Difficulty Numbers: Scaling, or Static?

[Reynard]

In Shadowdark, “Moderate” is DC 12, “Difficult” is DC 15, and “Extreme” is DC 18.

5e’s DCs are nonsensically high, because they were ported in from 3e, which grabbed them (unchanged) from WEG Star Wars and kludged the skill point system to make the numbers line up.

How hard should hard be?

 

[Scribe]

How hard should hard be?

Yeah a lot of people do not seem to consider success rates and all that.

I'm happy with how SD does it, fixed numbers.

 

[500 Toads]

They seem pretty fine to me. Like the hard DC of 20 still means that a completely untrained person with no natural aptitude for the thing still has a chance to make it.

nods And if we assume a citizen has at least some training for a +2 proficiency bonus and maybe a +1 or +2 in the ability score, that DC of 20 is yet more attainable -- hard, but possible.

D&D 5E adventuring parties can be set up with access to quite a few buffs (bardic inspiration, superiority dice, guidance, psionic energy dice, what-not... and in the case of stealth, the absolutely massive +10 from Pass Without Trace) and other ways to affect the dice (Lucky feat, divination dice, heroic inspiration, etc) to the point where 20 can seem easy to reach.

 

[JohnSnow]

nods And if we assume a citizen has at least some training for a +2 proficiency bonus and maybe a +1 or +2 in the ability score, that DC of 20 is yet more attainable -- hard, but possible.

D&D 5E adventuring parties can be set up with access to quite a few buffs (bardic inspiration, superiority dice, guidance, psionic energy dice, what-not... and in the case of stealth, the absolutely massive +10 from Pass Without Trace) and other ways to affect the dice (Lucky feat, divination dice, heroic inspiration, etc) to the point where 20 can seem easy to reach.

All of which, I would argue, has effectively rendered bounded accuracy meaningless.

A task that can’t be accomplished by a person without a hefty attribute bonus or by expending character resources isn’t “Hard,” it’s “nearly impossible.”

Adjusting DCs upwards because PC’s have significant bonuses is metagaming.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

All of which, I would argue, has effectively rendered bounded accuracy meaningless.

A task that can’t be accomplished by a person without a hefty attribute bonus or by expending character resources isn’t “Hard,” it’s “nearly impossible.”

Adjusting DCs upwards because PC’s have significant bonuses is metagaming.

Bounded accuracy doesn't mean that everyone has the same chances at everything. Like I said, a total noob can hit 20, and in my game where characters are now level 14, they beat 30 quite often. And at any level the dice roll contributes more than the bonus. But of course in a game where characters eventually become mythic heroes, some things need to be beyond the unskilled. What's the point of levelling and investing in skills otherwise?

 

[zakael19]

Adjusting DCs upwards because PC’s have significant bonuses is metagaming.

Do you also not adjust monster’s DCs, or their saves, or damage, or hit rates as the system assumed CR increases?

 

[Maxperson]

They seem pretty fine to me. Like the hard DC of 20 still means that a completely untrained person with no natural aptitude for the thing still has a chance to make it.

Yeah. The DCs are right in line with where they should be.

 

[Maxperson]

All of which, I would argue, has effectively rendered bounded accuracy meaningless.

Bounded accuracy does not take stat bonuses, magic items, proficiency, or skill bonuses into consideration by design. Basically, bounded accuracy is pretty much on the DM side of things. On the player side it considers class abilities.

A task that can’t be accomplished by a person without a hefty attribute bonus or by expending character resources isn’t “Hard,” it’s “nearly impossible.”

I mean, a peasant with +0 can hit the hard DC one out of 20 attempts. That's freaking awesome for someone with no skill or natural aptitude at all.

You also seem to be forgetting that most skills allow retries until successful unless failure has meaning. So that peasant with thieves' tools and no training sitting in front of a DC 20 lock automatically succeeds if he isn't pressured somehow. He's eventually going to roll that natural 20.

 

[500 Toads]

Do you also not adjust monster’s DCs, or their saves, or damage, or hit rates as the system assumed CR increases?

Yes/no, depending on how you look at it. To me, it's more about "what threats would the party be nudged towards" rather than "adjust the threats to scale with the party".

For something like D&D 5E / PF2e creature rank, I generally wouldn't adjust an enemy's CR to match the party. What I would do is nudge the party in the direction of appropriately severe threats worthy of their time, and hand-wave away pointless encounters (especially so in PF2e, where leveling factoring into combat proficiency and how the critical hit/miss rules means that a significant level difference has massive mechanical differences).

To make that more concrete, for a higher-level D&D 5E / PF2e party that might once upon a time have had to deal with the odd low-level bandits when traveling a major road between towns, they aren't automatically going to run into ambushes of wildly powerful bandits waylaying travelers on the very same roads. I view that sort of thing (Elder Scrolls-style "world levels with you" concept) as anathema to having the world make any sense at all. However, I wouldn't bother wasting the players' time with the same low-level bandit encounters, either -- we can hand-wave this vaguely as the party perhaps having established some reputation, or somehow looking like the powerful adventurers that they've become; and your average highwayman wouldn't suddenly commit suicide by attacking them when so severely outmatched.

