D&D 5E Skill Challenges in 5E

[Warbringer]

Skill Challenges are a way to present a non-combat encounter in a clear way: the initial situation, how difficult it is to be transposed, the most relevant skills applicable (although none are excluded), how some skills might be interpreted, and the possible outcomes for success or failure. It provides a clear framework for the DM to tinker with to his liking (for instance, ignoring the number of required successes, or allowing for different skill uses). It's an easy, at-a-glance presentation for a "task requiring multiple skill checks".

Thanks for that.

I use SC extensively (or a derivation of them) and I think they are excellent scene setting tools and I agree they are an excellent "at a glance representation" for non-combat scene interaction.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I think some work could be done to improve the concept of a mechanical framework for abstract scenes. Hopefully, that framework can also be used for combat or travel montages. All my experiences with skill challenges were boring roll-fests, so a lot of that work should be DM advice.

 

[Warbringer]

I think some work could be done to improve the concept of a mechanical framework for abstract scenes. Hopefully, that framework can also be used for combat or travel montages. All my experiences with skill challenges were boring roll-fests, so a lot of that work should be DM advice.

Agreed.

The system needs to support complex checks, attrition, and consequences. Just like combat*. If combat is essentially a number of successes to reduce a challenge to being a non-challenge while risking consequence each round you fail to do that, (ie hit something until it fall over or you fall over), non-combat challenges should likewise in a metagame framework.

I think the second effort at SCs, and many houserules, get this. So challenges that are ongoing cause healing surge loss, hit point damage, or increased risk in the next combat encounter (this is my houserule, similar to a doompool). Maybe where skill check DCs are listed, typical consequences should be listed for ongoing risks and outcomes.

I don't want all skill checks to be pass/fail. To me that is boring and a reason that combat is not resolved against that type of mechanic

----
*A big part of it is that in D&D there is always advanced, detailed combat level rules with targets (AC, Defenses, Damage) and attrition (HPs), while is non-combat challenges they are almost hand waived. When there is an attempt to use more complex systems (eg SC) there simply isn't enough explanation (compared to the rules for combat) or to be honest play testing to ensure balance and fun. This means DMs have to work out how to do it anyway.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I like the idea of skill challenges, most of them aren't well written and run as written often end up being a bunch of simple skill checks with some role playing tacked on.

I think the the biggest issues with skill challenges is that they are presented with too little meat on them and leave too little wiggle room for both the DM and the players.

Take the skill challenge in the OP, it's presented as if you are already in the room, with the Lord Mumblename and basically states that the only charisma and int based skills matter when it comes to successes in the skill challenge. It mentions that physical evidence isn't enough, but it doesn't state why. Are the troops currently busy elsewhere? Is the Lord stingy?

Basically, skill challenges as presented in 4e, and as in the OP (which is already well above average in my opinion) are just too short. Why does a single encounter get 2-3 pages worth of space, while a skill challenge typically only gets half a page?

So, how can skill challenges be made better? Giving them more space is a good solution in my mind, but the what can the space be used for? Increasing the complexity comes to mind. If you look at what makes a combat encounter interesting it's usually how the different monsters interact.

For instance two slow, though but weak hitting monsters that are sticky (by grabbing, slow auras or whatever), two fast and high damage strikers and a controller. You would want to take out the strikers first, but the three other monsters are hindering you in that task. Maybe you want to take out the controller first and then the strikers, or just nova through one defender and then go to town on the strikers.

In other words, different avenues to success is probably a good idea. Let's expand on the OP's scenario, which I really like. Some ideas to expand on:

• Why isn't the Lord ready to send out war parties? Is he afraid? Is he in debt and can't finance it? Is he being black mailed?
• Getting an audience with the Lord should maybe be a sub-skill challenge. Maybe you would have to bribe his right-hand man or charm his daughter.
• Finding a reliable witness to the orc's invasion and persuading (or bribing/paying) him to see the Lord could be another.
• Tracking down an orc war-party, bringing the head of the leader, or at least one of the orc scouts could also be a sub-skill challenge and combat combination.

There are multiple avenues I can see the PC's could use here.

• They might discover that the Lord's wife is being held prisoner, tying up vital resources. Freeing her might be enough to make the Lord look into the problem without the PC's interfering more.
• One party might track down some orcs, blackmail the Lord's right hand to get and audience and dump an orc head at the Lord's feat at an awkward moment, forcing him to act
• Some would maybe track down a reliable witness, track down some rare cloth, get to see the Lord's daughter and explain the situation to her, emotionally blackmailing the Lord into sending the war parties needed.

