Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 6181160" data-attributes="member: 5143">I'm not sure I want &quot;skill challenges&quot; in 5e.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Complex skill challenges are great and not every situation should be solved by one roll.However, Skill Challenges are TOO formalized and too rigid.&nbsp; Most people who used them ended up abstracting them further to mean &quot;any situation where the PCs need to make multiple skill checks to succeed&quot;...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.&nbsp; If you run this as a formalized skill challenge, you need to come up with a consequence of failing.&nbsp; In this case it could be &quot;You can't get to the other side and have to go around.&quot; 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.&nbsp; So, let's say the consequences is something simpler, &quot;It takes too long and the enemies you are chasing get to the goal before you do.&quot;&nbsp; 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 side6 successes before 3 failuresPrimary Skills: Athletics, AcrobaticsRogue: &quot;I tie a rope on this side and I climb down this side of this cliff!&nbsp; I get a 17 on Athletics.&quot;DM: &quot;You fail.&quot;Rogue: &quot;Wait, but I have a rope and a wall to brace against, the PHB says that is DC 15.&quot;DM: &quot;Yeah...but this is a skill challenge and the DC is 18 for your level.&quot;Rogue: &quot;Alright, what happens?&quot;DM: &quot;You take 20 damage and are at the bottom.&quot;Rogue: &quot;Alright, I climb the other side.&nbsp; I get a 23, so I should make it.&quot;DM: &quot;You do.&nbsp; You are on the other side.&quot;Rogue: &quot;I throw a rope across to the other side.&nbsp; I get a 20 on my Athletics to throw the rope.&quot;DM: &quot;That's 2 successes&quot;Wizard: &quot;Well, I have a +3 for both Athletics and Acrobatics, so...I use Arcana!&nbsp; I get 22!&quot;DM: &quot;What are you using Arcana for?&quot;Wizard: &quot;To get across!&quot;DM: &quot;What do you mean, how do you use Arcana to get across?&quot;Wizard: &quot;Umm, I use arcane energy to affix myself to the rope to make it easier to climb hand over hand to the other side.&quot;DM: *sigh* &quot;Sure, whatever, you succeed.&nbsp; That's 3 successes.&quot;Fighter: &quot;I make a 23 Athletics to climb across the rope.&quot;DM: &quot;Alright...4 successes.&quot;Cleric: &quot;I pray to my god that I won't fall.&nbsp; Then I climb.&nbsp; Does that mean I can use my Religion skill to get across?&quot;DM: &quot;Ugh, sure, why not?&nbsp; Otherwise this Skill Challenge is going to favor the Fighter and the Rogue way more heavily than everyone else.&quot;Cleric: &quot;I get 19 and succeed!&quot;DM: &quot;Alright, that's 5 successes....Hmm...you're all across but you need one more success to complete the skill challenge.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Wait, I got it.&nbsp; The cleric almost gets to the other side but slips at the last moment.&nbsp; Someone make an Athletics check to stop him from falling.&quot;Wizard: &quot;Well, I was the last one to cross, so I'll make it.&nbsp; I'll be right beside him.&nbsp; I get an 8.&quot;Everyone else: &quot;NO!&nbsp; We're in a skill challenge.&nbsp; Don't make rolls unless you are the best in the party at that skill!&quot;DM: &quot;Too late.&nbsp; He already made the roll.&nbsp; That fails and the Cleric takes 20 damage from falling.&nbsp; That's 5 successes and 2 failures.&quot;Cleric: &quot;Crap...I guess I make another Religion check to get up the cliff.&quot;DM: &quot;Sorry, you already succeeded on a Religion check once.&nbsp; Other than the primary skills, each other skill can only be used once.&quot;Cleric: &quot;Fine, I make an Athletics check and get 10.&quot;DM: &quot;You fail.&nbsp; That's 5 successes and 3 failures.&nbsp; You fail the skill challenge and you eventually get the Ceric out of the pit and move on.&quot;Cleric: &quot;Wait, so I get teleport up to the top now that the skill challenge is done?&quot;DM: &quot;No, the rest of the party eventually helps you get up or you finally make a good roll and get up yourself.&quot;Cleric: &quot;But isn't there a chance of falling and taking more damage?&nbsp; Shouldn't we play this out to see if I die attempting to get out?&quot;DM: &quot;No, the skill challenge is over.&nbsp; Skill checks no longer matter.&quot;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.&nbsp; The number of failures doesn't matter either except for the amount of damage people take from falling.&nbsp; Since you aren't running a &quot;skill challenge&quot; and therefore are encouraged to allow all skills as possible solutions, no one suggests using Religion to climb a rope.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Don't get me wrong, there are a small number of situations where the system makes perfect sense.&nbsp; Like say you were running a &quot;skill challenge&quot; where you had to defeat an enemy organization before they finish a ritual.&nbsp; They have a number of small bases where they are performing the ritual simultaneously.&nbsp; Each time you attack a base you either stop the ritual or it completes.&nbsp; If you succeed in destroying 6 bases before 3 of them succeed, the ritual is stopped and you win.This sort of structure helps.&nbsp; However, I find that rarely, if ever, does adding that much structure to a bunch of skill checks actually help the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Majoru Oakheart, post: 6181160, member: 5143"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification