Integrating Skill Challenges With Combat

[Manbearcat]

Points for thinking about the game on a higher level, but there are a couple things you should clear up:

1) Your goal of combat varies from D&D's goal of combat. That might confuse your audience. And me.

2) Does "winning" the skill challenge supersede the combat rule outcome? Because parallel rule sets can produce both a win and a loss. If you're into the binary sort of conflict resolution.

To start, I forgot to affix the prefix D&D 4e to this thread, so my post lacked the appropriate context. My apologies, and I've rectified that. 2nd (below)....

I'm not sure combat has a specific goal in either 4e or any other particular form of D&D. I mean, we played a LOT of 'classic' D&D. There were a lot of reasons to fight a battle. I guess the 'default' reason was 'lootz', but that got stale pretty fast. I think 4e's default is at least nominally the same, but in both systems some form of story advancement, implying conflict resolution, was always pretty prevalent, IME.

[MENTION=6685730]DMMike[/MENTION], [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] - to me, asking "what happens if one fails but the other succeeds" is like asking "what happens if we beat these 3 people but the other 2 don't get beaten?" From the point of view of the fiction it's a partial win, partial loss; and from the point of view of mechanics you just adjudicate it as the mechanics requre.

Eg if monsters keep spawinging until the portal is shut, then they keep spawning. If the world ends if the portal isn't shut, the world ends. If the portal gets shut but then the party is TPKed, well (as AbdulAlhazred says), that was a heroic sacrifice!

In other words, I don't see any real difficulties in respect of this.

AA and pemerton answer your (1) in the same way that I would. The goal of combat in any edition of D&D (but especially with 4e with its ethos and related mechanics) is about more than just ablating HPs to 0. And that ablation of HPs to 0 is most certainly about the loss of something precious in the orthodox sense (one's life!).

But "one's life" is only one answer to the question of "what thing is precious that you don't want to lose." I gave several other answers to that question in the lead post (life, territory, a loved one, a charge, honor, the sanctity of a vow, a work, etc). A combat's premise could be about saving a little girl and her father from a sea monster (for its own end and as a nice perk to grant you entrance and trust/social currency in their settlement). It could be a duel for honor (which doesn't have to result in the death of either participant). The limits are only bound by creativity, functional tropes, and the robustness of the mechanics to enable interesting decision-points and outcomes as it relates to those tropes.

Regarding your (2), that is an insightful question that should be answered in this thread. It is certainly one possible outcome of things that a Skill Challenge win condition being met supersedes (thereby ending) the combat. The typical avenues for this would be a concurrent social combat with a physical combat or an exorcism of an otherwise unwilling adversary (or something equivalent).

 

[Manbearcat]

Yeah, one of my epiphanies was when I asked myself "why does an SC have to fit into the action economy?" That is to say, its happening in combat, so the combat part and the SC part interact SOMEHOW, but it can be purely in terms of fictional positioning or through some other currency than action economy (healing surges/hit points clearly come to mind). I think actions DO make sense, but they can be a high cost and often lead to players just choosing to do things like finish off the combat part first. You can of course structure a scenario to work around that, but maybe sometimes it is best to just let people make skill checks and fight at the same time. Maybe that also breaks your "the SC is just like a monster or two" model though, since that supposes that the 'monster' absorbs some of the party action economy.

This is another approach that can be used (when integrating SCs and combat). The GM frames the Skill Challenge concurrently to the combat and zooms in on specific players as they do. The decision-points they make don't fundamentally change the combat (as they don't interface with the combat mechanics), but the fiction moves forward in response to (a) the framing of the zoomed-in situation, (b) the player action declaration, and (c) the evolved fiction as a result of the outcome of the action resolution.

Its very much a synthesis of PBtA systems and 4e, so there is a toggle there (going from the abstraction of the SC's noncombat conflict resolution mechanics to the precise, tactical-depth-laden 4e combat mechanics). So really, its just a question for an individual table:

a) Are you ok with toggle (some players have mental frameworks that are more capable of pivoting than others)?

b) Are you looking for the Skill Challenge deciision-points to interface with the tactical depth of the combat resolution mechanics?

If the answer is yes/no, then this is a very coherent and functional approach for integrating Skill Challenges with 4e's combat resolution mechanics.

