D&D 4E Converting a 4e skill challenge to 5e: looking for suggestions...

[Remathilis]

So here is my scenario.

I'm running a loose conversion of Reavers of Harkenwold from the 4e DM Kit as a 5e adventure. By loose, I mean keeping the general area and plot in tact (with name changes to fit my world) but completely re-writing encounters and dungeons to fit 5e's style (proper dungeons rather than three-room encounters, encounters built around 5e guidelines.) Its all working pretty well. Except for one thing: there is a skill challenge right before a major epic battle, where the PCs go around making war preparations (via skill checks) and if they succeed the skill challenge, they get Victory Points towards the outcome of the war.

I want to include this war preparation concept (which includes scouting locations, inspiring the troops, and recalling battle tactics) and I want the PCs to be able to earn the VP for doing well (so I don't want to just brush off the event) but I don't know how to handle determining successful planning outside of the skill challenge system.

My first thought was to use the skill challenge as-is; get 10 successes before 3 fails using the proper skills. I'm not a giant fan of skill challenges, but its the easiest (if the most 4e) way of doing it. Other options could include making everyone roll a skill and award VP based on how many successes they get.

I'm open to other suggestions on how to award those VP based on preparations (other than pure fiat) and keep the feel of PCs preparing for war without necessarily using the skill challenge structure as-is.

 

[Quickleaf]

My first thought was to use the skill challenge as-is; get 10 successes before 3 fails using the proper skills. I'm not a giant fan of skill challenges, but its the easiest (if the most 4e) way of doing it. Other options could include making everyone roll a skill and award VP based on how many successes they get.

I'm open to other suggestions on how to award those VP based on preparations (other than pure fiat) and keep the feel of PCs preparing for war without necessarily using the skill challenge structure as-is.

IME these sorts of scenarios run much better as a series of smaller quests that are played thru in the sessions prior to the big battle. Doing it this way increases player investment, makes it clear what actions in the narrative lead to what consequences, etc.

That said, I have done a similar "war preparation" scenario by skill challenge before. Here's what I would suggest:

Gradated Victory Point conditions allowing for more than a binary outcome.

Get rid of the "before 3 fails" bit, and instead establish a timeline and a deadline when the army is going to be upon them. So it becomes "get as many Victory Points as we can before the invading army arrives."

Estimate how much time possible PC actions would take. As they take these actions, deduct time from the clock. Expect them to split the party to get more done.

Then run it however you like, either leaning more toward DM fiat, more toward rolling, whatever your group tends to go for.

 

[Wik]

Hm. What I'd do, and this is just spitballing.

First, I'd figure out what skills are involved in the challenge, and what success on those skills represents. So, for example, nature check is scouting land, etc.

Doing that, I'd break each of those "events" into a little event that can be played out, where (ideally) the PCs can succeed or fail without it being a big thing. I'd make sure the party is encouraged to split up, but if they want to group together, they can (they'll just score less points, see below).

I'd have three "rounds" of play, with each each player getting one action per round. A round could represent whatever unit of campaign time - in a war scenario, I'd go with, say, a week. When it's a player's turn, I'd outline what actions are available, and have them pick one, and figure out a response. Play it out in front of the table, with the goal of resolving it within five minutes. If the PC scores a success, it's 2 points. An excellent success (ie, a brilliant idea) is 3 points, and a near miss (good idea, bad roll) is 1 point. Really bone-headed stuff is -1 points.

If PCs want to team up and tackle something together, that's fine. They can give one another advantage, and all that. On the downside, they only score one task, instead of possibly scoring two.

After each round, I announce what's happened, outline events, and change things to approach the changing tides of war.

Do this three rounds. Then I have a rough tabulation of what amassed victory points mean, and announce this, modifying what I'd be saying on the fly based on what the PCs succeeded at and failed.

A rough idea:

PCs have an army on a hill range, and there's an army nearby. They have almost a month (three weeks) before the battle starts.

First week, I outline tasks (but leave things loose so PCs can try their own skills):

1. Build a wall (artisan's tools, or maybe a strong leader supervising a work team)
2. Arrange the camp
3. Find a water source (survival check)
4. Find the enemy army (nature or investigation?)
5. Establish a path for the supply train (handle animal, land vehicle proficiency, or...?)
6. Morale for soldiers.

I decide that there's a chance that PCs could stumble across enemy scouts. And maybe work up the beginnings of a morale problem in camp.

Week 2: The enemy army gets near. Now we have a few skirmish problems.

1. Wounded from a skirmish pour in. Healers might be needed!
2. Sneak in and maybe poison an enemy water supply (could even lead to a small, 1 PC vs 2 foes combat!)
3. Count enemy officers from a nearby hill.
4. Lead religious sermons to keep the growing morale issue under check.
5. Find out that the enemy is scrying on the camp - figure out where the scrying is taking place, and put a stop to it (probably with arcane magic?)

