Get our 5e Skill Challenge system here: thedmlair.com/products/wish-waste-lair-magazine-18-june-2022-issue 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗗𝗠 𝗟𝗔𝗜𝗥 𝗦𝗧𝗢𝗥𝗘 - Get 5e and PF2e adventures, Foundry VTT packs for 5e and PF2e, map packs, and other DM resources! thedmlair.com/
I love this channel. I think I'm gonna join the patreon, but I also want to know, is there a way to get access to the backlog of magazines? Or rather, other than shoptly bundles, is there a Tier that gives me access to them?
For all the hate for 4th Ed, they did have some really good game mechanics. Minions, 5-minute rests, healing surges and skill challenges were all mechanics I've adapted for both 5e and PF1e with varying degrees of success, and they've made some otherwise dull non-combat bits much more interesting.
Skill challenges are a great (albeit situational) alternative to advantage when characters are trying to work together. Obviously, things like making a perception check to see if a door is trapped don't need a skill challenge, that should just be done with advantage when characters work together. But consider: The characters are trying to talk their way past a heavily guarded door. They've each made their case, whether truthful or otherwise, and done everything they individually can to avoid fighting. Instead of having 1 character roll a charisma based check with advantage, have them roll through a skill challenge. Of course, this would be best done as the conversation is going on, but it doesn't have to be. The characters have to work together and use a combination of their talents to work together to succeed in their goal; one is watching the guards for their reactions, rolling perception; one tells a clever lie, rolling deception; another gives a wonderful and engrossing sob story, rolling performance; perhaps the cleric is watching to see if the guards start lying back to them, rolling insight; finally, someone puts it all together into a pretty bow for the guards, rolling persuasion. Now, this mundane social interaction that could have been resolved by a single character rolling requires the input and cooperation of all the characters working together, potentially creating a more engrossing and rewarding experience. Plus, using a failure schedule would avoid the situation of a 15 minute dialogue resulting in nothing more than a "no" because they failed the one check.
I run things like this, but call them QTEs (quick time events). For example: The party is transversing through an underground dungeon, the shadows creeping along the walls as the torches do their best to lick the darkness away from the party. You're moving slowly, constantly on guard for the next ambush, when, out of nowhere, a rumbling start shacking the floor as an earthquake threatens to knock you on your but and cause a cave in. Players, welcome to a QTE, you can do anything you wish to try and avoid the falling rocks and make it to the exit. What do you try to do? The Monk: I book it at full speed spending a ki point for step of the wind to the exit. DM: Interesting, due to your fast movement, I will set the DC to 12, roll me acrobatics, but at disadvantage due to the shaking earth. The monk: 14. DM: Congratulations, you dodge and weave while maintaining your balance, you will not be part of the final roll. The wizard: Can I cast shield over my head to deflect the worst of it? DM: Not a normal use of the spell, but for this I will allow an arcana check to see if you can modify the spell to work against this, go ahead and expend the slot, but the DC will be an 18. The wizard: 16 DM: Sorry, you do not succeed, you will be part of the final roll. The barbarian: I toss myself over the sorcerer and use my strength and bulk to protect her from the rocks. DM: You do so, The sorcerer avoids any rocks, but you auto fail the final roll. The barbarian: no regrets. DM: Wizard, make a DC 15 dex save. Barbarian, you auto fail. Failures take 8d6 bludgeoning damage, are knocked prone, and restrained by the rocks. If you succeed you take half damage and are not prone and restrained. The system can be used for just about anything, takes little time to set up, and is over quickly, returning the game back to the control of the players.
Ehm... Your "QTE" I think should stand for "Qompletly Traditional skillchEck". But let me tell you about my revolutionary skill check system, I call "GRS", it stands for "Gravitational randomisation simulationator". So my players take a dice and I tell them to launch it into the graviational pull I have had installed in my house, and thru complex quantum physics the dice will roll and bounce and finally land showing a number on the upside. Then I take THAT number, add modifiers, and apply it to my computations of skill checks.
This is just a normal skill check... The point of a Skill Challenge is to let players work together to pass or fail as a team. All of your players roles were individual and only affected themselves. Lmao
I liked the 4th Ed skill check system. I’ve been using them for years. Some players like them, one player hates them but he just wants us to go back to 3.5. Rodrigo from the critical hit podcast had similar house rules for it. No repeating skills. Great way to prevent the wizard just using arcana all the time. Great video, glad I’m not the only one still doing skill challenges lol.
Personally disappointed that 5e didn't include this system... Let's hope the next version of D&D is able to learn from the successes of it's predecessors as well as their failures.
@@dustrockblues7567 Me too, 4th had some good ideas, but wizards wanted to distance itself from it. Personally have very very low expectations on the next edition based on the most recent changes. Hopefully I’m proven wrong.
This is a great idea and I can see nearly all campaigns being able to utilize this in some fashion. One suggestion... It would be helpful and fun to see topics like this run in an actual game play setting. Even a small scenario to keep time down, but sill give the opportunity to see players and the DM interact would be great. As a beginner DM, I've got an amazing and forgiving group I'm leading but seeing topics like this put in to action would help immensely!
The Dungeon Coach has a great video on skill challenges with an example from one of his campaigns. He walks through each step of the challenge to explain how it happened mechanically, but starts by presenting the encounter in story form to showcase the effect skill challenges can have on a campaign. I’d highly recommend it
new to DMing. I used a skill challenge and it was the best idea for the situation and worked really well. My players decided to kill the power in the city. An underground steam generator with fire giants. instead of going for the planned fight, they managed to sneak round them all and break the machinery. the water pipes began to leak and rumble and turned into super heated steam. it was time to leave. they ran away, i did it via skill checks. They got 3 failures resulting in thesteam catching them as they reached the final door. (paused for affect) they took moderate damage from the steam as it blew the final doors open and ejected the party into the middle of the town. the party used the massive steam cloud to escape the scene. but for the mission being a stealth mission, there will be consequences. much better than a tpk and much better than the encouter that was planned anyway :)
@@theDMLair You're actually thr first patron I've subbed to. You obviously genuinely care about the game and try to improve what's already there. And when you do make homebrew there's a reason for it. People like you help keep DND going strong and its awesome to see. Hoping to go to laircon this year too.
I'd like to mention that despite it being called a "Skill Challenge", I have had players use spells in place to make up for something. an example would be that rocks were falling onto the players ship after getting to close to an overhanging cliff, the pilot made a "piloting" check, another took her hammer and flew up to start smashing large rocks, and the cleric/wizard both used control water to blast rocks out of the sky. It was great fun!
Devils Advocate: instead of one roll make a lot of rolls. :p I do like the idea that everyone can contribute, and that they cannot use the same skill. Makes them think. kinda reminds my of the ICRPG effort system. Overall I like your idea. My pro tip: never gate the "game" behind a roll.
ICRPG is a system did it right. It works there because the Difficulty is public, then you can focus on telling players the number of success they need.
I've only ran one skill challenge once and it went ok. The players were escaping a collapsing dungeon. I didn't use initiative and just let them kind of call out what they wanted to do. I think next time initiative will be perfect
While I love the mechanics here, I wholeheartedly disagree with the Initiative idea as long as there are monsters/enemies around. Initiative sends a combat message and a "winnable Situation", when many skill challenges are made precise to avoid/defuse unwinnable scenarios. Think escaping an overwhelming force or deadly prison. stealthing through a dragon lair at low level, etc. I would suggest making rounds still a thing, but use them narratively and give a sense of urgency by limiting thinking time.
Love bacon, skill challenges not so much. When I use them as a DM I find them too systematic when I’d rather players use their abilities, spells, or skills, as they apply to the obstacles. I also find it difficult to narrate a climactic scene when a chase or flee scene becomes ‘choose big number on my sheet, justify, hope I don’t roll bad’. I’d rather these situations rely on players using their brains than using their dice. When I’m playing in a skill challenge I often feel like being creative or using abilities that suit the fiction isn’t rewarded since I’ll use a high level spell or a 1/sr ability and it just like reduces the score of my skill check by 5, but since I’m justifying the use of the spell rather than just playing to my best skill, I’m making a roll with pretty much the same odds as if I’d just justified using one of my good skills. There’s not much in dnd that’s as frustrating as doing something that seems like a cool and perfect solution to the situation you’re in only for it to not matter at all because you had bad luck on the roll and aren’t playing a rogue or bard. TLDR: I hate when everything in dnd boils down to skill checks and in my experience this problem is heavily exacerbated by using skill challenges
So much this. Too often I find skill challenges lead to people not being able to utilize the things their characters are suppose to be good at because they, or someone else already used it, and it just gets really awkward and tends to stifle creativity.
IMO it sounds like you need higher 'cool use of that thing' bonuses to make the success more likely. But it's still a tabletop rpg, and the universe still goes the way of the dice.
I kind of specialize in running games for larger (6-8 players) groups, so personally I’d bump up the number of failed checks needed for complete failure to 4 or 5, depending on the size of the party (I think a number that’s around 70-80% of the party size would be appropriate). And yes, I’d increase the amount of successful checks needed as well, to ensure that everyone has a chance to contribute and the challenge isn’t over in just one round (as for actual number, I’d say 150-200% of the party size for easy, 200-250% of party size for medium, 250-300% of party size for hard, and 300-400% of party size for near-impossible). Also quite a few of my players LOVE collecting companions and pets, so instead of having companions and pets also make the checks I would personally make it that only PCs make skill checks and, on complete failures, some companions/pets are lost in the ensuring chaos, giving the players a reason to want to take vengeance if it was something like the gnolls situation, and getting them more invested in the game.