 

[Manbearcat]

One thing that I think needs to be considered is action economy (assuming that the SC is endemic to 4E or, at least 4E style games). Not all PCs are equally dependent upon the full suite of actions each round (minor, move, standard, possibly immediate). To choose but one example, the Warlock needs to move (for Shadow Walk bonus), minor (for Curse) and standard (attack) each turn, whereas a Rogue may only really need to use a standard action, since some of its attacks have built-in movement, and its defenses/class abilities do not rely upon additional actions.

In the example you helped me with in another thread, one way of dealing with this is thinking of party actions/round rather than individual PC actions: requiring at least one PC dedicate a move/standard/whatever action per round to resolving elements of the SC worked into the combat, rather than requireing each PC dedicate actions in this way.

Great post darkbard.

Its getting late for me and I still have some things to do before the night is done (I'm travelling tomorrow and will be out of town until Saturday evening so I won't be able to come back to this until Sunday).

I was going to provide an illustration for mechanizing the above scenario (in the same way that I did in your other thread; Complexity, Level, Action Economy, Goal/Stakes, Overall Combat Encounter Level). As an exercise and a point of conversation, would you, or anyone else, care to take a crack at mechanizing what I outlined in the lead post?

* Assume 3 PCs
* Pick a combat encounter budget and outline it
* Pick a complexity and level for the SC
* Come up with prospects of micro-failure (for outright failing or failing to engage with the SC on a round) and macro-failure for hitting the Loss condition of the SC.
* Establish an Action Economy for the SC (eg Move Action for Primary Checks and Minor Action for Secondary)

Depict (as I did in your thread) what a round of the encounter may look like?

If no one takes up the effort by the time I return, I'll write it out here for further conversation.

 

[GMMichael]

To start, I forgot to affix the prefix D&D 4e to this thread, so my post lacked the appropriate context. My apologies, and I've rectified that.

4e? Well then I'll just see my way out...

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7TKAPnSVf22S42kw/giphy.gif
(sorry, I guess my gifs are too large to embed)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is another approach that can be used (when integrating SCs and combat). The GM frames the Skill Challenge concurrently to the combat and zooms in on specific players as they do. The decision-points they make don't fundamentally change the combat (as they don't interface with the combat mechanics), but the fiction moves forward in response to (a) the framing of the zoomed-in situation, (b) the player action declaration, and (c) the evolved fiction as a result of the outcome of the action resolution.

Its very much a synthesis of PBtA systems and 4e, so there is a toggle there (going from the abstraction of the SC's noncombat conflict resolution mechanics to the precise, tactical-depth-laden 4e combat mechanics). So really, its just a question for an individual table:

a) Are you ok with toggle (some players have mental frameworks that are more capable of pivoting than others)?

b) Are you looking for the Skill Challenge deciision-points to interface with the tactical depth of the combat resolution mechanics?

If the answer is yes/no, then this is a very coherent and functional approach for integrating Skill Challenges with 4e's combat resolution mechanics.

Well, I do play a fair amount of Dungeon World...

One middle ground is the 'movement option'. So once I had this SC/Combat where the PCs were escaping from a collapsing mine and fighting goblins. The move actions were all things like leap, dodge, push, jump, climb, etc. They could still use their standard actions to fight with. Obviously there was always fictional position involved as well (and literal position). There was no question of 'one or the other', every action of a given type pretty much contributed to either combat or SC. I guess you could double move, I don't remember that anyone did that much. I think I just let that give you an easy check.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

4e? Well then I'll just see my way out...

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7TKAPnSVf22S42kw/giphy.gif
(sorry, I guess my gifs are too large to embed)

I don't actually think this sort of discussion need be limited to 4e. Its genesis was a 4e post, and SC is of course a 4e mechanic, but you can do equivalent things in most editions of D&D (supposing you are playing with some sort of skill system or check concept I guess).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Great post darkbard.

Its getting late for me and I still have some things to do before the night is done (I'm travelling tomorrow and will be out of town until Saturday evening so I won't be able to come back to this until Sunday).

