Skill Challenge to (temporarily) replace Combat

[KarinsDad]

Let's run down the Fighter's trained skills to see how he can help out.

Athletics: The Fighter climbs to a vantage point out of sight of the patrolling guards, and after the Rogue makes a Stealth or Bluff check to draw their attention, he drops down behind them and dispatches them quickly.

Why would the guards have a blind spot where the Fighter can do this? How did he get there in the first place without being spotted?

In a drawn map combat encounter, the chances are that the DM wouldn't do this because it doesn't make sense from a defensive standpoint. Are the leaders of the enemy group really that stupid to allow this?

Endurance: Same situation as for Athletics, but instead of climbing up, he's holding his breath in the swamp (a la Schwarzenegger in Predator).

Again, why would the guards have a weakness like this that leads to the guard post?

Heal: The Fighter concocts something from his healing kit that the Rogue can sneak forward and slip into the guard's water supply, making them sleepy or otherwise easier to dispatch.

Would you allow this in a combat encounter? What happens if a Fighter doesn't have a healing kit? This too is a stretch.

Intimidate: This is the only tricky one... Maybe the Fighter could devise a plan that will shock the guards into silence just long for his friends to circle them.

Again, would you allow this in a combat encounter? From 100 feet away where the Fighter was before being spotted? Or is the Fighter right in front of the NPCs in order to "shock them"? The skill isn't a Fear spell.

Streetwise: The Fighter uses his knowledge of how guards usually patrol to find a blind spot in the schedule, which allows them to advance to a more advantageous position.

Streetwise is actually a skill that takes an hour to perform. Again, not something that could occur quickly or as the skill is written.

I'm getting the feeling that some people are opposed to the use of group Stealth checks in general... if one person fails the roll, then the group is spotted, right? Is there no room for mistakes?

The purpose of group skill checks is to assist if assistance is possible.

The idea of the Fighter assisting the Rogue in Stealth when the Fighter himself is lousy at it seems far fetched.

But in a skill challenge, group skill checks are precisely what players will attempt. They will also attempt to rationalize the most ludicrous of ideas when doing so.

Your examples here reinforce, at least in my mind, why skill challenges for combat are not a good idea. The ideas you wrote above:

a) are a bit far fetched. You had to really stretch to come up with them. If you as DM had to do so, so will the players.

b) introduce terrain and other conditions that may or may not have been part of the original scenario. For example, your Endurance idea for the Fighter require that the swamp end up close to the guard post, even if the original map that you designed did not have this. In this regard, the skill challenge becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Because the skill as described by the player requires that a barrel be in the alleyway, a barrel is suddenly mystically in the alleyway (different example here to illustrate the point).

c) were thought out ahead of time. The players have to come up with these ideas on the fly. That's not always easy to do.


One of the problems with skill challenges to begin with is the "bang, you're dead", "no, bang, you're dead syndrome". It's playing cowboys and indians with the dice deciding whether or not someone's idea not only wins, but also is possible of existing. If the skill roll is a success, then the Fighter manages to get in close, even though the skill isn't stealth. If the skill roll is a success, then the Wizard can fake out the opposition with an Arcana roll to create an illusion (your earlier example), even though he normally could not do this at all and doesn't even have a single illusion spell. If the rolls are successful, then the enemy leaders are suddenly idiots would have no tactical training whatsoever, regardless of how the DM set them up in the first place.

As you can tell, I dislike skill challenges to begin with (e.g. Hammerfast has a skill challenge to walk to the other side of a set of normal woods, arrgghhh). I think they are overused and they allow some players to shine while other players sit around picking their noses or being forced to try weak skills as group skill checks. In a combat encounter, every player gets to shine in his/her area of expertise.

 

[Dr. Confoundo]

The purpose of group skill checks is to assist if assistance is possible.

The idea of the Fighter assisting the Rogue in Stealth when the Fighter himself is lousy at it seems far fetched.

But in a skill challenge, group skill checks are precisely what players will attempt. They will also attempt to rationalize the most ludicrous of ideas when doing so.

I'd suggest you go and look at the Rules Compendium, pg. 128; this is almost exactly the example they use for group Stealth skill checks.

