Custom Challenges: Lets build some

[OchreJelly]

We have threads for creating custom monsters, why not have a thread dedicated to make skill challenge templates! I’ll start with this one:

Parley with Giants

Setup: The PCs have cause to get through a mountain pass without combat with the giants. They are stopped by a frost giant Jarl and his warband.

Level: Appropriate to encounters with giants (paragon)

Complexity: (requires 4 successes before 3 failures).

Primary Skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight, Intimidate

Bluff (moderate DCs): You attempt to trick the giants into thinking combat with them is unwarranted, perhaps claims that you are aligned against a common enemy.

Diplomacy (difficult DCs): The giants are extremely distrustful of outsiders. Best if used with claims of alignment against a common enemy (only if it’s actually true). If this course is used and is true, adjust DC to moderate.

Insight (moderate DCs): You attempt to read the inscrutable giants. First success with this skill reveals that strong words are the best course (intimidate). Insight will also warn against the acrobatics trap (see below).

Intimidate (moderate DCs): The Jarl respects strength and acts of bravado above all else. A success here instantly initiates a difficult Athletics challenge (below). On failure: The giants don’t seem offended but merely laugh at the “funny boast from little man”. This may make the PCs think they should try to entertain the giants.

Acrobatics or any skill intended to entertain (trap). Instant failure. The giants seem to respond well and laugh at acts of buffoonery, however this path is actually a trap. When 3 failures occur with this course, the giants will wish to keep the “funny performer” in a cage. Combat ensues unless the PCs agree to give up the performer!

Athletics (difficult): Unlocked from intimidate. The giants respect strength. The Jarl will appoint one of his bodyguards to wrestle with the appointed PC. This counts as two successes.

Special: Circumstance DC +2 difficulty to diplomacy if a dwarf is present in the party.

Success: The Jarl lets the PCs pass without incident.

Failure: Initiates combat with the giants. Other consequences specific to the module.

 

[eleran]

I really like what you've done here. One question. If the PC wrestles with the Giant and loses, what happens? Is it a single failure? Or not a failure at all?

 

[OchreJelly]

Thanks! I would count it as a single failure. If they haven't reached their maximum failures, the DM could RP it as the Jarl saying, "Anyone else care to step up?" Of course the PC's could try one of the other routes.

The idea of skill traps wasn't introduced in the preview, but I thought it added a nice wrinkle to the "auto failure" paths. The system seems fluid enough to allow this at the DM's discretion.

 

[OchreJelly]

Here’s another. This is one I could see coming up in just about any campaign, but I probably wouldn’t overuse it. It could be used the first time PCs go to a big or dangerous city.

Newcomers to the Big City

Setup: The PCs need to find a specific location in a city they have never been to before. The city is known for its dangerous reputation, or is extremely large.

Level: level of PCs

Complexity: (requires 3 successes before 3 failures).

Primary Skills: Streetwise, History, Insight

Streetwise (easy DCs): You ask the right questions from the right people. You are making progress toward your destination.

History (moderate DCs): You know of famous landmarks to watch for. You are making progress toward your destination. A PC using athletics can aid this check by climbing a wall to look for landmarks.

Insight (moderate DCs): “I’ve got a bad feeling about this…” Unlocked after the first failure. You go back and get your bearings straight. You use your judgment to pick a better path and make progress toward your destination.

Special: You can add other skills depending on what’s in your city. i.e. “Arcana” if the city has a famous Wizard School, “Religion” for a famous church etc.

Success: The PCs find their destination.

Failure: Country rubes that they are, the PCs are lost in the city. Moreover, they are deliberately led into an ambush by street thugs. Combat encounter ensues.

 

[ltbaxter]

The more I see on these skill challenges, the more confused I am. I think what you did is interesting, and would work fine, but there's a few aspects to this challenge - and to the one presented recently by Wizards, that bother me.

Acrobatics or any skill intended to entertain (trap). Instant failure.

First and foremost, there's the use of a skill that there is *no* reason to presuppose would cause any problem, and the party gets smacked down even for trying it. I don't like auto-fail in these skill challenges.