This has come along at just the right time for me. I have an encounter planned where my players will need to get past pitchfork-wielding commoners on the lookout for them, and the PCs will need to get past them without drawing attention. There's going to be four groups (maybe five if in the previous encounters the PCs killed some commoners). Rather than having the Stealth-heavy PCs get all the attention, the Skill Challenge will allow everyone to get involved. Nice. And adds tension with the number of successes to gain or they get mobbed. And not allowing the same Skill get used more than once will force some interesting tactical decisions amongst the players. Thank you very much for this. Much appreciated.
something not mentioned here that is in the 4E rules is a player can also make a "Help" attempt using a skill (in 4e this would allow a player to make a skill check but it wouldn't count as a success or fail, but if they passed they gave a +2 to the next player making a check). In 5E I usually allow this to give the next player advantage, if you wanna make it a little bit more exciting but harder you can make it so a help attempt if it fails instead of no bonus make it give disadvantage instead (or have the player lose some kinda resource usually HP, they tripped over a vine attempting to help and suffer d6 piercing damage or something)
this is also true for a regular skill check. When the rogue needs to unlock the door so they can enter the dungeon, no matter how low the dungeon roll the door will open. The roll determines how it will open. If the rogue rolls 10+ over the determined DC, a miracle happens, the guard who was checking the door is sound asleep, giving the player an easy surprise round against an unconscious target with a free critical strike If the rogue rolls 5+ over the determined DC, a good thing happens, the guard who was checking the door is distracted, if the party succeeds on their stealth check they could get a surprise round If the rogue rolls at least the DC the door opens, and the guard noticed the door opening, the combat begins If the rogue rolls 5 under the DC, the Guard heard him unlock the door and prepared a ready action If the rogue rolls 10 under the DC, the Guard called for reinforcement and probably has ready actions Because honestly there is nothing more boring than "I try to open the door" *roll 2+7 =9* you fail. Ok, I retry, no you can't, why can't I retry? ok but the DC is higher? why? etc... ok then we search around for another entryway *roll perception, 5+5 = 10* sorry you don't find any... ok then we are leaving since we cannot get inside the dungeon, figure out a new dungeon for tonight's game, please... What was the point? Let your player enter the dungeon no matter what they rolled.
this is great for when you want to make the party roll for a skill, but if they fail it will mess up your plans and just complicate things. Sure you can not make them roll but where's the fun in that? your characters have all these skills, make them use them.
1. I love bacon 2. I would probably use skill challenges for high suspense moments in my games and I might edit or steal some of it to use in mystery adventures, when trying to find clues. Edit: Luke doesn't suck
This actually gives me the perfect thing for my next session. I wanted to spice things up as it's been a bit 'walk to area, fight encounter, go to next area' recently, so I'm about to have my party flee for their lives from an expansive haunted farmland, pursued by scarecrows and ravens.
I use this system now. It took after doing it about 3 times, I got the hang of it. This system has created some of the most epic moments of the campaign. It really encourages cinematic narration from both players and DM. I found it useful to encourage players to stretch the scope of what the skills do.
This is a layer of the game that I know I've been lacking when running simple encounters or just going along the 3 pillars of gameplay kinda leaves the overall capabilities of the games to fall flat. Now knowing how skill challenges work and how it can add suspense to a session then allow for a difference of scenarios of how it ends will really help me not just add in tidbits that wouldn't really have a place but also spice up the overall game by helping my players use more skills than just the ones they're proficient at. Am currently running a mini-campaign to help teach two new players the game, and I know having a skill challenge will help them feel more engaged and the need for them to be able to think on their feet.
Ok this video was awesome. I finally understand how to run skill challenges properly. I used it in my last session and me and my players loved it. And they asked me to make more.
I know this is 8months old but THANK YOU for explaining skill challenges! I knew they were a thing but I could never find anything to explain exactly how they were run and the measures of success and what they meant!
I think the idea of having big moment rely on more than a skill check or two has major merit, but I've found that Skill Challenges as written tend to feel a little contrived and stilted at the table, and don't allow for the creative situational play I like to encourage from my players. I've found the Effort system from Index Card RPG to be the best solution for situations where I tried to use Skill Challenges before. It boils down to essentially Hit (Effort) Point-izing longer or more complicated tasks. For example, let's say the PCs are running out of a castle with their loot, but the guards are alerted and are in pursuit. Since they had to climb a tower to get to the loot, I'll say it will take 20 Effort to get to the exit (10 to descend, another 10 to make it to the gate). They go in initiative order and can make an athletics check to sprint, if they pass they then roll a d4 Effort die (d6 if they have tools like climbing gear, or d10 if they have magic to help) to see how far they make it down on their turn. Other players can try and hinder pursuers or do anything else they think of with the appropriate check called by the DM based on the situation. Pursuers make athletics checks and effort rolls as well to try and keep up, or can engage the defenders on their way down. As long as the players can make it out alive, hopefully with their treasure, they win. The same principle can be applied to climbing a wall, disarming a trap, or even persuading an NPC, as long as it takes multiple attempts (checks) to complete. I find it keeps everyone's head in the situation, and leads to some wildly creative outcomes without forcing players to use skills they'd rather not or try and justify their narrative after picking a skill. Great content btw! Not hating at all - just wanted to share this system that has seriously improved my games at the table!
I ran a skill challenge as the last encounter of the game after the perceived BBEG was beaten. Another enemy considered to be less of a threat took over a massive moving fortress lead by an army of trolls and was approaching the players and the city they liberated. A Dr. Strange-esqe character that has been an integral part of the campaign (long story) who brought in all the allies the party made along the way. It was very important for them to get to the fortress as they needed an item stolen from them back from the enemy. As the two armies approached players used their skills, spells, abilities, and allies and make skill checks. The ranger hopped on the back of a druid shaped as a mammoth, the warlock got the broom of a witch to fly on and rain fire down on the trolls, the Cleric played commander to a swarm of driders who they earlier saved, the Rogue bobbed and weaved and parkoured through the legs of the trolls. Additionally the enemies also did skill checks as well as the moving fortress using cannons. I'd make mention if something was happening near them to react off of but they were also free to make their own decisions and could suffer consequences. It was an awesome moment and my players made it better. The ranger and the warlock fell off their mounts and took some serious damage. They succeeded as 2 players made it to the dragon on their side that they helped guide and clear its way to headbutt the leg of the moving fortress. Players said it was their favorite encounter of the campaign since so much of what they could do were a direct callback to something they did.
I used skill challenge once when my players were navigating a raging thunderstorm and the bard used performance to use her drum to give them a marching rhytm as they used various skills to navigate the storm but every round someone joined in with their instrument to the performance making this whole marching band through thundering lightning and howling winds keeping up morale and impressing a certain celestial watching them through the cloud who liked the music. The players decided they really wanted to keep the rhytm going and took turns to be the one doing the main performance check. This challenge evolved into one of my favorite moments ive held just from the image of these adventurers outpacing a powerful storm with the power of music. It also solidifed for me the use of other skills than perception or survival that often gets used in these sort of skill challenges.
Another option: make it a spectrum rather than an absolute. Example: Difficulty is 15 Player roll + modifiers: Less than 9: complete failure 9-14: Partial failure. The lock is picked but it takes longer, is noisy, breaks tools, etc. Athletics for jumping might result it barely hanging on, being exposed to an attack, dropping something of value, etc. 15-20: Success as expected. 21+: Success with a bonus. The lock is picked smoothly and silently. Jumping gets you a bonus in distance, or lets you help another player increase the level of their failure up to a success. Basically, if you miss the DC by certain thresholds you partly succeed to a degree, with some sort of cost. If you do really well, you can help the group overcome their failures. No extra mechanic needed, the DM just DMs.
I do this. I was having my players make a series of athletics checks to cross a rope they'd strung across a river. on a 1 they fell, on 2 - 5 they made no progress, 6 - 16 they progressed a quarter of the distance, 16+ they progressed half distance. On a 20 they still only progressed half distance, but looked really cool doing it.
I have run skill challenges in some Adventure League modules. Some players liked them. Others were mumbling death to fourth edition. And I have seen some variation of skill challenges.
They work if they aren't forced. The main problem with 4e skill challenges was adventures declaring that a scene was a skill challenge. "The chase is a skill challenge, three successes are needed to catch the villian. [blah blah blah]". And a player says "I cast hold monster" and the DM says "you can't, what what skill check do you want to do..." That doesn't make them bad in themselves though. Combat has the same "problem", if the DM doesn't allow non-combat alternatives to an encounter an adventure provides with monster stat blocks.
Another way to apply skill challenges is using the 2d20 method I learned from Conan as well. Base dice is a 2d20 (or can use a single d20) and your attribute score represents the DC you have to beat or get under to succeed. And your proficiency bonus or attribute modifier determine how many extra dice you get to roll
Skill challenges were a great idea in 4E that, like many other great ideas in 4E, frequently got implemented in a really mechanical and immersion-breaking way. They could have been cool but frequently seemed to end up being a tedious exercise in mindless rolling and dread for the PCs that didn't have things to contribute ( barbarian ). It's a real pity they were so radioactive during the design phase of 5E that the design team decided to give us essentially *no* functioning skill system at all.
I'm a little annoyed that 5e ditched almost every other great idea from 4e just to be "not 4th edition". This and Minion Rule being the most obvious ones.
@@playahsan Totally agree. For instance, hit dice (bad name!) were clearly inspired by healing surges but they're basically not used or really even all that important in many games. WotC was running very scared at that point, though.
Hit dice is a throwback to older editions. While they wanted to make it feel less like 4th edition, they also wanted to make it feel more like 3.5, and brought back a lot of the old terminology rather than sticking with the simplified and appropriate keywords of 4E.
I've been using skill challenges since 4e with no sign of stopping. It crystalized when I saw how the Warhammer RPG uses a similar concept for basically everything. 1 on 1 combat, to full scale war. Here's the kicker, it's for the sake of expediency. I have three hours to cram as much as possible into a session. My player's love combat but one takes up a third of the game, and two means that most of what I prepped is forfeit. So I smoosh a bunch of stuff into one bit and call for a skill challenge. During a one-shot session zero for two players to join the other three in town, they had to navigate to a temple in the jungle and from there to the town. Along the way they navigated a flooded marshland, avoided a clutch of alligators in a river, broke bread with a village of iguanafolk, and helped a wayward injured traveler. One skill challenge, maybe 15 minutes worth of session that if ran nominally would've taken the full three hours. The players feel involved because they find what THEY roughly expect, which solidifies verisimilitude and world building. It doesn't end up feeling like handwaving, THEY accomplished it. As for failures? Well, I generally have a list of good things and bad things. If they get a failure, one good thing goes away and a bad thing will be part of or the end of a trip. They had one failure, so I had a monkey try to steal their provisions, he was bribed with some local berries instead. Had they bribed him with their food, he would've brought back reinforcements. Sometimes the failures are upon arrival, like the scene they are getting TO is worse off for them. But never, every have the failure STOP the players, fail forward.
