Setting Difficulty Class

[Ilja]

The otherway is to look at the PCs skills. If you want the party to have a 50% chance of accomplishing something, look at the relevant skill and add 10 to the score - so, if the party has a 50% chance of talking their way in to see a noble, the DC would be (Diplomacy score = +12) approximately 22. Beyond the reach of a common person, but well within the party's capabilities.

Wouldn't that take away the reason to put points in skills? I mean, if the cleric opt not to take diplomacy and thus has +2, you'll put the DC at 13, but if he invests and get +12 you just put it at 23!
What if that was done to AC, "the AC of the goblin is your attack bonus +10"? That just seems absurd.

 

[Nellisir]

Wouldn't that take away the reason to put points in skills? I mean, if the cleric opt not to take diplomacy and thus has +2, you'll put the DC at 13, but if he invests and get +12 you just put it at 23!

Don't use the cleric as your baseline. Use the two characters with the highest skill points in the relevant skills as your baseline. Most groups have multiple characters; you usually want to aim challenges towards the characters that have invested skill points in the relevant skill. It's a reward.

He's asking how to determine DCs. This way creates a challenge to the characters regardless of their level. If you want something to be impossible, or impossibly easy, then you don't need a number.

Again, you only need a DC if something is possible. If it's impossible, you don't need a DC. And that's where being a DM comes in.

Lets say the cleric has the highest Diplomacy check, a +2, and wants to see the king. You decided its a DC 23 check to see the king. That's perfectly legitimate. It's functionally impossible for the cleric to see the king. Since a roll of 20 isn't an automatic success, there's no way he can roll high enough. He can, however, search for an advantage - bribe an official, or bring a gift, or capture a wanted brigand - any of which might add a +2 bonus to his roll. Now he's got a 10% chance of being able to see the king (19-20 +4).

While capturing the bandit, however, the cleric needs to ride a horse. He's got a +2 in ride, and you want the ride to be difficult, but not so impossible that he gives up and lets the bandit get away. It's not a bad idea to make it a 4e skill challenge sort of thing and require multiple checks, but we'll pretend it only takes one or two right now. A 60% chance of succeeding on a check sounds about right, so you set the DC at 10. The cleric has a good chance of catching the bandit, or at least following him, but also a decent chance of falling behind, or even off - creating tension for the player, not a sense of impossibility.

basically, it's two different approachs. Neither is wrong or right all the time.

What if that was done to AC, "the AC of the goblin is your attack bonus +10"? That just seems absurd.

That is what is done with AC, just abstracted out to a generic character rather than a specific one. There's a reason why CR 1 creatures don't have ACs of 32. The AC of a creature of a certain CR has an approximate relationship to the to-hit bonus of a character (fighter default) of a level equal to the CR...or in other words, creatures with higher CRs have higher ACs and fight higher-level opponents. Expeditious Retreat Press has a whole book out analyzing monster stats, including AC vs to-hit, and what WotC recommends vs what they actually do.

 

[Sylrae]

He's asking how to determine DCs. This way creates a challenge to the characters regardless of their level. If you want something to be impossible, or impossibly easy, then you don't need a number.

What if you want the DC to be based on the difficulty of the situation, not based on the power of the PCs? So if they come back and face the same challenge in another situation, the DC didn't raise itself to compensate for their power.

Lets say the cleric has the highest Diplomacy check, a +2, and wants to see the king. You decided its a DC 23 check to see the king. That's perfectly legitimate. It's functionally impossible for the cleric to see the king. Since a roll of 20 isn't an automatic success, there's no way he can roll high enough. He can, however, search for an advantage - bribe an official, or bring a gift, or capture a wanted brigand - any of which might add a +2 bonus to his roll. Now he's got a 10% chance of being able to see the king (19-20 +4).

I had to quote this since it's a nice thing to remember. And if they characters become more powerful, people should take notice of them more due ot their reputations, how they carry themselves, their appearance, the glowing magic gear, etc. so the DC shouldnt keep raising itself beyond their reach.

