Setup: I'm planning out a forest encounter that I'd like to give a little more depth to it by turning into a chase on horseback.
I've read over the rules for Chase in DMG and I cannot see how any tension can be drawn from it as if one person manages to get a sizable lead then the opposing enemy has no chance of catching up. Honestly, the rules just do not feel...well...fun.
Have anyone had success using the Chase rules from the DMG? Any tips on doing chases that may bring more excitement and drama to the encounter? Or have you used any alternative rules for chases?
Colville recommends using a Skill Challenge from 4E instead.
Let's say they need to get 4 successes before 3 failures... each failure the enemy is catching up. Each success they get further ahead. Players describe what they are doing and the DM narrates the results.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Colville recommends using a Skill Challenge from 4E instead.
Let's say they need to get 4 successes before 3 failures... each failure the enemy is catching up. Each success they get further ahead. Players describe what they are doing and the DM narrates the results.
I just watched this video where he explained the group "Skill Challenge" it was really good with the exception player to have the 'proficiency in a skill to use it' for the challenge. I may change that the player has to roll disadvantage for the check but also concern that is almost setting them up for failure. Colville has a point about wanting to make the characters with the proficiency feel special using a proficient skill (The Ranger with Animal Handling) and challenge for those others (The Wizard who has little skill riding a running horse.)
Traps! Traps! And more traps! Possibly some things in the trees as well
I was considering Traps as well but my main goal is how to make the actual chase work with a certain amount of drama and then working on the complications once the framework is set.
I wouldn't discount the chase rules entirely. In this instance though the rules as written should put a lot of emphasis on the capacity of the mounts. Most horse stats have a +1 CON meaning horses are even on the dash. You may give the +2 proficiency to exhaustion checks to some but not all the mounts depending on whether the horse is racer/chaser horse.
Also, yes, after a certain amount of time distance is established where the pursued either "gets away" or the pursued gets overrun. This is how chases and races work. I think the DMBs' chase hazards table works fine in addition.
As for attacks, everyone's shooting at the mounts, right?
Is Colville's throwback really recommending something dramatically different from RAW? I mean in 5E sure you have dash options up to 4+CON bonus (in which case, sure, maybe the results are already decided), but then subsequent dashes are determined via CON checks or exhaustion sets in. If it was a foot chase, I'd allow athletics to be added to CON. I may give or take a +1 to a mounts proficiency depending on whether it was a trained chaser etc. Once the pursued get out of "sight" of the pursuers, they can take their opposed stealth check to see if they've lost the pursuit. The present system if anything works more spatially and can be graphically rendered to chart position.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I just watched this video where he explained the group "Skill Challenge" it was really good with the exception player to have the 'proficiency in a skill to use it' for the challenge. I may change that the player has to roll disadvantage for the check but also concern that is almost setting them up for failure. Colville has a point about wanting to make the characters with the proficiency feel special using a proficient skill (The Ranger with Animal Handling) and challenge for those others (The Wizard who has little skill riding a running horse.)
I've run 3 skill challenges. 2 required proficiencies and one did not. The one that did not came first, because I forgot that rule. I let anyone roll anything. The 2nd one, I required proficiencies but everyone had one in the 3 most relevant skills, so they were good. Finally the 3rd time, which was just travel, I required proficiency and the problem was, one of them (who by initiative ended up going 2 or 3 times) had ZERO skills that would have worked, so he did things like, persuade the ranger to find an easier way through the woods. I let it go, because everyone should get a skill roll but... my party is small enough (4 PCs, and one player has been absent more than Ashley on Critical Role so I mostly play him as an NPC, and don't let NPCs participate in the skill challenge) that I am going to just let them roll whether proficient or not. The proficient characters get a bonus, after all.
Colville's proficiency rule is there to make sure that the non-proficient characters don't, by getting lucky, outshine the proficient ones who should have the skill. But in a skill challenge, the ranger is already going to do her nature or survival check on her turn, so it's not a big deal if the sorcerer does his own.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I just watched this video where he explained the group "Skill Challenge" it was really good with the exception player to have the 'proficiency in a skill to use it' for the challenge. I may change that the player has to roll disadvantage for the check but also concern that is almost setting them up for failure. Colville has a point about wanting to make the characters with the proficiency feel special using a proficient skill (The Ranger with Animal Handling) and challenge for those others (The Wizard who has little skill riding a running horse.)
