Wulf Ratbane said:
It rears its ugly head once again. "The rules work just fine as long as you don't use them."
How exactly did you come to that conclusion?
I think you're all making a significant mistake when you read the rules. The table of DCs all this math is based on isn't actually absolute. In the text above the table (
p.42 last sentence in 1st column)
'A quick rule of thumb is to start with a DC of 10 (easy), 15 (moderate), or 20 (hard) and add one-half the character's level.'
Then you get to add the +5.
This tells us a few things about that table.
First you can see that the values they've placed in the table are just a sample of DCs to go against the damage values.
Second, you can see the real difficulties without much complex math. The +1/2 level and +5 DC map directly to how skills are added up (1/2 level and +5 for being trained). So the only thing that really matters in a skill test is your stat, racial and feat bonus. Checks are easier for people who are trained (duh!). So any DCs are always: easy 10/15, moderate 15/20, hard 20/25 (second value if you're not trained). Your bonus is going to be in the region of +2 - +6. So (and yes in rough values) you've a 75% chance of success if you're trained for an easy, 50% for a moderate, 25% for a hard. Subtract 25% from those if you're not trained until you only succeed on a 20 if you're untrained and trying something hard.
So it comes down to seeing the age old problem. People who see 'Ahah, a table I must use it!' and people who actually read the rules and understand what it means 'ah, those sorts of values? Ok! This time I think A 17 is the right DC though, and this time a 12. Which is actually what 'rule of thumb' means. Mostly it'll see you right, but feel free to ignore it when it doesn't.
And finally, when I ran the complex skill challenge I did indeed use the straight up DCs from table +5. Sure my players got some lucky rolls, sure they had to *gasps* role-play to get +2 here and there. Did I ignore the rules? Hell no. I used them as I know they were intended. One thing to remember about probability/randomness is that you're unlikely to get an even spread in any short sampling. So sure, this time around we got good rolls. And next time we might get all bad rolls. And if we have a fair spread, it might lead to failures. And no, you can't base a system around 'sometimes it'll seem like it works'. But after breaking down the DCs to how they're made up, seeing how they relate to the way your skill scores are made up, the probabilities are exactly as hard as you want them to be. After all, if characters aren't playing to their strengths, or the DM is using skills none of his players have characters trained in, then things are going to go bad.
*chuckles* And now I wait to be told I'm delusional and missed the point. But I always trust real experience, actual understanding of rules intent (or in this case RAW) rather than people getting neurotic over rules sytems that they haven't played extensivley (Or at all in some cases). The rules have been out officially for just over a week now. How much to we really know about usage? Before you dump and rewrite a rule system, actually try it out for a while first.