Second, I thought the design philosophy of the new system was to allow *every* player to participate, not just the one(s) with the "needed" skills. That was a perceived big shortcoming of 3.5. Your skill challenge seems very 3.5 to me - in the sense that this is almost exactly how I would run such a challenge in 3.5. (I used multiple rolls for success/fail in 3.5) It's easy to imagine several party members having none of the "primary" skills needed for this challenge.

Third, where does player skill come into play? They have no way of knowing which skills are "trapped" - also, there is no direct benefit whatsover to good roleplaying or to creative explanation for use of skills. How might that work? If a player did a particularly good job in roleplaying the diplomacy, I would knock down the DC a notch. If he came up with a use for a skill I had not imagined (say History here) and explained it well, I would likewise give it a decent chance of success. If they can't say "why" they're using a skill other than "it's my highest skill", I would make the success DC harder.

Again, creative post, I'm not picking on the example, but am thinking out loud about what's the best way to create a skill challenge in 4e.

 

[WhatGravitas]

It's easy to imagine several party members having none of the "primary" skills needed for this challenge.

Well, the primary skills are more like a suggested course of action - that's the point of being "primary" instead of "required" - they're just the most suited ones. The other ones need more PC ideas.

Third, where does player skill come into play? They have no way of knowing which skills are "trapped"

That's also my problem with them - it is very random and has a lot of "gotch!"-moment. At least allow the players to follow-up with an Insight roll to note the failure.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Lacyon]

Third, where does player skill come into play? They have no way of knowing which skills are "trapped" - also, there is no direct benefit whatsover to good roleplaying or to creative explanation for use of skills. How might that work? If a player did a particularly good job in roleplaying the diplomacy, I would knock down the DC a notch. If he came up with a use for a skill I had not imagined (say History here) and explained it well, I would likewise give it a decent chance of success. If they can't say "why" they're using a skill other than "it's my highest skill", I would make the success DC harder.

Again, creative post, I'm not picking on the example, but am thinking out loud about what's the best way to create a skill challenge in 4e.

For the "trapped" skills, an Insight check has so far been the way to avoid these pitfalls. I'd personally be wary of overusing the concept, but they can be appropriate some of the time.

Your ideas on dealing with creative descriptions seem spot on to me. Creativity unlocks a skill use that wasn't planned for initially. Good roleplaying and player skill allows lower DCs.

 

[OchreJelly]

I appreciate the feedback. I’ll throw in the standard disclaimer that I’m only going off the preview material so I don’t have all the answers.

Actually I did put in a method for “detecting the conversation trap” and that was with Insight. I agree that players shouldn't be punished without some means of detecting the trap. The idea is the giants are laughing and having a good time watching the acrobat, but the insightful character is paying closer attention and maybe overhears one say something like, “this man is funny we should keep him”, or maybe his gut feeling tells him that something is wrong with their behavior. Maybe it should be perception, that’s probably more accurate. As a DM I would probably allow a free check with it.

In this case the auto failure is simply that they were too good at acrobatics (whether or not they actually succeeded). The giants want a plaything and the acrobat fits the bill. The PCs could even turn this failure into a success by “offering” their acrobat to the giants, who later sneaks out of their camp and gives the PCs important intelligence on the giants’ camp.

 

[baberg]

Third, where does player skill come into play? They have no way of knowing which skills are "trapped" - also, there is no direct benefit whatsover to good roleplaying or to creative explanation for use of skills. How might that work? If a player did a particularly good job in roleplaying the diplomacy, I would knock down the DC a notch. If he came up with a use for a skill I had not imagined (say History here) and explained it well, I would likewise give it a decent chance of success. If they can't say "why" they're using a skill other than "it's my highest skill", I would make the success DC harder.

Remember, we were only given a few paragraphs of the Skill Challenges chapter, so it's entirely possible the rest of the chapter deals with these things. I know that I will be doing things similarly to you where there are no "auto-fail" abilities, but if the PC who's trying to use the ability can't give me a good reason it's going to take a natural 20 for it to work. Remember the 4e motto, "Yes you can".