I've run 3 skill challenges. 2 required proficiencies and one did not. The one that did not came first, because I forgot that rule. I let anyone roll anything. The 2nd one, I required proficiencies but everyone had one in the 3 most relevant skills, so they were good. Finally the 3rd time, which was just travel, I required proficiency and the problem was, one of them (who by initiative ended up going 2 or 3 times) had ZERO skills that would have worked, so he did things like, persuade the ranger to find an easier way through the woods. I let it go, because everyone should get a skill roll but... my party is small enough (4 PCs, and one player has been absent more than Ashley on Critical Role so I mostly play him as an NPC, and don't let NPCs participate in the skill challenge) that I am going to just let them roll whether proficient or not. The proficient characters get a bonus, after all.
Colville's proficiency rule is there to make sure that the non-proficient characters don't, by getting lucky, outshine the proficient ones who should have the skill. But in a skill challenge, the ranger is already going to do her nature or survival check on her turn, so it's not a big deal if the sorcerer does his own.
I think I’m confusing myself now that I try to apply the rules to paper.
Am I understanding this right for a 6 success 3 failure skill challenge each group check represent one turn where a tick for success or failure is based on the total result. So it would be at max nine check turns if it came down to the wire
Since this is a chase when it came to the proficiency requirements how did you handle those check turns where they have no proficiency to use even something to help others. Also did you use the use skill only once rule?
I figure that animal handling, insight and Dex would be a good three but now only one player qualifies for all three where the rest is only the dex check. if they cannot make the check they cannot make a roll? That would complicate matters.
im trying to find some example because now I’m not sure I understand how this is suppose to work or if my players would even have a chance, slight may it be, for success.
I have not used a skill challenge with a chase. I used it for 2 trips over land and one fight with the "Thing in the Portal" from the 4E module "Keep on the Shadowfell" (I used only the portal and the ritual challenge, nothing else).
6 vs. 3 is a VERY hard challenge. I have used 4-3 or 5-3... The 5-3 one was darn close. The 5-3 also allowed repeat uses of relevant skills.
Before the SC, I have them all roll "initiative." They make checks in "initiative order". After each person has made 1 check, 1 "round" of skill checks has passed, and we go back to the top of the order. I used "one skill only once" the last time we did it... this was kind of a nightmare. Nobody complained, but 2 of the 3 PCs had 1 or 0 relevant skills so people were pulling all kinds of stuff out of their you know where to come up with something they could actually do on their turn.
Again with a small party, I think the proficiency requirement is probably a bad idea. Even the ranger only had 2 relevant skills.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I would avoid strict proficiency/relevant skill requirements. If an "unskilled" PC can think of a relevant way to participate, that should be good enough. A wizard with no relevant skills, but has Expeditious Retreat, the 3x movement rate (action, movement, bonus action) might allow them to make an otherwise unavailable check to progress (or some variation thereof).
Yeah, the skill requirement idea felt wrong the first time I heard it, and talking it out hear strengthened it would not be good to implement for the encounter.
With that said I've found a flaw in doing a skill challenge such as a horse chase and that is managing the horses themselves (in particular, when would a horse use a Dash action). I'm mulling that the based on the character skills chosen to use would activate a Dash and then limited the number of that Action based on the rules from the DMG Chase
During the chase, a participant can freely use the Dash action a number of times equal to 3 + its Constitution modifier. Each additional Dash action it takes during the chase requires the creature to succeed on a DC 10 Constitution check at the end of its turn or gain one level of exhaustion.
Though that should give equal say for the enemy to use the Dash action as well. Now it's getting complicated and starts to break up the point of the skill challenge.
Unless...and I'm just type talking here.
Players get one "Animal Handling" skill check that uses the dash action to give the horses an extra boost, if they pass that test then the horse double their distance. Applying the one limit use of skill check does manage some of the chase distance the characters would create but then what's the point of a chase if the chasee cannot escape the chaser.