And then, after we play out that, week 3 (you get the idea).

 

[meomwt]

[Red Hand of Doom[/i] (the 3E adventure) has a VP structure - what the PC's accomplish during the adventure wins VP, allocated as small awards (taking out a general) to large (preventing the Ghost Lord joining the Horde). The higher the VP total at battle-time, the easier the battle for the PC's.

Might be a better system than the skill challenge, and you can keep tabs on this privately without the players knowing what goes on. Then, when they find the enemy army smaller than expected, they will be astounded.

 

[iserith]

So here is my scenario.

I'm running a loose conversion of Reavers of Harkenwold from the 4e DM Kit as a 5e adventure. By loose, I mean keeping the general area and plot in tact (with name changes to fit my world) but completely re-writing encounters and dungeons to fit 5e's style (proper dungeons rather than three-room encounters, encounters built around 5e guidelines.) Its all working pretty well. Except for one thing: there is a skill challenge right before a major epic battle, where the PCs go around making war preparations (via skill checks) and if they succeed the skill challenge, they get Victory Points towards the outcome of the war.

I want to include this war preparation concept (which includes scouting locations, inspiring the troops, and recalling battle tactics) and I want the PCs to be able to earn the VP for doing well (so I don't want to just brush off the event) but I don't know how to handle determining successful planning outside of the skill challenge system.

My first thought was to use the skill challenge as-is; get 10 successes before 3 fails using the proper skills. I'm not a giant fan of skill challenges, but its the easiest (if the most 4e) way of doing it. Other options could include making everyone roll a skill and award VP based on how many successes they get.

I'm open to other suggestions on how to award those VP based on preparations (other than pure fiat) and keep the feel of PCs preparing for war without necessarily using the skill challenge structure as-is.

I love skill challenges! By googling up "iserith skill challenge," you can find many threads where I've helped people write them.

As much as I love skill challenges in D&D 4e, they aren't a great fit in D&D 5e mechanically. The same basic interaction holds though: DM presents a challenge, players try to overcome it, and dice come into play to resolve uncertainty. It's just not as structured in 5e.

If you wanted to present a number of situations in a longer challenge or a series of complications in a shorter one, just write those down and assign a DC for task resolution if the players' solution is uncertain to work. If the solution is certain to work, they just succeed - no roll. if it's certain to fail, they just fail - no roll. If they get through you list of complications without failing thrice, then they achieve the win conditions for the stakes you set. If not, then (interesting) failure comes into effect. You can probably leave off on worrying about stuff like Primary Skills, Secondary Skills, and Advantages (not to be confused with advantage or disadvantage in 5e). DCs will likely be in the 10-20 range, tops, and Help action and group checks may apply if the players establish the fiction necessary to have that make sense.

Before you can do this though, you need the players to state a goal or to accept a goal from a hook you present. It sounds like the latter is what you'll be doing.

 

[Remathilis]

Good thoughts so far.

This is what the skill challenge is supposed to emulate.

The group has 3 days until the Iron Ring army marches on the rebel hideout. Forces from all over the area are converging here, and the PCs have a few days to get things ready for the rebels. If they win, they earn 2 VP (which do work like in Red Hand of Doom; earn enough points they influence the outcome of the war. They earn VP other ways too, such as sabotaging supply lines or defeating allied forces).

Level: 3 Difficulty 4 (10 before 3)

Skills (each use takes an hour)

Diplomacy (Persuasion): Rally the troops. Max 3 successes.
History: Recall relevant info from past wars or tactics. Max 3 successes.
Intimidate: Project confidence and push the troops. Max 3 successes.
Nature: Scout terrain, predict weather, and set ambushes. Max 3 successes.
Religion: Pray to god and comfort nervous troops. Max 2 successes.

I want to do something like that; allow the PCs to use their skills (or checks) to influence the battle in ways that will be played "off camera" during the actual battle. I'm just looking for a way to determine if they did "good enough" to warrant 0, 1, or 2 VP towards the war effort.
[MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION] posted a system that involved a certain number of successes in a certain number of "passes" (rounds, effectively). Each pass could be a day, so they'd need to get 8 successes with their skills over 3 days; if they get less, they get 1 VP or none if they really botch it. Read his system here. The advantage here is that its no longer 3 strikes you're out, which seems very anti-5e.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So here is my scenario.

