Fixing high skill checks - the Rule of 3

[Kerrick]

d20 is a great system, but one place where it falls apart very quickly is the skills. The PHB states that DC 10 is average, DC 15 tough, DC 20 challenging, DC 25 formidable, DC 30 heroic, and DC 40 nearly impossible... but your average L10 PC can make a DC 30 check. WTF? After L15, DCs become more or less meaningless, unless it's a cross-class skill (in which case you probably can't make it at all, since the DCs are scaled for PCs with high scores).

I came up with this idea when I was reading another thread about spell resistance, of all things. The OP had proposed an idea whereby SR was a set value (5, 9, 13, 17, or 21), and the caster level check was a simple 1d20+modifiers (Spell Penetration, etc.) - no caster level. So I thought, why not apply this to skills?

The result is the Rule of 3. It's really rather simple; it goes something like this:

Calculate your skills as normal, but divide the end total by 3. This is your effective total, and this is what you use for skill checks.

Let's say we've got Frank the L1 halfling rogue. Under the 3.5 (or Pathfinder) rules, he has a Climb score of 8: 4 (max ranks) + 2 (Str) + 2 (racial). He could make a DC 10 check 95% of the time (failure only on a 1), a DC 15 65% of the time (7 or better on the die), and a DC 20 40% of the time (12 or better). He could even make a DC 25 check (overhang or ceiling with handholds but no footholds) a whopping 10% of the time (18 or better on the die) - at level 1.

Under the Rule of 3, his score would be 2. Suddenly, that DC 15 check looks pretty daunting - he would succeed only 35% of the time! The DC 20 check? Pfft - good luck; he could succeed only 10% of the time. The DC 25 check is impossible, as it should be for a L1 PC.

Using my own PCs as a baseline, I figure a PCs' skill totals will be roughly half their class level (for single-classed PCs; multiclasses will be 1/3 to 1/2, depending on class choices). This means that a L10 PC can make a DC 10 check 75% of the time (5+ on the die); a DC 15 check 50% of the time; and a DC 20 25% of the time.

As you increase in levels, the curve flattens out - it becomes harder to achieve really high DCs: a L40, for example, could make a DC 40 check 5% of the time (again assuming skill total = half of class level; at epic, it might be closer to 2/3, so 30% of the time). This means that you can effectively put a cap on how high you want DCs to scale (I'd recommend 40 - there's no real need to go any higher). I haven't come up with a hard and fast method of converting high-level DCs to Rule of 3, but I'm thinking something like DC 30-45, you reduce it by 1/8; 46-60 by 1/4, and after that by 1/3.

It also means that skill checks that oppose level checks (Bluff for feint, e.g.) aren't automatically assured of success. Concentration checks? Better hope you roll well, 'cause your epic mage might still blow it.

 

[Ashtagon]

Your average level 10 PC is intended to be superhuman already. Even the greatest Olympic athlete works out as about somewhere around levels 5-7.

Unrealistic? Sure. Describes heroic style fantasy novels? Perfectly.

 

[Kerrick]

Be that as it may, it doesn't make for a very fun game when the mechanics fall apart after L10. There's already a game that models what you're talking about - it's called E6.

 

[Ashtagon]

No, the game that models what I am talking about is called D&D.

If you want realism, GURPS is over that aisle down that way.

 

[Arkhandus]

Honestly, if you want this kind of reduced heroicness and increased realism, either stick with E6 or reduce the maximum ranks possible. Make maximum rank 1 + 1/4th character level or something, for class skills, and half that for cross-class skills.

But Conan or Hercules falling to their death, just because their massive strength and adventuring skills aren't enough to climb a small cliff to reach their enemy's stronghold, is dumb. Even if you're going to discount skill as rather unimportant, you shouldn't discount raw ability. An extremely intelligent and experienced wizard isn't going to fail to identify a Charm Person casting, nor is an extremely strong barbarian who hunts arboreal critters all the time going to fail climbing a tree.

And how often do you think adult monkeys fall out of trees? Because if you discount their racial bonuses to Climb checks for having a natural climb speed and such, they're going to fall down a lot, and a monkey only has single-digit HP, so that means falling to its death or near-death each time. Likewise, how do you think salmon make it up-river, let alone up a waterfall or other incline, to lay their eggs each year? If their Swim bonus is cut down, they're doomed. Racial bonuses and whatnot really shouldn't be reduced.

Don't make 10th-level characters chumps when it comes to skill checks. These guys can slay young dragons on their own, shrug off a fireball, completely dodge a lightning bolt, walk away with just some scratching and bruising after being hit by a rhino, polymorph into dragons, ingest nightshade with little chance of harm, cut through an iron bar with a sword, make cities seem to disappear, or return the dead to life.

Hercules should not lose his grip on a climb and fall just because he's only got one super-strong hand holding him up (a hand that could easily hold up a boulder). Merlin shouldn't be clueless when another wizard casts a simple spell. Smaug shouldn't get swept away in a small river's current just because he spent his life on the Lonely Mountain and other rocky areas, because he's so freaking massive and draconically strong that no piddly river is going to move him. Legolas shouldn't misttep and fail his Move Silently check when sneaking through the woods to surprise an orcish mook. Sure, if it's an Uruk-Hai commander or something they might be skilled enough and alert enough to stand a small chance of noticing him, but Grob the Green certainly won't.



In other words, realism isn't for D&D past 6th-level or so. Realism takes a back seat and shuts the eff up if he knows what's good for him, when wizards are destroying cities and human fighters are killing armed 60-foot giants with 3-foot pointy sticks.

