D&D 5E Handling Skill Challenges

An exciting part of the game out of combat is roleplaying. However, backing up your roleplaying with actual die rolls can give you wavering results!

So herein lies the Skill Challenge where the DM will call you out to roll skills... Or does he call 2 of you out? 3? The entire party? Some skill challenges are assumed to be successful if 1/2 or more of the participating party members succeed. That being said, is it up to you - the DM - to decide who participates?

Do you as a DM, intentionally leave combat heavy characters OUT of a skill challenge while making say the Bard or Rogue do the check? Do you leave it entirely up to the players? Would you let the Fighter with -1 Persuasion try to smuggle magic goods into an anti-magic city, knowing that there's such a huge chance of failure and that the party could be arrested within a few rounds?

Skill challenges could divide the party a bit if I'm not wrong, but they also could all bring the party together if each member was accepted in doing their own thing. And players that are proficient in just a few skills may try to rework the situation in their favour, and only use the skills they're proficient in. In this example the Fighter with 18 Strength could say: "To persuade the Guard, I use my Athletics to show him how strong I really am. That way, he won't ask us as many questions..." .

In some cases, this is pretty creative so the player might actually get by here with an Athletics contest. But I'm sure it's not the case every time. I'd make him back up his Strength with something else, maybe even a Sleight of Hand to hide something and an Intelligence check to recall something interesting about the city that they were there to see. Some DM's may have only a couple skills in mind that they want the characters to use however so, this may not be the case all of the time.

What do you do in Skill Challenges like this?

There are no "skill challenges" in D&D 5e like there were in D&D 4e. Nothing formal, anyway.

As for how I handle similar things, I describe the situation. The players say what they want to do. I narrate the results. Sometimes I call for a check when the outcome is uncertain. A player NEVER asks to make a check. Why would they want to roll a fickle d20 because, as you say, "backing up your roleplaying with actual die rolls can give you wavering results..."? It's better for them to just state a goal and approach appropriate to the situation with the aim of achieving automatic success.

To ensure that all the players participate, the DM just has to frame the situation as it unfolds from the perspective of particular characters and ask "What do you do?" Then just do as I said above. This keeps the spotlight evenly balanced, more or less, throughout the challenge.

In my experience, it varies too much from one scenario to another to come up with hard-and-fast rules. Sometimes the players will be the proactive ones, trying to accomplish something, in which case they should take the lead on how they're going to do it. In others, they're on the defensive as an NPC tries to accomplish something, which may limit their options.

The main thing is not to just get stuck in a rut of saying "make a skill check" whenever someone suggests something. Some actions will be so impractical that, even if executed perfectly, they will not yield the desired result. Others will be so effective that it's pointless to even require a roll in order for them to succeed. If players are suggesting the former, try to clue them in on what they're missing about the situation (or let them fail, if their character genuinely wouldn't know any better). If they're coming up with the latter, let them have the win.

Triumph_Fork said:

An exciting part of the game out of combat is roleplaying. However, backing up your roleplaying with actual die rolls can give you wavering results!

So herein lies the Skill Challenge where the DM will call you out to roll skills... Or does he call 2 of you out? 3? The entire party? Some skill challenges are assumed to be successful if 1/2 or more of the participating party members succeed. That being said, is it up to you - the DM - to decide who participates?

Do you as a DM, intentionally leave combat heavy characters OUT of a skill challenge while making say the Bard or Rogue do the check? Do you leave it entirely up to the players? Would you let the Fighter with -1 Persuasion try to smuggle magic goods into an anti-magic city, knowing that there's such a huge chance of failure and that the party could be arrested within a few rounds?

Skill challenges could divide the party a bit if I'm not wrong, but they also could all bring the party together if each member was accepted in doing their own thing. And players that are proficient in just a few skills may try to rework the situation in their favour, and only use the skills they're proficient in. In this example the Fighter with 18 Strength could say: "To persuade the Guard, I use my Athletics to show him how strong I really am. That way, he won't ask us as many questions..." .

In some cases, this is pretty creative so the player might actually get by here with an Athletics contest. But I'm sure it's not the case every time. I'd make him back up his Strength with something else, maybe even a Sleight of Hand to hide something and an Intelligence check to recall something interesting about the city that they were there to see. Some DM's may have only a couple skills in mind that they want the characters to use however so, this may not be the case all of the time.

