This is spot on the problem with "before Y failures". If a bad shot caused a fight to be lost by shooting four misses in a row, then the party would very soon start shouting "put *down* that crossbow!"...
D&D 5E Skill Challenges in 5E
- Thread starter dmccoy1693
- Start date
This is spot on the problem with "before Y failures". If a bad shot caused a fight to be lost by shooting four misses in a row, then the party would very soon start shouting "put *down* that crossbow!"...
Savage Wombat
Hero
Wait a minute, combine the two -
Build a combat system where missing your opponent somehow acts to resolve the combat in some way. Preferably humorous - "your sword strikes the roof support and it knocks you unconscious."
Call it "fumble forward".
Build a combat system where missing your opponent somehow acts to resolve the combat in some way. Preferably humorous - "your sword strikes the roof support and it knocks you unconscious."
Call it "fumble forward".
Warbringer
Explorer
I'm sure it was a houserule (as I believe in 1e RAW you can't shoot into combat) but the magic-user killed the cleric by shooting into combat, and yes, it was conveyed that touching a crossbow again could have major consequences for him.
But I think that you need to extend the frame a little to see that poor combat characters engaging in combat to cause penalties that impact the success of the outcome of the combat, for while they may not cause "failures" that threaten the success of the outcome, they can cause consequences or complications. Most notably, combat throughout th aventuring day is a war of attritition, namely hit point damage done to win the combat vs. hit point damage taken that requires the use of healing resources. A Wizard who is doing 5 hit points of damage to every 10 he takes is impeding the warrior who does 20 to every 10 as the healing resources become inefficiently used.
In terms of many of the concerns with Skill Challenges I agree with quite a few of them and have houserules for them: all our SCs do have a countdown clock of some sort, consequences can kick in at each failure, though the challenge continues, the group can choose to go beyond 3 failures accepting greater consequences, the group also descides narratively first how they want to engage with the SC, the skills and checks support that narration from an outcome purpose only
WhatGravitas
Explorer
Hmmm, but what other "pressure" could you use in a skill-related system. Timers work to a certain extent. With opposition, you could have opposing checks keeping up the pressure... but what other elements can you use, for example for a multi-hour skill challenge?
Needs to be something that a) encourages participation from all sides (and possibly reward non-spell use!), b) needs to lead itself to "fail forward" if it fails and b) does not penalise people for trying.
Instead of a "before X failures", a hit point like system? Even if you fail, you don't lower the total?
In 1e it is quite possible to shoot into melee combat -- you just assigned percentages to determine which combatant(s) takes the attack(s) (DMG pg. 63). I've had several group have a discussion about the appropriateness of firing into a melee with one or more range-happy characters.
I like contest thresholds. PCs are trying to accomplish goal A; the opponents are trying to accomplish the mutually-exclusive goal B. The first across the post wins. Each side keeps track of successes. The first to reach their target wins. In more complex situations, a group can use successes to negate the other's successes and/or minimise/escalate possible consequences.
First, just in case there's any doubt, I can absolutely see what you are saying here.
But second, from the point of view of skill challenge implementation, I think this is absolutely getting it backwards. That is, if the skill challenge is framed and resolved so that the most logical thing is to have the fighter (or rogue, or bard, or whatever) tackle it solo then it has been poorly designed.
What I mean by that is that - and to continue the comparison to combat - is that if all the monsters lined up one-by-one, then having the fighter take them on would be more logical than letting the wizard take a poke. But no one sets up combats like that (but for the occasional exception like the arena fight). The ingame situation is set up so that all the PCs are engaged, and if the fighter alone is surrounded then s/he will go down.
The skill challenge needs to be set up the same way - so that, in fact, the PCs are better off having all the PCs do stuff because otherwise the party (and the players) will fail in their goal. And part of the play of the challenge - and this is why I don't entirely agree with [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] in saying there is no game aspect - is shifting the fictional situation so that (for instance) the fighter or barbarian has something to offer even in a predominantly social challenge.
That wouldn't fundamentally change things - in Burning Wheel, for instance, social confict is resolved via a "Duel of Wits" with a hit point system, but having weaker PCs on your side makes it more likely that you will lose hp, and hence lose the challenge.
A hp system does open up the idea of healing, but skill challenges already have that, in the form of secondary checks to remove failures.
This can certainly be the case, depending on the dynamic of the table. And in that case, I would expect the spell-less wizard to do his or her damndest to withdraw from combat.
However, it's worth bearing in mind that this is a corner case. Most of the time, the wizard is not all out of spells, and is capable of contributing substantially; a clear net positive. Contrast the skill challenge, where everyone who does not have the best skill bonus in the party is a drag on the one who does.
I agree. But that's how the skill challenge mechanic, at its core, is designed. Sure, it works fine if you fix it, but that doesn't mean it didn't start out broke.
keterys
First Post
In general, my preference is to effectively give everyone a small number of checks they can make rather than looking for failures - for example, "Everyone has time to make one check before the portal opens!" that makes assisting a pretty lousy option, and encourages everyone to become engaged in every encounter, whether it's a battle of wits or swords.
Some of the more memorable moments for my fighter came when I pulled off surprising skill checks in challenges, where logically I should have stayed quiet in the back to be optimized for success.
Some of the more memorable moments for my fighter came when I pulled off surprising skill checks in challenges, where logically I should have stayed quiet in the back to be optimized for success.
It's much easier to design a skill challenge poorly because of how the skill system is made compared to the combat system. 4e made it so a character uses his main stats for (nearly) all his attacks and gets his defence either from good armor proficiency or good stats. They also balance out people that are good in combat when it comes to healing, taking damage, doing damage etc. Skills on the other hand is something some classes are just worse at than others. Typically it's because of a limited skill selection and poor stats in important areas. Take NAD's: you can have a high strength or constitution to have a good fortitude defense, but if you want to be good at athletics, you need a good strength. To have a high endurance score, you need a good Constitution score.
To sum it up: It's easy to make a combat encounter where every character is useful, and very easy to make a skill challenge where multiple characters are useless and a liability if they try to use their (low)skills with how 4e skill challenges are made. The current design where only the character with the highest score in a skill should try to make the check is a design flaw with 4e skill challenges.
