DMG pg. 42 DC table

[bfchooch]

Hi-

I'm very new to D&D and DM'ing so please bear with me while I attempt to discover where I'm missing something.

I've been following the DMG page 42 debate since the new DCs were released a while back. I don't understand the updated table and would really appreciate some light shed upon the new DCs.

Firstly, I'd like to point out that I am not interested in the table as it applies to Skill Challenges. I'm only interested in the table as it applies to adjudicating situations not covered by the rules. So the math behind X successes before Y failures is not really relevant to this discussion (at least I don't think it is).

I'll try to keep my questions brief and clear...

1) The new, updated DCs are 5 (Easy), 10 (Medium), and 15 (Hard). Are these DCs the foundation on which other DCs are based?

I ask #1 because:

2) Many of the DCs listed in the Skills chapter of the PHB are 20 and 25. So are these supposed to be akin to "Really Hard" and "Ridiculously Hard" DCs for 1st-3rd level characters?

3) WotC mentioned that published products like KotS need not have its DCs modified to reflect the new table. So this makes many of the DCs within KotS "Super Hard" and "Ridiculously Hard," since the adventure is designed for 1st-3rd level characters?

I've now DM'd three sessions of 4e D&D (well, any version of D&D for that matter). The first two I used the DCs as published to handle special actions, the latest I used the updated table. Granted I don't have a lot of experience with either table, but in my opinion, the old table provided a much more exciting game. I think a lot of tension was lost when I switched to the new table.


And I do realize that I am at liberty to change the DCs to whatever I feel makes the game most exciting. But I guess I'm trying to figure out:

4) Why were the DCs changed? Obviously the designers had their reasons, so they probably understand something about the game that I as a brand new DM am missing?

I really appreciate any insight y'all can provide.

Take care.

 

[deleteme123456]

They were changed so that skill challenges, which were otherwise hideously broken in favor of the DM (the players had very little chance to win), would be winnable.

What I do, and what I think a lot of other people do, is use the revised table but keep the footnotes, so a level 1 Strength check is 5/10/15, but a level 1 Athletics check is 10/15/20. The footnote vs AC is also probably good but comes up far less often unless you have really imaginative players.

This would probably break skill challenges again, so the solution there is to go get Stalker0's Obsidian system (or just remember to put all DCs down by 5 during a skill challenge).

For KoTS, I use the published DCs - 5 in most cases, to make things doable but not automatic. (My target is that hard should be about 50% for a trained character at level 1 with that primary attribute, so hard DC 20 is perfect, since 4 (ability) + 5 (trained) needs an 11 (50%, don't fall for this 10 = 50% saving throw crap ), and a racial bonus then helps out further, and that's OK with me).

 

[Stalker0]

What I do, and what I think a lot of other people do, is use the revised table but keep the footnotes, so a level 1 Strength check is 5/10/15, but a level 1 Athletics check is 10/15/20.

This was a lot of people's reaction when the new DC table came out. Most people figured it was the footnote about adding +5 to skill DCs that was the problem. And those skill DCs are very hard in general.

But when the errata came out, they lowered teh table AND removed the footnote, which has caused the debates you see today.

I'll echo infocynic's suggestion. Either use the new table and keep the footnote, or use the old table and remove the footnote. Those will give you DCs in the middle from what you see now, which is a good blend of can be done but not so easy why even roll.

 

[Syrsuro]

I strongly suspect that the footnote was intended for single-roll skill checks. In other words, if the players success or failure hinges upon a single roll, you use the footnote to make it more challenging and if the skill check falls within the scope of a skill challenge, you do not.

This makes the math work out more appropriately whether you use the modified table values or not, and I believe that this was the original intent of the footnote - an intent that got lost somewhere along the way during editing.

As it happens, I am actually most likely going to use the Obsidian system - not because I believe that the math behind skill challenges was flawed (outside of the footnote issue) but because I prefer a system that doesn't penalize attempts using non-optimized skills. But if I were to use the DMG table for skill challenges I would most likely use the Table as written, but without applying the footnote.

Carl

 

[Ragnar69]

Actually I think the new table without the footnote is fine. I just see "easy", "medium" and "hard" from the POV of an untrained PC. I can live with specialists not needing to roll for medium difficulties.

I lowered the DCs in KotS too, just not realy doable if you keep them.

 

[LostSoul]

Use the new DCs if you want the PCs to be action heroes.

Use the old ones, or add the footnote in, if you want the PCs to be less competent.

 

[James McMurray]

We played through the first adventure in the Scales of War campaign, and it apparently uses the errataed DCs. We still failed some of the skill challenges, so I don't think the new DCs are too low. But we do all usually take a turn, even if we're scrabbling for a secondary skill because we stink at all the primaries. If skill challenges are only handled by the experts, adding the +5 back in is probably necessary.

 

[Syrsuro]

We played through the first adventure in the Scales of War campaign, and it apparently uses the errataed DCs. We still failed some of the skill challenges, so I don't think the new DCs are too low. But we do all usually take a turn, even if we're scrabbling for a secondary skill because we stink at all the primaries. If skill challenges are only handled by the experts, adding the +5 back in is probably necessary.

Actually, No.

If by the first adventure you are referring to Rivenroar - looking at the first Skill Challenge in that adventure it has DCs of 15 and 20 for a level 1 skill challenge. That is not the errata values as the errata values give a DC of 15 for hard and 10 for moderate - a DC of 20 isn't even on the chart for a level 1 skill challenge (or even a level 3 skill challenge, for that matter). That is, in fact, the values that the majority seem to have settled on as correct: The values in the table, pre-errata and without the footnote.

Looking at the second skill challenge, it has DCs of 10, 15 and 18 - again, more similar to the pre-errata table than the post-errata table.

So if your group was happy with the frequency of success you encountered, than I would recommend you also use the table as published (not as in the errata) and without the footnote.

Carl