D&D 5E Skill Challenges in 5E

I'm not sure I want "skill challenges" in 5e. I find that the entire concept of Skill Challenges ends up being too much about the mini-game and less about it's useful aspects. Complex skill challenges are great and not every situation should be solved by one roll.

However, Skill Challenges are TOO formalized and too rigid. Most people who used them ended up abstracting them further to mean "any situation where the PCs need to make multiple skill checks to succeed"...which wasn't the point of Skill Challenges at all.

I find that making them formalized rather encourages playing the mini-game more than playing the storyline.

As an example, say the PCs need to get to the other side of a chasm. If you run this as a formalized skill challenge, you need to come up with a consequence of failing. In this case it could be "You can't get to the other side and have to go around." but that doesn't make much sense, you can always keep trying to climb or jump until you die....so failing 3 times isn't going to stop you from getting to the other side, you just try again. So, let's say the consequences is something simpler, "It takes too long and the enemies you are chasing get to the goal before you do." Let's show how this runs differently when you run it as a skill challenge vs just a bunch of skill checks:

Skill Challenge: Get to the other side
6 successes before 3 failures
Primary Skills: Athletics, Acrobatics

Rogue: "I tie a rope on this side and I climb down this side of this cliff! I get a 17 on Athletics."
DM: "You fail."
Rogue: "Wait, but I have a rope and a wall to brace against, the PHB says that is DC 15."
DM: "Yeah...but this is a skill challenge and the DC is 18 for your level."
Rogue: "Alright, what happens?"
DM: "You take 20 damage and are at the bottom."
Rogue: "Alright, I climb the other side. I get a 23, so I should make it."
DM: "You do. You are on the other side."
Rogue: "I throw a rope across to the other side. I get a 20 on my Athletics to throw the rope."
DM: "That's 2 successes"
Wizard: "Well, I have a +3 for both Athletics and Acrobatics, so...I use Arcana! I get 22!"
DM: "What are you using Arcana for?"
Wizard: "To get across!"
DM: "What do you mean, how do you use Arcana to get across?"
Wizard: "Umm, I use arcane energy to affix myself to the rope to make it easier to climb hand over hand to the other side."
DM: *sigh* "Sure, whatever, you succeed. That's 3 successes."
Fighter: "I make a 23 Athletics to climb across the rope."
DM: "Alright...4 successes."
Cleric: "I pray to my god that I won't fall. Then I climb. Does that mean I can use my Religion skill to get across?"
DM: "Ugh, sure, why not? Otherwise this Skill Challenge is going to favor the Fighter and the Rogue way more heavily than everyone else."
Cleric: "I get 19 and succeed!"
DM: "Alright, that's 5 successes....Hmm...you're all across but you need one more success to complete the skill challenge. There's no good reason for me to make you roll any more skills...but if I don't, the XP given out for the skill challenge doesn't really match the difficulty of the skill challenge. Wait, I got it. The cleric almost gets to the other side but slips at the last moment. Someone make an Athletics check to stop him from falling."
Wizard: "Well, I was the last one to cross, so I'll make it. I'll be right beside him. I get an 8."
Everyone else: "NO! We're in a skill challenge. Don't make rolls unless you are the best in the party at that skill!"
DM: "Too late. He already made the roll. That fails and the Cleric takes 20 damage from falling. That's 5 successes and 2 failures."
Cleric: "Crap...I guess I make another Religion check to get up the cliff."
DM: "Sorry, you already succeeded on a Religion check once. Other than the primary skills, each other skill can only be used once."
Cleric: "Fine, I make an Athletics check and get 10."
DM: "You fail. That's 5 successes and 3 failures. You fail the skill challenge and you eventually get the Ceric out of the pit and move on."
Cleric: "Wait, so I get teleport up to the top now that the skill challenge is done?"
DM: "No, the rest of the party eventually helps you get up or you finally make a good roll and get up yourself."
Cleric: "But isn't there a chance of falling and taking more damage? Shouldn't we play this out to see if I die attempting to get out?"
DM: "No, the skill challenge is over. Skill checks no longer matter."

