New DC Table, based on level 1 DCs and DM Screen

[Aoirorentsu]

Hi everyone,

First off, thanks for the XPs and the comments. Jhaelen and I will have to have a sort of Old Master vs. New Upstart battle for supremacy, which will start something like this.

Aoi: when I started my own DC-crunching thread I was but a learner, now I am the Master
Jhaelen: number-crunch me down, and I shall become more powerful than you can imagine.

And then we'll both remember we're just trying to figure out DCs that some people completely disregard and everyone will know here in a matter of weeks, so it's all silly anyway .

ANYWHO, I do like these DCs better. Under the previous DC system, I have never seen a group fail a skill challenge without rolling truly horribly, in which case it's the d20's fault anyway and the d20 should really know better. Having each individual check be a bit more challenging (and Hard checks truly Hard from a mathematical standpoint) has some interesting effects on the game. For example, when assigning attributes, the 18/14/11/10/10/8 array may not be such a good idea. You'd have to think about the marginal benefit of each additional degree of specialization. Maybe 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 or whatever is better over the long run because you'll have some decent mods for untrained skill checks.

As for how often a group "should" fail a skill challenge, that of course is somewhat arbitrary. Personally, for the reasons others have cited (less deadly repercussions of failure & interesting complications with failure chief among them), I was glad to see the DCs get a bit of a boost, particularly the Easy and Hard DCs (which were meaningless and just inaccurate, respectively). Also, I think the underlying math as discussed by Joshua Randall is a bit more sound and consistent than the previous numbers.

The big thing that I think is missing from skill challenge creation guidelines is a general outline of when to use which difficulty level for which check. This of course is necessarily vague to allow variance by situation, type of challenge, etc. I am close to thinking, as a general principle:
- Easy DC checks should provide a +2 bonus to a primary skill check (or check to nullify a failure) or open up a new option for a primary skill (ie, from the Dark Sun campaign setting, using Thievery to steal some clothes at an Easy DC opens up a moderate DC Bluff check to pass off the disguise).
- Moderate DC checks in primary skills should primarily award successes in the skill challenge and move the party forward in the story.
- Hard DC checks should nullify past failures or award success in the skill challenge or allow for some sort of "bonus" or "mega happy ending" as appropriate to the story.

Then, trying to apply this framework might strain verisimilitude in an individual challenge and thus the DM might have to modify DCs under those circumstances. Of course, "those circumstances" might really mean "all skill challenges" in practice, so these principles may not really work. But, there you go.

Another question is do you give XP for failed skill challenges. I say yes, because I like to run SC-heavy games and also like my players to level up occaisionally , but how much to give? Maybe at-challenge-level minion XP per success, plus the normal XP for the challenge if you ultimately succeed? That will make SCs, particularly high complexity challenges, provide a lot more XP relative to other aspects of the game (namely, quests and combats), but that's only a bad thing for some people.

Sorry for going a bit off-topic on my own thread.

Thanks for all the interesting discussion and feedback!

 

[Mengu]

Personally I'd consider the speed of the horse as the main variable. Assuming it has a saddle and bridle then mounting on the run should be FEASIBLE but I'd imagine it to be a trick requiring a good bit of expertise. A low level PC with Mounted Combat and a good Acrobatics mounting a horse moving at a modest clip is probably not too bad, maybe it deserves at least a 50/50 chance of success, so it might well be a DC20. Moving at full tilt? I'd think that would be pretty tough even with said training. A high level PC might well pull that off without a huge amount of trouble but at DC20 it may well still not be a sure thing even at epic for some characters. Seems like the DC20 should work for that. I mean it isn't possible to say with total certainty what will work best in your game, but the DC20 guess doesn't seem bad.

What I try to look at is less the difficulty of the stunt, but more the end result. So what you're doing doesn't truly matter outside of a flavor of description. For instance a party has a rope and is trying to climb up a rough wall with moderate DC but the rope will make it trivial if they can get it up. It really doesn't matter if the rogue wants to use acrobatics to accurately toss a grappling hook to get it caught in a gap, or if gnome wants to mage hand up the rope and have it tie itself with an arcana check, or if the monk wants to walk up the wall and tie the rope. The DC (the math) is set. Someone use some relatively appropriate skill to overcome it (I might give them a penalty if their means seems far stretched). As DM, I don't really care how the PC imagines himself doing it, as long as the mechanics are within acceptable parameters for the design of the encounter.