What do you do in Skill Challenges like this?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree with the first two responses.

The players describe what they want or are going to do, how they're doing it, etc. I'll apply a modifier or advantage/disadvantage based on that and in most cases handle it with passive checks (that includes looking at the passive score and the potential maximum of 20 + their modifier). If the situation warrants, I'll ask the player whose character is doing the relevant action to make a skill check.

As A DM, you're not looking to invent potential skills. It's really the opposite, the players should tell you what their characters are doing, or want to do, and you determine what skill that is. Even in the case of your fighter, I wouldn't allow an Athletics check (is the guard going to arm wrestle him?), it would be Intimidation just using their Strength modifier instead of Charisma.

As for how many people are involved?

If the help of multiple people will increase your chance of success (Perception), then I start with the character with the highest score and grant advantage.

If the multiple people will hurt your chance of success (Stealth), then I start with the character with the lowest score, and assign advantage/disadvantage, or nothing based on the circumstances.

So if that fighter flexing is helpful to intimidate that guard, while your rogue is attempting to intimidate him too, the rogue might gain advantage on the check if the fighter is good at it. No need to roll a check for the fighter, just look at his passive/potential score and determine how much he can help. Looking like a thug is an easy thing to do.

More often than not, I'm considering their passive Skill scores, and their potential (20 + skill modifier) to determine whether an ability check is warranted, or just narrate the results.

You also don't need to design some complex multi-step solution. Most are easy to determine as a single check if any. If it's something that the character is capable of (20 + modifier), and there isn't a specific dangerous consequence to failure (like picking a lock), then I use the difference between the DC and the skill check as the amount of time it will take. So they might be trying to pick that lock to hide from a guard that's around the corner, but they won't known how long it will take. You don't have to keep making checks, and there's no need for sub-checks.

I would never want to exclude any players from anything. It's up to them to determine how they will go about it. Everybody can contribute. Their contributions might be suggestions at the table, which are then carried out by another character. But everybody can participate.

Triumph_Fork said:

Handling Skill Challenges

Click to expand...

So, "Skill Challenge" was a jargon term in 4e... [sblock]A jargon term for a structured non-combat encounter/task that 'challenged' the PCs to a degree comparable to a combat encounter and yielded similar experience. The way they were presented, it was not unusual or unreasonable for them to be a lot easier than a combat encounter, with proportionately less exp, but it was comparable.

The mechanics involved were really only workable because of 4e's NoGoodVeryBadWrongFun UN-Bounded Accuracy, that made 'level' highly meaningful to skill checks, rather like 4e's encounter guidelines in which a similar size group of standard monsters of a given level were, in fact, appropriate challenges to parties of around the same level (radical, un-intuitive, and so-not-D&D, I know, those were dark times, but their over).

As a matter of fact, initially, they weren't workable even then. The original PH1 Skill Challenge used the easy-to-remember mechanic of n successes before n/2 failures, where n was a multiple of 4. As the PhD statisticians reading this immediately realized, THAT DOESN'T WORK. It means that as skill challenges get 'more complex' they get more likely to succeed.

What's worse, it was never errata'd. OK, it was fixed in an Update, and again, in DM2, and yet again in the RC, but it was never errata'd, I'm just say'n, because they refused to admit 'updates' were errata.

Anyway, by the RC it a was a (don't tell anyone, it's a secret) workable enough system of n success before 3 failures, which meant a higher value of n actually made the challenge harder. It was structured so each PC had a chance to participate, and the DM could design it in advance if desired, with an idea of how difficult it would be, and a corresponding exp award. It was still pretty bare-bones, and, at the rate D&D design tends to progress, could've done with a couple decades of work, but it had a little promise.

So, of course, Mearls gave it a quick bath and tossed it out in the street.
[/sblock]...So y'might not wanna use that term.

An exciting part of the game out of combat is roleplaying.

Click to expand...

It's a roleplaying game - in or out of combat. If there's no RP in combat, you don't even rise to the level of a Gauntlet sprite, at least they occasionally get hungry or say "ouch."

However, backing up your roleplaying with actual die rolls can give you wavering results!
So herein lies the Skill Exploration-Challenge/Social-Encounter where the DM will call you out to roll skills... Or does he call 2 of you out? 3? The entire party?
is it up to you - the DM - to decide who participates?