Eh, getting a little discouraged trying to visualize how the rules could be bent to make this work, to which I can see the party stopping the chase drawing weapons, and attacking regardless of the odds and the time I've spent trying to make the encounter something different.
I don't think that "using the Dash action" is necessary at all in a skill challenge. The skill challenge is a narrative device. So the player would say something like, "I use my animal handling skill to cry out to all the horses and encourage them to run faster." You as DM set the DC and say "Roll your AH skill." The player rolls, and succeeds. You then narrate, "You all hear Arwen cry out Noro lim, Asfaloth, noro lim! and all the horses, even though you already thought they were running their fastest, pick up their pace and thunder across the river ford and into Rivendell Vale."
With a skill challenge, one does not normally do things like track movement on a battle grid. It is an open-ended and more abstract narration, meant to substitute (at least in the Colville method) for the hex-by-hex tracking of a chase.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I don't think that "using the Dash action" is necessary at all in a skill challenge. The skill challenge is a narrative device. So the player would say something like, "I use my animal handling skill to cry out to all the horses and encourage them to run faster." You as DM set the DC and say "Roll your AH skill." The player rolls, and succeeds. You then narrate, "You all hear Arwen cry out Noro lim, Asfaloth, noro lim! and all the horses, even though you already thought they were running their fastest, pick up their pace and thunder across the river ford and into Rivendell Vale."
With a skill challenge, one does not normally do things like track movement on a battle grid. It is an open-ended and more abstract narration, meant to substitute (at least in the Colville method) for the hex-by-hex tracking of a chase.
I see what you are saying and something I need to remind myself of the narrative point of view. Also, I'm taking your suggestion and lowering the success to failure ratio to something more manageable based on this is the first time I'm attempting a skill challenge.
Again, I have not done a chase, but when I do a Skill Challenge for overland travel, I break it up into segments. Each success gets them 1/N of the way there, with N being the number of successes. Say it is an easy one, 3 successes before 3 failures. They are going 3 days. Each success gets them to a safe campsite for the night. A failure leads to some trouble during the day. Maybe two troubles if they fail twice. One of the sprains an ankle and is at disadvantage to all movement-based checks for the next little while (unless healed). A wandering monster comes by and decides they'd make a nice snack. That kind of thing.
Again it is abstract... you don't do a hexcrawl with a Skill Challenge. You replace the hexcrawl with the skill challenge. Same with a chase... you don't use Dash, feet of movement, and a battle-mat when running a skill challenge chase. You replace the grid and the measured movement with the narrative of the challenge.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
So this is what I worked out and what I will attempt to play at my table tonight. Though I expect with all the effort I've tried in understanding this type of mechanic that the players will find a way to turn around and engage in combat. Still, it is something good to have in my DM toolbox to make things different.
Chase (5 Success vs 3 failures)
Players Chased by multiple Swarm Of Twig Blights (Homebrew, think of large rolling tumbleweeds of twig blights that can throw thorns)
On Success: Players outdistance the Swarm of Twig Blights On Failure: Swarm overtakes players and kills the horses, athletics check to avoid being crushed by the horses thus forcing combat.
I've not read the rules for a chase but would probably look at railroading for the route (there is a clear track, and dense trees unsuitable for horses on either side) and then set up a series of encounters along said route which would require quick thinking and skill checks to get through, and how successfully they get through it will determine how much they avoid being peppered with thorns or caught up.
Examples of encounters I'd put in place:
a tree is blocking the path, and needs to be jumped or bypassed, skill check to stay in the saddle. I'd assume the horses are trained to jump, to avoid one just stopping and a player being left behind. Failure will impose disadvantage on the next encounter as the player struggles to get back into the right position
low hanging branches, perception checks to notice, and then dexterity to avoid being hit if they do notice. See if any players at the front think to shout a warning! same as above, being hit wrong-saddles them and makes the next checks have disadvantage. Advantage to dexterity roll for small characters!