I've tried two skill challenges. First was a puzzle box. Without a physical box, I felt that having to "work for it" made more sense. The players struggled to understand the why, but were ok and passed the challenge. The next time was to navigate a maze-like cave/mine. There was no map. so their successes were intended to determine how quickly they would navigate, and if they'd find the "right" exit. I made the mistake of explaining the rules, broke all immersion, and have been fighting "i want to make a perspection check" and "I want to make a check" calls for weeks now. I want to use this again but... I worry. I think adding initiative will make it better. I do think that laying out the rules (can't use skills twice a round, or more than once per character) didn't help the situation any. They felt like they needed to choose skills instead of making decisions about what the characters do. If I run one again, I'm going to reduce the number of needed successes, use initiative, and allow considerable freedom in problem solving. I think that adjudicating each round as a success or failure might make more overal sense. That would mean 3 failed rounds would fail the challenge vs just 3 failures.
My players needed to find a fey village that was rumoured to exist in a local forest. Nobody who found it remembered where it was since the fey would put them to sleep and dump them elsewhere. The players had to make multiple skill checks over the course of several hours to find it. The ranger used survival to try to track them down. He rolled terribly and ran into an owlbear. Next up, the wizard used some spells to follow currents in The Weave to where they are strongest. He rolled well and got them closer. Next up was the druid who had a chat with the trees. He did ok and got them slightly closer. Eventually, they encountered the sprite sentries of the village.
my DM would ALWAYS do these in our GURPS sessions, and often they involve life or death and were one of the best moments we had in out tables, it works well especially in systems where you have a lot of skills and a lot of different ways of solving a problem
My old DM ( Rogue Trader, still applies here) engaged my first experience with this. I had to do some showing off in piloting a guncutter (Think Pelican from Halo, with moar gunz). This has stuck with me since, and imo worth checking it out if you haven't tried it
@@theDMLair I get why people want it. My other channel is about the same size as yours, but I never ask... feels... forced, or desperate. Even asking people to join Patreon feels forced... at least you offer oodles of stuff for joining
I would probably change the dc throughout the challenge based off of what skills they used before, how they used them, and how well they rolled. Some skills might even have an opposed check to see how effective it was. Saying ‘Yes, finally the guards are arriving to help us’ deception check, if successful, could have an opposed check to see how many enemies looked back and for how long. This could lead to a round at advantage, or the canceling of a single failure as you pull ahead again depending on results. Your other characters may need to do a save or have disadvantage if they look back themselves, done with advantage if this was something that character would do and they know them. Reward good tactics and role play instead of just saying ‘I run’
I have a system similar to this that i call a Cumulative Check system, where by you have a certain number of attempts to succeed at hitting a DC determined by multiplying the difficulty (10 (easily accomplished) to 40 (not humanly possible under normal conditions)) by the number of challenges required by the system. the player tries to determine what skill is best for succeeding, and the DM can adjust the final DC accordingly if sees the skill as being useful or not if you succeed and still have attempts left, you get a bonus if you fail and still have attempts left (That is you have attempts left but there is no way to succeed), you get penalized more harshly than a normal failure For instance: Krush the barbarian, Slips the Rogue, Tuner the bard, and Brash the fighter are running from the town guard starting a bar fight, the number to get away is 45, and they have 3 attempts to get there Krush selects Athletics, and gets an 8 and an 8, and has no way to make 29 in the next roll, he catastrophically fails, and falls down getting hurt and captured by the guards Slips selects Stealth gets a 23 and a 22, and succeeds, and slips away unnoticed, and attains a spot where he can watch all the action from Tuner selects Acrobatics and and gets 20, 8, and 18, tuner gets away Brash the fighter selects Persuasion, and gets 16 14 and 11, and gets caught normally but doesn't start a fight, or get himself beaten up
I run skill challenges where instead of "rounds" or "minutes" each PC decides what they're going to do for that "moment", whether it's to “contribute” directly to the skill challenge (each PC makes a separate contribution), or “aid” on someone else’s contribution, or “protect” a contribution from consequences (limited to one PC per contribution), or be “on watch” to protect anyone otherwise-unprotected that moment, or “take actions”, GM’s choice of how many. I can elaborate if desired.
I run skill challenges when something unusual is happening. Want to track down and catch that goblin that ran away? Skill Challenge. Want to scout out the site before assaulting the keep? Skill Challenge. Torturing and questioning said goblin you caught? Skill Challenge. Great Video
Not sure if it was mentioned yet but Matt Colville made a video about skill challenges. It was explanatory but not as well as this one I think 🤔. I like skill challenges because it incorporates the party and not just 1 individual player where everyone else at the table just sits there not playing.
If a group fails the skill challenge for bacon, does that mean the bacon is burnt to a crisp, that an enemy eats the bacon or that the pig was never born / fades from existence? Guessing All for 1 would say "Fireball!!" Great video! I like that the skill challenge builds group collaboration as well as interest during a teammate's turn.
I don't do this, but I am about to start using progress clocks in my game for more high stakes events. Successes reduce the appropriate clocks while failures accelerate them. Still, might consider this aspect as well (I like the idea of failures making an outcome worse). Also, I love bacon. I used to joke that I would discover a drug to convert the heart clogging stuff in bacon to good stuff just so I could eat bacon a ton without worry.
Another way to retain but not eliminate appropriate skill checks is to have your PCs pre-roll them all at the start of the game. Then just record the rolls for each player and refer to the list when a skill check is required. That way the action or roll playing is not slowed down or interrupted by the roll. Also, my rolls are rarely pass/fail unless the situation calls for it. Rather, they are more or less damage, delay, information, etc. depending upon the roll. Say, hypothetically, I have a 1 to 10 scale of damage for a trap. To “pass”, PC 1 must roll at least a 5, she rolls a 6 so receives no damage. But say she rolled a 4, then she would receive the damage assigned to level 4. PC 2, on the other hand, must roll at least an 8, he rolls an 8 so he receives no damage. But say instead that he rolled a 7, then he would receive the damage assigned to level 7. Damage may be HPs, but it typically also includes a variety of things some of which fit the context for the characters actions and tge specific type or alignment of the characters and some do not, so as DM, I decide what the appropriate and relevant damage will be to that specific PC. When the players tell me what they intend to do, I evaluate it for its cleverness/workability and whether it is in character or not. If it is clever/workable AND in character, I may reduce the negative consequences or increase the positive consequences slightly. If it is not clever or workable AND not in character, I increase the negative consequences or decrease the positive consequences slightly. Otherwise, I do nothing and just go with the results of the roll. I do the same thing for all types of skill checks, those with good and bad consequences. By having the PCs pre-roll, I can simply tell all the PCs what what happens to each of them, rather than having them all stop to roll. That said, there are times when the gameplay SHOULD stop for a roll. At such times, everyone is waiting with anticipation for the PC to “roll” and for the die to finally stop and settle upon a number! I ALWAYS have an actual roll for this type of encounter. I you don’t have at least some rolls, it would not be D&D!
I think that your skill test is interesting and fun but a bit contrived and not very realistic. Why force someone with a low dexterity to walk a tightrope? They should only do so if they are forced to do so. Realistically, they would never voluntarily choose to do so. I think skills should be tested but they should be tested in a realistic way. Like most DMs, I set up encounters that require the use of multiple skill sets to pass (and ideally skill sets that the PCs possess, or could, with more experience, possess). Some encounters and some aspects of these encounters require more or less of each skill set. It is up to the PCs to decide which PCs should take the lead and which should play supporting roles in a given situation or even if they should engage or avoid the encounter at all, given their current skill set. There are times when the klutz must walk the tightrope, but should only be made to do so if they have no other choice.
I love bacon. Just had a bacon breakfast burrito for breakfast. Yum. Though I have a slight problem with skill challenges. I love running them, when I can get them to work, but certain PCs abilities sometimes renders the challenges obsolete. For instance in your scenario with the PCs being chased, if suddenly the wizard casts teleport and instantly takes the PCs back to the ship, challenge over. I also play in a Supers game where a GM uses challenges like this. He has forced the challenge at times when a certain PC should have been able to handle the challenge instantly. A house was on fire and a water based character would instantly put out all the flames. Instead of allowing when the PC could do, he only allowed it to work as one success of the challenge and it just felt forced and wrong to do so. Some character can just immediately overcome some challenges.
We played similar situation like fight where enemy only has layer action. But it sounds like something that could be good for some different situations.
Great Video ! I have a few questions (for anyone). I have both ran and participated in skills challenges pretty much how it was described but there always seems to be something off about them...for example, the logic behind forcing characters to NOT USE OTHER ACTIONS (spells, movement, items, etc.) than skill checks AND forcing them to NOT USE THE SAME SKILLS twice ..I understand that it is designed that way to prevent players from always using the same skill, but it defies logic.. In the Gnoll infested Island escape scenario, why forcing everyone to roll skill checks instead of, let''s say, cast Dimension Door, Teleport, Haste or polymorph into a bird or Cheetah, or cast Plant Growth to slow them down..it's unnatural and feels odd... I do want to make use of skills challenges but I'm wondering how others are circumventing these "forced" actions.
I think you could even argue someone taking an attack action to help the party advance forward. Someone shooting an arrow might slow the knolls down (a poor man's suppressive fire), could also be done with spells. Or if the knolls had laid some traps in the jungle, as you avoid a trip wire and cut it as you jump over to slow the knolls down. I wonder if it would be better if the # of successes have potential goals/links to them. So running out of a jungle needs 3 successes related to movement covered (acrobatics, athletics, maybe a survival check for the best path back to the boat), 2 successes related to slowing the gnolls down (maybe intimidation or performance to confuse them) and maybe 1 free success based on character's cleverness (ducking behind trees with stealth to mislead where you are going, nature check to burn some leaves that cause a nauseating scent that irritates the gnolls). You don't tell the players exactly what needs to be done, so they might hit the goals a few times.
Good interesting video! Thanks mate. I like only the "bacon" labelled 'This is not Bacon'. It's the same, but without all the pig or cancer/heart attack (human) death! 🥓🥓❤️
I am Canadian and i really do love bacon. You do not suck. This is a comment and it should give you the feeling of' Warm Internet Snuggly Hugs' (WiSH). You can use this WiSH without that dreaded 1/3 stress-chance that causes you to never cast this beloved spell ever again.