Click to expand...

Well, usually in 5e everthing's up to the DM, but in this case, the idea is that players declare actions. So a situation can be resolved by one player declaring a series of actions or by each player declaring different actions - or if there's no consequence of failure, everyone piling on to any failure to get at least one success.
It's kinda up to the players (for a change), really, unless what one player does triggers something (like a trap) that forces others to react (by making saving throws, for instance).

The DM, though, does decide succeed, fail, or roll (and what the consequences of success or failure are) for each declaration, though.

Some Skill Exploration-Challenges/Social-Encounters are assumed to be successful if 1/2 or more of the participating party members succeed.

Click to expand...

That's called a Group Skill Check. And it's a pretty workable little mechanic (even if it did, shamefully, also have it's origins in 4e - oh, I've said too much.).

Do you as a DM, intentionally leave combat heavy characters OUT of a skill challenge while making say the Bard or Rogue do the check?

Click to expand...

I, as a DM, do not.

Do you leave it entirely up to the players?

Click to expand...

They decide what they're doing, I just decide how it goes for them.

Would you let the Fighter with -1 Persuasion try to smuggle magic goods into an anti-magic city, knowing that there's such a huge chance of failure and that the party could be arrested within a few rounds?

Click to expand...

Hey, if he decides to try it, he tries it. Stopping him would be railroading.

Skill challenges could divide the party a bit if I'm not wrong, but they also could all bring the party together if each member was accepted in doing their own thing.

Click to expand...

OK, the past tense made it sound like you were talking about actual Skill Challenges in The Reviled Edition, not just inappropriately using it as a label for not-the-same-thing-at-all in bless-ed 5e. [sblock]Skill Challenges were structured with the expectation of every character participating, but players who wanted to avoid making a check they sucked at could sorta punt by using a secondary skill that didn't count towards failures or just aiding another player's roll.[/sblock]

And players that are proficient in just a few skills may try to rework the situation in their favour, and only use the skills they're proficient in.

Click to expand...

That's called 'skilled play' or 'meta-gaming' depending on whether you resemble the remark or not.

In this example the Fighter with 18 Strength could say: "To persuade the Guard, I use my Athletics to show him how strong I really am. That way, he won't ask us as many questions..." .

Click to expand...

Yeah, that'd be intimidate, which was a skill fighters could be trained in. FWIW. (Not much.)

What do you do in Skill Exploration-Challenges/Social-Encounters like this?

Click to expand...

Just let it play out. Present the situation, the players who are interested and feel their PCs should get involved will declare actions, which you resolve per usual. Eventually, thing's'll be so eff'd up something bad happens or no further progress is possible - or they'll succeed. Either way, move the game along from that point.

Here we go again: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?453707-How-to-Adjudicate-Actions-in-D-amp-D-5e

Read that guide for an excellent treatise on adjudicating actions in 5e. Your players will thank you.

MarkB said:

In my experience, it varies too much from one scenario to another to come up with hard-and-fast rules. Sometimes the players will be the proactive ones, trying to accomplish something, in which case they should take the lead on how they're going to do it. In others, they're on the defensive as an NPC tries to accomplish something, which may limit their options.

Click to expand...

I dunno - as long as the player describes both a goal and approach that should be enough to determine whether the action succeeds, fails or is in doubt and therefore needs the dice + rules. That is the one "system" that underpins the entire game IMHO.

Triumph_Fork said:

An exciting part of the game out of combat is roleplaying. However, backing up your roleplaying with actual die rolls can give you wavering results!

So herein lies the Skill Challenge where the DM will call you out to roll skills... Or does he call 2 of you out? 3? The entire party? Some skill challenges are assumed to be successful if 1/2 or more of the participating party members succeed. That being said, is it up to you - the DM - to decide who participates?

Do you as a DM, intentionally leave combat heavy characters OUT of a skill challenge while making say the Bard or Rogue do the check? Do you leave it entirely up to the players? Would you let the Fighter with -1 Persuasion try to smuggle magic goods into an anti-magic city, knowing that there's such a huge chance of failure and that the party could be arrested within a few rounds?