An ambush from the side, and the horses spook. Use if the pursuit is falling behind, so a fresh one can be at their heels. animal handling to get the horses to calm down.
an open stretch, where a horse can gallop but can also break a leg if it steps wrong. Perception roll, on a 5 or less (IE a really bad roll) the horse goes down. On a 1 the horse is out of action, though healing spells might save it if you have time.
Another ambush, this time with individual blights attempting to jump onto the horses, allowing a brief on-horse combat
A corner, and a fork in the road with another corner. If other players are too far ahead, it's perception to work out which way they went. Both tracks lead the same way, but one goes up an along the ridge of a canyon, the other goes through the canyon. Players will be able to see each other from the two paths.
I would also give the players speeds for their horses (walk, trot, canter, gallop) and make these speeds appropriate for different encounters, and also to keep the party together (if they try to!). approach a corner too fast and you might get slammed into a canyon wall by the horse, and have to try to stay on whilst taking D6 bludgeoning damage. Kind of like a mini-game.
The thing about a chase on horseback through a forest is that it is inherently hazardous. Low lying branches, fallen timber, sudden streams, animal burrow holes. All have the chance to slow or stop both the pursuers or pursued. A lot of people have injured or died in riding accidents (there's a reason those cute caps equestrians wear are really helmets in disguise.)
On the other hand, even if the fleeing subject opens up the distance, instead of a pel-mel chase, you now have tracking exercise. A blind hamster could follow the signs left behind by a thousand pound shod horse through the woods UNLESS the quarry tries some trick or other to remove
The environmental factors in the above two comments fit well into the RAW (and actually, the twig blight cloud encounter that's the impetus for this thread is basically a buffed up "insect swarm" complication from the outdoors chase complication table). I appreciate the idea of taking the present move speed and dash speed system and replacing it with four speeds, this is reflective of something done in other game systems with more thought out dynamic encounter rules, especially when how fast you're moving affects perception, but I think it's a layer of crunch that goes against 5e streamlining IMHO.
The way the RAW set things up is that chases are basically an exercise in dash management ... you get 3 +CON modifier dashes granted to you (or your mount). After you burn up those dashes, subsequent dashes require a DC 10 CON check or gain a level of exhaustion, when your exhaustion hits 5, you're move is 0 and you're basically done. Question arises whether you want to have the chase entirely predicated on the mount's CON and maybe athletics, or give some advantage to riders actually proficient in animal handling (able to eek out more from their animal). This system works well for both a planned "the chase is on encounter" as well as a "run away! run away" decision in a dungeon.
Possible maneuver could be outriding and flanking. Where you have the pursued and pursuers being on whose spatial orientation the DM keeps track of, but also a "flanker" who is trying to get ahead of the pursuit and cut them off.
It's interesting, chases and pursuits are a big part of the genre D&D tries to capture, but it's tactical rules seem largely based on combat within narrowly defined spatial boundaries (maybe legacy of a system that way back designed dungeons that didn't work organically, you'd fight monster in room 1, which in no substantial way affects how the encounters are set up in the rest of the dungeon).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
So...I almost TPK the group with the skills challenge.
The Challenge"
Chase (5 Success vs 3 failures)
Players Chased by multiple Swarm Of Twig Blights (Homebrew, think of large rolling tumbleweeds of twig blights that can throw thorns)
On Success: Players outdistance the Swarm of Twig Blights On Failure: Swarm overtakes players and kills the horses, athletics check to avoid being crushed by the horses thus forcing combat.
Avoidance of failures but could take damage: Acrobatics, Perception
At the start, it went really well and the players bought into the skill challenge right away. I gave them a heads up explaining how it works and what I'll be looking for from them and some of the basic core concepts to skill challenges. Most notably, this is the first time running it and we may have a few bumps in the road.
It was a 5/3 challenge with some pretty easy skills already outlined that could be used and at one point they were up to three successes to one failure. A great move by the Ranger was casting speak with animals and then calming the horses to keep focused and to not be scared. All the players were into it they really enjoyed where things were going and knew what the consequences were with failures.
Then things went downhill.
The wizard tried to cast a minor illusion to create a fire in front of the swarm of twig blights hoping that it would cause them to freak out and allow the party time to get some distance. I thought it was a good idea until the wizard realized after casting the spell that it only a five-foot image of fire. As there were multiple swarms the small illusion did not do much to dissuade their advancements. He failed the consequences of avoiding the thorns and took some significant damage.