Just to boast with my 5 cents. I once designed chase-through-goblin-horde encounter with a pack of cards. Every PC was riding a horse: slow, normal or fast. Depending on that, EACH character should have won 2, 3 or 4 out of 5 encounters or have grim consequences. Players picked a card in turns, and effect depended on value and suit of a card. Hearts was basically a free success. Diamonds was skill checks based. Spades was saving throws based. Clubs was attack based. And bigger the value resulted in harsher DC. If player A failed or couldn't imagine anything appropriate to the situation each card represented, another player B could help and suggest action and try to pass checks instead, while failing at their turn automatically. However, if a player has already won necessary number of encounters, they could help another for free. Players also couldn't use same checks/saves through rounds, each player couldn't use same checks/saves at all. I would say that went better than I expected, everyone barely get out, yet had a shit-ton of fun.
I employ what I call a “chain of harm” (or its opposite - the “chain of benefits”) analysis. In order for a harm or a benefit to occur to a specific target (which can be anything a PC, a magic item, a group of PCs, a village, a NPC, a monster etc), a phenomenon capable of causing harm or benefit to that target must be present (if random, roll, could be periodic, such as a tide), the target must be exposed to the phenomenon (roll?), the target must be vulnerable to the exposure (roll?), an there must be significant consequences associated with that target’s vulnerability (roll?). The target must be narrowly defined. The COH or COB must be defined at the level of and specific to the target. The target AND it’s critical life support functions must also be defined as the target can be harmed/benefited both directly and indirectly (via its life-support system). The goal is to break the COH or to facilitate the COB, as early as possible. The COH and COB analysis is scalable and can be applied to a target of any size up to and including the entire world. I make use of the COH and COB explicitly or implicitly in all encounters that take place in my world and in fact to its design, faction goals, etc. Harmful phenomena can be inanimate non-living or animate living things (the later possessing agency). At each connection of the chain ask Who? What?, When? Where?, Why?, How Much? etc. If you do, you will have a very well thought out highly relevant descriptive encounters for your PCs. If the PCs are responsible for the hazardous or beneficial phenomenon, have them describe THEIR actions in terms of the COH or COB that they wish to create. If the don’t prompt them for it? What is the intended target’s response to these actions? A COH and COB may also have delayed or long-term consequences for a given target or its life support system or for the targets and life-support systems of other targets with which it interacts. Inactions as well as actions can produce COHs or COBs. The DM should note these consequential actions and inactions that occur in encounters and adjust the response of the affected portion of the world accordingly. Thus you have a living breathing responsive world. The next time that portion of the world is encountered will thus be different than the first time it was encountered.
I love skill challenges, if I can I try to make one scene per one shot that uses this system with intention and the outcome will shape the rest of the game
Okay, Luke! You asked for it: After decades of playing this game (and my increasing disgust with TSR/WotC for their constantly changing the rules, with each successive edition getting both oversimplified, overpowered, and overly complex), I decided to part way with the publishers, and come up with mine own system for handling skill, proficiencies, and feats. Firstly, I needed to define such. A skill is a singular activity any given character may attempt under life and death/situations of high stress situations. Those two terms are important; given enough time, a character may have a reasonable chance of success. But put that same character in a life-threatening situation, and the chances of success diminish greatly. (That's where the DC comes in, modified by ability scores and experience.) Second, a proficiency is a group of related skills, when combined, allow any given character to attempt a range of related actions. (Like combat, for instance--and NO wearing armor is NOT A SKILL!! I've worn and fought in armor for many years, and doing so does not require a special skill. That's just one example of how screwy the game has become.) Third, a feat is a skill or skill set (eg a proficiency) that is truly next level, OMG, that halfling did WHAT!? type of skill or skill set. These come together to form the basis of what a character can do UNDER GREAT STRESS. (it stands to reason that should they attempt such in more favorable situations, their chances of success will be much higher...usually. Just beware when the DM starts to grin. Which I often do, just to mess with my players' squishy brains...!) How much each skill, proficiency and/or feat costs to obtain depends on how difficult a skill, proficiency and/or feat is. (I find the easiest for me is to adhere to the 2nd Edition proficiency costs.) There are two broad categories of such: Combat and Non-combat (yes, I changed the nomenclature, to more closely adhere to how we played; it sure makes more sense than Weapons and Non-weapons Proficiencies). Regardless, there's some overlap, as there are certain skill, etc, in the Non-combat category that can apply to Combat. The cost of these skills, proficiencies and/or feats also varies by the level of difficulty, or how difficult they are to perform. (This one's a bit tricky.) For instance, they fall into one of the following levels of ability: non-skilled/in-proficient, basic, advanced, expert, and adept. Non-skilled is just that: you don't got game. Maybe, if you had all the time in the world, you could do it. But under life and death situations? Well, one could make an unskilled check (go on, I dare you!). Basic is just that. You're not a complete embarrassment. But you're still a noob. Advanced means you're doin' alright: you can handle that weapon okay, you can use your skill/proficiency with a reasonable chance of success. (Just don't try taking on three pit fiends by yourself!) And adept? You can do [insert skill] like a user of magic! How in fleebus does he DO that!? kind of thing). Of course, the higher the difficulty, the more it costs to obtain. Which usually translates into experience/time spent training. Also, certain skill/proficiencies/feats are more difficult, if not impossible to obtain by certain character classes. I know that flies in the face of 5th Edition's "you can be/do anything you want" vibe, but them's the breaks: Wizards do not start out with any skill in weapons; they have to train to obtain it, because magic is their main class skill. Whereas Warriors... Get the picture? Admittedly, this system requires a great deal of thought and effort on the part of the DM to make it work. But really, there is no substitute for a DM not using his brain. In my experience, if one has a thoughtless DM, then one doesn't have a game at all. So! Luke, keep on eating as much bacon as you can! Peace~
Luke's Skill Challenge: find the six strips of real bacon before stumbling across the three strips made from sextant. The Challenge I presented to my players: keep to the forest and get the drop on the Gnoll encampment so they can pick off the Gnolls in small groups. Overall success.
I have seen different takes on Skill Challenges adaptation for 5e, but I feel that there is something that is always missing: how the number of players affect it. If you have 8 players (gosh, I know) and you ask for 6 successes, it can happen that 2 players dont even get to contribute. If you have 3 players and ask for 8 successes, since they cannot repeat their good skills, there is a good chance the group fails. Luke, do you have a recommendation how to adapt based on the amount of player, even if it is exclusively in the magazine?
Perhaps maybe use a tag-team challenge where two players work together to pass the challenge. Example: the bard and the barbarian team up for a Persuasion/Intimidation check. One rolls with advantage while the other helps. Or maybe the druid wildshapes into an ape and the ranger uses their survival skill to point out hand and footholds as they climb up the Cliffside?
I know this comment is a year old, but the way I run Skill Challenges is each Round is a Success or Failure. If at least half the party succeeds, that's a success. Otherwise, that's a failure. Everything else follows the same from there. It's just when the success or failure is counted. Each player says they're trying to do, and makes their check. I then use that information to narrate how that round goes. This guarantees everyone gets a few attempts at least.
I legit thought this was already in the DMG. 👀 edit: Ok, after hearing all the details, nothing this structured is in 5e. I think I'd run something a bit less rigid, myself, depending on what makes sense in the moment.
I confess I very much disagree with his "you can't use the same ability" approach. Why not? If you're running from a army of gnolls, the ranger and the monk can both use athletics to take difficult paths. Don't restrict RP in the name of making the challenge more interactive. It's about the RP, not about the challenge.
I agree. 4th edition has a LOT of really good stuff. At some point i will cover more D&D 4e stuff. D&D 4e is actually a great system to hunt through for new mechanics for D&D 5e.
I generally don't call for skills checks just ability checks based on description. I want my players to think way out of the box and I find that skill lists limit rather than expand. But the idea of having a challenge with X victories and Y failures might be interesting.
![Quando Rondo - Life Goes On [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eIf3fhMXAow/mqdefault.jpg)
Get our 5e Skill Challenge system here: thedmlair.com/products/wish-waste-lair-magazine-18-june-2022-issue
𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗗𝗠 𝗟𝗔𝗜𝗥 𝗦𝗧𝗢𝗥𝗘 - Get 5e and PF2e adventures, Foundry VTT packs for 5e and PF2e, map packs, and other DM resources! thedmlair.com/
I love this channel. I think I'm gonna join the patreon, but I also want to know, is there a way to get access to the backlog of magazines? Or rather, other than shoptly bundles, is there a Tier that gives me access to them?
For all the hate for 4th Ed, they did have some really good game mechanics. Minions, 5-minute rests, healing surges and skill challenges were all mechanics I've adapted for both 5e and PF1e with varying degrees of success, and they've made some otherwise dull non-combat bits much more interesting.
Skill challenges are a great (albeit situational) alternative to advantage when characters are trying to work together. Obviously, things like making a perception check to see if a door is trapped don't need a skill challenge, that should just be done with advantage when characters work together. But consider:
The characters are trying to talk their way past a heavily guarded door. They've each made their case, whether truthful or otherwise, and done everything they individually can to avoid fighting. Instead of having 1 character roll a charisma based check with advantage, have them roll through a skill challenge. Of course, this would be best done as the conversation is going on, but it doesn't have to be. The characters have to work together and use a combination of their talents to work together to succeed in their goal; one is watching the guards for their reactions, rolling perception; one tells a clever lie, rolling deception; another gives a wonderful and engrossing sob story, rolling performance; perhaps the cleric is watching to see if the guards start lying back to them, rolling insight; finally, someone puts it all together into a pretty bow for the guards, rolling persuasion.
Now, this mundane social interaction that could have been resolved by a single character rolling requires the input and cooperation of all the characters working together, potentially creating a more engrossing and rewarding experience. Plus, using a failure schedule would avoid the situation of a 15 minute dialogue resulting in nothing more than a "no" because they failed the one check.
I run things like this, but call them QTEs (quick time events).