If you run it without making it a skill challenge then you have no idea how many successes it'll take to make it across...nor do you care. The number of failures doesn't matter either except for the amount of damage people take from falling. Since you aren't running a "skill challenge" and therefore are encouraged to allow all skills as possible solutions, no one suggests using Religion to climb a rope. Whether the enemies get ahead of the players isn't based on an arbitrary number of failures but would instead be a factor of how LONG it took the PCs to succeed.

I just find the structure of skill challenges more often takes away from the game than it adds to it. Don't get me wrong, there are a small number of situations where the system makes perfect sense. Like say you were running a "skill challenge" where you had to defeat an enemy organization before they finish a ritual. They have a number of small bases where they are performing the ritual simultaneously. Each time you attack a base you either stop the ritual or it completes. If you succeed in destroying 6 bases before 3 of them succeed, the ritual is stopped and you win.

This sort of structure helps. However, I find that rarely, if ever, does adding that much structure to a bunch of skill checks actually help the game.

This pretty much sums up how I've felt about SC's for a while, as well as how I've seen them play out (for the most part) at the table. Now I guess it could be a case of various DM's not getting how to run SC's... but then again if they are that easy to mess up are they really a good tool to use?? Anyway, I'll state upfront that I am not really a fan of SC's and I feel that maybe instead of having a structured "skill challenge" mechanic, maybe 5e should instead present a frank discussion and various examples of ways to use skills mechanically to achieve different processes and results in the game *.


*This honestly seems to be what many advocates (though not all) of "skill challenges"are doing and makes me wonder... are they really still skill challenges if you disregard the structure and mechanics and are in fact just running skills in a way you want??
 

log in or register to remove this ad

However, Skill Challenges are TOO formalized and too rigid. Most people who used them ended up abstracting them further to mean "any situation where the PCs need to make multiple skill checks to succeed"...which wasn't the point of Skill Challenges at all.

As an example, say the PCs need to get to the other side of a chasm. If you run this as a formalized skill challenge
I'll agree that that should never be a skill challenge - though, if it _were_ part of a skill challenge (say a single scene with a group check as part of a larger skill challenge), your example is a tragic misuse of the system.

"I set up ropes and grapples"
"Okay, good call. That (gives you a bonus or reduces the DC, as appropriate"

"I teleport up to the top"
"Great, you auto succeed"

"Hmm, you're all across - so congratulations for succeeding at the skill challenge, here's your XP."

Etc.

I'll note that it's technically possible to have similar misuses with combat mechanics. For example:
"Okay, your level 30 PCs are fighting the god of dragons. Along the way you run into a hit squad sent by h(im/er): let's see, level 30, so I get about 150,000xp to build an encounter. So, 50 adult brown dragons (Level 10 solos, 125k xp) and 60 bloodfire harpies (Level 9s, 24k) should be a level appropriate fight. Combat starts, the harpies are all flying 20 squares out, and the dragons are all burrowed under the ground. You start your turn, take 5 fire 60 times. (Everyone goes, some people have resist, some don't, some get back up when reduced to 0, don't, etc.)

Okay, great, now the dragons go - everyone takes automatic 1d6+6 and is blinded save ends with a move action, 50x, and I do a close burst stun SE that needs 20s to hit (good thing I'm rolling 50x!) and AP a breath weapon (also need 20s) for ~17 damage and 5 auto damage.

Wow, great combat so far - who is alive cause they had resist 10+? Cool, now just work through the 25,000 hp of enemies and we'll be ready for the next combat! Hmm, we might have to roll this one out, cause 3d8+3 might sometimes get past your (resist 19).
 
Last edited:

It did indeed start out "broken" (if you mean unclear and not properly balanced) but there are 4 years of learning and a system that currently works really well that 5e could take advantage of if they wished to include learnings from what worked in 4e, which I'm not sure they do.

*This honestly seems to be what many advocates (though not all) of "skill challenges"are doing and makes me wonder... are they really still skill challenges if you disregard the structure and mechanics and are in fact just running skills in a way you want??