While capturing the bandit, however, the cleric needs to ride a horse. He's got a +2 in ride, and you want the ride to be difficult, but not so impossible that he gives up and lets the bandit get away. It's not a bad idea to make it a 4e skill challenge sort of thing and require multiple checks, but we'll pretend it only takes one or two right now. A 60% chance of succeeding on a check sounds about right, so you set the DC at 10. The cleric has a good chance of catching the bandit, or at least following him, but also a decent chance of falling behind, or even off - creating tension for the player, not a sense of impossibility.

basically, it's two different approachs. Neither is wrong or right all the time.

That works, but then it becomes irrelevent whether the players gains levels. Against another Character this is often accurate though, because the opposing character will give their own bonuses to the other side of the opposed roll.

That is what is done with AC, just abstracted out to a generic character rather than a specific one. There's a reason why CR 1 creatures don't have ACs of 32. The AC of a creature of a certain CR has an approximate relationship to the to-hit bonus of a character (fighter default) of a level equal to the CR...or in other words, creatures with higher CRs have higher ACs and fight higher-level opponents. Expeditious Retreat Press has a whole book out analyzing monster stats, including AC vs to-hit, and what WotC recommends vs what they actually do.

Sure, but the 'generic character' tends to allow more variation in difficulty to specific PCs.
If a character takes skill focus in a skill, he's not going to want to be penalized by having all of his DCs for that skill raise by 2. Then he just wasted the feat. and the skill points he put in the skill.
In this scenario described, you dont get better at skills, and be able to do better things, you getting points in them makes everyone else worse in them.
If the players realize this is how you set DCs, the smart thing would be for them all to coordinate so they all have almost the same value in ALL the skills. Otherwise theyre being punished.
If its based on an abstract character, then you can see that as the players reach power levels comparable to said abstract character they can do better and better things that were previously out of their reach.

As for that Expeditious Press book, what's it called? I'm thinking I should pick it up, because it would likely show itself to be useful.

 

[Nellisir]

What if you want the DC to be based on the difficulty of the situation, not based on the power of the PCs? So if they come back and face the same challenge in another situation, the DC didn't raise itself to compensate for their power.

There's nothing wrong with doing that. Quite the opposite; that's the default answer. But some people aren't comfortable making up a number, or just want to whip out a number, or want to create a target number that will challenge the PCs. There are quite a few skills that become fairly easily pretty quickly; if you identify a target (this wall should have a Climb DC of 27 or so) you can add conditions that add up to that number (it's made of crumbly ice glass, or something -- I don't recall the climb modifiers right now).

I've never had a situation repeat itself so often that shifting DCs were an issue; usually a few things are true: 1- I remember the old DC, 2- details have change (not all cliffs are identical), 3 - the new DC is close enough to the old DC that no one notices. I generally wouldn't repeat the same challenge over and over anyways - that just gets boring. It's a good idea to challenge a character's -skill-, but try to mix it up.

I had to quote this since it's a nice thing to remember. And if they characters become more powerful, people should take notice of them more due ot their reputations, how they carry themselves, their appearance, the glowing magic gear, etc. so the DC shouldnt keep raising itself beyond their reach.

Or, as they become more powerful, the king (or hsi court) becomes more jealous and refuses to see them/makes it harder for them to gain an audience.

That works, but then it becomes irrelevent whether the players gains levels. Against another Character this is often accurate though, because the opposing character will give their own bonuses to the other side of the opposed roll.

If he has a higher skill check, then the DM might decide that rolling is unnecessary. If he is of higher level but still has a +2 Ride, nothing has changed regarding his riding ability, so the difficulty shouldn't change.

If a character takes skill focus in a skill, he's not going to want to be penalized by having all of his DCs for that skill raise by 2. Then he just wasted the feat. and the skill points he put in the skill.

The DC applies to the party, not each individual character, so a character that's better in a skill is going to be the best choice to succeed. I'm not advocating you use handcraft all the DCs in the game all the time - a high skill check is going to be just as useful as it is now. But in situations where you have to determine a DC, this is one way of doing it.