For example: The party is transversing through an underground dungeon, the shadows creeping along the walls as the torches do their best to lick the darkness away from the party. You're moving slowly, constantly on guard for the next ambush, when, out of nowhere, a rumbling start shacking the floor as an earthquake threatens to knock you on your but and cause a cave in. Players, welcome to a QTE, you can do anything you wish to try and avoid the falling rocks and make it to the exit. What do you try to do?
The Monk: I book it at full speed spending a ki point for step of the wind to the exit.
DM: Interesting, due to your fast movement, I will set the DC to 12, roll me acrobatics, but at disadvantage due to the shaking earth.
The monk: 14.
DM: Congratulations, you dodge and weave while maintaining your balance, you will not be part of the final roll.
The wizard: Can I cast shield over my head to deflect the worst of it?
DM: Not a normal use of the spell, but for this I will allow an arcana check to see if you can modify the spell to work against this, go ahead and expend the slot, but the DC will be an 18.
The wizard: 16
DM: Sorry, you do not succeed, you will be part of the final roll.
The barbarian: I toss myself over the sorcerer and use my strength and bulk to protect her from the rocks.
DM: You do so, The sorcerer avoids any rocks, but you auto fail the final roll.
The barbarian: no regrets.
DM: Wizard, make a DC 15 dex save. Barbarian, you auto fail. Failures take 8d6 bludgeoning damage, are knocked prone, and restrained by the rocks. If you succeed you take half damage and are not prone and restrained.
The system can be used for just about anything, takes little time to set up, and is over quickly, returning the game back to the control of the players.
Dude, this is better than skill challenges and makes more sense too.
How is this a QTE or skill challange? Where is the "Event"? You still make a single skill check that determines everything and it feels sucky.
Ehm... Your "QTE" I think should stand for "Qompletly Traditional skillchEck".
But let me tell you about my revolutionary skill check system, I call "GRS", it stands for "Gravitational randomisation simulationator". So my players take a dice and I tell them to launch it into the graviational pull I have had installed in my house, and thru complex quantum physics the dice will roll and bounce and finally land showing a number on the upside. Then I take THAT number, add modifiers, and apply it to my computations of skill checks.
This is just a normal skill check...
The point of a Skill Challenge is to let players work together to pass or fail as a team.
All of your players roles were individual and only affected themselves. Lmao
I liked the 4th Ed skill check system. I’ve been using them for years. Some players like them, one player hates them but he just wants us to go back to 3.5. Rodrigo from the critical hit podcast had similar house rules for it. No repeating skills. Great way to prevent the wizard just using arcana all the time. Great video, glad I’m not the only one still doing skill challenges lol.
I believe Rodrigo calls his system "Lord Kinsington's rules". And it is superior to other systems by far.
@@jeffreykershner440 Yes! Couldn’t remember the name.
Personally disappointed that 5e didn't include this system...
Let's hope the next version of D&D is able to learn from the successes of it's predecessors as well as their failures.
@@dustrockblues7567 Me too, 4th had some good ideas, but wizards wanted to distance itself from it. Personally have very very low expectations on the next edition based on the most recent changes. Hopefully I’m proven wrong.
This is a great idea and I can see nearly all campaigns being able to utilize this in some fashion. One suggestion... It would be helpful and fun to see topics like this run in an actual game play setting. Even a small scenario to keep time down, but sill give the opportunity to see players and the DM interact would be great.
As a beginner DM, I've got an amazing and forgiving group I'm leading but seeing topics like this put in to action would help immensely!
The Dungeon Coach has a great video on skill challenges with an example from one of his campaigns. He walks through each step of the challenge to explain how it happened mechanically, but starts by presenting the encounter in story form to showcase the effect skill challenges can have on a campaign. I’d highly recommend it
new to DMing. I used a skill challenge and it was the best idea for the situation and worked really well. My players decided to kill the power in the city. An underground steam generator with fire giants. instead of going for the planned fight, they managed to sneak round them all and break the machinery. the water pipes began to leak and rumble and turned into super heated steam. it was time to leave. they ran away, i did it via skill checks. They got 3 failures resulting in thesteam catching them as they reached the final door. (paused for affect) they took moderate damage from the steam as it blew the final doors open and ejected the party into the middle of the town. the party used the massive steam cloud to escape the scene. but for the mission being a stealth mission, there will be consequences. much better than a tpk and much better than the encouter that was planned anyway :)
As a recent patron I gotta say, lair magazine is 100% worth it. Super great for inspiration or when I need a good Mechanic not covered in core books.
Thank you! Happy to hear you're finding Lair magazine uesful!
@@theDMLair You're actually thr first patron I've subbed to. You obviously genuinely care about the game and try to improve what's already there. And when you do make homebrew there's a reason for it. People like you help keep DND going strong and its awesome to see. Hoping to go to laircon this year too.
I'd like to mention that despite it being called a "Skill Challenge", I have had players use spells in place to make up for something. an example would be that rocks were falling onto the players ship after getting to close to an overhanging cliff, the pilot made a "piloting" check, another took her hammer and flew up to start smashing large rocks, and the cleric/wizard both used control water to blast rocks out of the sky. It was great fun!
If you wanna keep it in skills you can do a spell casting check eg int/wis + prof for the wizard/cleric
@@solalabell9674 No reason, they're already using a slot
Devils Advocate: instead of one roll make a lot of rolls. :p
I do like the idea that everyone can contribute, and that they cannot use the same skill. Makes them think.
kinda reminds my of the ICRPG effort system.
Overall I like your idea.
My pro tip: never gate the "game" behind a roll.
ICRPG is a system did it right.
It works there because the Difficulty is public, then you can focus on telling players the number of success they need.
I've only ran one skill challenge once and it went ok. The players were escaping a collapsing dungeon. I didn't use initiative and just let them kind of call out what they wanted to do. I think next time initiative will be perfect
While I love the mechanics here, I wholeheartedly disagree with the Initiative idea as long as there are monsters/enemies around. Initiative sends a combat message and a "winnable Situation", when many skill challenges are made precise to avoid/defuse unwinnable scenarios. Think escaping an overwhelming force or deadly prison. stealthing through a dragon lair at low level, etc.
I would suggest making rounds still a thing, but use them narratively and give a sense of urgency by limiting thinking time.
Initiative always make things worse.
Technically initiative in this scenario is just determining who’s doing their skills first. Its more an organizational thing
I found this to be one of your most helpful videos! I've ran skill challenges before, but never this organized and well thought out
Love bacon, skill challenges not so much. When I use them as a DM I find them too systematic when I’d rather players use their abilities, spells, or skills, as they apply to the obstacles. I also find it difficult to narrate a climactic scene when a chase or flee scene becomes ‘choose big number on my sheet, justify, hope I don’t roll bad’. I’d rather these situations rely on players using their brains than using their dice.
When I’m playing in a skill challenge I often feel like being creative or using abilities that suit the fiction isn’t rewarded since I’ll use a high level spell or a 1/sr ability and it just like reduces the score of my skill check by 5, but since I’m justifying the use of the spell rather than just playing to my best skill, I’m making a roll with pretty much the same odds as if I’d just justified using one of my good skills. There’s not much in dnd that’s as frustrating as doing something that seems like a cool and perfect solution to the situation you’re in only for it to not matter at all because you had bad luck on the roll and aren’t playing a rogue or bard.
TLDR: I hate when everything in dnd boils down to skill checks and in my experience this problem is heavily exacerbated by using skill challenges
So much this. Too often I find skill challenges lead to people not being able to utilize the things their characters are suppose to be good at because they, or someone else already used it, and it just gets really awkward and tends to stifle creativity.
IMO it sounds like you need higher 'cool use of that thing' bonuses to make the success more likely. But it's still a tabletop rpg, and the universe still goes the way of the dice.
I kind of specialize in running games for larger (6-8 players) groups, so personally I’d bump up the number of failed checks needed for complete failure to 4 or 5, depending on the size of the party (I think a number that’s around 70-80% of the party size would be appropriate). And yes, I’d increase the amount of successful checks needed as well, to ensure that everyone has a chance to contribute and the challenge isn’t over in just one round (as for actual number, I’d say 150-200% of the party size for easy, 200-250% of party size for medium, 250-300% of party size for hard, and 300-400% of party size for near-impossible). Also quite a few of my players LOVE collecting companions and pets, so instead of having companions and pets also make the checks I would personally make it that only PCs make skill checks and, on complete failures, some companions/pets are lost in the ensuring chaos, giving the players a reason to want to take vengeance if it was something like the gnolls situation, and getting them more invested in the game.
This has come along at just the right time for me. I have an encounter planned where my players will need to get past pitchfork-wielding commoners on the lookout for them, and the PCs will need to get past them without drawing attention. There's going to be four groups (maybe five if in the previous encounters the PCs killed some commoners). Rather than having the Stealth-heavy PCs get all the attention, the Skill Challenge will allow everyone to get involved. Nice. And adds tension with the number of successes to gain or they get mobbed. And not allowing the same Skill get used more than once will force some interesting tactical decisions amongst the players.
Thank you very much for this. Much appreciated.
something not mentioned here that is in the 4E rules is a player can also make a "Help" attempt using a skill (in 4e this would allow a player to make a skill check but it wouldn't count as a success or fail, but if they passed they gave a +2 to the next player making a check). In 5E I usually allow this to give the next player advantage, if you wanna make it a little bit more exciting but harder you can make it so a help attempt if it fails instead of no bonus make it give disadvantage instead (or have the player lose some kinda resource usually HP, they tripped over a vine attempting to help and suffer d6 piercing damage or something)
This is the best video I've seen on skill challenges. Thank you.
Great video, Luke. Very concise and helpful.
this is also true for a regular skill check. When the rogue needs to unlock the door so they can enter the dungeon, no matter how low the dungeon roll the door will open. The roll determines how it will open.
If the rogue rolls 10+ over the determined DC, a miracle happens, the guard who was checking the door is sound asleep, giving the player an easy surprise round against an unconscious target with a free critical strike
If the rogue rolls 5+ over the determined DC, a good thing happens, the guard who was checking the door is distracted, if the party succeeds on their stealth check they could get a surprise round
If the rogue rolls at least the DC the door opens, and the guard noticed the door opening, the combat begins
If the rogue rolls 5 under the DC, the Guard heard him unlock the door and prepared a ready action
If the rogue rolls 10 under the DC, the Guard called for reinforcement and probably has ready actions
Because honestly there is nothing more boring than "I try to open the door" *roll 2+7 =9* you fail. Ok, I retry, no you can't, why can't I retry? ok but the DC is higher? why? etc... ok then we search around for another entryway *roll perception, 5+5 = 10* sorry you don't find any... ok then we are leaving since we cannot get inside the dungeon, figure out a new dungeon for tonight's game, please...
