D&D 5E Skill Challenges in 5e?

[Eric V]

Some of the early skill challenges were pretty dumb (impressing the undead spirit with the number of pushups you can do kind of thing).

Later on, they really expanded their scope (DMG2) to include a variety of things ("Moving around in Suderham" was a good example). In fact, the DMG2 made me rethink SC in a whole new way, and I came to love them; we had a SC for an intense courtroom scene, for sneaking about Gardmore Abbey [right from the mod], tracking the assassin, chasing the assassin (one of the better ones from the DMG), investigating a crime scene for multiple clues...it was great.

I'd love to port them over, somehow, but as [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] points out, the math bears examining.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If Skill Challenges (tm) as a thing are ever ported into 5E, I would imagine it would probably occur either as a website article, or as an option in the eventual Unearthed Arcana type of product. I wouldn't expect to see them occur before then in some other book (like the upcoming Elemental Evil books.)

My take on it is simply that one of the facets of using Skill Challenges was that it was an easier format to illustrate to newer DMs the ways in which multiple checks could be used to create and resolve conflict. That was something that many experienced DMs already did on their own without any format required... but to instruct other people on that sort of free-form "call for checks when you think they're necessary based upon the actions of the players" improvisational dungeon mastering was probably not easily done in the limited page count they had at their disposal. Sure, you could *try* and teach improvisation in 3 pages of a book... but you shouldn't expect results all that grand.

And as one of the tenets of 4E was to codify so many aspects of the game that even someone who had never DM'd at all in their life could still pick the game up, learn the format, and then run series of encounters to create adventures to (at the very least) moderately successful effect... so too came the lessons of Skill Challenges. What Skill Challenges did was teach DMs the idea of "pre-planned" improvisation. Scenarios and scenes written as part of adventure design that had beginnings, middles, and ends, using checks to build and resolve actions in a formatted methodology that DMs could then improvise in and around. It easily answered the question of "How do I determine when to call for checks?" in a way that was comprehensible, formattable, and which produced at the barest minimum adequate results. It was another facet of 4E's design to make running the game easier to more people.

However... that mandate of codification for ease-of-use is not the primary focus in the design of 5E... it's the ubiquitous "Rulings, not rules". 5E is about putting power back into the hands of the DM to make decisions they think are the right call at their table at the time. Thus dictating a format of "X successes before Y failures" methodology for checks is not something I expect them to usher in as an official mechanic any time soon... because that's definitely a "Rules, not rulings" game mechanic format for calling for checks. Do I think at some point they will give an optional instruction column that goes into how you could bring them over and use them in 5E? Sure. But in all seriousness, the format is so self-explanatory that those who already know how they work can adapt and use them in 5E right now without needing anyone from WotC to write up instructions for it.

 

[DMZ2112]

Certainly, anytime you run a puzzle or role-play, you're basically doing a skill challenge, but I liked the way it helped keep score and keep things on track.

Agreed that sometimes, in all editions, players need to make multiple skill checks to navigate a complex situation. But I think the codified methodology only hurts immersion and player creativity.

PC: "We need to get to Waterdeep. How much for passage?"
NPC Captain: "Well, my ship took a lot of damage in the storm last night. I'm headed that way anyway; if you lads can help me with repairs I'll take you along free of charge."
Olmec of the Hidden Temple: "SKILL CHALLENGE! Roll six successes in the Rope Use, Carpentry, or Singing (Sea Shanties) skills before you roll six failures, or the captain of the S.S. Convoluted Roleplaying Rules will charge you for passage to the Shrine of the Silver Mon-- I mean Waterdeep!"

Okay, Olmec is a little much. But when I ran skill challenges the way I felt they should be run, without notifying the players in advance of the requirements and victory condition, it was nearly always met with player rage for 'forcing them to fail.'

 

[Dausuul]

The 4E skill challenge rules were an okay framework, but they had some major flaws and depended heavily on the DM to flesh them out and make them interesting--if you ran them "by the book," the way you'd run combat, they were awful. I would do 5E skill challenges something like this (playtesting required to fine-tune the numbers):

SKILL CHALLENGES
In some situations, the PCs may need to resolve a complex situation by the use of ability or skill checks. You can run this situation as a skill challenge.

During the skill challenge, the PCs need to earn some number of successes; if they don't reach the required number before the challenge is over, they fail. A skill challenge consists of a series of passes, with each PC getting one opportunity to act during a pass*. The length of a pass varies, from as little as 1 round to as much as 1 day or even longer.

