D&D 4E: XP Value of a Single Skill Check
Apologies in the advance about the lack of formatting - I'm writing this between compiles at work, and mostly for my own use.
While I think the Skill system in D&D 4E is a fantastic starting point, I'd gotten caught in the trap of using it as my only method of resolving anything involving skills.
In an attempt to get my game out of it's current grind rut, I'm trying to go more free flow with the skills and getting them to be used more as an emphasis on the role-playing and not the skills themselves. Easy enough to do in practice, and it's what I used to do all the time in previous editions. I'm still using skill challenge style systems where appropriate, e.g. Leader-led challenge where everyone has to participate (i.e. Climbing or swimming), and offering others a chance to do a skill challenge style system to involve them in a situation where they might not otherwise join in (i.e. searching a house for clues, getting everyone to at least try something to help, however odd or unlikely)..
So my catch now, is how much are skill checks worth?
In D&D 3E, with the bell curve XP system, it didn't matter so much if the party got a little behind, or above the current module. So I could be less precise without much the skill checks were worth. I tended to tally them up at the end of the session, assign a amount to them based on their current level, and if they got ahead/behind the bell curve would slowly pull them back in.
However in D&D 4th Ed, with it's flat XP system, if I want to keep the players in-level of the module I'll need to know more precisely what a check is worth. Give them too much, and they'll continue getting ahead of the module, too little and they'll slowly get behind.
On to the Math:
If we use combat as the base-line we can determine approximately much a single successful roll is worth.
An average level combat runs for around 5 rounds, assuming average hits and average damage.
Each player makes on average 1 rolls per round. AoE/multi attacks are generally counted for by the fact they deal less damage than a single target attack. And Action points counter out the odd round where a player doesn't get to attack.
We'll assume Encounter and Daily Powers will be included in the skill checks by their equivalent Encounter and Daily Utility Powers.
Assuming an 80% or so hit rate (after all buffs and debuffs are included), that's an average of 4 hits a round (5 person party), and therefore 20 hits per encounter.
So a single hit is worth 5% of the encounter.
Now combat is a two way system, where the monsters get to roll back vs the players, and on a hit back incur a cost to the them.
To negate that, I'll halve the value of a skill check roll, compare to a combat roll: so a Skill check roll will have a value of 2.5%.
It would take 40 Skill Challenge Rolls to make an equivalent single combat encounter, or from ease of working out my modules, a single successfull skill check is worth 1/40th of a combat encounter.
Comparing to the previous systems I've been using:
Original DMG Skill system: 12 successes before 6 failures, complexity 5 challenge, equivalent to one combat encounter. Requires a 66% success rate. The DCs were set around a 50% success rate for a skilled, trained character however.
Updated Skill System: 12 Successes before before 3 failures, complexity 5 challenge equivalent to one combat encounter. Requires an 80% success rate. DCs were set around 80%+ success rate for a skilled, trained character.
Compared to a combat roll, under the second of these systems a successful skill roll was worth 2x as much in XP - ignoring monster rolls. The first would require adjustment for the different success rates, but was generally considered too hard, and changed fairly rapidly to the second anyway.
Obsidian Skill System: 8 successes in 3 rounds (15 rolls). Requires a 53% success rate. DCs were set at 70% success rate for a skilled, trained character. However the assumption was that there would be only 2 such characters able to directly contribute, and 1 character who would be both untrained and unskilled in any suitably relevant skills success (10% success), and the other 2 skilled or trained in relevant skills, but not both (35% success).
I found in practice players had a tendency to come up with reasons to run their higher skills, leading to 3 (or 4) characters using skilled, trained skills, and only 1 person left out in the cold.
However under this system, a successful roll is worth even more compared to combat success, but the overall encounter is still worth 2x-3x as much roll for roll compared to combat (even excluding monster rolls).
Using a more free flow system, I'm going to be running skill encounters more as a single roll from each person. It will hopefully lead to a less grindy feel (at least on the skill/role-playing side - D&D has always been grindy in combat), but does mean that skill checks are going to be worth a lot less than they were under the formal skill systems.