What was the point? Let your player enter the dungeon no matter what they rolled.
this is great for when you want to make the party roll for a skill, but if they fail it will mess up your plans and just complicate things. Sure you can not make them roll but where's the fun in that? your characters have all these skills, make them use them.
I am so glad that I stayed to hear you out.
Great explanation of the escalation of failure based on how many failed rolls during a Skill Challenge!
1. I love bacon
2. I would probably use skill challenges for high suspense moments in my games and I might edit or steal some of it to use in mystery adventures, when trying to find clues.
Edit: Luke doesn't suck
This actually gives me the perfect thing for my next session. I wanted to spice things up as it's been a bit 'walk to area, fight encounter, go to next area' recently, so I'm about to have my party flee for their lives from an expansive haunted farmland, pursued by scarecrows and ravens.
I use this system now. It took after doing it about 3 times, I got the hang of it. This system has created some of the most epic moments of the campaign. It really encourages cinematic narration from both players and DM.
I found it useful to encourage players to stretch the scope of what the skills do.
This is a layer of the game that I know I've been lacking when running simple encounters or just going along the 3 pillars of gameplay kinda leaves the overall capabilities of the games to fall flat. Now knowing how skill challenges work and how it can add suspense to a session then allow for a difference of scenarios of how it ends will really help me not just add in tidbits that wouldn't really have a place but also spice up the overall game by helping my players use more skills than just the ones they're proficient at. Am currently running a mini-campaign to help teach two new players the game, and I know having a skill challenge will help them feel more engaged and the need for them to be able to think on their feet.
Ok this video was awesome. I finally understand how to run skill challenges properly. I used it in my last session and me and my players loved it. And they asked me to make more.
I love skill challenges from 4th and I use them in 5. But you have taught me more. Thank you! Awesome!
I know this is 8months old but THANK YOU for explaining skill challenges! I knew they were a thing but I could never find anything to explain exactly how they were run and the measures of success and what they meant!
You are very welcome! :D
I think the idea of having big moment rely on more than a skill check or two has major merit, but I've found that Skill Challenges as written tend to feel a little contrived and stilted at the table, and don't allow for the creative situational play I like to encourage from my players.
I've found the Effort system from Index Card RPG to be the best solution for situations where I tried to use Skill Challenges before. It boils down to essentially Hit (Effort) Point-izing longer or more complicated tasks.
For example, let's say the PCs are running out of a castle with their loot, but the guards are alerted and are in pursuit. Since they had to climb a tower to get to the loot, I'll say it will take 20 Effort to get to the exit (10 to descend, another 10 to make it to the gate). They go in initiative order and can make an athletics check to sprint, if they pass they then roll a d4 Effort die (d6 if they have tools like climbing gear, or d10 if they have magic to help) to see how far they make it down on their turn. Other players can try and hinder pursuers or do anything else they think of with the appropriate check called by the DM based on the situation. Pursuers make athletics checks and effort rolls as well to try and keep up, or can engage the defenders on their way down. As long as the players can make it out alive, hopefully with their treasure, they win.
The same principle can be applied to climbing a wall, disarming a trap, or even persuading an NPC, as long as it takes multiple attempts (checks) to complete. I find it keeps everyone's head in the situation, and leads to some wildly creative outcomes without forcing players to use skills they'd rather not or try and justify their narrative after picking a skill.
Great content btw! Not hating at all - just wanted to share this system that has seriously improved my games at the table!
I think that 4e is seriously underrated. It has great mechanics that align well with setting and philosophy.
Great video, I’ve been toying with how to implement something like this in my games. Thanks for putting this out.
A-HA! So you are the dude after whom my DM modeled his skill challenges! Very intense - and so crappy when I rolled a nat 1 on my BEST skill! lol
I ran a skill challenge as the last encounter of the game after the perceived BBEG was beaten. Another enemy considered to be less of a threat took over a massive moving fortress lead by an army of trolls and was approaching the players and the city they liberated. A Dr. Strange-esqe character that has been an integral part of the campaign (long story) who brought in all the allies the party made along the way. It was very important for them to get to the fortress as they needed an item stolen from them back from the enemy. As the two armies approached players used their skills, spells, abilities, and allies and make skill checks. The ranger hopped on the back of a druid shaped as a mammoth, the warlock got the broom of a witch to fly on and rain fire down on the trolls, the Cleric played commander to a swarm of driders who they earlier saved, the Rogue bobbed and weaved and parkoured through the legs of the trolls. Additionally the enemies also did skill checks as well as the moving fortress using cannons. I'd make mention if something was happening near them to react off of but they were also free to make their own decisions and could suffer consequences. It was an awesome moment and my players made it better. The ranger and the warlock fell off their mounts and took some serious damage. They succeeded as 2 players made it to the dragon on their side that they helped guide and clear its way to headbutt the leg of the moving fortress.
Players said it was their favorite encounter of the campaign since so much of what they could do were a direct callback to something they did.
I used skill challenge once when my players were navigating a raging thunderstorm and the bard used performance to use her drum to give them a marching rhytm as they used various skills to navigate the storm but every round someone joined in with their instrument to the performance making this whole marching band through thundering lightning and howling winds keeping up morale and impressing a certain celestial watching them through the cloud who liked the music. The players decided they really wanted to keep the rhytm going and took turns to be the one doing the main performance check. This challenge evolved into one of my favorite moments ive held just from the image of these adventurers outpacing a powerful storm with the power of music. It also solidifed for me the use of other skills than perception or survival that often gets used in these sort of skill challenges.
Another option: make it a spectrum rather than an absolute.
Example: Difficulty is 15
Player roll + modifiers:
Less than 9: complete failure
9-14: Partial failure. The lock is picked but it takes longer, is noisy, breaks tools, etc. Athletics for jumping might result it barely hanging on, being exposed to an attack, dropping something of value, etc.
15-20: Success as expected.
21+: Success with a bonus. The lock is picked smoothly and silently. Jumping gets you a bonus in distance, or lets you help another player increase the level of their failure up to a success.
Basically, if you miss the DC by certain thresholds you partly succeed to a degree, with some sort of cost. If you do really well, you can help the group overcome their failures. No extra mechanic needed, the DM just DMs.
I do this. I was having my players make a series of athletics checks to cross a rope they'd strung across a river. on a 1 they fell, on 2 - 5 they made no progress, 6 - 16 they progressed a quarter of the distance, 16+ they progressed half distance. On a 20 they still only progressed half distance, but looked really cool doing it.
This doesnt really counter the problem of buff stacking the way a skill challenge can.
I have run skill challenges in some Adventure League modules. Some players liked them. Others were mumbling death to fourth edition. And I have seen some variation of skill challenges.
They work if they aren't forced. The main problem with 4e skill challenges was adventures declaring that a scene was a skill challenge. "The chase is a skill challenge, three successes are needed to catch the villian. [blah blah blah]". And a player says "I cast hold monster" and the DM says "you can't, what what skill check do you want to do..."
That doesn't make them bad in themselves though. Combat has the same "problem", if the DM doesn't allow non-combat alternatives to an encounter an adventure provides with monster stat blocks.
I love this system and scaled success/failure. Great job
Another way to apply skill challenges is using the 2d20 method I learned from Conan as well.
Base dice is a 2d20 (or can use a single d20) and your attribute score represents the DC you have to beat or get under to succeed. And your proficiency bonus or attribute modifier determine how many extra dice you get to roll
You are amazing! Thx for helping me so much with your videos x)
Skill challenges were a great idea in 4E that, like many other great ideas in 4E, frequently got implemented in a really mechanical and immersion-breaking way. They could have been cool but frequently seemed to end up being a tedious exercise in mindless rolling and dread for the PCs that didn't have things to contribute ( barbarian ).
It's a real pity they were so radioactive during the design phase of 5E that the design team decided to give us essentially *no* functioning skill system at all.
I'm a little annoyed that 5e ditched almost every other great idea from 4e just to be "not 4th edition". This and Minion Rule being the most obvious ones.
@@playahsan Totally agree. For instance, hit dice (bad name!) were clearly inspired by healing surges but they're basically not used or really even all that important in many games.
WotC was running very scared at that point, though.
Hit dice is a throwback to older editions. While they wanted to make it feel less like 4th edition, they also wanted to make it feel more like 3.5, and brought back a lot of the old terminology rather than sticking with the simplified and appropriate keywords of 4E.
Yes, many RUclipsrs have said exactly what you have.
I've been using skill challenges since 4e with no sign of stopping. It crystalized when I saw how the Warhammer RPG uses a similar concept for basically everything. 1 on 1 combat, to full scale war. Here's the kicker, it's for the sake of expediency.
I have three hours to cram as much as possible into a session. My player's love combat but one takes up a third of the game, and two means that most of what I prepped is forfeit. So I smoosh a bunch of stuff into one bit and call for a skill challenge.
During a one-shot session zero for two players to join the other three in town, they had to navigate to a temple in the jungle and from there to the town.
Along the way they navigated a flooded marshland, avoided a clutch of alligators in a river, broke bread with a village of iguanafolk, and helped a wayward injured traveler. One skill challenge, maybe 15 minutes worth of session that if ran nominally would've taken the full three hours.
The players feel involved because they find what THEY roughly expect, which solidifies verisimilitude and world building. It doesn't end up feeling like handwaving, THEY accomplished it. As for failures? Well, I generally have a list of good things and bad things. If they get a failure, one good thing goes away and a bad thing will be part of or the end of a trip. They had one failure, so I had a monkey try to steal their provisions, he was bribed with some local berries instead. Had they bribed him with their food, he would've brought back reinforcements. Sometimes the failures are upon arrival, like the scene they are getting TO is worse off for them. But never, every have the failure STOP the players, fail forward.
A fantastic breakdown of skill challenges. One of the best, and probably misunderstood mechanics from 4e.
I've tried two skill challenges.
First was a puzzle box. Without a physical box, I felt that having to "work for it" made more sense. The players struggled to understand the why, but were ok and passed the challenge.