Skill challenges could divide the party a bit if I'm not wrong, but they also could all bring the party together if each member was accepted in doing their own thing. And players that are proficient in just a few skills may try to rework the situation in their favour, and only use the skills they're proficient in. In this example the Fighter with 18 Strength could say: "To persuade the Guard, I use my Athletics to show him how strong I really am. That way, he won't ask us as many questions..." .

In some cases, this is pretty creative so the player might actually get by here with an Athletics contest. But I'm sure it's not the case every time. I'd make him back up his Strength with something else, maybe even a Sleight of Hand to hide something and an Intelligence check to recall something interesting about the city that they were there to see. Some DM's may have only a couple skills in mind that they want the characters to use however so, this may not be the case all of the time.

What do you do in Skill Challenges like this?

Click to expand...

[MENTION=6892365]Triumph_Fork[/MENTION] Here's how I do it:

1. Get clear about the risk vs. reward in advance. What's the ideal outcome for the PCs? What is a consequence of failure? What complications might occur?

2. Let the players decide what they're doing, how they're approaching the challenge.

3. Determine if their description merits multiple individual checks or one group check. Many situations will only merit a group check – multiple individual checks are usually better suited to more complex (and less frequent) situations. If doing individual checks, determine if any PCs are Helping others & figure out a logical sequence for individually acting players to take their turns in (it helps to ask "could player X's actions influence what happens in player Y's scene? if so, X goes before Y).

3a. Remember ONLY roll dice when the outcome is in question. If you, as DM, have a player role-playing very well, making an intelligent argument that would be totally convincing to the greedy smuggler, you're perfectly within your rights to judge it to be an "auto-success." In situations like that, I often won't even reference the rules, and just role-play the NPC accordingly. Not only is this permissible for the DM to do, it's to be encouraged. I'll let others debate the theory of "player skill vs. character skill" – in practice, I've found it just works.

4. Interpret the results of the check(s) with a "degrees of success/failure" model. Beat Difficulty by 5 or more? That's a great success – the PCs get some kind of boon, and sometimes I let them pick from a few I list off / sometimes they have something in mind. Fail the Difficulty by 5 or more? That's a disastrous failure – the PCs suffer a complication, often I let them pick from a list of complications (which are often a mix of written-in-advance & created on-the-spot).

5. Narrate the results based on those outcomes/complications/boons.


And I want to call out one thing...

"To persuade the Guard, I use my Athletics to show him how strong I really am. That way, he won't ask us as many questions..." .

Click to expand...

If a player said something like this, I'd encourage him to roleplay or describe exactly what he was doing. My interpretation, based on what you shared, would be that the player is asking to make an Intimidation check but wants to use Strength as the ability for the check instead of Charisma – most likely because their PC is strong but uncharismatic.

IOW he's trying to game the system, and hasn't even bothered to come up with an interesting narrative to justify it.

If he couldn't come up with an interesting narrative, I'd consider ruling it an automatic failure or requiring him to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check with disadvantage.

Quickleaf said:

[MENTION=6892365]
3a. Remember ONLY roll dice when the outcome is in question. If you, as DM, have a player role-playing very well, making an intelligent argument that would be totally convincing to the greedy smuggler, you're perfectly within your rights to judge it to be an "auto-success." In situations like that, I often won't even reference the rules, and just role-play the NPC accordingly. Not only is this permissible for the DM to do, it's to be encouraged. I'll let others debate the theory of "player skill vs. character skill" – in practice, I've found it just works

Click to expand...

And here "role-playing very well" doesn't mean a great acting performance, but that player is utilizing their knowledge of the game world and current situation to present a compelling argument as to why their character should succeed. It's great if the player can act but it's not required.

Quickleaf said:

And I want to call out one thing...



If a player said something like this, I'd encourage him to roleplay or describe exactly what he was doing. My interpretation, based on what you shared, would be that the player is asking to make an Intimidation check but wants to use Strength as the ability for the check instead of Charisma – most likely because their PC is strong but uncharismatic.

IOW he's trying to game the system, and hasn't even bothered to come up with an interesting narrative to justify it.

If he couldn't come up with an interesting narrative, I'd consider ruling it an automatic failure or requiring him to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check with disadvantage.

Click to expand...

Agreed it drives me crazy when my players just call out "I rolled 25!" when I haven't even asked for a roll! I'm trying to train them but it's like herding cats!