Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aegir" data-source="post: 4283298" data-attributes="member: 52089">I honestly haven't read the entirety of this thread, but to my knowledge, this hasn't been brought up yet. There are two things that, when taken together, suggest that the assumption (&quot;For skill checks: increase DCs by 5&quot;) is the main flaw in this entire argument.DMG, p73: &quot;Set a level for the challenge and DCs for the checks involved. As a starting point (...) use moderate DCs for the skill checks (see the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table on page 42).&quot;Keep on the Shadowfell, p52 (Talking with Keegan): &quot;In order to change his mind, the PCs have to converse with him and, in the process of doing so, succeed on four separate DC 15 skill checks before they fail four such checks.&quot;Now, for an assumption: this encounter was in fact designed using their own rules for Skill Challenges. If this is the case, then the call for DC 15 checks is in fact a &quot;moderate&quot; challenge, which places it squarely in the 10/15/20 range that the p42 table presents, without the +5 applied.Its been mentioned before in this thread: whats the more likely scenario? That the 4E designers let something this horribly glaring slip by and published a system - a system they themselves called one of the major innovations of 4E - that was so flawed that PCs had virtually zero chance of success, or that we as a community are simply misinterpreting that the +5 comment applies to Skill Challenges, when it in fact only applies to singular skill checks?Given the fact that the removal of the +5 puts things far more in line with the success range of the rest of the system, I'm personally assuming the latter.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aegir, post: 4283298, member: 52089"] I honestly haven't read the entirety of this thread, but to my knowledge, this hasn't been brought up yet. There are two things that, when taken together, suggest that the assumption ("For skill checks: increase DCs by 5") is the main flaw in this entire argument. DMG, p73: "Set a level for the challenge and DCs for the checks involved. [B]As a starting point[/B] (...) [B]use moderate DCs for the skill checks[/B] (see the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table on page 42)." Keep on the Shadowfell, p52 (Talking with Keegan): "In order to change his mind, the PCs have to converse with him and, in the process of doing so, [B]succeed on four separate DC 15 skill checks[/B] before they fail four such checks." Now, for an assumption: this encounter was in fact designed using their own rules for Skill Challenges. If this is the case, then the call for DC 15 checks is in fact a "moderate" challenge, which places it squarely in the 10/15/20 range that the p42 table presents, [I]without[/I] the +5 applied. Its been mentioned before in this thread: whats the more likely scenario? That the 4E designers let something this horribly glaring slip by and published a system - a system they themselves called one of the major innovations of 4E - that was so flawed that PCs had virtually zero chance of success, or that we as a community are simply misinterpreting that the +5 comment applies to Skill Challenges, when it in fact [I]only[/I] applies to singular skill checks? Given the fact that the removal of the +5 puts things far more in line with the success range of the rest of the system, I'm personally assuming the latter. [/QUOTE]

Verification