I want to run a competitive 4E skill challenge in high-level 3E

[Noumenon]

Yeah, it's a lot to ask for. I love skill challenges in 4E. They encourage imagination, they let me DM noncombat encounters with crunch instead of fluff, and I've got this new Survivor Skill Challenge idea to try out. I'm going to be ditching the 3.5 skill system entirely and giving all characters 4E skills so I can do skill challenges in 3E.

The sticking point is at high level. (It's my first high-level campaign starting at 17th level -- I really shouldn't be getting this ambitious.) Normally I let people use up a spell slot for +2 or +4 to the check, just like 4E challenges sometimes let you use a healing surge. But in the case of a spell like miracle, that just doesn't seem to cover it.

The specific skill challenge I want to build is constructing a cathedral to Pelor under a time limit -- another high level cleric will be trying to construct one first. How to make it seem like a real competition is yet another overambitious idea. But you guys always come through -- that's why I just became a subscriber here.

 

[Aus_Snow]

There really isn't much at all that is new to 4e, which becomes even more obvious when you look at some of 3e's non-core rules.

Some examples that you might find relevant:

Complex Skill Checks :: d20srd.org

Action Points :: d20srd.org

But it doesn't end there. Heh, and that's without going into 3rd party stuff, let alone the thousands of PDFs out there. . . and house rules all over the webs.

Just thought you might want to see what has been done already, before putting too much work into it. But hey, if you simply want to use parts of 4e in 3e, I'm not going to take issue with that!

 

[delericho]

I'm going to be ditching the 3.5 skill system entirely and giving all characters 4E skills so I can do skill challenges in 3E.

Skill challenges should basically work as-is in 3e. It's just a matter of "X successes before Y failures", after all. The only difference is that characters will have basically no chance of success when using a skill untrained.

(Of course, I'm not fond of the 4e suggestion that DC values should go up at the same rate as PC bonuses, so that skews things somewhat. I prefer a fixed DC of 15 for level 1, rising to 20 at level 5, 25 at level 10, and so on. But that's just me.)

Normally I let people use up a spell slot for +2 or +4 to the check, just like 4E challenges sometimes let you use a healing surge. But in the case of a spell like miracle, that just doesn't seem to cover it.

Two options: either grant a bigger bonus, or give an automatic success. For a spell like miracle I'd lean towards the latter, given the XP cost. For a GP cost, I would suggest a bonus equal to the spell level.

However, unless there's a permanent cost associated with the spell/magic item, I'd be inclined not to give a bonus at all - the PC is just assumed to apply all his tools to the task at hand.

The specific skill challenge I want to build is constructing a cathedral to Pelor under a time limit -- another high level cleric will be trying to construct one first. How to make it seem like a real competition is yet another overambitious idea.

For the skill challenge itself, I see two main options.

If there are only two teams, and the PCs are all on the same team, then I would recommend just using a standard challenge - if the PCs get 10 successes before 3 failures (or whatever), then they complete their task first. If not, then the NPC team wins.

If there are more than two teams, or the PCs are split between teams, then I would suggest effectively running the challenge independently for each team. Start by adding 'significant' NPCs to each team to equal out the number of participants. (You may well want to run an "interview process" whereby the players choose the additional members for their team(s).) Then, make a single initiative roll for each team in turn, using the highest modifier from any single member. And then run the challenge for each team in order of initiative - each 'cycle' of rolls represents a month of work; a team that gets 3 failures before 10 successes suffers a catastrophic failure; and the first team to get those 10 successes are the winners.

You might simplify the rolling here by ruling that each significant NPC contributes a fixed number of successes and failures with each 'cycle' of rolls. This works best if there is no more than one fully NPC team, though.

To make it seem more like a competition, I would recommend adding in some tactical elements to the rolls, and probably one or two encounters along the way.

For example, the PCs might decide that they want to push their workforce harder than normal, and thus try to get more done in the time available. This could increase the difficulty of the rolls by a step, but allow each success to count double (or one-and-a-half, or whatever). Or perhaps they offer their workforce a bonus for early completion, thus gaining an extra Diplomacy roll per 'cycle'.

As for the encounters - maybe word reaches the PCs of a famous Dwarven architect who has fallen into the hands of Nerull worshippers. If the PCs free him, he would contribute his expertise to the cause. Or perhaps they should launch a nocturnal raid on the opposing team to undo some of their work? (Or the reverse - their opponents send thugs to do the same, and the PCs must beat them back.)

