heroes of the Fallen Lands). What this means is that the 4e system presumes that at first level, there are people in the party who are +11 to, say, Athletics and someone else who is +0. The DCs work great when you challenge characters individually by their respective skill level, but because characters belong to a party, you’ll often want to (and have to) challenge them together. Look at how the gap grows across levels.
A | B | C | D | E | F | ||
Level | Easy | Hard | Gap | Bad mod | Good mod | ||
1 | 8 | 19 | 11 | 0 | 11 | ||
2 | 9 | 20 | 11 | 1 | 12 | ||
3 | 9 | 21 | 12 | 1 | 13 | ||
4 | 10 | 21 | 11 | 2 | 13 | ||
5 | 10 | 22 | 12 | 2 | 14 | ||
6 | 11 | 23 | 12 | 3 | 15 | ||
7 | 11 | 23 | 12 | 3 | 15 | ||
8 | 12 | 24 | 12 | 4 | 16 | ||
9 | 12 | 25 | 13 | 4 | 17 | ||
10 | 13 | 26 | 13 | 5 | 18 | ||
11 | 13 | 27 | 14 | 5 | 19 | ||
12 | 14 | 28 | 14 | 6 | 20 | ||
13 | 14 | 29 | 15 | 6 | 21 | ||
14 | 15 | 29 | 14 | 7 | 21 | ||
15 | 15 | 30 | 15 | 7 | 22 | ||
16 | 16 | 31 | 15 | 8 | 23 | ||
17 | 16 | 31 | 15 | 8 | 23 | ||
18 | 17 | 32 | 15 | 9 | 24 | ||
19 | 17 | 33 | 16 | 9 | 25 | ||
20 | 18 | 34 | 16 | 10 | 26 | ||
21 | 19 | 35 | 16 | 11 | 27 | ||
22 | 20 | 36 | 16 | 12 | 28 | ||
23 | 20 | 37 | 17 | 12 | 29 | ||
24 | 21 | 37 | 16 | 13 | 29 | ||
25 | 21 | 38 | 17 | 13 | 30 | ||
26 | 22 | 39 | 17 | 14 | 31 | ||
27 | 22 | 39 | 17 | 14 | 31 | ||
28 | 23 | 40 | 17 | 15 | 32 | ||
29 | 23 | 41 | 18 | 15 | 33 | ||
30 | 24 | 42 | 18 | 16 | 34 |
This next chart recreates the expected skill mods (columns E and F) and then sets a DC that splits the difference to give each character an equal chance to succeed. This is column G. Columns H and I show the likelihood of success for each character and column J shows the product of that success. Said differently, column J shows the likelihood that both characters succeed or the overall success rate of the party as a whole. This is the most important measure of the skill system. Players are individuals at a table and a party; you want as many individuals to succeed as often as possible and you want the party as a whole to succeed. You’ll note that no 4e DCs come even close to this progression. Think about that, this means that no DC in 4e is set to maximize the fun or success of the group as a whole. That’s a problem.
E | F | G | H | I | J |
Bad mod | Good mod | Split DC | "Bad" Succeed | "Good" Succeed | Group succeed |
| 0 | 11 | 16.5 | 23% | 78% | 17% |
| 1 | 12 | 17.5 | 23% | 78% | 17% |
| 1 | 13 | 18.0 | 20% | 80% | 16% |
| 2 | 13 | 18.5 | 23% | 78% | 17% |
| 2 | 14 | 19.0 | 20% | 80% | 16% |
| 3 | 15 | 20.0 | 20% | 80% | 16% |
| 3 | 15 | 20.0 | 20% | 80% | 16% |
| 4 | 16 | 21.0 | 20% | 80% | 16% |
| 4 | 17 | 21.5 | 18% | 83% | 14% |
| 5 | 18 | 22.5 | 18% | 83% | 14% |
| 5 | 19 | 23.0 | 15% | 85% | 13% |
| 6 | 20 | 24.0 | 15% | 85% | 13% |
| 6 | 21 | 24.5 | 13% | 88% | 11% |
| 7 | 21 | 25.0 | 15% | 85% | 13% |
| 7 | 22 | 25.5 | 13% | 88% | 11% |
| 8 | 23 | 26.5 | 13% | 88% | 11% |
| 8 | 23 | 26.5 | 13% | 88% | 11% |
| 9 | 24 | 27.5 | 13% | 88% | 11% |
| 9 | 25 | 28.0 | 10% | 90% | 9% |
| 10 | 26 | 29.0 | 10% | 90% | 9% |
| 11 | 27 | 30.0 | 10% | 90% | 9% |
| 12 | 28 | 31.0 | 10% | 90% | 9% |
| 12 | 29 | 31.5 | 8% | 93% | 7% |
| 13 | 29 | 32.0 | 10% | 90% | 9% |
| 13 | 30 | 32.5 | 8% | 93% | 7% |
| 14 | 31 | 33.5 | 8% | 93% | 7% |
| 14 | 31 | 33.5 | 8% | 93% | 7% |
| 15 | 32 | 34.5 | 8% | 93% | 7% |
| 15 | 33 | 35.0 | 5% | 95% | 5% |
| 16 | 34 | 36.0 | 5% | 95% | 5% |
The most critical thing is to look at is the progression across levels. The gap eventually grows such that the good mod has to roll a 2 and the bad mod has to roll a 20. Those two characters cannot face the same challenge and both have a good time. More likely, one is bored and one is angry. The group success as a whole also plummets. I posit that a good skill system would reverse this trend. As levels increase, the system should grow inclusive. More characters should succeed at more things to attain a more ubiquitous level of heroism. The actions of a 30th level character are too important for them to have to wait on the sidelines because of an “only Doug” mentality. Again, this isn’t to say that certain actions shouldn’t become the purview of a single talented character. But when you build the “only Doug” mentality into the very heart of the skill system, you either end up making everything an exclusive purview or making it impossible to challenge the specialist and the non-specialist alike. In a game that revolves around a party of adventurers, that’s a problem.