Your examples here reinforce, at least in my mind, why skill challenges for combat are not a good idea. The ideas you wrote above:

a) are a bit far fetched. You had to really stretch to come up with them. If you as DM had to do so, so will the players.

As I said before, only one of the skills was a stretch (Intimidate). Everything else was off the top of my head, and I'd happily accept any of them as potential skill usages. I'd say that I'm probably a little more flexible than you might be when it comes to skill challenges.

As far as my example of using Streetwise, I'd suggest you also take a look at RC pg. 131 in the section on Improvisational Skill Usages...

b) introduce terrain and other conditions that may or may not have been part of the original scenario. For example, your Endurance idea for the Fighter require that the swamp end up close to the guard post, even if the original map that you designed did not have this. In this regard, the skill challenge becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Because the skill as described by the player requires that a barrel be in the alleyway, a barrel is suddenly mystically in the alleyway (different example here to illustrate the point).

Personally, if the players can give me a good reason that the barrel is in the alley, why not let it be there? If the player can do something cool with it, isn't that better than saying 'No'?

c) were thought out ahead of time. The players have to come up with these ideas on the fly. That's not always easy to do.

Again, off the top of my head. I think that you don't give your players enough credit.

One of the problems with skill challenges to begin with is the "bang, you're dead", "no, bang, you're dead syndrome". It's playing cowboys and indians with the dice deciding whether or not someone's idea not only wins, but also is possible of existing. If the skill roll is a success, then the Fighter manages to get in close, even though the skill isn't stealth. If the skill roll is a success, then the Wizard can fake out the opposition with an Arcana roll to create an illusion (your earlier example), even though he normally could not do this at all and doesn't even have a single illusion spell. If the rolls are successful, then the enemy leaders are suddenly idiots would have no tactical training whatsoever, regardless of how the DM set them up in the first place.

As you can tell, I dislike skill challenges to begin with (e.g. Hammerfast has a skill challenge to walk to the other side of a set of normal woods, arrgghhh). I think they are overused and they allow some players to shine while other players sit around picking their noses or being forced to try weak skills as group skill checks. In a combat encounter, every player gets to shine in his/her area of expertise.

If you don't like skill challenges, that's fine. But why post in a thread that says 'Help me make my skill challenge better', if all you are going to say is 'Don't use skill challenges'?

 

[KarinsDad]

Personally, if the players can give me a good reason that the barrel is in the alley, why not let it be there? If the player can do something cool with it, isn't that better than saying 'No'?

There are two schools of thought here. The situation is what it is and the situation is fluid. In the first case, the players have to overcome the challenge based on what the DM gives them as environment. In the second case, the players can change the environment in order to have it match whatever idea that enters their minds (still with DM approval).

My preference is for the first type of gaming. If the player asks me what is in the alleyway, I will give him a list of what he sees. If a barrel is there, it is. The player doesn't tell the DM that he needs a barrel for his idea to work. The player asks about his options and the DM supplies them.

The player is not thrown a bone. He is not entitled to have things go his way. He has to earn his success.

In the second type of gaming, the players are more interested in a group story that always works out like a novel. The adversity and challenge is limited because the DM allows things to happen, all in the name of (as you put it) cool.

Is it cool to allow your players to dictate the surroundings? Maybe.

But for some DMs, it's cooler for the players to overcome adversity on their own without the DM helping them to do so. It just depends on what works best for a given group.

If you don't like skill challenges, that's fine. But why post in a thread that says 'Help me make my skill challenge better', if all you are going to say is 'Don't use skill challenges'?

You misunderstand. Skill challenges have their places. Combat isn't one of them. IMO. I also think that skill challenges are overused. We have a PBP game over in LEB where the DM set up a 12 3 skill challenge to find out some information. After a few successes, the players had what info that they thought they needed. A little bit of roleplaying and a few skill rolls total would have handled this. The DM might have more information that he wants the players to have a chance to acquire, but the players really shouldn't know this based on knowing that they are in a skill challenge. And, the players gained the info that they wanted, so they should be able to just cut off the skill challenge and move on. The mechanics of a skill challenge interfere with the decision making of the players. The players are encouraged to continue the skill challenge, even though they have a different idea as to what to do next. On top of that, since it is an info gathering skill challenge, some players are sitting around snoozing, waiting for the skill challenge to be over so that they can do something. Sure, they can do the group challenge roll. zzzzzz That's as exciting as watching paint dry.