Then rogue tried to do something that overwhelmingly was not helpful but was determined to follow through, unfortunately, it came with a high DC on a skill she was already weak in. She failed. She also failed the consequences of avoiding the thorns and took some significant damage.
3/3, Challenge Over
The swarm overtook the party and bowled over them and the horses to pretty much-shredding everything in their path resulting in death and carnage. The wizard and rogue were both to zero and dying, the monk, ranger, and warlock were down to less than five hit-points apiece and the swarm was returning.
What happened next is out of scope for this thread but the party lived but had a very humbling experience to have their lives intact.
For me, it was a learning experience. In an after-action review, I feel like I did a few things wrong both in the execution of the challenge and judgment calls making on what DC should be for success on the skills being challenged. The biggest mistake I made was not having a lower success threshold, the idea for this encounter was more for the tense narrative of a chase, and sure take some damage or two to ratchet things up, but almost TPK at the end was never my intention. The dice just rolled where they did and I was 'too mad with power!' that I forgot my intention and kept to the hard rules. I'm sure even from the brief play-by-play you could find some faults with what I did.
The group enjoyed the challenge enough that I'll bring it back, one player indicated "we just got our butts handed to us by rolling bushes", but this was a much more tense and drama-filled encounter than the standard chase would have given.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Setup: I'm planning out a forest encounter that I'd like to give a little more depth to it by turning into a chase on horseback.
I've read over the rules for Chase in DMG and I cannot see how any tension can be drawn from it as if one person manages to get a sizable lead then the opposing enemy has no chance of catching up. Honestly, the rules just do not feel...well...fun.
Have anyone had success using the Chase rules from the DMG? Any tips on doing chases that may bring more excitement and drama to the encounter? Or have you used any alternative rules for chases?
Colville recommends using a Skill Challenge from 4E instead.
Let's say they need to get 4 successes before 3 failures... each failure the enemy is catching up. Each success they get further ahead. Players describe what they are doing and the DM narrates the results.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Traps! Traps! And more traps! Possibly some things in the trees as well
Enjoy my magic items, spells, monsters, my race, and a few feats. And GIVE ME FEEDBACK... or else.
Like what I say?
⬐ Just press this little guy right here.
I just watched this video where he explained the group "Skill Challenge" it was really good with the exception player to have the 'proficiency in a skill to use it' for the challenge. I may change that the player has to roll disadvantage for the check but also concern that is almost setting them up for failure. Colville has a point about wanting to make the characters with the proficiency feel special using a proficient skill (The Ranger with Animal Handling) and challenge for those others (The Wizard who has little skill riding a running horse.)
I was considering Traps as well but my main goal is how to make the actual chase work with a certain amount of drama and then working on the complications once the framework is set.
I wouldn't discount the chase rules entirely. In this instance though the rules as written should put a lot of emphasis on the capacity of the mounts. Most horse stats have a +1 CON meaning horses are even on the dash. You may give the +2 proficiency to exhaustion checks to some but not all the mounts depending on whether the horse is racer/chaser horse.
Also, yes, after a certain amount of time distance is established where the pursued either "gets away" or the pursued gets overrun. This is how chases and races work. I think the DMBs' chase hazards table works fine in addition.
As for attacks, everyone's shooting at the mounts, right?
Is Colville's throwback really recommending something dramatically different from RAW? I mean in 5E sure you have dash options up to 4+CON bonus (in which case, sure, maybe the results are already decided), but then subsequent dashes are determined via CON checks or exhaustion sets in. If it was a foot chase, I'd allow athletics to be added to CON. I may give or take a +1 to a mounts proficiency depending on whether it was a trained chaser etc. Once the pursued get out of "sight" of the pursuers, they can take their opposed stealth check to see if they've lost the pursuit. The present system if anything works more spatially and can be graphically rendered to chart position.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I've run 3 skill challenges. 2 required proficiencies and one did not. The one that did not came first, because I forgot that rule. I let anyone roll anything. The 2nd one, I required proficiencies but everyone had one in the 3 most relevant skills, so they were good. Finally the 3rd time, which was just travel, I required proficiency and the problem was, one of them (who by initiative ended up going 2 or 3 times) had ZERO skills that would have worked, so he did things like, persuade the ranger to find an easier way through the woods. I let it go, because everyone should get a skill roll but... my party is small enough (4 PCs, and one player has been absent more than Ashley on Critical Role so I mostly play him as an NPC, and don't let NPCs participate in the skill challenge) that I am going to just let them roll whether proficient or not. The proficient characters get a bonus, after all.