I'm with Imaro here; its seems skill challenges have developed into so much of an intuitive "feel for the situation thing" that it's impossible to write down any rules for them. At which point they really are not rules any longer, but part of the art of gamemastering.

Rules are sets of instructions that are used to create a game. You could call this the craft of gamemastering. What you cannot teach, what can only come from experience and wisdom is the art of gamemasting - the sensitivity to mood and situation that sets a great GM apart from a good DM. That transcends the raw of the rules and creates a truly good game. Some DMs have mastered the art of 4E, I never doubted that. But are they really playing 4E by the rules at that point? I feel they have transcended the rules and are playing something better, but still in the 4E paradigm and framework.

I recall some people in the early 4E era saying there was no longer an art to gamemastering - the rules were now so robust anyone could do it. It was now a craft anyone could easily perform. Afraid this proves them wrong.
 

I'll note that it's technically possible to have similar misuses with combat mechanics. For example:
"Okay, your level 30 PCs are fighting the god of dragons. Along the way you run into a hit squad sent by h(im/er): let's see, level 30, so I get about 150,000xp to build an encounter. So, 50 adult brown dragons (Level 10 solos, 125k xp) and 60 bloodfire harpies (Level 9s, 24k) should be a level appropriate fight.

In 4E such an encounter would have LOADS of hp to slog through, but since every player would hit on 2+ and every monster on 20, all that damage would need to come from auto-hit powers to actually happen. Which is perfectly all right - its like mounted knights trying to storm a WWI machine-gun nest.
 


Yep, the creatures I mentioned have autodamage. In theory each PC will take 775 damage in round 1.

The funny thing is I'm dubious of whether this theory would hold up in practice... especially once magic items, resistances, epic destinies, etc. are factored in on the side of the PC's... I'd bet money a moderately optimized level 30 party would still be able to trounce this encounter.
 

I'll agree that that should never be a skill challenge - though, if it _were_ part of a skill challenge (say a single scene with a group check as part of a larger skill challenge), your example is a tragic misuse of the system.
Uhh...how?
"I set up ropes and grapples"
"Okay, good call. That (gives you a bonus or reduces the DC, as appropriate"

"I teleport up to the top"
"Great, you auto succeed"
That's certainly one way to do it. You can get bonuses from using ropes. Though it doesn't invalidate any other part of what I said. The point is there is a disconnect between a normal roll to climb and a roll to climb because the skill is in a skill challenge. A normally climb roll might be DC 10, but since it qualifies as a success in the skill challenge, lowering its DC decreases the difficulty of the skill challenge and should be worth less XP.

No where in my example did anyone teleport to the top. Someone made a sarcastic comment about teleporting to the top since the skill challenge was over and the DM just let them get up without a roll.

"Hmm, you're all across - so congratulations for succeeding at the skill challenge, here's your XP."
The point of a skill challenge is to succeed a certain number of times. If you succeed less than that number of times, then you haven't finished the skill challenge yet. Yes, you can hand waive it away when you realize that they reached the "end" of a skill challenge before they get enough successes. But according to the rules, it isn't done yet. In fact, the point is to make sure the narrative doesn't describe them as having finished before they get enough successes. Which is hard to do.

The point of a skill challenge is to provide a mathematically sound framework to give out XP. It explains this in the book. Basically, they sat back and said, "with the DCs as listed, the average PC of that level will succeed at a skill check in a challenge X% of the time. The likelihood of a PC with that percentage chance of succeeding getting 8 successes before 3 failures is Y%. Since the PCs only have Y% chance of succeeding in a skill challenge, their success means something and therefore it is worth XP. The lower chance they have of succeeding, the more XP it's worth."

If you give out free successes, then it should give less XP. Unless it's an encounter or daily power that was used in order to get a free success. Then at least you are giving something up. A rare free success for saying or doing just the right thing is likely fine as well. At least there was skill involved in coming up with the right thing to do or say. But free successes simply because you happened to narrate yourself into a corner seems counterproductive.

I'll note that it's technically possible to have similar misuses with combat mechanics.
This is not the same at all. I did not break one rule of Skill Challenges in my example. Yours breaks a bunch of them.