To sum it up: make skill challenges a more integrated part of the story, and don't make a big divide between role-playing, combat encounters and skill challenges. You can also run the skill challenges more like you run the 3.5 module Red Hand of Doom where the "preparations" the players make during the first three parts plays a direct role in how difficult the forth part of the adventure is - and plays out.

Also, try to avoid situations where the PC's are standing in a room with a problem they need to solve there and then. Try to avoid thinking in combat/skill challenge encounters, but more on the complete adventure.

... And yeah, I think skill challenges should be a part of 5e, but not in a straight 4e -> 5e conversion, they have to do a better job of helping DM's create and run skill challenges. Firstly by expanding on what they have written about them in 4e and secondly by creating adventures for 5e that take advantage of the new mechanics they come up with.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

FWIW, we know that WotC is working on mechanics that may be used for social challenges such as the one outlined in the OP. What they've shown us here seems to be a promising start: https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130520

Note that they've explicitly stated that their goal is to avoid "mini-games":

The goal of the exploration and interaction mechanics isn’t to create new mini-games that you fire up when you enter a new scene, but rather to augment what people expect from such scenes. If we try and make exploration or interaction too much of its own mini-game, we run the risk of those subsystems kicking the players out of the narrative of the game, as opposed to helping them flesh out the narrative through the choices they make. Admittedly it’s a fine line to walk; too much in one direction and the rules are not useful, too much in another direction and they become obtrusive and immersion-breaking.

(From http://community.wizards.com/dndnex...t_qa:_combat_free_options,_spells_and_pillars)

 

[Blackbrrd]

Note that they've explicitly stated that their goal is to avoid "mini-games":

Thats a much better conclusion to my post above than the post I made. The 4e skill challenge is too much of a mini-game with too mechanical complexity to rival the combat system. Which it shouldn't try to emulate in my opinion.

 

[Raith5]

I actually use something like Skill Challenges in Pathfinder, but I think the 4e implementation is poor. Even setting aside the obvious issues with math early on, the X successes before 3 failures model has a lot of problems.

When I use them, it's almost always timed somehow. The horde will get here in three days, how will you use them? The king has granted a short audience, can you convince him that there's really a dragon in the hills?

So, instead of 5 successes before 3 failures, I use 5 successes in 3 rounds.

Everyone gets to act, nobody wants to sit out for the good of the group (unless they blow up diplomacy the old-fashioned way) and people who do sit out for RP reasons don't have to be forced back in by the DM. And there's a ticking clock rather than this abstract threshold of screwing up too much.

In practice, the pacing works more like combat, especially in challenges that allow "healing" (delaying the end of the encounter) or have multiple ongoing threats that can be handled separately.

That said, I think 4e skill challenges and the kind I use will both work fine in 5e. As you said, they might even be better because of the flat math.

Cheers!
Kinak

I quite like the option of skill challenges because the idea is quite flexible. I quite like the way skill challenges work in exploration/travel contexts, ie endurance checks in the desert, nature check to avoid getting lost etc. That said the idea of putting a time limit sounds like a great idea, it may give social skill challenges a bit of a kick.

 

[Kinak]

I quite like the option of skill challenges because the idea is quite flexible. I quite like the way skill challenges work in exploration/travel contexts, ie endurance checks in the desert, nature check to avoid getting lost etc. That said the idea of putting a time limit sounds like a great idea, it may give social skill challenges a bit of a kick.

Yeah, it's definitely nice to have a toolbox of challenge options.

I wouldn't throw the 4e design out of the toolbox by any means, I just feel like it's the weird star-bit screwdriver. I'm pretty sure I'll never need it, but who knows?

I usually do travel as time based too, although in a different way. It might take, say, ten successful days of travel to get across the Vast Desert. So a failed day (getting lost, having to spend the whole day scavenging, stopping to rest and recover from the heat, etc.) just adds to how long it takes.

Admittedly, it works better when they're already under time pressure or you use wandering monster tables. But if I'm not prepared to turn the screws, I'd rather just handwave travel.

I've done a few with daily checks to get clues of various types too, although that also only works if time is an issue... What can I say? I'm apparently a big fan of putting the PCs on the clock.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[pemerton]

Skill Challenges are a way to present a non-combat encounter in a clear way: the initial situation, how difficult it is to be transposed, the most relevant skills applicable (although none are excluded), how some skills might be interpreted, and the possible outcomes for success or failure. It provides a clear framework for the DM to tinker with to his liking (for instance, ignoring the number of required successes, or allowing for different skill uses). It's an easy, at-a-glance presentation for a "task requiring multiple skill checks".