How much further you go with this depends entirely on how much detail you want to put in. If your players aren't really all that interested in building the cathedral, then a dead simple Skill Challenge is really the way to go. If they are very interested, then you can expand this out essentially to a full adventure, with all sorts of complications.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Pathfinder cleaned up the skill system in 3E. You should take a look at their skill system before incorporating 4Es.

Why are you having a hard time figuring out how to do this skill challenge? Are you having trouble picking which skills to use?

Knowledge (Architecture/Engineering): For basic design.
Knowledge (Religion): For various necessary parts of the Cathedral.
Diplomacy: For dealing with local nobles or officials to get the land and permission to build as well as hiring quality specialists and workers.


Maybe throw in some side skills like Sense Motive to synergize Diplomacy when negotiating. You could even throw in Profession (Merchant) or the like to get materials faster and/or cheaper.

Alot of ways to go with something like this.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

(Of course, I'm not fond of the 4e suggestion that DC values should go up at the same rate as PC bonuses, so that skews things somewhat. I prefer a fixed DC of 15 for level 1, rising to 20 at level 5, 25 at level 10, and so on. But that's just me.)

My internal guidelines for DCs in 4E is also to consider what "level" the challenge should be. Just as you have an effective encounter level based on numbers and levels of monsters. So a 8th level group doesn't necessarily get a 8th level skill challenge, just like it won't always get a 8th level combat encounter.

One of the biggest challenges using 3E is that there is a far wider gap between "untrained and bad ability score for skill" and "maximally trained, with feat, synergies and magic items". This makes it hard to predict which DCs will actually seem as a challenge, and which DCs will simply be too hard, and which players can actually contribute to a challenge.*


I guess one way to deal with this is to provide a wide range of possible DCs. One of the very low DCs might just be suitable to get a support. One of the really high DCs might get you extra successes, secondary benefits, negate failures or similar things.

To ensure that a single person with the best skill modifier is not the only one participating in the challenge, introduce aspects where mutliple members of the party have to contribute.

One concept found in some published 4E skill challenges is the "group check". Every party member has to roll, and if the majority succeeds, the party gains a success (or at least no failure), and if the majority fails, the party gains a failure.

You could set multiple DCs for such a group challenge.
Check Result 0-10: Counts as a two failures
Check Result 11-15: Counts as one failure
Check Result 16-25: Counts as one success
Check Result 26-35 or more: Counts as two succeses
Subtract failures from successes, if the count is positive, the party succeeds at the task.

Another way might be to have "prerequisite" checks. Maybe you can attempt a Diplomacy Check only after someone else succeeded his Knowledge (History) Check unveiling a certian fact. The latter check might be easier or it might just be that the Wizard can do it but the Silver Tongued Rogue probably can't. The check doesn't actually grant a success (or failure), but it opens a new way to gain successes and failures. Kinda like a "buff" or "move to flank" action in combat.


*)
Disparities over time:
3E maxed charackter: 23 ranks, +12 ability (Ability Score 18 +5 level increases +6 enhancement + 5 inherent = 34), +3 skill focus, +2 synergy, +2 skill boosting feat, +10 from a magical item => +52 modifier vs a -7 modifier from the untrained guy with the heavy armor. (or just -1 if we ignore armor for a moment). And 23 vs 52 if someone just has maxed his skill ranks but not his item and ability score selection.

4E can also allows a large disparity. Something between -3 (armor Check Penalty, Ability Score 8) to +15 (Skill Training, Skill Focus, Racial Bonus, Ability Score 20) can be possible at 1st level, and the difference can increase by a few points over 30 levels thanks to the presence of magic items and ability improvements (low end +12, high end about +40)
It doesnt reach the same difference as 3E, but it is still big and the revised skill challenge DCs pose no challenge for the optimzied character.

 

[delericho]

My internal guidelines for DCs in 4E is also to consider what "level" the challenge should be. Just as you have an effective encounter level based on numbers and levels of monsters. So a 8th level group doesn't necessarily get a 8th level skill challenge, just like it won't always get a 8th level combat encounter.

Makes sense.

One of the biggest challenges using 3E is that there is a far wider gap between "untrained and bad ability score for skill" and "maximally trained, with feat, synergies and magic items". This makes it hard to predict which DCs will actually seem as a challenge, and which DCs will simply be too hard, and which players can actually contribute to a challenge.

Agreed. I would suggest that a 3.5e DM needs to be more liberal in which skills to allow for the challenge than does a 4e DM. (I would also argue that the Skill Challenge rules from the 4e DMG are also rather too restrictive, but that's another debate for another day.)