In this scenario described, you dont get better at skills, and be able to do better things, you getting points in them makes everyone else worse in them.

Edit: I realized where I'm going wrong explaining this (part of the danger in writing this when I'm not paying attention). I don't decide on the obstacle and then make up a DC; I decided on a skill, choose a DC, and then make an obstacle to suit. So characters get better, but the obstacles get harder. That's no different than the regular game.

If the players realize this is how you set DCs, the smart thing would be for them all to coordinate so they all have almost the same value in ALL the skills. Otherwise theyre being punished.

If the fighter and the rogue can figure out how to have the same value in all the same skills, more power to them. The rogue will suck, of course, since lock DC are in the book (and on the DM sheet, I think) and I don't see any reason to vary them just because he has a +3 Open Locks at 9th level.

As for that Expeditious Press book, what's it called? I'm thinking I should pick it up, because it would likely show itself to be useful.

A Magical Society: Beast Builder
A Magical Society: Beast Builder [XRP1004] - $15.00 : Your Games Now, Publisher Co-Op

Extracted from that book (I forget what exactly is in this, but it's free) A Magical Society: Guide to Monster Statistics [XRPFree3] - It's Free! : Your Games Now, Publisher Co-Op

 

[Nellisir]

What if you want the DC to be based on the difficulty of the situation, not based on the power of the PCs?

I'm quoting this again because I want to be clear: at no point have I said you shouldn't do this. Exactly the opposite.

There are a limited number of REASONABLE ways to determine the DC of a skill check.

#1 - Read it from the book: If this isn't obvious, I can't help you. There is a wealth of DCs and conditions and modifiers in the DMG and additional books, and online. Do your research before the game. Know what the party is going to encounter.

#2 - Make it up based on the task: This is strictly subjective. You, as the DM, decide if something is easy or hard, and assign a DC appropriately. Most of the time this works; sometimes you'll get a player that decides it should be easier, and they want to argue (I give them a moment to make their case; then they better drop it. I'll happily discuss issues outside the game, but not in it). I often do this.

#3 Make it up based on the PC's ability: Honestly, this takes a little work, because it involves a little math and knowing skill checks, or at least levels. I used to keep character sheets during games so I could refer to them while creating adventures; in my last campaign I required players to update their characters on a wiki. If it wasn't on the wiki, it wasn't real (including gaining a level).

#4 There are unreasonable ways to determine the DC, like asking your cat or husband to pick a number between 1 and 40, but I think they're only for really important skills, like Brownie baking. It's hard to get Brownies to lay down and stay in the pan.

My D&D campaigns are like tv shows, or movies, or novels, and the PCs are the protagonists. Mundane stuff happens off camera. I don't indulge in pointless wastes of time. I'm the DM; I'm in control of the game; a challenge that can't be overcome isn't a challenge, it's a distraction. They might have to go -around- a barrier, so to speak, but there's no point to putting impossible tasks into the game. I can kill the PCs at any time; I don't need to show it off. So challenges should relate to the ability of the PCs to overcome them; otherwise they become timewasters.

I'm sure someone, somewhere is going to read this as me being an ultrapermissive DM that runs some kind of pushover Monty Haul campaign. <sigh>

 

[Nellisir]

a personal note on the concept of removing level based bonuses.

As a character gets more skilled in 'adventuring' they learn the early effecs of say : charm, and know how to easier shut off that part of their brain, there by an easier will save. However I agree that a level 20 person and a level one person drinking to oblivion shoud make a save based on con and not fort as this is purely the ability for the body to process the alcohol. Where as a person who has been under the effects of various poisens and are fighting some snake or spider or assasan should be able to recognize what they are upaginst are trying to not become subdued by the ill effects of those poisens. (the difference between intentionally ingested and not, per say).

does that make sense?

It does, but I don't particularly agree with it. For better or worse, I'm a fan of saves as "cool factor". Higher level characters are cooler, and thus have better saves.