So if mounting a stationary horse and mounting a moving horse are going to yield the exact same end result I'll keep the DC low. The elf can get onto the moving horse with a hand flip and a perfect land if he is successful in an easy check. The dwarf not wanting to be outdone, tries the same stunt and fails, has his arm caught in the stirrup, gets yanked around by the horse, bouncing up and down wildly, as he ricochets off a rock tossing him into the air, to have him land on the horse, only backwards. Same end result, PC is on horse, which would have happened if they had spent a move action to mount. The color added by the attempt though is much more vivid.

 

[keterys]

I didn't know that. Is that guideline in the DMG2?
If the system really only uses 1 and 2 complexity challenges, then the numbers are probably pretty good.

I'm exaggerating slightly. Spread across the 18-part column on skill challenges that Mike did is a lot of little advice, including things like embedding small skill challenges in and having multiple scenes to keep the pace. Alternate win and failure mechanics beyond the simple 3 fails you're out or (N+1)*2 successes you win.

I'll quote one of the articles quickly, though:

Why Use Many Small Challenges?
Many DMs try to use high complexity challenges to represent big, important events. That's an understandable impulse, but it can create a situation where each PC is stuck in the same role round after round. The rogue makes Stealth checks, the fighter uses Athletics, and the warlock assists the rogue.
By breaking a challenge down into smaller components, you allow for a wider variety of skills and give each PC a chance to shine. Best of all, it gives you an excuse to split up the party and draw a truly epic scene, one that spans an entire, massive battlefield. Each character sees only one corner of the conflict, but taken as a whole, you can weave a vast panorama worthy of a battle to determine the fate of a town or even an entire empire.

I'd suggest using group checks fairly often to keep people involved, note that having scenes that are 1 or 2 successes (or a failure) then onto the next can work well as part of a larger skill challenge, and say that most skill challenges that are in the 4-5 complexity area could probably be custom designed into something more specifically tailored to a proper effect. But that's me.


55% failure for a complexity 2 probably is more of a failure chance than should be default, but I suspect chances of success are much higher than posted earlier. For example, I'm used to succeeding on 1s against hard DCs with my two Diplomacy enabled characters. Now I'll need a real number, but I'll still automake or _maybe_ fail on a 1 against a Medium. No huge investment - +2 racial on one, +3 item bonus on another, and they're both Charisma-based (16 start, +2 racial) and trained. Not even a background bonus.

 

[Siberys]

A sort of unrelated question; has the page 42 damage-by-level changed as well?

 

[Camelot]

A sort of unrelated question; has the page 42 damage-by-level changed as well?

It sure has; check the most recent rules update. It's now much more defined; instead of "levels 1-3" and so on, it has a different number for each level. So, level 1 is 1d8 + 4 damage, level 2 is 1d8 + 5 damage, etc.

 

[Siberys]

Oh, Monster and page 42 damage is the same. Can't believe I never noticed that before. Thanks!

 

[Bagpuss]

Let me know if you spot a mistake, and...

I'm confused as to which table in the old DM this replaces. Is it the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table on page 42, replacing those Easy Moderate and Hard DCs that were previously grouped in 3 level bands?

If so what is the Increase from Previous column about in your PDF?

 

[shmoo2]

It sure has; check the most recent rules update. It's now much more defined; instead of "levels 1-3" and so on, it has a different number for each level. So, level 1 is 1d8 + 4 damage, level 2 is 1d8 + 5 damage, etc.

What do you mean? The July rules update has a new damage by level chart for monsters from DMG pages 184-5.
I can't see any update to DMG page 42 in the July update.

EDIT: And to Bagpuss- the Increase from Previous columns show how the DC increases from the level in the row just above it in the table. It's for folks who like to see the pattern used to make the table DCs. It has no effect in-game.

 

[Siberys]

Compare the damage tables on pages 42 and 184 of the original DMG. They're identical. It's not a stretch to think that if one changes, so too does the other.

I'm still gonna check the DM kit's screen when I get to my FLGS today, but I expect it to match that errata.

 

[Aoirorentsu]

I'm confused as to which table in the old DM this replaces. Is it the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table on page 42, replacing those Easy Moderate and Hard DCs that were previously grouped in 3 level bands?

If so what is the Increase from Previous column about in your PDF?

This replaces the pg 42 and p 184, DCs by level table (per Siberys' reply), with the addition of the "increase from previous" columns.

The "increase from previous" column for each difficulty level references the previous row in my table, not the previous DC at that difficulty and level. The main reason I added those columns was to demonstrate what the pattern of DC increases was for each difficulty level at each PC level. Doing so allowed me to go back and guess (correctly, apparently) what the unknown DC values are (specifically, for levels 2-5).

Does that make sense? Sorry if there was a lack of documentation there.