D&D 5E Skill Challenges in 5E

[Starfox]

To sum it up: It's easy to make a combat encounter where every character is useful, and very easy to make a skill challenge where multiple characters are useless and a liability if they try to use their (low)skills with how 4e skill challenges are made. The current design where only the character with the highest score in a skill should try to make the check is a design flaw with 4e skill challenges.

Its even worse that that; statistically speaking skills/characters all but the highest-probability skill are a drawback.

But maybe we should try and return to the subject; 5E skill challenges. Do we want them, and how would we want them to be?

 

[dmccoy1693]

But maybe we should try and return to the subject; 5E skill challenges. Do we want them, and how would we want them to be?

Thank you. This thread has gone drastically off course. I understand people discussing their experiencs with 4E (and some of those experiences have been helpful as far as when I design a skill challenge for 5e), but I am looking for constructive feedback based on the skill challenge I posted in the first post.

Based on what people are saying in this thread, I'd make the following changes:
*Lord Mumblename trusts those with martial prowess than those that possess none. Characters with medium or heavier armor as well as obviously carrying a martial weapon gain a advantage on all checks in the skill challenge. Conversely, characters with neither an obvious martial weapon on their person and not wearing medium or heavier armor have disadvantage.
*Jovan Brightshield, the lord's financial advisor and former comrad in arms, is nearby the lord. Every time the players fail a check, it is because Jovan speaks up and tells the lord that the amount of money they would spend on sending the troops out would be far greater than the amount recooperated by taxes. (Note: if this was a real skill challenge being detailed, I would describe several others of the lord's court and why they would object, if the characters failed the check. .

 

[Blackbrrd]

But maybe we should try and return to the subject; 5E skill challenges. Do we want them, and how would we want them to be?

Issues I think we have identified with the current skill challenges/skills in 4e are as follows:
- Skills are very stat dependant (more so than anything to do with combat)
- Some classes have a very limited number of useful skills
- Metaing skill challenges without a built in timer of some sort makes it so only the best PC in a party should roll for a certain skill check
- Skill challenges easily become a simple, boring mini-game within the game with nowhere of the complexity of a combat
- More or less binary outcome
- Skill challenges as an encounter

Not sure on how to fix any of these issues, maybe the best way would be to drop the: "instead of a combat encounter you can create a skill challenge encounter". As I mentioned earlier, I think skill challenges should have a broader scope where you have several goals you can accomplish and not be tied to a single encounter.

 

[pemerton]

It's much easier to design a skill challenge poorly because of how the skill system is made compared to the combat system.

<snip>

It's easy to make a combat encounter where every character is useful, and very easy to make a skill challenge where multiple characters are useless and a liability if they try to use their (low)skills

In 4e, this is addressed as an issue in DMG and DMG2, which talk about designing challenges in relation to the PCs' skills, and look at how common different trained skills are across different classes, etc.

In D&Dnext, this issue is the province of the "three pillars", isn't it? We want PCs that have got capacity across the major domains of activity.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

Thank you. This thread has gone drastically off course. I understand people discussing their experiencs with 4E (and some of those experiences have been helpful as far as when I design a skill challenge for 5e), but I am looking for constructive feedback based on the skill challenge I posted in the first post.

Based on what people are saying in this thread, I'd make the following changes:
*Lord Mumblename trusts those with martial prowess than those that possess none. Characters with medium or heavier armor as well as obviously carrying a martial weapon gain a advantage on all checks in the skill challenge. Conversely, characters with neither an obvious martial weapon on their person and not wearing medium or heavier armor have disadvantage.
*Jovan Brightshield, the lord's financial advisor and former comrad in arms, is nearby the lord. Every time the players fail a check, it is because Jovan speaks up and tells the lord that the amount of money they would spend on sending the troops out would be far greater than the amount recooperated by taxes. (Note: if this was a real skill challenge being detailed, I would describe several others of the lord's court and why they would object, if the characters failed the check. .

I like these additions.

In the case of a RP challenge like the one you've detailed, I think that a Next implementation would probably want to be written much more narratively, and with the structural underpinnings a lot less front and center - by which I mean, don't explicitly start with "5 successes before 3 failures".