Each PC declares what he or she is doing during a pass. You then decide which of the following best describes each PC's action:

• Direct Contribution. The PC's action directly contributes to success in the challenge. The PC makes an ability or skill check of your choice. If he or she succeeds, the party gains 1 success.
• Risky Contribution. The PC's action is a gamble. It could help a lot, but it could also make things worse. The PC makes an ability or skill check of your choice. If he or she succeeds, the party gains 2 successes; if he or she fails, the party loses 1 success, to a minimum of 0.
• Support. The PC's action does not directly contribute, but helps another to succeed. The PC makes an ability or skill check of your choice. If he or she succeeds, one other PC gets advantage on one roll during this pass.
• Auto Success. The PC's chosen action takes advantage of some special opportunity. The party gains 1 or more successes with no roll required.
• Information. The PC is trying to gather information. The PC makes an ability or skill check of your choice. If he or she succeeds, the PC learns about an opportunity to gain an auto success.
• Unhelpful. The PC's action does not advance the party's goals in any way. Nothing happens.
• Sabotage. The PC's action actively makes things worse. The party loses 1 or more successes, to a minimum of 0.

PCs don't get to choose which skills they're using, though their chosen actions may suggest a skill. You may also call for some other type of roll if you feel it appropriate. The DC should be 10 for an action that is obviously relevant to the challenge, or 15 for an action which seems like a stretch or is unusually difficult. For example, during a tense negotiation with a hostile warlord, making a persuasive argument is obviously relevant and would be DC 10. Doing juggling tricks to put the warlord at ease could work, but it's a bit of a stretch and should be DC 15.

If a PC tries to keep doing the same thing over and over, you may want to increase the DC or rule it Unhelpful after the first time. That isn't to say a PC can't keep using the same skill. Again using negotiation as an example, if the PC comes up with a series of persuasive arguments, you can grant a Persuasion check at DC 10 for each of them. But if the PC just keeps repeating the same argument over and over, the second Persuasion check should be DC 15 and the third should be Unhelpful.

The number of passes depends on how much narrative weight you want to give the skill challenge. If you want to resolve things quickly and move on, 1 or 2 passes is appropriate. For something more dramatic, you can call for 3 or 4 passes. Suggested requirements for successes, assuming a party of 4:

• 1 pass: 3 successes required
• 2 passes: 5 successes required
• 3 passes: 8 successes required
• 4 passes: 10 successes required

You can reduce the required number of successes to make the challenge easier, or increase it to make it harder. You can also allow for partial victories or "stretch goals"--perhaps 8 successes will persuade the warlord not to attack, while 10 successes turns her into an ally.

[SIZE=-2]*Instead of having "X successes before Y failures," we have "X successes in Y passes" so that PCs without useful skills are not penalized for trying to contribute. For ploys that could backfire, use Risky Contribution.[/SIZE]

 

[nomotog]

I think the best way to do a skill challenge might be to take a in world challenge and try to expand it out to be complex rather then trying to graph a system on it. Like take a locked chest.
Add 3 more locks to unlocks on different sides.
Then maybe a magic ward that shocks you if you brake it, or fail a pick, The wizard might be able to dispel it.
Make it super heavy so it's hard to move, now you need to make a str check to get at some of the locks.
Maybe the chest is guarded by a ghost that re locks the locks. The cleric can use turn undead, or maybe the players can just talk the ghost into letting them open it.

Just like try to layer complications on complications in order to make your skill challenges.

 

[billd91]

[SIZE=-2]*Instead of having "X successes before Y failures," we have "X successes in Y passes" so that PCs without useful skills are not penalized for trying to contribute. For ploys that could backfire, use Risky Contribution.[/SIZE]

Is this "X successes in Y passes" really much different than "X success before Y failures"? A failure still uses up a pass. It might just be better to have them take Y passes and then compare X successes with Y-X failures. If X is greater than Y-X, then basic good things happen. If X is greater by a decent amount than Y-X, then better good things happen. If X is less than Y-X, then they failed to make their intended good things happen.

 

[Dausuul]

Is this "X successes in Y passes" really much different than "X success before Y failures"? A failure still uses up a pass.

Yes, it is very different, because often the PCs can determine how many of them go into the skill challenge. If you're going to the palace to negotiate with the king, you can choose whether to bring Bob the Silent, who has an 8 Charisma and no relevant skills, or leave him back at the inn.