I have two related problems with the 4e skill system to just this base math that I think are worth thinking about. The first is that getting those good mods is hard if you do not exactly fir the archetype of that skill. Unless you are using your attack stat with a trained skill you aren't going to get to the good mod, which correctly based on the math leads a lot players to focus on on skills that match their attack stat and then a few others for system reasons (perception and endurance) leading to really flat characters in terms of skills. I think this is a real shame and would like any new system to address this as well.
ReplyDeleteSecond point is mostly about skill challenges. On some level at least the developers of the game see those same party success rates that you have and their answer is to simply not use them. I would wager that 90% or more of skills in published adventures (and probably most outside including my own) are used either in skill challenges or in combats. Skills in combat are generally a choice (for reasons you point out in the article), but skill challenges are a different beast entirely. I am not sure if it is because they are based on this math or just their nature in general but skills challenges as presented do not involve a great deal of challenge for the entire party. Now they certainly can be hard, and at times fun, but normally no one is willing to make rolls for skills they have no maximized given that the cost of failure is so high and in longer challenges you can expect to accumulate at least one based on poor rolls. This leads to the same thing as I mentioned above, people do no try and adapt to a situation by becoming broader in their reach but instead are forced to try and convince the GM to let them use their good skills, and anytime you don't they (rightly) feel like they have little chance to pass. Making this all worse is the fact that the aid another rules (DC is 10+half level failure gives a -1 to the roll) work the same sort of way. To pass at better than a 50/50 shot you actually have to be good at the skill in question which means that aiding only makes those who are already not likely to be challenged less threatened while not offering much help to a bunch of marginal modifiers struggling to reach a hard or even medium DC.
Now you might be thinking about group checks and your failure rate but as written 4e adventures don't require everyone to pass for it to be a success. Generally group skill checks in a skill challenge (where everyone rolls the same thing) suggest that if half the party passes you should treat it as a success. This ties into my final point- failing a skill check is never supposed to mean that you stop going forward. Most of the time now skill challenges are written so that failure brings a penalty, but that you keep moving forward. So the idea of a wall everyone must climb or a guard everyone must sneak past just isn't in the goals of the designs. I am not sure if this was in mind making the DC's, or something created after the fact, but this is how the skills are presented right now. In effect if you don't care about the penalties they are really an after thought on top of the combat system.
I don't mean to say this is a correct way to do it, on its face I agree with your points and the math is certainly consistent with what I've seen in play, but it is worth keeping in mind that I am not sure the 4e system is setup for the same kind of system you are talking about for skills. Whether by accident or design skills are not something largely addressed at the party level (possible a post in and of its self) so as long as someone can get you through the check you are fine, rather than addressed entirely as individuals. I hope that makes sense, I can try and explain more if need be but this is getting long already so I'll stop here.
I think I follow. Let me try and parse it into a few phrases to make discussion easier.
ReplyDelete(A) You're saying that skills in 4e are most often used in skill challenges (or in combat).
(B) Skill challenges are built sort of like a line of obstacles. The players stand in single file, and when Doug (who you'll recall is good at climb) gets to the front his challenge is to climb the wall and open the door. Then Barbarian Bob runs and lifts the portcullis. Then Fighter Frank intimidates the guard into not raising the alarm.
(C) In this way, each character has a chance to shine at their respective skill which, in total, completes an exciting challenge.
I think that is great in spirit, but poor in execution. It only works when a skill challenge has enough discrete parts that align with each person's strengths. As you say, people tend to hyper focus so that they can succeed. This means it really isn't a challenge so much as a narrated farce with skills chosen expressly to match the party.
We don't choose monsters that cater to the party's strengths, but we have to choose skills that do. Some of the most exciting combats arise when the party is pushed to the limit expressly because monsters cater to their weaknesses. But if we did this with challenges, they'd fail miserably because the gap is WAY too large. If we shut the gap, then any challenge will work and challenge the party. Sometimes it'll cater to their strengths and that will be fun. Other times to their weaknesses and that will also be fun.
As an aside, when I've argued this before, the most common response is that we need to increase the Hard DCs because players pass them too easily. Most people want to INCREASE the gap.
Increasing the gap is a horrible idea. I didn't mean to say that the system made exciting challenges- on its face it requires DM effort to make skill challenges feel like anything more than some time spent rolling dice and the GM narrating what happens.
ReplyDeleteIt really all ties into how hard the upper DC's are to beat if you aren't using your primary stat with the chosen skill. This makes everyone only focus on their chosen attribute, and leads to people having no idea what to do if they can't fit their one or two really good skills into the skill challenge- not a good outcome at all.
I think this also relates back to stats. 3.5/pathfinder the ranks/+3 to a class skill might not be the best solution, but those with the DC's make it possible to be good at something without having to build your entire character (the main stat) around it. I do not feel 4e does that.
Just another thought trying to say that for your system you might want to do things much differently than 4e, even if you fix the math I still do not think it will lend its self to a system that fits in with everything else.