I'm running a loose conversion of Reavers of Harkenwold from the 4e DM Kit as a 5e adventure. By loose, I mean keeping the general area and plot in tact (with name changes to fit my world) but completely re-writing encounters and dungeons to fit 5e's style (proper dungeons rather than three-room encounters, encounters built around 5e guidelines.) Its all working pretty well. Except for one thing: there is a skill challenge right before a major epic battle, where the PCs go around making war preparations (via skill checks) and if they succeed the skill challenge, they get Victory Points towards the outcome of the war.

I want to include this war preparation concept (which includes scouting locations, inspiring the troops, and recalling battle tactics) and I want the PCs to be able to earn the VP for doing well (so I don't want to just brush off the event) but I don't know how to handle determining successful planning outside of the skill challenge system.

My first thought was to use the skill challenge as-is; get 10 successes before 3 fails using the proper skills. I'm not a giant fan of skill challenges, but its the easiest (if the most 4e) way of doing it. Other options could include making everyone roll a skill and award VP based on how many successes they get.

I'm open to other suggestions on how to award those VP based on preparations (other than pure fiat) and keep the feel of PCs preparing for war without necessarily using the skill challenge structure as-is.

You're gonna need a montage.
[video=youtube;JU9Uwhjlog8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU9Uwhjlog8[/video]

The thing I'd tease out is two major aspects:
What does the party need to be "successful" at that task and What does the party pay for success?

Then you have a brief scene where the party pays for that success, or not. Involve a skill check as you desire.

Like, if inspiring the troops gives the PC's points toward victory, don't just ask them what they say - ask them what they give up to inspire the troops. Do they spend some treasure on a big celebration? Do they offer a prize for anyone who makes it back alive? Do they tell the worried and fearful troops that they'll take care of the family back in the homeland by sending them some money? Do they capture a member of the enemy team for target practice (thus risking exposure themselves)? Do they let some of the troops leave if they are afraid, keeping only the most resolute but losing some members of the force in the process?

An interesting scene needs to have a tension, something that changes both the protagonists (the party) and the antagonists (here, the enemies, or the fear of the troops, or the chaos of war). How are the PC's changed when they accomplish their goal?

Dig into that, and you've got some meaty montage material. Maybe have the party split up, some do X, some do Y, and some do Z, and then present them with the possibility of getting what they want by giving something up, and see if they do it or not.

 

[iserith]

I want to do something like that; allow the PCs to use their skills (or checks) to influence the battle in ways that will be played "off camera" during the actual battle. I'm just looking for a way to determine if they did "good enough" to warrant 0, 1, or 2 VP towards the war effort.

Fail "skill challenge" = 0
Succeed with some failures = 1
Succeed with no failures = 2

Just a reminder from the DMG (page 236): "Some DMs rely on die rolls for almost everything. When a character attempts a task, the DM calls for a check a picks a DC... A drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success." So I would recommend that good solutions the players propose don't require a check at all. They just succeed.

Also, rather than think about things in terms of skill checks, it may be useful to think of things in terms of goals that are complicated by some fictional challenge. For example, if a player wants his or her character to rally the troops with a stirring speech to improve their morale, the complication you throw at them is Naysayers. "A group of conscripts has heard of the ferocity of the enemy and claims that we aren't ready to face them. Others nearby hear their words and a frightened murmur is spreading throughout the ranks. What do you do?" So the PC's goal is to Rally the Troops. The complication is Naysayers. The character's approach to dealing with that either succeeds, fails, or has an uncertain outcome and thus calls for a check appropriate to the approach.

 

[Remathilis]

Just a reminder from the DMG (page 236): "Some DMs rely on die rolls for almost everything. When a character attempts a task, the DM calls for a check a picks a DC... A drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success." So I would recommend that good solutions the players propose don't require a check at all. They just succeed.

I was going to allow the PCs to use other abilities (spells, class features) to earn auto successes. For example, the druid could use his magic to earn a "nature" check auto success, or the bard could use his inspiration to "inspire" the troops for persusasion, along with a bit of RP. Good role-playing could "lower" the DC needed to succeed. Also, clever ideas not covered by the original SC skills could earn a success as well. Which is why using the "earn X successes before the time period is over" is what I'm leaning toward.
[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] ; the cost of failure here is that if they don't earn enough VP, they lose the battle and the final confrontation with the Ring becomes harder (since less of their troops were smashed during the battle). There are other ways to earn VP (as stated, its 2 out of a possible 18) but I wanted to give them a chance to earn those VP, since it directly affects the final battle, but I didn't just want to do it "by fiat".

 

[Fortress13]

Man, these are fantastic suggestions. The idea behind a skill challenge is good, but 4e's version is so... gamey. Obviously, you can rp around anything, but I really like Remathilis's suggestion of creating several mini objectives to try to complete in the time allotted. Depending on what the party accomplished or failed to accomplish, it could have obvious consequences on the course of the battle.