"X successes before Y failures" means that Bob is a burden on the party. He's apt to blow his rolls and move the party toward failure. They are more likely to succeed if he's not there at all, and thus the party should do whatever they can to keep him out of the skill challenge. In fact, if you can get away with it, the smart play is to send only whoever has the highest Persuasion skill. Let that person make all the rolls and you have the best chance of success. The DM has to actively intervene to prevent this.

"X successes in Y passes" means that Bob may not contribute much, but his silent presence is not hurting the party, and he might get a lucky roll. Thus, it makes sense to bring him. The only time you want to keep a PC out of the challenge is if the player is prone to making such bad choices that the DM deems them Sabotage and knocks off successes for them.

 

[txshusker]

Okay, Olmec is a little much. But when I ran skill challenges the way I felt they should be run, without notifying the players in advance of the requirements and victory condition, it was nearly always met with player rage for 'forcing them to fail.'

Hehe... well, I wouldn't put that into a skill challenge. A mundane skill challenge like that seems a bit micro-managing.

But I do prefer the dice to show a variant of success or fail instead of just the players fumbling around in limbo and eventually letting them succeed because I got tired they couldn't come up with the correct guess to a puzzle. I think they can help create the chaos in the roleplaying while still allowing for the overall success.

I have players who don't enjoy coming up with every question to ask in the right order. They'd prefer to generalize something and check. Or sometimes they get stuck thinking of anything at all. So a forced SC can also initiate action to move forward the game. If they're interrogating a prisoner and all the players miss an intimidate check and a persuasion check, (which happened last session) and they still need some vital piece of information, perhaps putting the interrogation into a skill challenge would have been more appropriate in order to allow for the failures but still have some sort of trackable success.

If you really ran the Olmec encounter, then perhaps the ease with which a party finished impressed the captain and they gained something or lost something because of their quick success or utter defeat.

Roleplaying at every table is different, and I am not surprised some DM's would abhor them. If their players are always spot on engaged and think of clever and witty ways to engage the world, they're likely not needed. My group... eh, not so much....

I thought forcing a skill challenge into every module was silly, and I doubt, outside of the ones I've converted that I liked or the futures ones I might convert, I would go out of my way to create a SC in a new mission I created from scratch for 5e. But I thought they were an interesting and useful tool as trackable roleplaying on occasions.

 

[billd91]

Yes, it is very different, because often the PCs can determine how many of them go into the skill challenge. If you're going to the palace to negotiate with the king, you can choose whether to bring Bob the Silent, who has an 8 Charisma and no relevant skills, or leave him back at the inn.

"X successes before Y failures" means that Bob is a burden on the party. He's apt to blow his rolls and move the party toward failure. They are more likely to succeed if he's not there at all, and thus the party should do whatever they can to keep him out of the skill challenge. In fact, if you can get away with it, the smart play is to send only whoever has the highest Persuasion skill. Let that person make all the rolls and you have the best chance of success. The DM has to actively intervene to prevent this.

"X successes in Y passes" means that Bob may not contribute much, but his silent presence is not hurting the party, and he might get a lucky roll. Thus, it makes sense to bring him. The only time you want to keep a PC out of the challenge is if the player is prone to making such bad choices that the DM deems them Sabotage and knocks off successes for them.

That doesn't actually illustrate a difference between "X successes before Y failures" and "X successes in Y passes". Bob the Silent could tag along with the first group (X success before Y failures) and not make a skill check just as easily as he could in the second.

In the second (X successes over Y passes), if they need to get 3 successes out of 4 PCs on one pass, they still have to make 3 successes before 2 failures. 2 failures with 1 pass over 4 PCs means that they can't achieve 3 successes on the pass. If Bob the Silent tries to get a lucky roll and blows it, they're one failure closer to blowing the skill challenge. None of the other 3 PCs have any room to fail. Actually, the same is true if any of the 3 skill checking PCs fails. Increasing the number of passes could substantially increase the number of tolerated failures but that's the only real difference I'm seeing. And that won't really exist in a sample case where there's one pass.

 

[DMZ2112]

Hehe... well, I wouldn't put that into a skill challenge. A mundane skill challenge like that seems a bit micro-managing.

I didn't create the skill challenge in question, but I do disagree. That's the perfect scenario for a skill challenge. A complex but finite series of actions with a single goal that roleplaying would not improve and which is not mandatory to the storyline. If a series of actions is too simple a skill challenge is overkill. If it is too large, a challenge reduces too significant a portion of the narrative to a series of quick rolls. If it is interesting enough to be roleplayed out, the skill challenge is a disservice to the players. And finally, if success is necessary for progression, the possibility of failure due to numbers on dice should not be entertained.