The next time was to navigate a maze-like cave/mine. There was no map. so their successes were intended to determine how quickly they would navigate, and if they'd find the "right" exit.
I made the mistake of explaining the rules, broke all immersion, and have been fighting "i want to make a perspection check" and "I want to make a check" calls for weeks now.
I want to use this again but... I worry. I think adding initiative will make it better. I do think that laying out the rules (can't use skills twice a round, or more than once per character) didn't help the situation any. They felt like they needed to choose skills instead of making decisions about what the characters do.
If I run one again, I'm going to reduce the number of needed successes, use initiative, and allow considerable freedom in problem solving. I think that adjudicating each round as a success or failure might make more overal sense. That would mean 3 failed rounds would fail the challenge vs just 3 failures.
My players needed to find a fey village that was rumoured to exist in a local forest. Nobody who found it remembered where it was since the fey would put them to sleep and dump them elsewhere.
The players had to make multiple skill checks over the course of several hours to find it. The ranger used survival to try to track them down. He rolled terribly and ran into an owlbear. Next up, the wizard used some spells to follow currents in The Weave to where they are strongest. He rolled well and got them closer. Next up was the druid who had a chat with the trees. He did ok and got them slightly closer. Eventually, they encountered the sprite sentries of the village.
Hell yes! I love using 4e mechanics and i use skill challenges!!
Dungeon Meowster! Great Video. Gonna use this for sure.
my DM would ALWAYS do these in our GURPS sessions, and often they involve life or death and were one of the best moments we had in out tables, it works well especially in systems where you have a lot of skills and a lot of different ways of solving a problem
This really added some spice to my games.
Matt Colville did a great take on how to do things and (so far as I know) introduced the concept, but these nitty gritty details are cool.
I would replace the old chase rules in favor of this skill challenge mechanic. Thanks for the good info!
My old DM ( Rogue Trader, still applies here) engaged my first experience with this. I had to do some showing off in piloting a guncutter (Think Pelican from Halo, with moar gunz). This has stuck with me since, and imo worth checking it out if you haven't tried it
Does anyone realize how amazing Luke is? Like... for real? He's one of like... 3 people I actually "hit the bell" for
Thank you!!!! And I never even ask for anyone to hit the Bell.:-)
@@theDMLair I get why people want it. My other channel is about the same size as yours, but I never ask... feels... forced, or desperate. Even asking people to join Patreon feels forced... at least you offer oodles of stuff for joining
I would probably change the dc throughout the challenge based off of what skills they used before, how they used them, and how well they rolled. Some skills might even have an opposed check to see how effective it was. Saying ‘Yes, finally the guards are arriving to help us’ deception check, if successful, could have an opposed check to see how many enemies looked back and for how long. This could lead to a round at advantage, or the canceling of a single failure as you pull ahead again depending on results. Your other characters may need to do a save or have disadvantage if they look back themselves, done with advantage if this was something that character would do and they know them. Reward good tactics and role play instead of just saying ‘I run’
Skill challenges are great for complex traps. Used one recently with great effect
Bacon is good, skill challenges are amazing if done correctly. Appreciate the June issue moving it to 5e.
Great stuff friend 👏 👍
Actually this is really helpful, I'm going to use this to have my players run through a war torn country whilst their enemies are at their heels.
I have a system similar to this that i call a Cumulative Check system, where by you have a certain number of attempts to succeed at hitting a DC determined by multiplying the difficulty (10 (easily accomplished) to 40 (not humanly possible under normal conditions)) by the number of challenges required by the system. the player tries to determine what skill is best for succeeding, and the DM can adjust the final DC accordingly if sees the skill as being useful or not
if you succeed and still have attempts left, you get a bonus
if you fail and still have attempts left (That is you have attempts left but there is no way to succeed), you get penalized more harshly than a normal failure
For instance: Krush the barbarian, Slips the Rogue, Tuner the bard, and Brash the fighter are running from the town guard starting a bar fight, the number to get away is 45, and they have 3 attempts to get there
Krush selects Athletics, and gets an 8 and an 8, and has no way to make 29 in the next roll, he catastrophically fails, and falls down getting hurt and captured by the guards
Slips selects Stealth gets a 23 and a 22, and succeeds, and slips away unnoticed, and attains a spot where he can watch all the action from
Tuner selects Acrobatics and and gets 20, 8, and 18, tuner gets away
Brash the fighter selects Persuasion, and gets 16 14 and 11, and gets caught normally but doesn't start a fight, or get himself beaten up
I run skill challenges where instead of "rounds" or "minutes" each PC decides what they're going to do for that "moment", whether it's to “contribute” directly to the skill challenge (each PC makes a separate contribution), or “aid” on someone else’s contribution, or “protect” a contribution from consequences (limited to one PC per contribution), or be “on watch” to protect anyone otherwise-unprotected that moment, or “take actions”, GM’s choice of how many. I can elaborate if desired.
I run skill challenges when something unusual is happening. Want to track down and catch that goblin that ran away? Skill Challenge. Want to scout out the site before assaulting the keep? Skill Challenge. Torturing and questioning said goblin you caught? Skill Challenge. Great Video
Not sure if it was mentioned yet but Matt Colville made a video about skill challenges. It was explanatory but not as well as this one I think 🤔.
I like skill challenges because it incorporates the party and not just 1 individual player where everyone else at the table just sits there not playing.
Sounds cool, I'll test it with my party next time :)
Can you please explain to me what the difference is between the options for tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 in the lair magazine?
Awesome material
Skill challenges are something I think I did before they became official. I've always loved using them.
Great video again love the content :)
First Skill challenge I used in my campaign was racing back to town with the dead body of a child in their cart.
If a group fails the skill challenge for bacon, does that mean the bacon is burnt to a crisp, that an enemy eats the bacon or that the pig was never born / fades from existence?
Guessing All for 1 would say "Fireball!!"
Great video! I like that the skill challenge builds group collaboration as well as interest during a teammate's turn.
I took notes Matt ❤️
I don't do this, but I am about to start using progress clocks in my game for more high stakes events. Successes reduce the appropriate clocks while failures accelerate them. Still, might consider this aspect as well (I like the idea of failures making an outcome worse).
Also, I love bacon. I used to joke that I would discover a drug to convert the heart clogging stuff in bacon to good stuff just so I could eat bacon a ton without worry.
You don't even know how much I looooovee bacon.
Another way to retain but not eliminate appropriate skill checks is to have your PCs pre-roll them all at the start of the game. Then just record the rolls for each player and refer to the list when a skill check is required. That way the action or roll playing is not slowed down or interrupted by the roll. Also, my rolls are rarely pass/fail unless the situation calls for it. Rather, they are more or less damage, delay, information, etc. depending upon the roll. Say, hypothetically, I have a 1 to 10 scale of damage for a trap. To “pass”, PC 1 must roll at least a 5, she rolls a 6 so receives no damage. But say she rolled a 4, then she would receive the damage assigned to level 4. PC 2, on the other hand, must roll at least an 8, he rolls an 8 so he receives no damage. But say instead that he rolled a 7, then he would receive the damage assigned to level 7. Damage may be HPs, but it typically also includes a variety of things some of which fit the context for the characters actions and tge specific type or alignment of the characters and some do not, so as DM, I decide what the appropriate and relevant damage will be to that specific PC. When the players tell me what they intend to do, I evaluate it for its cleverness/workability and whether it is in character or not. If it is clever/workable AND in character, I may reduce the negative consequences or increase the positive consequences slightly. If it is not clever or workable AND not in character, I increase the negative consequences or decrease the positive consequences slightly. Otherwise, I do nothing and just go with the results of the roll. I do the same thing for all types of skill checks, those with good and bad consequences. By having the PCs pre-roll, I can simply tell all the PCs what what happens to each of them, rather than having them all stop to roll. That said, there are times when the gameplay SHOULD stop for a roll. At such times, everyone is waiting with anticipation for the PC to “roll” and for the die to finally stop and settle upon a number! I ALWAYS have an actual roll for this type of encounter. I you don’t have at least some rolls, it would not be D&D!
I think that your skill test is interesting and fun but a bit contrived and not very realistic. Why force someone with a low dexterity to walk a tightrope? They should only do so if they are forced to do so. Realistically, they would never voluntarily choose to do so. I think skills should be tested but they should be tested in a realistic way. Like most DMs, I set up encounters that require the use of multiple skill sets to pass (and ideally skill sets that the PCs possess, or could, with more experience, possess). Some encounters and some aspects of these encounters require more or less of each skill set. It is up to the PCs to decide which PCs should take the lead and which should play supporting roles in a given situation or even if they should engage or avoid the encounter at all, given their current skill set. There are times when the klutz must walk the tightrope, but should only be made to do so if they have no other choice.
I love bacon. Just had a bacon breakfast burrito for breakfast. Yum. Though I have a slight problem with skill challenges. I love running them, when I can get them to work, but certain PCs abilities sometimes renders the challenges obsolete.
For instance in your scenario with the PCs being chased, if suddenly the wizard casts teleport and instantly takes the PCs back to the ship, challenge over.
I also play in a Supers game where a GM uses challenges like this. He has forced the challenge at times when a certain PC should have been able to handle the challenge instantly. A house was on fire and a water based character would instantly put out all the flames. Instead of allowing when the PC could do, he only allowed it to work as one success of the challenge and it just felt forced and wrong to do so. Some character can just immediately overcome some challenges.
We played similar situation like fight where enemy only has layer action. But it sounds like something that could be good for some different situations.
Great Video ! I have a few questions (for anyone). I have both ran and participated in skills challenges pretty much how it was described but there always seems to be something off about them...for example, the logic behind forcing characters to NOT USE OTHER ACTIONS (spells, movement, items, etc.) than skill checks AND forcing them to NOT USE THE SAME SKILLS twice ..I understand that it is designed that way to prevent players from always using the same skill, but it defies logic..
In the Gnoll infested Island escape scenario, why forcing everyone to roll skill checks instead of, let''s say, cast Dimension Door, Teleport, Haste or polymorph into a bird or Cheetah, or cast Plant Growth to slow them down..it's unnatural and feels odd...
I do want to make use of skills challenges but I'm wondering how others are circumventing these "forced" actions.