Of course, I'm also in the camp that suggests that PCs should really be diversifying their skills (across the group; I'm not suggesting that a PC should put just a few ranks in a lot of skills). So, there should be someone with Knowledge(arcana), Knowledge(architecture), and so on... Though that's not always easy when you only have 2 skill points and a narrow set of class skills.

I guess one way to deal with this is to provide a wide range of possible DCs. One of the very low DCs might just be suitable to get a support. One of the really high DCs might get you extra successes, secondary benefits, negate failures or similar things.

I like this.

To ensure that a single person with the best skill modifier is not the only one participating in the challenge, introduce aspects where mutliple members of the party have to contribute.

One concept found in some published 4E skill challenges is the "group check".

I like this as well. I certainly take the view that in almost all Skill Challenges, every PC who is present must at least try to contribute - if they just do nothing then I chalk that up as an automatic failure.

(I'm sometimes quite evil like that. )

Another way might be to have "prerequisite" checks. Maybe you can attempt a Diplomacy Check only after someone else succeeded his Knowledge (History) Check unveiling a certian fact. The latter check might be easier or it might just be that the Wizard can do it but the Silver Tongued Rogue probably can't. The check doesn't actually grant a success (or failure), but it opens a new way to gain successes and failures.

And another good idea.

Some more stuff I've been considering for Skill Challenges:

"Spine Skills": As I said above, I'm very liberal in tying skills to Challenges. If a player can come up with a justification (no matter how tenuous, mostly), I'm inclined to allow it. However, there are some Challenges that just have to be tied to certain skills. If you're climbing a mountain, then Knowledge(nature) and Survival will obviously help, and other skills may well apply too... but eventually you're going to have to make a Climb check or two in there as well.

And so I have the "Spine Skills", the skills that cannot be avoided to pass the Challenge. Basically, in order to succeed in the Challenge, the party must not only get the required X successes, but they must also get at least 1 in each of the "spine" skills, and half of their total successes must also be in "spine skills".

(So, in the "Build a Cathedral" example, it is likely that Knowledge(architecture) and Craft(building) would be spine skills. Intimidate or Diplomacy would help motivate the workforce, Profession(merchant) would help get the materials, and Gather Information might help track down hard-to-find items... but eventually, someone is going to have to actually build the thing!)

First Past the Post: Some Challenges don't really have a notion of 'failure' - all that matters is that you get there before the other guy. In that case, I would have each 'cycle' of rolls represent a block of time (or monetary resources, or both), and count the number of 'cycles' until the target is reached.

(Obviously, this is good for a race scenario. If it's just a matter of time and there are no real consequences of taking longer, I would probably just say, "two weeks later, you're done..." and leave it at that.)

The Deadline: Similar to the above, except that there is a pre-established number of 'cycles' allowed before the Challenge is declared a failure. Perhaps each 'cycle' represents a week of work, and if you're not done within four weeks then the contract gets cancelled.

The Filibuster: Conversely, sometimes it's not really a question of success, but rather how long you can keep going before you fail. In this case, I would have each 'cycle' of rolls represents a block of time, and count the number of 'cycles' before the 3 failures are recorded.

(This would be good for creating a distraction while another group get away, or for delaying the movement of troops or materiel, or similar.)

Phased Challenges: Sometimes, the conditions of a Challenge adjust as time passes. Strictly speaking, the construction of a cathedral should be a good example of this: you first draw up plans, hire a workforce, and gather materials, and then build the thing.

This can either be modelled by chaining several smaller Challenges together (having success in one provide a bonus in the next), or by using a Group Check for each phase, and emphasising different skills in each.

Interrupted Challenges: This one has the Skill Challenge pausing at certain points to break up the action - possibly allowing the PCs to influence the ongoing Skill Challenge. Basically, you assign a condition and then design an event to go with it.

For example, when building the Cathedral, if the PCs hit 2 failures, the (NPC) foreman comes to them and says that they've been losing a lot of workers due to attacks from the sewers. The men won't do any more work until something is done. (The PCs then investigate, find a nest of wererats, and wipe them out.)

Success in the keyed event could either give a bonus to the next 'cycle' of rolls (weak), grant one or more automatic successes (moderate), or even negate a failure already recorded (more powerful). Failure might have the opposite effect... or might have no effect at all - it might be enough of a punishment that the PCs didn't get the "success" reward.

It's probably worth noting that I don't have the DMG2. I do have Galaxy of Intrigue (SWSE), but I haven't had a chance to do more than glance at it - it certainly seems to add a lot more to Skill Challenges than was present in DMG1, and may cover some or all of what I've just outlined.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think there is still a lot to explore in what one can do with skill challenges (regardless of edition or game). In many ways, the surface has just been scratched. (And 4E D&D is not the first game and the 4E DMG not the first roleplaying book to scratch it. It just seems we need a little more... experimenting and experience to get it "right").

