This is fantastic. With this kind of rationale and analysis behind the numbers, I think I can stop houseruling skill DCs entirely. The Obsidian skill challenge system may still see some use at my table due to its streamlined three-round setup, but for most skill work, this looks spot on.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
New Design & Development -- Skill DCs
- Thread starter jelmore
- Start date
...must spread xp around before giving to KidSnide again.
I think this is definitely a very good point, though. I've used Skil Challenges of different levels, and the rules certainly allow for it, but they give very little guidance in doing so, and almost seem to assume that the default is for a group to always be making at-level checks.
I definitely like the look of the new numbers at first glance. With the revised numbers, SC's often became fairly trivial in my experience, even if you went with all hard DCs. These new numbers obviously give the DM more room to work with -- while also allowing him some coverage from the rules lawyers in the group.
I also think that the note about the all-in character is a good one. In other words, don't bother trying to design something that will be difficult for Mr. All-In because a) its not worth it and b) if a player decides to devote that many resources to one or two skills then they should almost always succeed. The key point to remember is that any character that is that specialized in one or two skills is almost certainly giving something up elsewhere, whether its in the magic item property/power department, a feat, power selection, or even an ability/NAD. There is that give and take, and since they gave, they should also get their take.
I also think that the note about the all-in character is a good one. In other words, don't bother trying to design something that will be difficult for Mr. All-In because a) its not worth it and b) if a player decides to devote that many resources to one or two skills then they should almost always succeed. The key point to remember is that any character that is that specialized in one or two skills is almost certainly giving something up elsewhere, whether its in the magic item property/power department, a feat, power selection, or even an ability/NAD. There is that give and take, and since they gave, they should also get their take.
Imaro
Legend
Hmmm, I thought 4e was suppose to avoid this type of balancing across different silos?
It is?
I've never cared about things like that. But then, I'm the type who likes to specialise a character and be awesome at a few things but mediocre at everything else. I've just never seen a problem with that.
In fact, it's the people who try to be 'balanced' at everything that bug me because quite frankly, they end up failing at most things anyway which brings the group down. I'd rather have a group of people who all shine in a different light so that we're more successful as a group than have a group that fails 50% of the time at everything 'cause they've all tried to be 'balanced'.
Sure, even groups that spread their specialisations will still have scenarios where they're hitting a 90% failure rate, but then I even like that disparity as it adds fun and flavour. Being wildly successful at some things is cool and fun, and then being utterly suck at other things is more fun than being average at everything.
I will reserve judgement until Stalker has done the math
If someone can cover me at work for about a week I'll get right on it!
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
The thing is, skill DCs are entirely a metagame concept anyways. They shouldn't be used to model in game DCs. Because, as a DM you get to come up with the DCs when you already know the level of your PCs.
So, the only reason you're asking them to roll in the first place is because you want to see if they'll fail. The table gives you a good sense of what numbers are likely to be passed by a certain level of character about 65% of the time
If you want the weakest person in the party to succeed 80% of the time, you lower the DC by 3 from the appropriate level.
I also disagree that good adventure design involves going after things that are easier or harder, at least beyond a certain range. I certainly believe that if you are level 20, you should be able to have threats somewhere between a 15-25 range. But beyond the small range, it is rather a waste of everyone's time to run it using any game mechanics. Battles below that can be summarized with "You win" and battles above that can be summarized with "You lose". Skill checks above and below that are likewise best if they are run as routine activities for the PCs. Need to convince that beggar to give you information that you would have considered a moderate task while they were level 1? Simply tell the PCs "You talk to the beggars and this is the list of things they tell you". Unless you want them to have a chance to fail. In which case, assign a low DC for their own level.
I was thinking of posting a reply along these lines, and you've saved me the effort!
As far as I can see, 4e has two different skill systems operating side-by-side - the metagame one that you describe, which governs skill challenges as well as most social and knowledge checks, and the simulationist one that governs a lot of athletics, acrobatics and endurance checks that take place outside the context of skil challenges. This is a little bit strange, especially because the rulebooks (or, at least, the pre-essentials rulebooks) don't expressly tell us that it works this way. But once you get the hang of it it all runs a lot smoother.
Similar Threads