An alternative might describe the situation but instead of that obvious rules structure, just explain "it will require about five major points in the PCs favor, in the debate, before they're able to convince the Lord to commit his troops. His patience is limited, however, and should the party present three points that fall flat, he will tire of the discussion and dismiss them." It's essentially the same thing, but written as narrative -- which keeps the focus on the RP, and not on the structure.

-rg

 

[Starfox]

In 4e, this is addressed as an issue in DMG and DMG2, which talk about designing challenges in relation to the PCs' skills, and look at how common different trained skills are across different classes, etc.

Well, this helps if you are designing for a known group. When writing a scenario to be published, not so much.

I believe strongly in time-limiting skilll challenges. That way even a small contribution is still a contribution. It just has to be explained in the narrative. So, in the example above, the king is obviously about to make a decision; the chancellor takes 3 rounds to convince the king, unless the PCs convince him first. This also opens up other venues; perhaps you can flirt with the chancellor to distract him, or turn into a hornet and pester him, or otherwise use abilities other than persuasion.

 

[Blackbrrd]

In 4e, this is addressed as an issue in DMG and DMG2, which talk about designing challenges in relation to the PCs' skills, and look at how common different trained skills are across different classes, etc.

This falls flat on it's face when it comes to published adventures. It's a fault with skill challenges that you don't really much see in 4e combat where you really don't have to look at the characters to create an interesting combat.

In D&Dnext, this issue is the province of the "three pillars", isn't it? We want PCs that have got capacity across the major domains of activity.

I haven't checked it out, but if they make they let characters be useful at a broader range of skills, they are on track in my opinion. It was somewhat better in 4e than in 3e, and probably even better in 5e. The limit of 20 in a stat helps quite a bit here.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I'm not sure I want "skill challenges" in 5e. I find that the entire concept of Skill Challenges ends up being too much about the mini-game and less about it's useful aspects. Complex skill challenges are great and not every situation should be solved by one roll.

However, Skill Challenges are TOO formalized and too rigid. Most people who used them ended up abstracting them further to mean "any situation where the PCs need to make multiple skill checks to succeed"...which wasn't the point of Skill Challenges at all.

I find that making them formalized rather encourages playing the mini-game more than playing the storyline.

As an example, say the PCs need to get to the other side of a chasm. If you run this as a formalized skill challenge, you need to come up with a consequence of failing. In this case it could be "You can't get to the other side and have to go around." but that doesn't make much sense, you can always keep trying to climb or jump until you die....so failing 3 times isn't going to stop you from getting to the other side, you just try again. So, let's say the consequences is something simpler, "It takes too long and the enemies you are chasing get to the goal before you do." Let's show how this runs differently when you run it as a skill challenge vs just a bunch of skill checks:

Skill Challenge: Get to the other side
6 successes before 3 failures
Primary Skills: Athletics, Acrobatics

Rogue: "I tie a rope on this side and I climb down this side of this cliff! I get a 17 on Athletics."
DM: "You fail."
Rogue: "Wait, but I have a rope and a wall to brace against, the PHB says that is DC 15."
DM: "Yeah...but this is a skill challenge and the DC is 18 for your level."
Rogue: "Alright, what happens?"
DM: "You take 20 damage and are at the bottom."
Rogue: "Alright, I climb the other side. I get a 23, so I should make it."
DM: "You do. You are on the other side."
Rogue: "I throw a rope across to the other side. I get a 20 on my Athletics to throw the rope."
DM: "That's 2 successes"
Wizard: "Well, I have a +3 for both Athletics and Acrobatics, so...I use Arcana! I get 22!"
DM: "What are you using Arcana for?"
Wizard: "To get across!"
DM: "What do you mean, how do you use Arcana to get across?"
Wizard: "Umm, I use arcane energy to affix myself to the rope to make it easier to climb hand over hand to the other side."
DM: *sigh* "Sure, whatever, you succeed. That's 3 successes."
Fighter: "I make a 23 Athletics to climb across the rope."
DM: "Alright...4 successes."
Cleric: "I pray to my god that I won't fall. Then I climb. Does that mean I can use my Religion skill to get across?"
DM: "Ugh, sure, why not? Otherwise this Skill Challenge is going to favor the Fighter and the Rogue way more heavily than everyone else."
Cleric: "I get 19 and succeed!"
DM: "Alright, that's 5 successes....Hmm...you're all across but you need one more success to complete the skill challenge. There's no good reason for me to make you roll any more skills...but if I don't, the XP given out for the skill challenge doesn't really match the difficulty of the skill challenge. Wait, I got it. The cleric almost gets to the other side but slips at the last moment. Someone make an Athletics check to stop him from falling."
Wizard: "Well, I was the last one to cross, so I'll make it. I'll be right beside him. I get an 8."
Everyone else: "NO! We're in a skill challenge. Don't make rolls unless you are the best in the party at that skill!"
DM: "Too late. He already made the roll. That fails and the Cleric takes 20 damage from falling. That's 5 successes and 2 failures."
Cleric: "Crap...I guess I make another Religion check to get up the cliff."
DM: "Sorry, you already succeeded on a Religion check once. Other than the primary skills, each other skill can only be used once."
Cleric: "Fine, I make an Athletics check and get 10."
DM: "You fail. That's 5 successes and 3 failures. You fail the skill challenge and you eventually get the Ceric out of the pit and move on."
Cleric: "Wait, so I get teleport up to the top now that the skill challenge is done?"
DM: "No, the rest of the party eventually helps you get up or you finally make a good roll and get up yourself."
Cleric: "But isn't there a chance of falling and taking more damage? Shouldn't we play this out to see if I die attempting to get out?"
DM: "No, the skill challenge is over. Skill checks no longer matter."