Colville's proficiency rule is there to make sure that the non-proficient characters don't, by getting lucky, outshine the proficient ones who should have the skill. But in a skill challenge, the ranger is already going to do her nature or survival check on her turn, so it's not a big deal if the sorcerer does his own.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think I’m confusing myself now that I try to apply the rules to paper.
Am I understanding this right for a 6 success 3 failure skill challenge each group check represent one turn where a tick for success or failure is based on the total result. So it would be at max nine check turns if it came down to the wire
Since this is a chase when it came to the proficiency requirements how did you handle those check turns where they have no proficiency to use even something to help others. Also did you use the use skill only once rule?
I figure that animal handling, insight and Dex would be a good three but now only one player qualifies for all three where the rest is only the dex check. if they cannot make the check they cannot make a roll? That would complicate matters.
im trying to find some example because now I’m not sure I understand how this is suppose to work or if my players would even have a chance, slight may it be, for success.
I have not used a skill challenge with a chase. I used it for 2 trips over land and one fight with the "Thing in the Portal" from the 4E module "Keep on the Shadowfell" (I used only the portal and the ritual challenge, nothing else).
6 vs. 3 is a VERY hard challenge. I have used 4-3 or 5-3... The 5-3 one was darn close. The 5-3 also allowed repeat uses of relevant skills.
Before the SC, I have them all roll "initiative." They make checks in "initiative order". After each person has made 1 check, 1 "round" of skill checks has passed, and we go back to the top of the order. I used "one skill only once" the last time we did it... this was kind of a nightmare. Nobody complained, but 2 of the 3 PCs had 1 or 0 relevant skills so people were pulling all kinds of stuff out of their you know where to come up with something they could actually do on their turn.
Again with a small party, I think the proficiency requirement is probably a bad idea. Even the ranger only had 2 relevant skills.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I would avoid strict proficiency/relevant skill requirements. If an "unskilled" PC can think of a relevant way to participate, that should be good enough. A wizard with no relevant skills, but has Expeditious Retreat, the 3x movement rate (action, movement, bonus action) might allow them to make an otherwise unavailable check to progress (or some variation thereof).
Yeah, the skill requirement idea felt wrong the first time I heard it, and talking it out hear strengthened it would not be good to implement for the encounter.
With that said I've found a flaw in doing a skill challenge such as a horse chase and that is managing the horses themselves (in particular, when would a horse use a Dash action). I'm mulling that the based on the character skills chosen to use would activate a Dash and then limited the number of that Action based on the rules from the DMG Chase
Though that should give equal say for the enemy to use the Dash action as well. Now it's getting complicated and starts to break up the point of the skill challenge.
Unless...and I'm just type talking here.
Players get one "Animal Handling" skill check that uses the dash action to give the horses an extra boost, if they pass that test then the horse double their distance. Applying the one limit use of skill check does manage some of the chase distance the characters would create but then what's the point of a chase if the chasee cannot escape the chaser.
Eh, getting a little discouraged trying to visualize how the rules could be bent to make this work, to which I can see the party stopping the chase drawing weapons, and attacking regardless of the odds and the time I've spent trying to make the encounter something different.
I don't think that "using the Dash action" is necessary at all in a skill challenge. The skill challenge is a narrative device. So the player would say something like, "I use my animal handling skill to cry out to all the horses and encourage them to run faster." You as DM set the DC and say "Roll your AH skill." The player rolls, and succeeds. You then narrate, "You all hear Arwen cry out Noro lim, Asfaloth, noro lim! and all the horses, even though you already thought they were running their fastest, pick up their pace and thunder across the river ford and into Rivendell Vale."