I think that "skill challenges" can refer to multiple things. You are talking here about an encouner write-up. But the first thing I think of when I think "skill challenge" is a resolution technique.

Compare this to the idea of combat. We have the write up of a combat encounter in a GM's adventure notes - whether published module, or homebrew". But we also have the combat resolution rules. Using the resolution rules isn't dependant upon having an encounter write-up - all you need is mechanical information about the combatants, or rules (like MM3 on a business card) for quicky generating that information.

I also see the write-up of a skill challenge as secondary. What is fundamental are the resolution rules: namely, that the scene is to be framed, and then resolved one way or another depending on whether X successes, or 3 failures, comes first. You can run a skill challenge without a write-up - all you need is narrative information about the situation and possible complications, and the DC table for setting difficulties for skill checks.

I think some work could be done to improve the concept of a mechanical framework for abstract scenes. Hopefully, that framework can also be used for combat or travel montages. All my experiences with skill challenges were boring roll-fests, so a lot of that work should be DM advice.

I fluctuate on how bad I think the 4e DMG advice is for skill challenges. It has some good and important stuff in it, but there is a tendency to bury that in redundant or unhelpful text, and the examples aren't always that well thought out (and they definitely confuse the writing up of an encounter, with the existence of the tools and techniques necessary to actually resolve it).

I didn't learn to run skill challenges from the 4e DMG. I learned from other, better GM advice for this sort of abstract scene resolution - Maelstrom Storytelling and HeroWars/Quest are the two best I know, and Burning Wheel gets an honourable mention - and adapted what I found in them to the different mechanical nuances of 4e.

The biggest weakness in 4e's advice is that there is almost nothing said about how to narrate compiclations, although this is utterly crucial. If you don't narrate (generally positive) complications for successes, it becomes unclear at the table why, in the fiction, the challenge isn't resolved, and also unclear what, in the fiction, the PCs might do to push things towards succeess. And if you don't narrate (generally negative but not utterly hopeless) complications for failures, it becomes unclear what, in the fiction, has gone wrong and how the PCs might still have a hope of succeeding in their aims.

The lack of advice is compounded by examples like the one in the Essentials books, which rely upon the GM introducing complications by reference to metagame considerations of pacing the challenge and keeping the fiction interesting and suitably open-ended, but which nowhere actually explain to the reader what the GM is doing. It contrasts very poorly with the discussions around combat encounter, which are full of frank discussions of the effect upon play of using different sorts of terrain, different sorts of monster roles, etc.

 

[Li Shenron]

Would you like to see skills challenges in the new edition? If so, what kind of challenges would you like to see?

I still haven't figured out what are the benefits...

For instance in your example, what is the difference between different checks? What decisions can the players/characters take? The only point mentioned is that you can sacrifice one PC to be arrested and then get a +4 on all the following checks, but beside this, the whole sequence of checks just sounds to me exactly like a bare sequence of checks. If that's the case, the only achievement of this mechanic is to reduce randomness, in most cases this means higher chance of success overall.

It's very nice to have a suggested outcome for success and failure, but this doesn't necessarily require using skill challenges, you could have the same if you resolved all the scene with one single check.

If we're going to have a system, then what I expect the system to offer is tactical choices at every round (i.e. at every check): just like in combat you choose "do I shoot an arrow, cast a spell, heal an ally, drink a potion, etc." there can be similar things, but if the choice is only "do I roll diplomacy, bluff or intimidate" the answer is you just always roll what you have the largest bonus at, isn't it?

Then there can be a much larger range of outcome than success or failure. In combat, the outcome is not just win/lose: you can win or lose with a different amount of expenses and casualties, you can lose by having to flee, surrender and be captured or TPK, and win also doesn't necessarily imply to kill all adversaries (sometimes you want information or prisoners).

My point is, these are the things I'm interested in, and the only advantage I can see of skill challenges over a single roll, is the ability to change something at every round/step, just like you can change your tactic or try something different at every round in combat.

Otherwise it's just the same as rolling one check, since you can also have a range of outcome with just one roll, e.g. based on how much you beat/miss the DC, or perhaps adding an additional "damage roll" or roll on a table (if the possible outcomes can not be ordered in magnitude).