While I think the Skill system in D&D 4E is a fantastic starting point, I'd gotten caught in the trap of using it as my only method of resolving anything involving skills.
In an attempt to get my game out of it's current grind rut, I'm trying to go more free flow with the skills and getting them to be used more as an emphasis on the role-playing and not the skills themselves. Easy enough to do in practice, and it's what I used to do all the time in previous editions. I'm still using skill challenge style systems where appropriate, e.g. Leader-led challenge where everyone has to participate (i.e. Climbing or swimming), and offering others a chance to do a skill challenge style system to involve them in a situation where they might not otherwise join in (i.e. searching a house for clues, getting everyone to at least try something to help, however odd or unlikely)..
So my catch now, is how much are skill checks worth?
In D&D 3E, with the bell curve XP system, it didn't matter so much if the party got a little behind, or above the current module. So I could be less precise without much the skill checks were worth. I tended to tally them up at the end of the session, assign a amount to them based on their current level, and if they got ahead/behind the bell curve would slowly pull them back in.
However in D&D 4th Ed, with it's flat XP system, if I want to keep the players in-level of the module I'll need to know more precisely what a check is worth. Give them too much, and they'll continue getting ahead of the module, too little and they'll slowly get behind.
On to the Math:
If we use combat as the base-line we can determine approximately much a single successful roll is worth.
An average level combat runs for around 5 rounds, assuming average hits and average damage.
Each player makes on average 1 rolls per round. AoE/multi attacks are generally counted for by the fact they deal less damage than a single target attack. And Action points counter out the odd round where a player doesn't get to attack.
We'll assume Encounter and Daily Powers will be included in the skill checks by their equivalent Encounter and Daily Utility Powers.
Assuming an 80% or so hit rate (after all buffs and debuffs are included), that's an average of 4 hits a round (5 person party), and therefore 20 hits per encounter.
So a single hit is worth 5% of the encounter.
Now combat is a two way system, where the monsters get to roll back vs the players, and on a hit back incur a cost to the them.
To negate that, I'll halve the value of a skill check roll, compare to a combat roll: so a Skill check roll will have a value of 2.5%.
It would take 40 Skill Challenge Rolls to make an equivalent single combat encounter, or from ease of working out my modules, a single successfull skill check is worth 1/40th of a combat encounter.
Comparing to the previous systems I've been using:
Original DMG Skill system: 12 successes before 6 failures, complexity 5 challenge, equivalent to one combat encounter. Requires a 66% success rate. The DCs were set around a 50% success rate for a skilled, trained character however.
Updated Skill System: 12 Successes before before 3 failures, complexity 5 challenge equivalent to one combat encounter. Requires an 80% success rate. DCs were set around 80%+ success rate for a skilled, trained character.
Compared to a combat roll, under the second of these systems a successful skill roll was worth 2x as much in XP - ignoring monster rolls. The first would require adjustment for the different success rates, but was generally considered too hard, and changed fairly rapidly to the second anyway.
Obsidian Skill System: 8 successes in 3 rounds (15 rolls). Requires a 53% success rate. DCs were set at 70% success rate for a skilled, trained character. However the assumption was that there would be only 2 such characters able to directly contribute, and 1 character who would be both untrained and unskilled in any suitably relevant skills success (10% success), and the other 2 skilled or trained in relevant skills, but not both (35% success).
I found in practice players had a tendency to come up with reasons to run their higher skills, leading to 3 (or 4) characters using skilled, trained skills, and only 1 person left out in the cold.
However under this system, a successful roll is worth even more compared to combat success, but the overall encounter is still worth 2x-3x as much roll for roll compared to combat (even excluding monster rolls).
Using a more free flow system, I'm going to be running skill encounters more as a single roll from each person. It will hopefully lead to a less grindy feel (at least on the skill/role-playing side - D&D has always been grindy in combat), but does mean that skill checks are going to be worth a lot less than they were under the formal skill systems.