D&D 5E Is there any 5e love for skill challenges??

[Monayuris]

I tried them a couple times in 4E. I never liked the idea and I think they are unfair to the players.

Why force your players to jump through hoops of having to make roll after roll, when you can just narrate the situation and request player response. Let the game flow naturally and when a roll is needed request it.

I just didn’t see any fun or improvement to the game by trying to straightjacketing roleplaying into a specific mechanical format.

 

[iserith]

I tried them a couple times in 4E. I never liked the idea and I think they are unfair to the players.

Why force your players to jump through hoops of having to make roll after roll, when you can just narrate the situation and request player response. Let the game flow naturally and when a roll is needed request it.

I just didn’t see any fun or improvement to the game by trying to straightjacketing roleplaying into a specific mechanical format.

I think it was a good fit for D&D 4e because it offered a solid framework that players could understand and treat somewhat tactically (since the combats were so tactical) in addition to being good for inspiring narrative input. Players knew what they had to do and what to strive for in order to succeed, what DCs to expect and how many, and could use set Advantages in the more complex skill challenges. When participation was required by all players, it encouraged well-rounded characters instead of specialists and the taking of utility power or the like that boosted skills instead of just more combat effectiveness. At least, that's what happened in my games since I used skill challenges quite often. It think it worked well for that game system.

I don't think it's as good a fit for D&D 5e, but a 5e version is still viable.

 

[Azzy]

Has anyone done a write-up for skill challenges in 5e?

 

[Monayuris]

I think it was a good fit for D&D 4e because it offered a solid framework that players could understand and treat somewhat tactically (since the combats were so tactical) in addition to being good for inspiring narrative input. Players knew what they had to do and what to strive for in order to succeed, what DCs to expect and how many, and could use set Advantages in the more complex skill challenges. When participation was required by all players, it encouraged well-rounded characters instead of specialists and the taking of utility power or the like that boosted skills instead of just more combat effectiveness. At least, that's what happened in my games since I used skill challenges quite often. It think it worked well for that game system.

I don't think it's as good a fit for D&D 5e, but a 5e version is still viable.

Good point you're right about the framework they provided in 4E. I'll concede I probably didn't do a great job at presenting them and running them when I did try them, and I ultimately decided to not use them.

My own personal problems with them were two fold.

1. I felt like I had to work too hard to try to expand the number of applicable skills to create a skill challenge that would be engaging for the entire group (like an investigate the arcane machine... how do I make the fighter with athletics and intimidate useful?)
2. I didn't know how to best present them. If I was explicit about the skill challenge and detailed the skill uses available and what they did, I felt like it encouraged just rolling the skills and it took the game out of the narrative and into the mechanics. If I instead hid the skill challenge, the players wouldn't know what skills they can use and it would either grind to a halt (players not knowing what skills are available) or I would ditch the skill challenge and handle it as I would normally do.

 

[MarkB]

Good point you're right about the framework they provided in 4E. I'll concede I probably didn't do a great job at presenting them and running them when I did try them, and I ultimately decided to not use them.

My own personal problems with them were two fold.

1. I felt like I had to work too hard to try to expand the number of applicable skills to create a skill challenge that would be engaging for the entire group (like an investigate the arcane machine... how do I make the fighter with athletics and intimidate useful?)
2. I didn't know how to best present them. If I was explicit about the skill challenge and detailed the skill uses available and what they did, I felt like it encouraged just rolling the skills and it took the game out of the narrative and into the mechanics. If I instead hid the skill challenge, the players wouldn't know what skills they can use and it would either grind to a halt (players not knowing what skills are available) or I would ditch the skill challenge and handle it as I would normally do.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I remember them too.

One additional downside, which I saw somewhat in the one really long-running campaign we played during 4e, is that once you've played enough of them, they become somewhat routine, with players swiftly dividing up the labour based upon familiarity and experience, and then running through the skill checks in short order. That may sound like good, co-operative and efficient play, and it was, but it also means that players are generally approaching the problem mechanically, in terms of applicable skills and risk-mitigation, and not really engaging with the situation narratively or thinking outside the box.

 

[iserith]

Good point you're right about the framework they provided in 4E. I'll concede I probably didn't do a great job at presenting them and running them when I did try them, and I ultimately decided to not use them.

Thanks. To be fair, WotC didn't do a good job on explaining how to do skill challenges until, in my opinion, the Rules Compendium. It was a mess prior to that.

1. I felt like I had to work too hard to try to expand the number of applicable skills to create a skill challenge that would be engaging for the entire group (like an investigate the arcane machine... how do I make the fighter with athletics and intimidate useful?)

I never really made the challenges with specific characters in mind. I just tried to include some exploration/knowledge, some interaction, and some physical skills in each challenge. If the party was well-rounded skill wise, they'd do well. If they had a bunch of specialists, they tended to do poorly except in narrow circumstances, which makes sense. And if a character found himself or herself inadequate to the challenge, they could always just do an Aid Another on their turn and make a check against DC 10 to help the next person make a primary skill check.

2. I didn't know how to best present them. If I was explicit about the skill challenge and detailed the skill uses available and what they did, I felt like it encouraged just rolling the skills and it took the game out of the narrative and into the mechanics. If I instead hid the skill challenge, the players wouldn't know what skills they can use and it would either grind to a halt (players not knowing what skills are available) or I would ditch the skill challenge and handle it as I would normally do.

It could be presented either way, but I always preferred to be transparent about it. In 4e, players were encouraged to ask to make skill checks anyway (no mention of that in 5e so far as I can tell) and the DM was encouraged to say "yes." So it was okay, and perhaps intended, in my view for players to be playing tactically when doing skill challenges. I just made sure the player still stated a goal and approach in addition to a request to make a skill check so that we were building the scene.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Has anyone done a write-up for skill challenges in 5e?

Here's one: https://boccobsblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/1421/

And here's a repost of Matt Colville's video explanation of adapting Skill Challenges to 5e: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvOeqDpkBm8

 

[The Crimson Binome]

ICRPG by Runehammer (Hankerin) has what is called effort. Essentially all tasks have Hit Points so to speak. It would be a little bit of brain work but. AC are to DC as HP are to Effort. You could even give the Effort the equivalent of resistance or vulnerability or add proficiency or ability bonuses to Effort.

I don't know. This has been percolating in my mind for a while. It's late and I like it but I haven't tried it in a game. Truth be told the players would probably not see it and it would just be a placeholder for what some DMs do naturally.

I'm imagining a situation where you need to build a boat, and the task requires 100 effort to accomplish, and different things like gathering wood or smoothing boards awarded different amounts of effort... and so you end up building a boat by only chopping down 100 trees, because that's the one skill on the list that you were actually good at.

It kind of reminds me of The Sims, with its different little resource meters. Like, instead of playing normally and giving them a reasonable daily schedule, you could just use coffee forever and never sleep; or instead of bathing, you could keep your hygiene meter full by just washing your hands a lot. When push comes to shove, but all you have is a hammer...

 

[Staccat0]

I use a simple version for overland travel these days. I constantly tinker with it but the basic idea usually boils down to players taking turns at making checks coupled with collaborative storytelling. More failures means more random encounters. People like it.

I also use them for running away.

 

[Tiles]

Xanathar’s is not the guide to everything- UA could use a fresh look at this topic and when mass combat/castle Guide 2.0 comes out I’d love to see three pages of skill challenges in lue of any more names...