With a skill challenge, one does not normally do things like track movement on a battle grid. It is an open-ended and more abstract narration, meant to substitute (at least in the Colville method) for the hex-by-hex tracking of a chase.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I see what you are saying and something I need to remind myself of the narrative point of view. Also, I'm taking your suggestion and lowering the success to failure ratio to something more manageable based on this is the first time I'm attempting a skill challenge.
Again, I have not done a chase, but when I do a Skill Challenge for overland travel, I break it up into segments. Each success gets them 1/N of the way there, with N being the number of successes. Say it is an easy one, 3 successes before 3 failures. They are going 3 days. Each success gets them to a safe campsite for the night. A failure leads to some trouble during the day. Maybe two troubles if they fail twice. One of the sprains an ankle and is at disadvantage to all movement-based checks for the next little while (unless healed). A wandering monster comes by and decides they'd make a nice snack. That kind of thing.
Again it is abstract... you don't do a hexcrawl with a Skill Challenge. You replace the hexcrawl with the skill challenge. Same with a chase... you don't use Dash, feet of movement, and a battle-mat when running a skill challenge chase. You replace the grid and the measured movement with the narrative of the challenge.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
So this is what I worked out and what I will attempt to play at my table tonight. Though I expect with all the effort I've tried in understanding this type of mechanic that the players will find a way to turn around and engage in combat. Still, it is something good to have in my DM toolbox to make things different.
Chase (5 Success vs 3 failures)
Players Chased by multiple Swarm Of Twig Blights (Homebrew, think of large rolling tumbleweeds of twig blights that can throw thorns)
On Success: Players outdistance the Swarm of Twig Blights
On Failure: Swarm overtakes players and kills the horses, athletics check to avoid being crushed by the horses thus forcing combat.
Core Skill: Animal Handling, Insight, Dexterity
Secondary Skills: Intimidate, Strength, Survival
On failure Thorns (ranged weapon): 5d4
Avoidance of failures but could take damage: Acrobatics, Perception
Sounds cool to me.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I've not read the rules for a chase but would probably look at railroading for the route (there is a clear track, and dense trees unsuitable for horses on either side) and then set up a series of encounters along said route which would require quick thinking and skill checks to get through, and how successfully they get through it will determine how much they avoid being peppered with thorns or caught up.
Examples of encounters I'd put in place:
a tree is blocking the path, and needs to be jumped or bypassed, skill check to stay in the saddle. I'd assume the horses are trained to jump, to avoid one just stopping and a player being left behind. Failure will impose disadvantage on the next encounter as the player struggles to get back into the right position
low hanging branches, perception checks to notice, and then dexterity to avoid being hit if they do notice. See if any players at the front think to shout a warning! same as above, being hit wrong-saddles them and makes the next checks have disadvantage. Advantage to dexterity roll for small characters!
An ambush from the side, and the horses spook. Use if the pursuit is falling behind, so a fresh one can be at their heels. animal handling to get the horses to calm down.
an open stretch, where a horse can gallop but can also break a leg if it steps wrong. Perception roll, on a 5 or less (IE a really bad roll) the horse goes down. On a 1 the horse is out of action, though healing spells might save it if you have time.
Another ambush, this time with individual blights attempting to jump onto the horses, allowing a brief on-horse combat
A corner, and a fork in the road with another corner. If other players are too far ahead, it's perception to work out which way they went. Both tracks lead the same way, but one goes up an along the ridge of a canyon, the other goes through the canyon. Players will be able to see each other from the two paths.
I would also give the players speeds for their horses (walk, trot, canter, gallop) and make these speeds appropriate for different encounters, and also to keep the party together (if they try to!). approach a corner too fast and you might get slammed into a canyon wall by the horse, and have to try to stay on whilst taking D6 bludgeoning damage. Kind of like a mini-game.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Thinking outside the rules themselves:
The thing about a chase on horseback through a forest is that it is inherently hazardous. Low lying branches, fallen timber, sudden streams, animal burrow holes. All have the chance to slow or stop both the pursuers or pursued. A lot of people have injured or died in riding accidents (there's a reason those cute caps equestrians wear are really helmets in disguise.)