 

[Dr. Confoundo]

You misunderstand. Skill challenges have their places. Combat isn't one of them.

Skill challenges are abstractions to usher parties past obstacles, be it a quarrelsome dwarf with some info or a forbidding swamp. Or in my case, a camp full of unobservant bullywugs. Of course I could have them fight every single tadpole in the camp, and have the whole place mapped out square by square... my gaming time is limited, and this does not sound like a good use of my time to plan out and execute all of those combats. Instead, I'd like to hurry-up that section of the action so we can get the players to where the interesting stuff is located. Doesn't work for your game? Great - don't use it.

IMO. I also think that skill challenges are overused. We have a PBP game over in LEB where the DM set up a 12 3 skill challenge to find out some information. After a few successes, the players had what info that they thought they needed. A little bit of roleplaying and a few skill rolls total would have handled this. The DM might have more information that he wants the players to have a chance to acquire, but the players really shouldn't know this based on knowing that they are in a skill challenge. And, the players gained the info that they wanted, so they should be able to just cut off the skill challenge and move on. The mechanics of a skill challenge interfere with the decision making of the players. The players are encouraged to continue the skill challenge, even though they have a different idea as to what to do next. On top of that, since it is an info gathering skill challenge, some players are sitting around snoozing, waiting for the skill challenge to be over so that they can do something. Sure, they can do the group challenge roll. zzzzzz That's as exciting as watching paint dry.

That sounds like a poorly designed skill challenge - it should have been much shorter, or it should have had bigger stakes. But just like you shouldn't judge all movies as bad because you didn't like 'Glitter' or 'Ishtar', not every skill challenge is bad because that one went on too long.

And I'm still unclear on your distaste for group skill checks. I see nothing wrong with them.

 

[KarinsDad]

That sounds like a poorly designed skill challenge - it should have been much shorter, or it should have had bigger stakes. But just like you shouldn't judge all movies as bad because you didn't like 'Glitter' or 'Ishtar', not every skill challenge is bad because that one went on too long.

From my perspective, most skill challenges are poorly designed (as per the one in Hammerfast which is a WotC product and the skill challenge is still poorly designed).

It's a real art to design a good skill challenge. One that I have seen very few DMs (myself included) capable of doing well (not that all DMs are incapable of doing so, it's just not something that I have seen ever done well, I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule).

The ones in the DMG and all of the ones that I have seen in WotC products were not very good, and some were downright bad.

And I'm still unclear on your distaste for group skill checks. I see nothing wrong with them.

I dislike Aid Another as well.

I think the DC for Aid Another should be the minimum DC of the skill goal -5 instead of a set simple DC that PCs can easily and eventually automatically get.

Ditto for Group Skill Checks. They have the same mechanical flaw.

If the skill DC is 20, the Aid Another should be 15. If the skill DC is 30, the Aid Another should be 25.

As a real world example, the Brain Surgeon attempting a difficult operation shouldn't be helped by the Janitor walking into the room and saying "Hey, could you use a scalpel?".

As a game example, the Historian attempting to figure out the deities of an ancient culture shouldn't be helped out by the Fighter whose vast historical knowledge consists of knowing that Kobolds stink.

The same applies to group skill checks.

Sure, you can handwave the illogical aspects of this away, but I prefer a more logical and consistent game than one that is nonsensical because of the flawed mechanics of a silly rule.

 

[Dragon Sin-Camealot]

Game feels out of date so I might quit. You have 99,999 to choose from. I'm sure there are super computers that can run many situations through controlled tests.

And if a human make the game it's all been prepared in advance. You could make it harder or easier depending on you and the DM. But it pretty much amounts to the same thing.

A game like Chess doesn't have the wild goose chase feel like some other games. It might be more boring at times though.