It's perfectly reasonable to expect some degree of realism, but not very much of it when the PCs have reached the equivalence of literary and mythological/legendary heroes.

If you want to challenge Hercules with a physical task, make him climb a precariously-stacked 10-mile pillar of bones in Hades or something, not a boring 500-foot cliff in the Prime Material Plane. He'll hustle up that cliff-face even with the penalties for an accelerated climb, but he'll have to be more careful trying to scale that huge, shaky pillar of bones.

 

[Kerrick]

Let me reiterate: It's not just "realism" I'm after here - it's game balance. The fact that PCs can do all that at 10th level (or even 15th) kind of points toward something being broken, wouldn't you say? I'm all in favor of heroicness and the PCs surviving, but come on - one of the reasons high level play doesn't work is because skill checks become meaningless. Trust me on this - I've played epic. We had a mage who could make DC 80 Concentration checks, at ~L35. What's the point of having a scale that says DC 40 is "near impossible" if a PC can reach that pre-epic? Epic levels is where PCs are supposed to become superhuman and achieve the impossible. And even then, scaling anything past DC 40-50 just becomes an exercise in one-upmanship (i.e., the DM making up crazy high DCs so the PCs can't automatically win all the time). I don't know about you, but I don't think that's very fun or challenging.

Hercules should not lose his grip on a climb and fall just because he's only got one super-strong hand holding him up (a hand that could easily hold up a boulder). Merlin shouldn't be clueless when another wizard casts a simple spell. Smaug shouldn't get swept away in a small river's current just because he spent his life on the Lonely Mountain and other rocky areas, because he's so freaking massive and draconically strong that no piddly river is going to move him. Legolas shouldn't misttep and fail his Move Silently check when sneaking through the woods to surprise an orcish mook. Sure, if it's an Uruk-Hai commander or something they might be skilled enough and alert enough to stand a small chance of noticing him, but Grob the Green certainly won't.

So what would you define as a task that one of these legendary figures would fail? What would be the DC?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The fact that PCs can do all that at 10th level (or even 15th) kind of points toward something being broken, wouldn't you say?

Oddly, I honestly don't get the objection, and I'm the kind of DM who hates stuff like teleport and find the path.

I really don't have a problem with (for instance) the 14th level rogue in one of our Pathfinder games having a +25 Stealth, or the druid in the same game having +30s in both Survival and Perception (actually Notice, in our game), thanks to Skill Focus.

Anyway, my guess is that this is a preference thing for you, based on feel more than anything else -- much the way I can't stand psionics in D&D, or wish PCs were less reliant on magic items -- and as usual (if that's the case), other people aren't going to feel it in their gut the way you do.

 

[Runestar]

We had a mage who could make DC 80 Concentration checks, at ~L35.

To which I reply - so what if he can manage a dc80 concentration check? Casting defensively caps at dc24, and he shouldn't be getting hit, much less taking damage anyways (I have read wizards built around this concept who actually dumped concentration, and worked!).

I think some sort of diminishing marginal return scale might be better. Say the 1st 10 ranks in a skill can be purchased at a 1:1 rate. Then the next 5 ranks may cost 2 skill points each or something. Then the subsequent 5 ranks cost 3 skill points each? This way, it is possible to be really good at a particular skill, but it would be prohibitively expensive.

 

[Kerrick]

Anyway, my guess is that this is a preference thing for you, based on feel more than anything else -- much the way I can't stand psionics in D&D, or wish PCs were less reliant on magic items -- and as usual (if that's the case), other people aren't going to feel it in their gut the way you do.

I suppose so. I just think it's absurd that a L1 commoner (let's say a blacksmith) can make a DC 20 check (4 ranks, +1 Int, +2 for Skill Focus, and we'll toss in a helper for another +2 = +9) 45% of the time.

I think some sort of diminishing marginal return scale might be better. Say the 1st 10 ranks in a skill can be purchased at a 1:1 rate. Then the next 5 ranks may cost 2 skill points each or something. Then the subsequent 5 ranks cost 3 skill points each? This way, it is possible to be really good at a particular skill, but it would be prohibitively expensive.

That could work, but a) you'd be screwing over the low-skill-point classes (those who get 2+Int) even further, and b) it would severely limit the quality (ranks) and quantity (number of skills) PCs could take. Even if you boosted all the low classes to 4+Int, they'd be effectively going back to the cross-class skills system for class skills. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that system sucks, and I'm so glad I figured out a way around it.

 

[Ashtagon]

Epic levels is where PCs are supposed to become superhuman and achieve the impossible.

No.

Realistic is levels 1-6 or so.

Parties challenging armies of humans or small colonies of dragons (ie. superhuman) is levels 7-12 or so.

Parties entering the depths of Hell and coming back in time for lunch before going for round 2 in the afternoon is levels 13-20.

At epic levels, the party should be challenging gods for the right to run a divine sphere of influence, not merely challenging them to a duel, and certainly not be scared of scrambling up a one-mile cliff made of razor blades.

Really, so what if a character can make a DC 9000 skill check? Really, the game isn't about winning or losing. It's about making a story. If the character is climbing a mundane wall that a normal human might conceivably fall from, that is not the stuff found in an epic novel worth reading. In game terms, the DM should just be saying "you make it" and get on to the next event that is actually heroic enough to be story-worthy. Sure, that may be story-worthy at low levels, but i don't think any characters of level 1-6 have enough skill points to make such events near-certainties anyway.