Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7193153" data-attributes="member: 996">So, "Skill Challenge" was a jargon term in 4e... [sblock]A jargon term for a structured non-combat encounter/task that 'challenged' the PCs to a degree comparable to a combat encounter and yielded similar experience.  The way they were presented, it was not unusual or unreasonable for them to be a lot easier than a combat encounter, with proportionately less exp, but it was comparable.  The mechanics involved were really only workable because of 4e's NoGoodVeryBadWrongFun UN-Bounded Accuracy, that made 'level' highly meaningful to skill checks, rather like 4e's encounter guidelines in which a similar size group of standard monsters of a given level were, in fact, appropriate challenges to parties of around the same level (radical, un-intuitive, and so-not-D&D, I know, those were dark times, but their over).   As a matter of fact, initially, they weren't workable even then.  The original PH1 Skill Challenge used the easy-to-remember mechanic of n successes before n/2 failures, where n was a multiple of 4.  As the PhD statisticians reading this immediately realized, THAT DOESN'T WORK.  It means that as skill challenges get 'more complex' they get more likely to succeed.  What's worse, it was never errata'd.  OK, it was fixed in an Update, and again, in DM2, and yet again in the RC, but it was never errata'd, I'm just say'n, because they refused to admit 'updates' were errata.Anyway, by the RC it a was a (don't tell anyone, it's a secret) workable enough system of n success before 3 failures, which meant a higher value of n actually made the challenge harder.  It was structured so each PC had a chance to participate, and the DM could design it in advance if desired, with an idea of how difficult it would be, and a corresponding exp award.  It was still pretty bare-bones, and, at the rate D&D design tends to progress, could've done with a couple decades of work, but it had a little promise.So, of course, Mearls gave it a quick bath and tossed it out in the street.[/sblock]...So y'might not wanna use that term. It's a roleplaying game - in or out of combat.  If there's no RP in combat, you don't even rise to the level of a Gauntlet sprite, at least they occasionally get hungry or say "ouch." Well, usually in 5e everthing's up to the DM, but in this case, the idea is that players declare actions.  So a situation can be resolved by one player declaring a series of actions or by each player declaring different actions - or if there's no consequence of failure, everyone piling on to any failure to get at least one success.  It's kinda up to the players (for a change), really, unless what one player does triggers something (like a trap) that forces others to react (by making saving throws, for instance).The DM, though, does decide succeed, fail, or roll (and what the consequences of success or failure are) for each declaration, though.   That's called a Group Skill Check.  And it's a pretty workable little mechanic (even if it did, shamefully, also have it's origins in 4e - oh, I've said too much.). I, as a DM, do not.  They decide what they're doing, I just decide how it goes for them.    Hey, if he decides to try it, he tries it.  Stopping him would be railroading. OK, the past tense made it sound like you were talking about actual Skill Challenges in The Reviled Edition, not just inappropriately using it as a label for not-the-same-thing-at-all in bless-ed 5e.  [sblock]Skill Challenges were structured with the expectation of every character participating, but players who wanted to avoid making a check they sucked at could sorta punt by using a secondary skill that didn't count towards failures or just aiding another player's roll.[/sblock] That's called 'skilled play' or 'meta-gaming' depending on whether you resemble the remark or not.Yeah, that'd be intimidate, which was a skill fighters could be trained in.  FWIW. (Not much.) Just let it play out.  Present the situation, the players who are interested and feel their PCs should get involved will declare actions, which you resolve per usual.  Eventually, thing's'll be so eff'd up something bad happens or no further progress is possible - or they'll succeed.  Either way, move the game along from that point.</blockquote>

Verification