Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Riastlin" data-source="post: 5662254" data-attributes="member: 94022">[MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION]:  I agree with the phases concept -- particularly for longer challenges.  Nothing is worse than watching the wizard spam Arcana while the Cleric spams Religion and the rest sit by idly.  Frankly, I think in most situations, if it can be accomplished with only two skills, then it really shouldn't be a skill challenge (unless its a part of a combat encounter). The biggest mistake that I think a lot of DMs make (and a mistake I made a few times myself) is in forcing skill challenges on situations that really don't call for them.  Not every negotiation needs to be a challenge for instance, nor does every trek through the woods. As for encouraging more players to take skill-based feats, unless your campaign is very heavy into the skill check side of things, I think the skill feats will always be the red-headed step children so to speak.  The problem is, a player doesn't necessarily know if he'll need a good endurance (I've seen entire campaigns with only 1 or 2 endurance checks for instance).  A fighter can usually hand off the negotiations to the party face, etc.  However, every players knows that at some point in time, he will be attacking and in return, be attacked.  The result is that combat oriented feats become natural choices.  You know that Weapon Expertise will be useful.  You know that Superior Fort feat will help you.  You just don't know that Skill Focus: Endurance will be useful. /shrug</blockquote>

Verification