I think you could even argue someone taking an attack action to help the party advance forward. Someone shooting an arrow might slow the knolls down (a poor man's suppressive fire), could also be done with spells. Or if the knolls had laid some traps in the jungle, as you avoid a trip wire and cut it as you jump over to slow the knolls down.
I wonder if it would be better if the # of successes have potential goals/links to them. So running out of a jungle needs 3 successes related to movement covered (acrobatics, athletics, maybe a survival check for the best path back to the boat), 2 successes related to slowing the gnolls down (maybe intimidation or performance to confuse them) and maybe 1 free success based on character's cleverness (ducking behind trees with stealth to mislead where you are going, nature check to burn some leaves that cause a nauseating scent that irritates the gnolls). You don't tell the players exactly what needs to be done, so they might hit the goals a few times.
Good interesting video! Thanks mate. I like only the "bacon" labelled 'This is not Bacon'. It's the same, but without all the pig or cancer/heart attack (human) death! 🥓🥓❤️
Nice shirt Luke, my family bought me the same one for x-mas :)
**rolls for deception** I LOVE BACON!
RUclips I love bacon, and the DM lair does not suck
I am Canadian and i really do love bacon. You do not suck. This is a comment and it should give you the feeling of' Warm Internet Snuggly Hugs' (WiSH). You can use this WiSH without that dreaded 1/3 stress-chance that causes you to never cast this beloved spell ever again.
Sent to my dm. She likes to make things "real" I love this idea for skill challenges
Just to boast with my 5 cents.
I once designed chase-through-goblin-horde encounter with a pack of cards.
Every PC was riding a horse: slow, normal or fast. Depending on that, EACH character should have won 2, 3 or 4 out of 5 encounters or have grim consequences.
Players picked a card in turns, and effect depended on value and suit of a card. Hearts was basically a free success. Diamonds was skill checks based. Spades was saving throws based. Clubs was attack based. And bigger the value resulted in harsher DC.
If player A failed or couldn't imagine anything appropriate to the situation each card represented, another player B could help and suggest action and try to pass checks instead, while failing at their turn automatically. However, if a player has already won necessary number of encounters, they could help another for free. Players also couldn't use same checks/saves through rounds, each player couldn't use same checks/saves at all.
I would say that went better than I expected, everyone barely get out, yet had a shit-ton of fun.
I employ what I call a “chain of harm” (or its opposite - the “chain of benefits”) analysis. In order for a harm or a benefit to occur to a specific target (which can be anything a PC, a magic item, a group of PCs, a village, a NPC, a monster etc), a phenomenon capable of causing harm or benefit to that target must be present (if random, roll, could be periodic, such as a tide), the target must be exposed to the phenomenon (roll?), the target must be vulnerable to the exposure (roll?), an there must be significant consequences associated with that target’s vulnerability (roll?). The target must be narrowly defined. The COH or COB must be defined at the level of and specific to the target. The target AND it’s critical life support functions must also be defined as the target can be harmed/benefited both directly and indirectly (via its life-support system). The goal is to break the COH or to facilitate the COB, as early as possible. The COH and COB analysis is scalable and can be applied to a target of any size up to and including the entire world. I make use of the COH and COB explicitly or implicitly in all encounters that take place in my world and in fact to its design, faction goals, etc. Harmful phenomena can be inanimate non-living or animate living things (the later possessing agency). At each connection of the chain ask Who? What?, When? Where?, Why?, How Much? etc. If you do, you will have a very well thought out highly relevant descriptive encounters for your PCs. If the PCs are responsible for the hazardous or beneficial phenomenon, have them describe THEIR actions in terms of the COH or COB that they wish to create. If the don’t prompt them for it? What is the intended target’s response to these actions? A COH and COB may also have delayed or long-term consequences for a given target or its life support system or for the targets and life-support systems of other targets with which it interacts. Inactions as well as actions can produce COHs or COBs. The DM should note these consequential actions and inactions that occur in encounters and adjust the response of the affected portion of the world accordingly. Thus you have a living breathing responsive world. The next time that portion of the world is encountered will thus be different than the first time it was encountered.
I love skill challenges, if I can I try to make one scene per one shot that uses this system with intention and the outcome will shape the rest of the game
Okay, Luke! You asked for it:
After decades of playing this game (and my increasing disgust with TSR/WotC for their constantly changing the rules, with each successive edition getting both oversimplified, overpowered, and overly complex), I decided to part way with the publishers, and come up with mine own system for handling skill, proficiencies, and feats.
Firstly, I needed to define such. A skill is a singular activity any given character may attempt under life and death/situations of high stress situations. Those two terms are important; given enough time, a character may have a reasonable chance of success. But put that same character in a life-threatening situation, and the chances of success diminish greatly. (That's where the DC comes in, modified by ability scores and experience.)
Second, a proficiency is a group of related skills, when combined, allow any given character to attempt a range of related actions. (Like combat, for instance--and NO wearing armor is NOT A SKILL!! I've worn and fought in armor for many years, and doing so does not require a special skill. That's just one example of how screwy the game has become.)
Third, a feat is a skill or skill set (eg a proficiency) that is truly next level, OMG, that halfling did WHAT!? type of skill or skill set.
These come together to form the basis of what a character can do UNDER GREAT STRESS. (it stands to reason that should they attempt such in more favorable situations, their chances of success will be much higher...usually. Just beware when the DM starts to grin. Which I often do, just to mess with my players' squishy brains...!)
How much each skill, proficiency and/or feat costs to obtain depends on how difficult a skill, proficiency and/or feat is. (I find the easiest for me is to adhere to the 2nd Edition proficiency costs.)
There are two broad categories of such: Combat and Non-combat (yes, I changed the nomenclature, to more closely adhere to how we played; it sure makes more sense than Weapons and Non-weapons Proficiencies). Regardless, there's some overlap, as there are certain skill, etc, in the Non-combat category that can apply to Combat.
The cost of these skills, proficiencies and/or feats also varies by the level of difficulty, or how difficult they are to perform. (This one's a bit tricky.) For instance, they fall into one of the following levels of ability: non-skilled/in-proficient, basic, advanced, expert, and adept. Non-skilled is just that: you don't got game. Maybe, if you had all the time in the world, you could do it. But under life and death situations? Well, one could make an unskilled check (go on, I dare you!). Basic is just that. You're not a complete embarrassment. But you're still a noob. Advanced means you're doin' alright: you can handle that weapon okay, you can use your skill/proficiency with a reasonable chance of success. (Just don't try taking on three pit fiends by yourself!) And adept? You can do [insert skill] like a user of magic! How in fleebus does he DO that!? kind of thing).
Of course, the higher the difficulty, the more it costs to obtain. Which usually translates into experience/time spent training. Also, certain skill/proficiencies/feats are more difficult, if not impossible to obtain by certain character classes. I know that flies in the face of 5th Edition's "you can be/do anything you want" vibe, but them's the breaks: Wizards do not start out with any skill in weapons; they have to train to obtain it, because magic is their main class skill. Whereas Warriors... Get the picture?
Admittedly, this system requires a great deal of thought and effort on the part of the DM to make it work. But really, there is no substitute for a DM not using his brain. In my experience, if one has a thoughtless DM, then one doesn't have a game at all.
So! Luke, keep on eating as much bacon as you can! Peace~
I like the idea of degrees of success
Good ideas
Luke's Skill Challenge: find the six strips of real bacon before stumbling across the three strips made from sextant.
The Challenge I presented to my players: keep to the forest and get the drop on the Gnoll encampment so they can pick off the Gnolls in small groups. Overall success.
Dammit, Luke, I want bacon and I am at work. D:< Thanks a lot!
Though seriously, I haven’t used skill challenges yet but I hope to use it one day.
I have seen different takes on Skill Challenges adaptation for 5e, but I feel that there is something that is always missing: how the number of players affect it. If you have 8 players (gosh, I know) and you ask for 6 successes, it can happen that 2 players dont even get to contribute. If you have 3 players and ask for 8 successes, since they cannot repeat their good skills, there is a good chance the group fails. Luke, do you have a recommendation how to adapt based on the amount of player, even if it is exclusively in the magazine?
Perhaps maybe use a tag-team challenge where two players work together to pass the challenge.
Example: the bard and the barbarian team up for a Persuasion/Intimidation check. One rolls with advantage while the other helps.
Or maybe the druid wildshapes into an ape and the ranger uses their survival skill to point out hand and footholds as they climb up the Cliffside?
I know this comment is a year old, but the way I run Skill Challenges is each Round is a Success or Failure. If at least half the party succeeds, that's a success. Otherwise, that's a failure. Everything else follows the same from there. It's just when the success or failure is counted. Each player says they're trying to do, and makes their check. I then use that information to narrate how that round goes. This guarantees everyone gets a few attempts at least.
imma be real with ya chief, can't believe you're dropping 'lol bacon' gags this side of 2009 tbh
RUclips Algorithm interaction. Thanks for making this outline for skill challenges!
I legit thought this was already in the DMG. 👀
edit: Ok, after hearing all the details, nothing this structured is in 5e. I think I'd run something a bit less rigid, myself, depending on what makes sense in the moment.
I confess I very much disagree with his "you can't use the same ability" approach. Why not? If you're running from a army of gnolls, the ranger and the monk can both use athletics to take difficult paths.
Don't restrict RP in the name of making the challenge more interactive. It's about the RP, not about the challenge.
@@MJ-jd7rs tbh, I'd rather have the players tell me what they're doing, and then _I'd_ tell them what skill to use.
Cannibalistic gnolls eat gnolls, so unless the party contains gnolls, they should be fine!
44 seconds in and I agree so heartily that you get a thumbs up.
I agree.
4th edition has a LOT of really good stuff.
At some point i will cover more D&D 4e stuff.
D&D 4e is actually a great system to hunt through for new mechanics for D&D 5e.
Thank you for the 👍 & ❤ @ Luke hart.
This is such a cool idea, but I have never gotten it to work for my groups.
Great video Luke but no one has explained skill challenges?
*stares in Dungeon Coach*
nobody can live without bacon
I generally don't call for skills checks just ability checks based on description. I want my players to think way out of the box and I find that skill lists limit rather than expand. But the idea of having a challenge with X victories and Y failures might be interesting.
If you find skill lists limiting, skill challenges with only make that worse.