I was going to provide an illustration for mechanizing the above scenario (in the same way that I did in your other thread; Complexity, Level, Action Economy, Goal/Stakes, Overall Combat Encounter Level). As an exercise and a point of conversation, would you, or anyone else, care to take a crack at mechanizing what I outlined in the lead post?

* Assume 3 PCs
* Pick a combat encounter budget and outline it
* Pick a complexity and level for the SC
* Come up with prospects of micro-failure (for outright failing or failing to engage with the SC on a round) and macro-failure for hitting the Loss condition of the SC.
* Establish an Action Economy for the SC (eg Move Action for Primary Checks and Minor Action for Secondary)

Depict (as I did in your thread) what a round of the encounter may look like?

If no one takes up the effort by the time I return, I'll write it out here for further conversation.

For some reason I'm seeing wights! Given that wights can raise things to become MORE wights, that's always fun! So obviously the title of this encounter is 'You're All Wight!" So, the bad guys are trying to raise the dead priests to become their undead warriors (and just to be mean bastards). One way to 'win' might be to redirect the energy of the dark shadow magic to yourself. Being a living being you would retain free will, but you'd become undead! Maybe this is kind of the safe path, big cost, certain outcome. OR you can take the less safe path and try to lay the wights back to rest/break the ritual, all while fighting bad guys and dealing with more and more wights....

 

[pemerton]

One of the PCs is a Sohei Theme with the Background of Pivotal Event - Possession. Someone within her mountain temple had invited an Abyssal entity into their midst and, in cruel irony, weaponized the warrior-monk (who had taken a vow to protect the priesthood). When she finally either was able to fight off the clutches of the demon (or it released her), she realized the horror of her slaughter. Evidence pointed to a coup and, ultimately, she (and the other PCs) tracked down the cult as they were carrying out their demonic master's wishes by desecrating the ancient barrow where the generations of the temple's holy protectors were each interred after their vigil had ceased.

And by desecrated, I definitely mean re-animated to fight for the wicked cause, of course.

As an exercise and a point of conversation, would you, or anyone else, care to take a crack at mechanizing what I outlined in the lead post?

* Assume 3 PCs
* Pick a combat encounter budget and outline it
* Pick a complexity and level for the SC
* Come up with prospects of micro-failure (for outright failing or failing to engage with the SC on a round) and macro-failure for hitting the Loss condition of the SC.
* Establish an Action Economy for the SC (eg Move Action for Primary Checks and Minor Action for Secondary)

Depict (as I did in your thread) what a round of the encounter may look like?

For some reason I'm seeing wights!

I'm stealing AbdulAlhazred's idea, but am not giving XP for that pun.

I'm not going to depict a round, because that would require me to think too hard about PC builds. I will sketch an encounter (I'm not used to designing for 3 PCs, but will try) for Level 3 PCs. I think it is fairly hard but not impossible.

It will also be trope-heavy.

Setting: the stone walled but earth covered burial mounds of the temple elders. The entry way is open, because the evil cultists have opened it for their nefarious purposes. The PCs may have had to fight their way in already, dealing with the cult rabble (mostly minions, one leader-type) who were guarding the outside (and too cowardly to enter). It's possible that a survivor from that first assault fled down the tunnel - even if that was the leader-type, his/her cowardly nature means that, in the barrow, s/he is reduced to minion status.

The battle map in words: I'm thinking maybe 5 x 7 squares - or smaller, 4 x 6 squares. (I'm not used to 3 PCs!) Movement has to be a significant constraining factor, so it can't be too big. All the creatures are medium.

In the centre of the left (ie non-entry, non-rear) wall of the chamber is an open pit, 20' deep, where the body of a temple elder has been exhumed. This is 2 x 1 squares. On the side of the pit, opposite the entrance, is a pile of earth from the grave - 3 x 2 squares, difficult terrain (DC 10 Athletics to avoid this penalty). (I know my earth squares are fewer than my pit squares, but some of the earth is scattered elsewhere on the floor, but not deep enough to cause movement issues.)

The pit itself is welling with necrotic energy. Anyone who falls into it takes standard falling damage, plus 5 necrotic, 5 OG (leaving the pit ends this). At the start of the third round, this steps up to 10 necrotic and any current OG damage also steps up (and the necrotic energy becomes palpably more terrible) - this counts as a skill challenge failure. At the start of the fourth round, everyone in the room also takes 5 necrotic damage at the end of his/her turn - this counts as a skill challenge failure. At the start of the fifth round, a third failure is accrued.