I see Skill Challenges as a formalized Roleplaying Encounter. It forces the PCs to use the skills their character knows in creative ways in order to influence the plot of the story (while staying in character) which to me is just what roleplaying is.

Of course, if WotC had named them "Roleplaying Encounters" the boards would be up in arms, "4E HAS NO ROLEPLAYING OUTSIDE THESE ENCOUNTERS!!!!!!1" and there would be anarchy.

 

[Delemental]

The more I see on these skill challenges, the more confused I am. I think what you did is interesting, and would work fine, but there's a few aspects to this challenge - and to the one presented recently by Wizards, that bother me.



First and foremost, there's the use of a skill that there is *no* reason to presuppose would cause any problem, and the party gets smacked down even for trying it. I don't like auto-fail in these skill challenges.

Second, I thought the design philosophy of the new system was to allow *every* player to participate, not just the one(s) with the "needed" skills. That was a perceived big shortcoming of 3.5. Your skill challenge seems very 3.5 to me - in the sense that this is almost exactly how I would run such a challenge in 3.5. (I used multiple rolls for success/fail in 3.5) It's easy to imagine several party members having none of the "primary" skills needed for this challenge.

Third, where does player skill come into play? They have no way of knowing which skills are "trapped" - also, there is no direct benefit whatsover to good roleplaying or to creative explanation for use of skills. How might that work? If a player did a particularly good job in roleplaying the diplomacy, I would knock down the DC a notch. If he came up with a use for a skill I had not imagined (say History here) and explained it well, I would likewise give it a decent chance of success. If they can't say "why" they're using a skill other than "it's my highest skill", I would make the success DC harder.

Again, creative post, I'm not picking on the example, but am thinking out loud about what's the best way to create a skill challenge in 4e.

At the risk of initiating another debate on the auto fail issue (there's enough of that going on in the excerpt thread, in between arguments about Intimidate), perhaps instead of saying that the use of a skill is an 'Instant failure', perhaps it would work better for you as -

Acrobatics (or any skill used to entertain) - The player cannot achieve a success in the skill challenge using this skill. If the character succeeds on a Difficult skill check here, it triggers a free use of Insight (at a +2 bonus, as normal for succeeding on a Difficult check), telling the character that their performance is not having the desired effect ("My double tuck-roll was flawless! How could they not be impressed?"). Note that this does not apply if the skill is not being used for entertainment (such as making Acrobatics checks to demonstrate that they would make a difficult target in a fight).

In addition, if the skill challenge results in a failure, then any characters who have used skills meant for entertainment will be targeted for capture by the giants, rather than killed.

There's a difference between 'Auto fail' and 'Can't gain a success' - the skill still doesn't help, but it doesn't hurt, either. It's also more specific in stating that only that particular use of the skill is restricted, and it gives the player an out to realize that their tactic isn't working. It also preserves some of the 'trap' aspect of the original challenge, but makes it more of a specific unintended consequence which builds upon the existing failure result (and could even be seen as a bonus, since the giants won't try to kill the backflipping character...).

I can see why some have a problem with saying a particular skill will automatically fail. I do think its reasonable to note that some skills may be less effective in certain circumstances, and may have unexpected results. I'd have a hard time figuring out how Streetwise could be applied to the giant encounter, for example.

As far as the concern over allowing anyone to participate in a challenge, my impression is that the Primary skills listed are meant to be a list of the skills most likely to be used, not an exclusive list of 'approved' skills. I'd have no problem with allowing that History check if the player had good justification ("I recount the glories of the Giant Wars in order to get on the jarl's good side"). But I also don't think that every skill challenge should be forced to accommodate every character's skill set - sometimes people are just out of their element, and have to find other ways to help (aiding another character's skill, attempting Easy checks using less developed skills, etc).

However, there's a risk of factoring in player skill to these sort of things as a general rule (as a house rule, it's great - knock yourself out). As has been pointed out time and again, not everyone plays D&D for the roleplay, and not every player can (or wants to) play out an diplomatic encounter. The game has to be able to handle all types of players. If you want more player input during a challenge, I'd say feel free to give out bonuses for good roleplay, or require an explanation of how a skill is being applied before it can be rolled.