The Fundamental Flaw with the Revised DCs

[eamon]

But really, it comes down to: what is the baseline assumption? (And it would be nice for them to tell us.)

As far as I'm concerned, this is the fundamental flaw. DC's should not be set in some axiomatic fashion, since DC's are not the basis from which we somehow derive game-play. Rather, DC's are empiric: they're a recognition that, on average, this particular number roughly coincides with what most characters that should be able to reliably achieve a particular task can reliably roll, whereas most characters that should not reliably achieve a particular task, can not reliably achieve. And of course, there's overlap and imperfection in setting that inflexible boundary - and that's just the way things are.

In short; there is no baseline assumption from which to derive DC's, there's just a bunch of playtest - which consists of statted characters and sample checks.

This doesn't have any direct relation to the skill challenge system, by the way, which can involve multiple checks.

 

[bert1000]

Reaper Steve, I am in your camp. I think "Easy" should refer to an easy challenge for the party not an easy activity and the DCs should be set as such.

If "Easy" means succeed most of the time (80%) for the low skilled character (+0), and auto success for any trained character or character with a high ability score then it becomes less useful in-game. If I want it to be that easy, I would probably just let all characters auto succeed.

I am using 10/15/20 for now at first level.

 

[Paul Strack]

It's not possible to use the same DCs for both single skill checks and skill challenges. If the DCs are low, they'll be too easy for single skill checks, if they're too high skill challenges become impossible to win.

I'm not convinced of that. I think if you adjust the success/failure ratio for challenges to make them closer to even, you can use the same DCs for both.

It would be nice if they'd share their intent behind the changes. Currently, I can only guess what they really mean with easy/medium/hard. After the errata it seems, the categories are indeed from the viewpoint of an untrained character.

I agree with that. I plan to stick to and keep refining my own house rules until they get the numbers right. There are plenty of good ideas on these forums to steal.

 

[KarinsDad]

DCs of:
Level 1: 10/15/18
Level 4: 12/17/19
Level 10: 15/20/23
Level 20: 20/25/28
Level 30: 25/30/33

The table in the DMG gets a +5 to DC for skills.

So, the modified table for first level is 5/10/15 at level one for something which is not a skill and 10/15/20 for something that is a skill. That makes your number here semi-reasonable if used for skills at level 1.


However, one cannot just add 15 due to half level to get the level 30 numbers. Your table here and the revised table are not well balanced (nor is the original table).

At level 30, a PC with 26 ability score and skill training would be at +28. He needs a 5 to succeed here on a hard task without any magic or powers or feats assisting (the table in the DMG gets a +5 to DC for skills, so the revised table he would need a 10).

Ability scores can increase by +4 (or even +5 with Demigod) by level 28. This is not just primary ability, but one secondary ability as well (or split amongst multiple secondaries).

Magic items (e.g. Elven Cloak +6) and power synergies can add even more. Skill Focus can add +3.

On the other hand, PCs who do not get certain feats, magic items, or take certain ability score boosts will only have +16 (+15 level and +1 ability score boost).

But, the absolute minimum gain by level 30 is +16 over level 1. So, +15 is too small.


And, it should be increased more for moderate DCs and hard DCs due to the fact that the PCs attempting those will have other bonuses (such as more ability score, +3 Skill Focus, +6 Elven Cloaks, powers, etc.). Sure, this puts hard tasks and some moderate tasks out of the reach of other PCs at level 30. But, that's ok since that is not the schtick of those other PCs. They ignored those feats, powers, ability score boosts, and magic items for those 29 levels, so they cannot do it. That's ok.

 

[JGulick]

The table in the DMG gets a +5 to DC for skills.

Or, rather, they would if the same errata that changed to 5/10/15 had not deleted the footnotes.

 

[Reaper Steve]

KarinsDad -
Thanks for the contribution. I agree with you that the DCs should increase more at higher levels to account for the issues you mentioned.

 

[KarinsDad]

Or, rather, they would if the same errata that changed to 5/10/15 had not deleted the footnotes.

Wow!

It's one thing to have a screwed up system in the core book.

It's another to fix it and make it worse than ever. One would think that if they were focused on the problem at hand, they would take out the time to really analyze it and make sure that it works for all levels for all types of PCs. It looks like a hack on a hack.

Yikes!

 

[JGulick]

It's another to fix it and make it worse than ever. One would think that if they were focused on the problem at hand, they would take out the time to really analyze it and make sure that it works for all levels for all types of PCs. It looks like a hack on a hack.

Unfortunately, this is a familiar WOTC problem. 3.0 to 3.5 showed it several times, and 4 shows it with Astral Diamonds and Residuum. That being, two designers both develop a fix to a problem and the editor(s)/chief developer fails to take into account that, while either one would be a fix to the problem, both together are either redundant or actually a source of a new problem!

In this case, removing the footnotes would have been *a* fix, changing the numbers by roughly but not always 5 was a better fix, but doing both at once is actually making a new problem.

 

[mlooney]

Today, when I was going over the rules changes with my gaming group I said the following "I, for a variety of reasons have not been using the 'official' DMG DC for a lot of skills. WoTC has changed the official DC for a lot of things. I'm still not using the Rules as Written..."

Of course I'm not really using skill challenges any way, so a goodly amount of the whole set of changes for the DMG don't effect my game at all.

When you get right down to it, the DM sets the DC. It doesn't matter if there is a chart that says this is and easy,hard,very hard, insane or in-freaking-possible DC, the DM sets the number, based on the facts as he or she sees them.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

While I don't know if Steve is right about WOTC's intention, I do agree that somewhere there needs to be clarification about what easy/medium/and hard DCs "represent".

Is hard supposed to be hard for well trained people or the low end of the heroic totem pole? The new DCs seem to indicate that "hard" refers to your low end skill people, that for a well trained person hard is actually pretty easy.

I'm fine with that, because then as a DM I can create "insane" DCs, which well impossible for the lowly guy, are perfectly in bounds for the well trained guy. So if that's WOTC's intent, that's fine, just give us that insane DC table, and we will be good to go. If not, then the DCs do need to be readjusted.

According to the article by James Wyatt, the DCs don't represent anything physical. What they represent is a narrative challenge.

So, the players are carousing about town, and the DM wants to slip them a rumour to get the adventure going. Well, just handing them the rumour seems like railroading, so it will be an Easy check, and everyone rolls Streetwise. There is a good chance at least one character has a good score in that skill, so they will more than likely get the rumour.

Later on, in the dungeon, the party finds itself at the bottom of a ravine with a steep climb over slimy rocks ahead of them. The DM doesn't want them to just walk out of the ravine, or it would be pointless, so the check is set to Hard.

In the first instance, it wasn't Easy because the bartender was particularly eager to share the rumour, or that it was common enough that everyone in town knew it. It was Easy because that is what was needed at the time. Similarly, the rocks were not Hard to climb because of the physical properties of cave slime, it was Hard because of the story imperative.

There is no baseline for determining Easy/Medium/Hard. It is based on how challenging a particular encounter needs to be for the story.