Anyone in the pit also suffers a -2 to checks in the skill challenge. Climbing out of the pit is DC 13 Athletics.

Next to the entrance (on the side closer to the wight - see below - I think) is a ceremonial gong.

Creatures: Standing at the end of the pit is the (fallen, coup-leading) abbot who summoned the demon back when the sohei PC was a serving temple warrior, and who has raised the temple elder from death into undeath. I'm lazy, and already have my MM open, so I'm saying that this is a Human Mage but with Darkbolts (necrotic damage) instead of magic missile, Soul Drain (necrotic again, and attacks Fort, not Ref) instead of Dancing Lightning, and Miasma of Despair instead of Thunder Burst (attacks Will, not Fort, and does psychic damage). He also has necrotic resistance 5 from his Abyssal prayer beads. (This can be a level 4 or 5 neck item if taken by the PCs - but wearing these prayer beads causes a -5 penalty to checks to checks in the skill challenge.)

Tactically, this NPC will move into the difficult terrain in the corner behind the pit.

Between the entrance and the pit is a Deathlock Wight - the risen temple elder. These guys are perfect as they are (other than the standard damage fixes, and making the damage from Horrific Visage psychic, which I think they picked up in the PDF with the MV reworking of wights). It doesn't have any friends to reanimate, but that will have another use: it can use its Reanimate to power up the necrotic energy in the pit (if adjacent) or in the room (from round 4 on), undoing one success in the skill challenge.

Tactically, anyone who tries to go past it to the abbot gets pushed into the pit. It should fall back to a wall, so that it's blast can push into the pit. If the PCs try and keep away to jump the pit, it uses gravebolt to try and stop this, and if they make it to the other side there will still be a square of pit in front of them (and next to the abbot in the corner), so the wight can try and push them into that.

The skill challenge is Level 3, complexity 1 (E/M/H DC: 9/13/21). Each success delays the progression of the necrotic energy by one round (no stacking) or inflicts 1d10 damage on the wight. Failure causes the same damage to the PC (it may be necrotic or psychic, depending on context).

Possible actions in the skill challenge (off the top of my head) include throwing sanctified earth back into the pit (Athletics), using prayers or magic (Religion or Arcana), or striking the gong with the right tone (Religion with a +2 bonus the first time because it's cool, or maybe History - there's no music skill in 4e). Maybe other stuff I'm not thinking of (eg Intimidate to taunt the abbot). I think the gong could also be used to undo a failure (with a Hard check).

If the skill challenge fails then the corruption of the tomb is complete - the welling necrotic energy drives the PCs from the tomb (the combat is over, but everyone loses another HS). When they get out, they see any surviving cultists have fled too (they got more than they bargained for!), but the PCs still have to track them down/return home/head for the next mound to try to ensure it's protection/etc.

Budget and level: by my maths that's 175 x 2 + 150 = 500 XP, or a 4th level encounter for 3 PCs (a minion or two from cultists who flee inside is a rounding error for level). I think that it should be fairly challenging, given that if one PC falls into the pit that's fairly bad for action economy.

I'm not sure there's the right balance of incentives to skill vs incentives to fight - in my group I think the invoker/wizard would skill it up, because he's not a very good fighter, but a different group might just try and win the fight in (say) 3 rounds, and then try and win the skill challenge in the final round or two before it all explodes. I'll leave it to someone else to try and sketch a playthrough to see if it works out OK!

(That also took longer to write up than I thought it would - over 45 minutes by the time I looked up my monsters and tweaked some of the details.)

 

[Garthanos]

I don't actually think this sort of discussion need be limited to 4e. Its genesis was a 4e post, and SC is of course a 4e mechanic, but you can do equivalent things in most editions of D&D (supposing you are playing with some sort of skill system or check concept I guess).

I think that underestimates the impact of the structured explicitly coordinated skill use .... shrug. "you can"

 

[Garthanos]

I'm stealing AbdulAlhazred's idea, but am not giving XP for that pun.

LOL... my kid named a World of Warcraft - undead hero who used icy attacks, Snow Wight.