D&D 5E Is 5E Special

[Imaro]

I don't think skipping a single turn is really 'not participating' in combat.

It's not participating for a round... I mean we can argue about the particulars (how many rounds constitute having or not having participated in combat) but ultimately my point is that one can choose not to act in combat if they want, SC's were not presented that way and their mechanics make it problematic to give that option.

 

[Parmandur]

They have a "bonus action" which is not a type of action, because "action" is a whole other thing. No potential for confusion there!

It's an action that is a bonus. Once people have played their Class for a session or two and gotten a handle on what their bonus action options are, no problems.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I was always under the impression you needed to take an action in a 4e skill challenge, otherwise only those with the highest SC will act and thus nearly guarantee success...

I never got that at all. I always just ran it the way I ran every single bit of my game... like a conversation with my players. I can't imagine players regularly sitting out just "because I have a low skill"

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's not participating for a round... I mean we can argue about the particulars (how many rounds constitute having or not having participated in combat) but ultimately my point is that on can not act in combat if they choose, SC's were not presented that way and their mechanics make it problematic to give that option.

Not acting in an SC means you don't get a success or failure. If you're bad at everything you can think of for the challenge, doing nothing is a viable tact.

However, SCs often were deployed when they shouldn't have been, such as gates where everyone needs to get through to advance. Group challenges were not skill challenges, but players and designers alike just... forgot this and forgot group challenges.

 

[Oofta]

The skill challenge forcing everyone to participate no matter what, at least in my experience, was also often a time sink (along with combat), especially when a player was struggling to figure out a way to contribute but also trying to juxtapose that with something they are good at so they didn't generate a failure.

While I occasionally use skill challenge like structure, as written it was far too static and game rules driven.

Giving everyone a chance to contribute is a decent concept (and I try to involve multiple players when I can). But in practice it took a square peg and tried to fit it into a round hole.

Too often what was said, logic applied, previous action and events, things that should have meant automatic success were just another check on the success/failure list. It became "who's most likely to succeed at this check" followed by some rolls.

I know that wasn't the intent. I'm sure some people came up with house rules to make it work. I, and multiple DMs I knew, never did.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

EDIT: To be clear, you can skip an action in combat and still be individually hurt or have individual success or failure... SC's don't work like that.

so if we were at your game and we had to track down a boy who ran away. We need 5 success before 3 fails...
the DM suggests Streetwise and persuasion and altheltics as possible uses...

5 platers, 1 uses streetwise, and the 2nd says "I am just going to follow the others and stay out of the way" what would you have done?

or if only 3 of the players went to find the boy and the other 2 went to the bar... you would not tell the 2 players in the bar to declair as part of the skill challenge right?

or if 3 players went to the mage guild and 2 went to speak to town guard, and the skill challange was to convince the local mage guild to give you access to there library do you make the 2 at town guard barreks declair too?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Not acting in an SC means you don't get a success or failure. If you're bad at everything you can think of for the challenge, doing nothing is a viable tact.

However, SCs often were deployed when they shouldn't have been, such as gates where everyone needs to get through to advance. Group challenges were not skill challenges, but players and designers alike just... forgot this and forgot group challenges.

yeah I think group challenges, skill challenges and the middle earth Journey rule could all use a lot of playtesting but point in the right direction.

 

[Imaro]

so if we were at your game and we had to track down a boy who ran away. We need 5 success before 3 fails...
the DM suggests Streetwise and persuasion and altheltics as possible uses...

5 platers, 1 uses streetwise, and the 2nd says "I am just going to follow the others and stay out of the way" what would you have done?

or if only 3 of the players went to find the boy and the other 2 went to the bar... you would not tell the 2 players in the bar to declair as part of the skill challenge right?

or if 3 players went to the mage guild and 2 went to speak to town guard, and the skill challange was to convince the local mage guild to give you access to there library do you make the 2 at town guard barreks declair too?

Well to be honest, and not trying to be snarky, I never found the SC mechanic to click with me. I didn't need it. My players had a goal, and IMO, the fiction should get us to that goal (or not) without the artificial constraints of a SC... but that's just me.

To answer your above questions...
I think sitting out should be a viable alternative but... do you give the player who sat out XP? Do they incur any negative effects (as the result of other player's actions) if they are choosing not to act? Is choosing to have only those with the best rolls a viable tactic in your opinion for PC's to tackle SC's? If not where do you draw the line?

I think the question about two players at the bar and/or the one about the mages guild is a little absurd and not addressing my point of a character present in a specific skill challenge (just like the combat example you presented) and choosing not to act or participate, if you're not involved in the SC then of course you aren't rolling initiative, taking actions... or receiving XP.

 

[Imaro]

Not acting in an SC means you don't get a success or failure. If you're bad at everything you can think of for the challenge, doing nothing is a viable tact.

However, SCs often were deployed when they shouldn't have been, such as gates where everyone needs to get through to advance. Group challenges were not skill challenges, but players and designers alike just... forgot this and forgot group challenges.

The problem is when the party, employing the viable tactic above, then makes the next logical leap to... only those with the best skills should make rolls... and why shouldn't they arrive at this conclusion if choosing not to act is a viable tactic?

 

[Vaalingrade]

The problem is when the party, employing the viable tactic above, then makes the next logical leap to... only those with the best skills should make rolls... and why shouldn't they arrive at this conclusion if choosing not to act is a viable tactic?

Because then you don't get to do anything?

I've never seen a party of 100% efficient players who would completely exclude themselves from the game for an advantage. And that wouldn't be mitigated by removing SCs, as you would then just be excluding them outside of a framework instead of in one.

Also, that's where group challenges pick up the slack. Sometimes there's things that really do require everyone to participate, and here's the place where people have to cover one another's shortcomings.