Sure, some people have developed their own, personal set of guidelines to make sure skill challenges run smoothly...but none of them are in the book.

The skill challenge I wrote up is about equal to every skill challenge in every written adventure for the first 2 years of 4e. Also, the same quality as the ones my DM made up and the ones in all the Living Forgotten Realms adventures.

"Okay, your level 30 PCs are fighting the god of dragons. Along the way you run into a hit squad sent by h(im/er): let's see, level 30, so I get about 150,000xp to build an encounter. So, 50 adult brown dragons (Level 10 solos, 125k xp) and 60 bloodfire harpies (Level 9s, 24k) should be a level appropriate fight. Combat starts, the harpies are all flying 20 squares out, and the dragons are all burrowed under the ground. You start your turn, take 5 fire 60 times. (Everyone goes, some people have resist, some don't, some get back up when reduced to 0, don't, etc.)
According to the rules for encounter creation:

Levels of Individual Threats: Choose threats
within two or three levels of the characters’ level.

Threats in an easy encounter can be as many as
four levels below the party’s level.

Threats in a hard encounter can be as many as
three to five levels above the party’s level.

Unless you are just going to break those rules entirely or you assume that "considerations" can be ignored. Then I suppose that's perfectly valid. I also agree that auras stacking is a BAD idea. They didn't used to. They were errata'd to stack which causes this problem.

Either way, you managed to find 2 other bad rules and exploited them. A dragon with a move action blind without an attack roll was an equally poorly thought out rule. The vast majority of monster combinations wouldn't cause nearly this problem. My point is the vast majority of skill challenges are horrible. It's kind of the reverse.

Wow, great combat so far - who is alive cause they had resist 10+? Cool, now just work through the 25,000 hp of enemies and we'll be ready for the next combat! Hmm, we might have to roll this one out, cause 3d8+3 might sometimes get past your (resist 19).
Ironically enough, most level 30 characters would still survive this encounter with almost no damage. Even with the stretching of the rules.
 

Iyour example is a tragic misuse of the system.
Agreed.

Uhh...how?
Because (i) the GM is not making any effort to narrate failures within the context of the fiction and the skill system, and (ii) the players are not making any effort to narrate skill use within the context of the fiction and the skill system.

If a GM builds a 30th level solo whose attack is described as "wet lettuce", and then has it do 6d12+18 acid and necrotic damage, s/he will have a silly game.

If a GM narrates an Athletics failure by a capable rogue as falling off the rope, s/he will likewise have a silly game. There are a dozen alternative ways to narrate that which won't produce silliness.
 

Sure, some people have developed their own, personal set of guidelines to make sure skill challenges run smoothly...but none of them are in the book.

The skill challenge I wrote up is about equal to every skill challenge in every written adventure for the first 2 years of 4e. Also, the same quality as the ones my DM made up and the ones in all the Living Forgotten Realms adventures.
That is true - and that is the crux of the problem with them. Not their concept, but the lack of guidelines to use them smoothly with the fiction and how to judge situations where abilities and ideas bypass checks, Also, mismatching DCs (e.g. for climbing up) are a DM problem. If climbing is easier than the skill challenge, then the skill challenge should be easier or the wall they're climbing up should be more challenging.

That is also a problem with the page 42 DC master table and how people interpret it (i.e. the wrong way round, DCs don't scale to the level, the narrative should scale to match the level-appropriate DC).
 

Agreed.

Because (i) the GM is not making any effort to narrate failures within the context of the fiction and the skill system, and (ii) the players are not making any effort to narrate skill use within the context of the fiction and the skill system.

If a GM builds a 30th level solo whose attack is described as "wet lettuce", and then has it do 6d12+18 acid and necrotic damage, s/he will have a silly game.

If a GM narrates an Athletics failure by a capable rogue as falling off the rope, s/he will likewise have a silly game. There are a dozen alternative ways to narrate that which won't produce silliness.

Wait so competent climbers never slip and fall?? And when they do it's "silly"? I'm not understanding why falling isn't a viable option... Could you give some examples of "appropriate" narration of a climbing failure?
 

Remove ads

Top