 

[Noumenon]

Like I said, you guys are amazing. Thanks for all the tips.

Complex Skill Checks :: d20srd.org

That might be an easier sell for my players especially since they are playing old characters from another campaign who have their 3.5 skill points figured out already.

However, unless there's a permanent cost associated with the spell/magic item, I'd be inclined not to give a bonus at all - the PC is just assumed to apply all his tools to the task at hand.

Another reason not to give a bonus is that fighters can't get it then. The reason I want to anyway is I'm afraid spellcasters will feel cheated if they have a spell that's clearly applicable (ventriloquism with bluff, or lyre of building with the cathedral). "The only reason I can't just do this," they'll think, "is this stupid skill challenge thing." Also, I think creative spell use makes better narration -- I'd rather hear about someone bluffing using dancing lights or summon monster than just a parlor trick.

(You may well want to run an "interview process" whereby the players choose the additional members for their team(s).)

What I like about this idea is that I would like this to be a significant, time-consuming skill challenge. If I weave it together with actual NPCs and things, it'll come close to structuring my whole roleplaying section of the adventure. I'm going to give +2 for getting assistance from a relevant NPC contact, which will bring even more roleplaying into it.

I was already planning to run the thing in stages, something like:
1, site selection
2, local politics
3, construction
4, attracting a congregation
5, the opening service.
So which architect, supplier, or patron the players choose to join with in early stages will affect the way stage 3 and 4 play out.

the PCs might decide that they want to push their workforce harder than normal, and thus try to get more done in the time available. This could increase the difficulty of the rolls by a step, but allow each success to count double (or one-and-a-half, or whatever). Or perhaps they offer their workforce a bonus for early completion, thus gaining an extra Diplomacy roll per 'cycle'.

That definitely brings the time element into the mechanics, thanks very much. For the "competition" element my group always enjoys stuff like using Forgery to mess with the other group's work orders.

Why are you having a hard time figuring out how to do this skill challenge? Are you having trouble picking which skills to use?

It is because high-level adventurers are supposed to be super-powerful and epic. So #1, I'm afraid that there is a spell that will short-circuit the whole skill challenge (Mordenkainen's Mansion just occurred to me), #2, I was afraid about the ungodly gaps in skill bonuses (though I think Ridcully has shown that's no different in 4E), and #3, it couldn't just be "roll five times, wow, you built a cathedral." I've never done one of the higher complexity skill challenges because I was afraid people would run out of ways to use their skills, but this must be the time for one.

I guess one way to deal with this is to provide a wide range of possible DCs. One of the very low DCs might just be suitable to get a support. One of the really high DCs might get you extra successes, secondary benefits, negate failures or similar things.

I like this idea, although it means I have to go set DCs beforehand instead of reacting based on how much I like the PC's proposal for how he's going to use the skill. And I have to let the PCs know this beforehand, so they know the stakes. But it'll definitely be more engaging when they can feel like they're taking a risk for a reward. I'm going to work that in there. "Two successes" is a really easy reward I can do on the fly, or in the Survivor Skill Challenge, "bring one of the eliminated party members back to roll in the next round."

"Spine Skills": As I said above, I'm very liberal in tying skills to Challenges. If a player can come up with a justification (no matter how tenuous, mostly), I'm inclined to allow it. However, there are some Challenges that just have to be tied to certain skills. If you're climbing a mountain, then Knowledge(nature) and Survival will obviously help, and other skills may well apply too... but eventually you're going to have to make a Climb check or two in there as well.

I really like that because it removes the feeling that "The DM will let me track a deer with Acrobatics if I just tell him I'm swinging from vine to vine." Now your skill choice, not just your description, matters.

Phased Challenges: Sometimes, the conditions of a Challenge adjust as time passes. Strictly speaking, the construction of a cathedral should be a good example of this: you first draw up plans, hire a workforce, and gather materials, and then build the thing.

This can either be modelled by chaining several smaller Challenges together (having success in one provide a bonus in the next), or by using a Group Check for each phase, and emphasising different skills in each.

If I can be flexible enough, I'm going to have the mix of successes in Phase One determine what Phase Two looks like (got your building permit with a Diplomacy check? The cathedral goes up looking like a public works program. Got it with a Religion check? The thing is built on hallowed ground.)

if the PCs hit 2 failures, the (NPC) foreman comes to them and says that they've been losing a lot of workers due to attacks from the sewers. The men won't do any more work until something is done.

