Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Noumenon" data-source="post: 5069489" data-attributes="member: 70102">Like I said, you guys are amazing.  Thanks for all the tips.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.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. 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 selection2, local politics3, construction 4, attracting a congregation5, 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.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.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 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."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.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.)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.</blockquote>

Verification