If you run it without making it a skill challenge then you have no idea how many successes it'll take to make it across...nor do you care. The number of failures doesn't matter either except for the amount of damage people take from falling. Since you aren't running a "skill challenge" and therefore are encouraged to allow all skills as possible solutions, no one suggests using Religion to climb a rope. Whether the enemies get ahead of the players isn't based on an arbitrary number of failures but would instead be a factor of how LONG it took the PCs to succeed.

I just find the structure of skill challenges more often takes away from the game than it adds to it. Don't get me wrong, there are a small number of situations where the system makes perfect sense. Like say you were running a "skill challenge" where you had to defeat an enemy organization before they finish a ritual. They have a number of small bases where they are performing the ritual simultaneously. Each time you attack a base you either stop the ritual or it completes. If you succeed in destroying 6 bases before 3 of them succeed, the ritual is stopped and you win.

This sort of structure helps. However, I find that rarely, if ever, does adding that much structure to a bunch of skill checks actually help the game.

 

[the Jester]

When you take the basic skill challenge framework and are willing to shake it like it a baby, it deforms into a variety of very useful frameworks. There are a ton of ways to make cool, engaging skill challenges that the entire party will take place in:

• Challenges on a clock, where the party has x rounds to get as many successes as they can;
• Traveling challenges, where each pc must make an appropriate check to avoid fatigue/losing healing surges/whatever;
• Multi-stage challenges that engage a wide variety of skill and character options;
• Undeclared skill challenges, where the pcs engage with the situation and the dm secretly tracks their successes and failures until a resolution is reached;
• Frequent small and quick skill challenges designed for individual pcs to overcome (everyone gets his or her turn);
• Challenges with no traditional "3 failures and you're out";
• Challenges where there is a distinct advantage in finishing quickly.

I have found that skill challenges done well are a joy to run and fun to play, but done wrong, they're terrible. For my group- and I'm sure this varies by playstyle- the more the SC draws them out of the fiction, the worse of a SC it is, so I rarely announce them anymore- they usually figure out that they're in a skill challenge when someone notices me tracking successes and failures on dice. And I pretty much never give them a list of skills that they can use; I ask what they can do and adjudicate what an appropriate check and/or DC is, as well as the consequences of that success or failure.

I think that one of the best things about skill challenges is that they provide a framework for determining when a non-combat encounter or event is worth xp.

 

[Warbringer]

This can certainly be the case, depending on the dynamic of the table. And in that case, I would expect the spell-less wizard to do his or her damndest to withdraw from combat.

I agree. But that's how the skill challenge mechanic, at its core, is designed. Sure, it works fine if you fix it, but that doesn't mean it didn't start out broke.

Withdraw where? They can't withdraw from the scene/challenge and if weakened they are pretty easy prey.

It did indeed start out "broken" (if you mean unclear and not properly balanced) but there are 4 years of learning and a system that currently works really well that 5e could take advantage of if they wished to include learnings from what worked in 4e, which I'm not sure they do.