On the other hand, that group is rather more likely to find leads, employment offers, etc. that would point them to higher-level threats that always existed in the world, but weren't necessarily plausibly in reach. Maybe they needed to clear some site in order to be able to find evidence that would point them to elsewhere, maybe it's literally a matter of reaching a deeper and more heavily secured floor in some underground complex, maybe the party didn't have the reputation beforehand for the patron to even consider reaching out to them, and so forth. NPCs wouldn't have a concept of character sheets, but they can assess things based on what they've heard about a party's accomplishments and apparent capabilities versus what they've heard or inferred about problems and threats.

But, generally, those higher-tier threats were always there, and at a power level appropriate for their own nature. If, say, I were running a low-level PF2e campaign in the Gravelands region of Golarion and for some reason the party absolutely insisted on trying to storm the infamous many-millennia-old lich Tar-Baphon's stronghold on the Isle of Terror -- well, I'm not going to pull any punches and they're going to face (very briefly!) the extremely lethal threats that would logically be there, not that Tar-Baphon himself even has an official statblock in PF2e.

 

[pemerton]

4E is only weird if you look at its 30 levels and Paragon/Epic tiers as mere extensions of the Heroic tier rather than the profound power-ups they actually are. Paragon characters aren't meant to be Heroic-characters "only better", they are essentially superhuman. In Epic tier they are demigods. Power and experience infuses everything they do and mortal concerns barely register.

The gap between Paragon and Epic is particularly notable. But you're right that even Paragon tier PCs are remarkable in power.

Yes/no, depending on how you look at it. To me, it's more about "what threats would the party be nudged towards" rather than "adjust the threats to scale with the party".

For something like D&D 5E / PF2e creature rank, I generally wouldn't adjust an enemy's CR to match the party. What I would do is nudge the party in the direction of appropriately severe threats worthy of their time, and hand-wave away pointless encounters (especially so in PF2e, where leveling factoring into combat proficiency and how the critical hit/miss rules means that a significant level difference has massive mechanical differences).

To make that more concrete, for a higher-level D&D 5E / PF2e party that might once upon a time have had to deal with the odd low-level bandits when traveling a major road between towns, they aren't automatically going to run into ambushes of wildly powerful bandits waylaying travelers on the very same roads. I view that sort of thing (Elder Scrolls-style "world levels with you" concept) as anathema to having the world make any sense at all. However, I wouldn't bother wasting the players' time with the same low-level bandit encounters, either -- we can hand-wave this vaguely as the party perhaps having established some reputation, or somehow looking like the powerful adventurers that they've become; and your average highwayman wouldn't suddenly commit suicide by attacking them when so severely outmatched.

On the other hand, that group is rather more likely to find leads, employment offers, etc. that would point them to higher-level threats that always existed in the world, but weren't necessarily plausibly in reach.

Well, in 4e D&D at least Paragon and Epic tier PCs don't normally travel on bandit-infested roads. As per what I quoted upthread, they "travel more quickly from place to place, perhaps on a hippogriff mount or using a spell to grant [the] party flight , , , [and] travel across nations in the blink of an eye".

I don't think "employment offers" are really part of Paragon or Epic tier play either: "the fate of a nation or even the world might hang in the balance as you undertake momentous quests" and the "success or failure of your adventures has far-reaching consequences, possibly determining the fate of millions in this world and even planes beyond". These characters aren't mercenaries. They have their own agendas that they pursue.

Assigning the difficulty for skill challenges should not focus on the adventurer’s level of ability. It should focus on the context or environment. For example, if you have a player who has tailored their adventurer to be a great swimmer, do not simply make the swim challenge more difficulty because they are so good. The river is – the river. It should only change based on where the adventurers are crossing, i.e. context.

Another example is a rogue who has devoted skill points to becoming a master lockpick. He finds an old door with a rusty lock. The lock should not increase because the rogue is skilled. It should be contextual. If the rogue is entering an ancient armory, the lock might be hard or epic. If it is a rusty door that leads to a pantry, it is simple.

If a player is playing a character who is a superheroic swimmer, I as GM am going to present them with dramatic swimming challenges. If a player is playing a character who is a master thief, then pantry doors, and old doors with rusty locks, aren't going to figure prominently in play.

Paragon and Epic tier characters "navigate uncharted regions and explore long-forgotten dungeons" and "navigate otherworldly realms and explore never-before-seen caverns of wonder". If they're faffing about with pantry doors, and average highwaymen, something has gone wrong.

Just the same as, in classic D&D play, if the players are playing name level PCs then they won't be spending time trying to beat the Caves of Chaos.