On the other hand, even if the fleeing subject opens up the distance, instead of a pel-mel chase, you now have tracking exercise. A blind hamster could follow the signs left behind by a thousand pound shod horse through the woods UNLESS the quarry tries some trick or other to remove
The environmental factors in the above two comments fit well into the RAW (and actually, the twig blight cloud encounter that's the impetus for this thread is basically a buffed up "insect swarm" complication from the outdoors chase complication table). I appreciate the idea of taking the present move speed and dash speed system and replacing it with four speeds, this is reflective of something done in other game systems with more thought out dynamic encounter rules, especially when how fast you're moving affects perception, but I think it's a layer of crunch that goes against 5e streamlining IMHO.
The way the RAW set things up is that chases are basically an exercise in dash management ... you get 3 +CON modifier dashes granted to you (or your mount). After you burn up those dashes, subsequent dashes require a DC 10 CON check or gain a level of exhaustion, when your exhaustion hits 5, you're move is 0 and you're basically done. Question arises whether you want to have the chase entirely predicated on the mount's CON and maybe athletics, or give some advantage to riders actually proficient in animal handling (able to eek out more from their animal). This system works well for both a planned "the chase is on encounter" as well as a "run away! run away" decision in a dungeon.
Possible maneuver could be outriding and flanking. Where you have the pursued and pursuers being on whose spatial orientation the DM keeps track of, but also a "flanker" who is trying to get ahead of the pursuit and cut them off.
It's interesting, chases and pursuits are a big part of the genre D&D tries to capture, but it's tactical rules seem largely based on combat within narrowly defined spatial boundaries (maybe legacy of a system that way back designed dungeons that didn't work organically, you'd fight monster in room 1, which in no substantial way affects how the encounters are set up in the rest of the dungeon).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
So...I almost TPK the group with the skills challenge.
At the start, it went really well and the players bought into the skill challenge right away. I gave them a heads up explaining how it works and what I'll be looking for from them and some of the basic core concepts to skill challenges. Most notably, this is the first time running it and we may have a few bumps in the road.
It was a 5/3 challenge with some pretty easy skills already outlined that could be used and at one point they were up to three successes to one failure. A great move by the Ranger was casting speak with animals and then calming the horses to keep focused and to not be scared. All the players were into it they really enjoyed where things were going and knew what the consequences were with failures.
Then things went downhill.
The wizard tried to cast a minor illusion to create a fire in front of the swarm of twig blights hoping that it would cause them to freak out and allow the party time to get some distance. I thought it was a good idea until the wizard realized after casting the spell that it only a five-foot image of fire. As there were multiple swarms the small illusion did not do much to dissuade their advancements. He failed the consequences of avoiding the thorns and took some significant damage.
Then rogue tried to do something that overwhelmingly was not helpful but was determined to follow through, unfortunately, it came with a high DC on a skill she was already weak in. She failed. She also failed the consequences of avoiding the thorns and took some significant damage.
3/3, Challenge Over
The swarm overtook the party and bowled over them and the horses to pretty much-shredding everything in their path resulting in death and carnage. The wizard and rogue were both to zero and dying, the monk, ranger, and warlock were down to less than five hit-points apiece and the swarm was returning.
What happened next is out of scope for this thread but the party lived but had a very humbling experience to have their lives intact.
For me, it was a learning experience. In an after-action review, I feel like I did a few things wrong both in the execution of the challenge and judgment calls making on what DC should be for success on the skills being challenged. The biggest mistake I made was not having a lower success threshold, the idea for this encounter was more for the tense narrative of a chase, and sure take some damage or two to ratchet things up, but almost TPK at the end was never my intention. The dice just rolled where they did and I was 'too mad with power!' that I forgot my intention and kept to the hard rules. I'm sure even from the brief play-by-play you could find some faults with what I did.
The group enjoyed the challenge enough that I'll bring it back, one player indicated "we just got our butts handed to us by rolling bushes", but this was a much more tense and drama-filled encounter than the standard chase would have given.