Hinder a skill challenge / check

[Chocolate Thief]

Would it work as a table rule to suggest that PCs who fail their roll to assist on a skill check actually hinder (-2) it? A case of too many cooks or conflicting inaccurate information?

Any thoughts?

 

[James McMurray]

We've used it in some challenges and not in others, though usually there's a threshold you have to fail by.

Check the DMG sample "seek hidden knowledge" challenge. It uses a similar method (+2 for success, -2 for failure).

 

[Chocolate Thief]

I like the idea of their being a risk in assisting. For example with healing, those assisting can mess it up just as well as the surgeon / doctor.

 

[-Avalon-]

I have a simple question, is it possible for a group of enemies to actively hinder a skill challenge?

For instance, during an encounter with goblins, there is a trap. The players go about a skill challenge with the trap.

1: Could goblins attempt to shoot at the control box in an attempt to damage it, making it harder to disarm?

2: Could the goblins attempt to fire "warning shots" in the area of the rogue, trying to break his concentration some?

In those cases, a generic -2 to the attempts would be plausible or no?

Or maybe in a social setting based challenge: the enemy NPCs are running their own skill challenge with DC's based on the player rolls to counteract some of the successes?

 

[Saeviomagy]

I have a simple question, is it possible for a group of enemies to actively hinder a skill challenge?

For instance, during an encounter with goblins, there is a trap. The players go about a skill challenge with the trap.

1: Could goblins attempt to shoot at the control box in an attempt to damage it, making it harder to disarm?

Unfortunately most traps are disabled when you destroy their control box.

2: Could the goblins attempt to fire "warning shots" in the area of the rogue, trying to break his concentration some?

In those cases, a generic -2 to the attempts would be plausible or no?

Why not just shoot and kill the PCs?

Or maybe in a social setting based challenge: the enemy NPCs are running their own skill challenge with DC's based on the player rolls to counteract some of the successes?

Unfortunately doing this with the current skill challenge framework basically dooms the PCs to failure without seriously lame NPCs (in which case you're better off just increasing the skill challenge DCs). If the NPCs are at all comparable to the PCs, then the PCs will be unable to rack up successes and still able to rack up failures.

You'd probably be better off establishing some limit to the task for both sides and then comparing the number of successes (ie - there are 3 days to the election. Each character gets 2 rolls per day, most successes wins the election, or perhaps first to X successes wins, or keep going until you hit X failures and compare once both sides stop rolling).

 

[-Avalon-]

I am still trying to figure out how any party fails skill challenges... I ran two challenges so far in my campaign (2 modules, 1 per moduel), first one was as per the DM's Guide, and second was as per the errata.

First one was 8 successes before 4 failures: the end result 8 successes 3 failures

Second one was 12 successes before 3 failures (had to add a complexity due to 6 person party) and the end result? 12 Successes and 0 failures.

This is a massively easy task obviously (I even upped the level of the task to make the DC's harder). The players gave me the dialogue of what they were doing, what they planned on doing, all the way through, and then rolled average amounts. Never failed one time.

So how is a -2 here and there going to cause them to pretty much automatically fail? lol

What are my players doing that everyone elses' are not, or vice versa?

 

[Doctor Proctor]

You're assuming that all failures to assist actually mean they did something to harm the chances. For example, if I say to you "Hey, have you ever seen this before" for an Arcana check, your bad roll could mean either "Yeah, isn't it abyssal" (wrong answer) or "No, I can't say that I have. Sorry." (no answer). So if you were to houserule this, I wouldn't apply it every time, as it's a bit unfair.

 

[Syrsuro]

I wouldn't have failure at assisting hinder under most circumstances - I don't feel it is appropriate as assisting is usually attempted by those who have little chance of success in the first place and thus you are removing what small chance they have of being useful in the first place.

However, I can see an argument for a 'critical failure' (roll of a 1 that is also a failure) hindering the attempt if you want there to be some risk.

Or perhaps attempts that fail by five or more.

Carl

 

[pemerton]

I have a simple question, is it possible for a group of enemies to actively hinder a skill challenge?

<snip>

maybe in a social setting based challenge: the enemy NPCs are running their own skill challenge with DC's based on the player rolls to counteract some of the successes?

My response to this idea is heavily influenced by LostSoul's ideas about running skill challenges (and I strongly recommend looking at his Keep on the Shadowfell for ideas on running skill challenges, if you haven't already).

The general logic of a skill challenge is that only the players get to roll. I don't think that having the NPCs make skill rolls adds anything - for example, even if the NPCs succeed at their "skill challenge", there is no way within the game rules to force the players to acknowledge their success; and if the NPCs fail their rolls then what happens - are you going to give your players' successes for free? (In this respect skill challenges are quite different from combat, where both PCs and NPCs have hit points to lose, and the rules of the game to require players to acknowledge NPCs' success in combat.)

So enemies can hinder a skill challenge, but not by making rolls. Rather, as a GM you should use them and their responses as part of your repertoire for driving your players through the challenge. This can also be useful for getting all the players involved, even those whose skills are not optimised for the challenge.

So, for example, the enemy NPC with a good Bluff score says to the king "Look at that warrior - an uncouth mercenary! Would you really trust your kingdom in the hands of one like that?" You tell your players that the king nods in agreement. Now the player of the fighter has a choice. S/he can do nothing - in which case it clocks on as a failure for the party, and they are closer to losing the challenge. Or s/he can make a Diplomacy roll to have her PC defend herself, trying for a success or risking a failure. Or a more clever player might come up with something different that better plays to his/her PC's strengths: perhaps using Streetwise to get scuttlebut on the NPC so that the latter retracts the criticisms, or finding a way in which his/her PC can help another of the PCs rebut the criticism (eg player makes a successful Athletics roll, and another player makes a Diplomacy check with a +2 bonus to explain "Well, he may be uncouth, but he makes an invaluable ally in these dangerous times!").

 

[Chocolate Thief]

Thanks, these ideas and references are really useful. I like the idea of a "critical failure to assist" - the bumbling dwarf with no diplomacy really putting his/her foot in it and ruining the negotiations of the articulate warlord.