Stuff like that will make the challenge feel like building a cathedral in a real world, and not just making rolls. The only thing I'm worried about now is that someone will say "I miracle up a cathedral. Next!" In this particular challenge, though, it's a competition to "out-holy" the other highest-level clerics of Pelor to gain the opportunity to be Pelor's representative to a never-evangelized, godless plane. So Pelor's not going to be that impressed with a cathedral he just made for you a second ago. But I don't know what the answer to spell trumpage in general would be.

 

[delericho]

Another reason not to give a bonus is that fighters can't get it then. The reason I want to anyway is I'm afraid spellcasters will feel cheated if they have a spell that's clearly applicable (ventriloquism with bluff, or lyre of building with the cathedral). "The only reason I can't just do this," they'll think, "is this stupid skill challenge thing." Also, I think creative spell use makes better narration -- I'd rather hear about someone bluffing using dancing lights or summon monster than just a parlor trick.

Under normal circumstances, it's not an issue. The PC is giving up one of their very limited spells for the day (or a one-use scroll, or a charge of a wand, or...). It's just that in the case of a long-term Challenge like this, the PCs are likely to rest immediately after it is complete, so anything that doesn't have a GP or XP cost associated with it effectively costs the character nothing.

You could allow the PC to use a spell like this to substitute a Spellcraft check for whatever other check the PC would 'normally' make for the action (so Spellcraft instead of Craft to miracle up a building; Spellcraft instead of Bluff to use dancing lights as you described, and so on). You can justify it by saying that although the magic will do the 'heavy lifting', a lot of the fine work is going to depend on how well the character casts the spell.

In general, it is my feeling that most spells should actually give a bonus to the related skill, rather than simply being automatic. There are little hints of this here and there (eg find traps), but it should be the general case. Amongst other things, this would help avoid the spellcasters rendering the Rogue obselete as the party gains levels. But, again, another conversation for another day.

It is because high-level adventurers are supposed to be super-powerful and epic. So #1, I'm afraid that there is a spell that will short-circuit the whole skill challenge (Mordenkainen's Mansion just occurred to me), #2, I was afraid about the ungodly gaps in skill bonuses (though I think Ridcully has shown that's no different in 4E), and #3, it couldn't just be "roll five times, wow, you built a cathedral."

#1 is covered above. There is definitely an issue that players would expect their high level spellcasters to be able to do these things quickly and easily; I'm not 100% certain there is a good fix for it.

#2 you'll probably find isn't as much of an issue as you suspect. The players will find ways to apply their best skills to the Challenge. If they don't, they'll probably look for other ways to contribute - just be flexible in allowing these and you should be fine.

I think #3 is best tackled by describing the partial successes and failures as you go. It's perhaps worth building in opportunities for the PCs to work with those to gain extra successes or negate failures. (But be careful - if you make it too easy to negate failures, you might as well just give them an automatic 'win' on the Challenge as a whole. It's usually best to give out an extra success or two instead.)

I like this idea, although it means I have to go set DCs beforehand instead of reacting based on how much I like the PC's proposal for how he's going to use the skill. And I have to let the PCs know this beforehand, so they know the stakes. But it'll definitely be more engaging when they can feel like they're taking a risk for a reward.

I'm very much in favour of telling the players the base DC at the outset, especially if you're then willing to let them accept a +5 DC penalty for the shot at a "double success". That really puts them in control of what they're doing, and lets them make interesting choices.

(For a 'chase' Challenge, I might allow the two parties to bid for specific DCs, representing more difficult but faster routes/maneuvers. But I haven't yet thrashed out all of the details.)

If I can be flexible enough, I'm going to have the mix of successes in Phase One determine what Phase Two looks like (got your building permit with a Diplomacy check? The cathedral goes up looking like a public works program. Got it with a Religion check? The thing is built on hallowed ground.)

Good move. Even better if you don't tie everything down ahead of time, so can be extra flexible - players have a habit of surprising DMs.

But I don't know what the answer to spell trumpage in general would be.

If you find one, let us know.

 

[MichaelSomething]

If you're using a "skill challenge" with high level 3.5 casters, be prepared for anything. What if the wizard summons magical creatures to help with construction. Or casts Alter Self or Polymorph to transform workers into stronger creatures? Or divines who is an expert in construction and teleports them in to help? What if the Cleric casts Hero's Feast or Owl's Wisdom? And does the party have a Bard with them? That opens up a whole 'nother can of worms.