In a sense, yes, but it doesn’t allow one character to make up for the failure of another, which was the other intended option. This might draw in more characters and increase participation.

As to your other points (Save ‘grace under pressure,’ but I’ll leave that.), it seems they boil down to:

“Skill challenges live and fail by description.”

And I couldn’t agree more. In fact, it might be the topic of the next article.

-Ben.

Re: #1 When we do not poll the players around the table, we often have the effect that some or in extreme case one character is repeatedly rolling, e.g in the case of a spokes person in a diplomatic encounter. Using an action point to be allowed to roll another check? Just follow the flow of the roleplaying and then you will be called up to roll again.

Re: #3 ‘… at the groups peril.’

Re: Discerning Intuition. I intended to say that having auto success and failure skills is gaming the system on part of the skill challenge designer not the player. For example i have tricked out intimidating sorcerer. i usually do not have any doubts about which opponents are resolved enough in their thinking, that i am unable to cow them into submission. This due to their description, role in the adventure and all the other cues i get from the DM during roleplaying. This is what i stated under Combat Checks. description, description, description.

Re: Grace under pressure. This is weaker, because the bonus does not apply all the time.
How does the stealthy group above feel, when detected outside a skill challenge?

You are welcome.

Skill challenges live and fail by description. Any complicated algorithm applying to DCs and availability of checks resulting out of earlier checks are gaming the system. It is better to have scenes for one or two skill checks. With the scene comes more description.

@afbeer: I’m not sure how using an action point to reroll (a fine use!) makes using an action point to allow a check to negate a failure meaningless?

Even if you don’t use a round or solicit actions from each player, I don’t see how allowing a second check or providing the trained bonus on an untrained check wouldn’t work– perhaps you can clarify what you meant?

RE: Discerning Intuition– yes, as I said in the first comment: ‘Discerning Intuition should probably be amended to say “…make an Insight check of Moderate difficulty to determine…”’ This feat was intended to provide a way to easily reveal what skills might be most appropriate, or to show when a particular skill might be inappropriate. That seemed worth a feat– not ‘gaming the system,’ since there are times when diplomacy or intimdate may not work at all, or when using religion might trigger a hostile reaction, or bluff might be particularly effective. Ordinarily, you’d have to experiment to find these options within a SC, and with the feat, you make a check to reveal them– establishing a cost and a benefit for the information. It might not always be useful, but not all feats are.

RE: Grace Under Pressure– I can see taking this feat for Stealth or Thievery, possibly Arcana or Athletics. It’s meant to provide that extra edge that ensures a character’s strengths can particularly shine in a skill challenge. It depends on the nature of the character and the tenor of the campaign. If skill challenges aren’t very common in your game, I can see how the feat would have less value. I think in a tricksy-urban-thief game, that feat would be gold.

RE: Combat Checks– Yes, like I said, “Certainly all of these options require the GM to prepare a bit ahead of time, describing aspects of the battlefield that give the players clues as to how to interact with the environment.” If you don’t make that effort, then the checks definitely seem nonsensical. Incorporating this option means tricking out the battlefield with terrain options that encourage players to try new tactics. I like the suggestions you make here.

RE: Afraid– yes, this isn’t a status condition, per se, but I was considering it in the context of the Intimidate skill and the description of possible success, where you “cow a target into taking some other action.”

Thank you for the comments!

-Ben.

We use the ever popular reroll a skill check for the skill challenge (in the hope to have a better result), therefore your fine idea #4 has no meaning in our group.
idea #1 and #3 come not into play as we do roll initiative or go around thetable for checks. We guard against one charakter doing all the checks and each charcter is allowed to roll any skill at the groups peril.

I can include idea #2. One out of four is a good result.

Feats and Class options:
Discerning Intuition: DC is missing or do you assume page 42 DMG? This feat is worthless if there are no auto result skills.

Skill challenges including auto successes and auto failure for skills are gaming the system. Which makes the skill challenges more mechanical during play. Thiey restrict the free flowing nature of the interaction.

Grace Under Pressure:
Skill Focus? I am hard pressed to find two skills i absolutly want to succeed at. This is even weaker than the +2/+2 feats in 3.X

Inspiring Demagogue, Outspoken Director:
OK

Directing Presence:
hmm

Skill Checks in Combat

I dislike these checks, when there is no environment establish to support them.

Athletics check to topple the brazier in order to kill minion is close blast 3.

Arcana check in order to direct the trap to unleash its attack on a target of your choice.

Dungeoneering check to choose the right rock in the overhang to strike to let a tunnel collapse.

Religion check in order to invoke the god to whom this altar is sanctified to and kill minion is close burst 3.

Good encounters have described environment. Each environment is special and not all options are available each combat.
Not every combat has a chandlier.

Inflicting status conditions by skill check follows the above. Given the proper environment any option can be done.

the condition afraid in undefined.

-Ben.