Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8364207" data-attributes="member: 16814">The guidance in 5e is that DCs should be set based on the action declared and the fictional situation.&nbsp; Of course, prior editions set objective DCs (including 4e for some), so there's a strong continuation of this as tradition.&nbsp; But it's not what the game recommends, and it's why there are no tables of objective DCs in the books.&nbsp; Again, the printed adventures dispense with this and set objective DCs, which is very frustrating. So, no, in 5e DCs are recommended to be set relative to the situation and the action.&nbsp; This is the basis from which I'm making my comparison.&nbsp; If a GM chooses to set DCs differently, well, that's them.&nbsp; Granted, a number of GMs on this board do so choose.Yup, this is what I was teasing out of your chart.&nbsp; It means that hard checks are still a challenge.&nbsp; For the usual character clocking a +30, they still need a 12 to hit a hard DC.&nbsp; Moderates require not a 1, and easy are automatic.&nbsp; That's for a focused character.&nbsp; For a character that hasn't put much into support and has a +15 in a skill, easy is about the same as when they started out.&nbsp; Hard is impossible.&nbsp; And that's fine, and good design.&nbsp; I'm arguing against the statement that 4e provides growth in skill for characters where 5e doesn't, and pointing to the flat skill bonus numbers in 5e.&nbsp; The actual math doesn't show this -- it shows it stays pretty consistent, but that 4e prices neglected skills out of the hard market fairly quickly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8364207, member: 16814"] The guidance in 5e is that DCs should be set based on the action declared and the fictional situation. Of course, prior editions set objective DCs (including 4e for some), so there's a strong continuation of this as tradition. But it's not what the game recommends, and it's why there are no tables of objective DCs in the books. Again, the printed adventures dispense with this and set objective DCs, which is very frustrating. So, no, in 5e DCs are recommended to be set relative to the situation and the action. This is the basis from which I'm making my comparison. If a GM chooses to set DCs differently, well, that's them. Granted, a number of GMs on this board do so choose. Yup, this is what I was teasing out of your chart. It means that hard checks are still a challenge. For the usual character clocking a +30, they still need a 12 to hit a hard DC. Moderates require not a 1, and easy are automatic. That's for a focused character. For a character that hasn't put much into support and has a +15 in a skill, easy is about the same as when they started out. Hard is impossible. And that's fine, and good design. I'm arguing against the statement that 4e provides growth in skill for characters where 5e doesn't, and pointing to the flat skill bonus numbers in 5e. The actual math doesn't show this -- it shows it stays pretty consistent, but that 4e prices neglected skills out of the hard market fairly quickly. [/QUOTE]

Verification