Skill DCs: a moving target?

[Quickleaf]

How in the world is it that WotC is only now, 2+ years into 4th edition, getting skill DCs dialed in? I mean what was going on in their playtest groups that made either the initial DCs or the first revision DCs seem like a "good idea"? I found Stephen Schubert's recent design & development article sorely lacking. It took me all of half an hour to do the analysis of the 3 skill archetypes he writes about. I mean there's no discussion of how these scaling DCs relate to the more simulationist skills, nor examples of what makes a hard check harder as the PCs level. And why on earth do moderate and hard checks become proportionately more difficult?? I like the new skill DCs overall, but it seems like too little too late. This coupled with the general slopiness of the initial treatment of skill challenges, makes me feel that the skill section of the core books could be a third as long with a big sub-heading: "Skill DCs entirely subject to the DM's common sense or whims." I swear it would have been just as helpful for running a game. How do other folks feel? ENworlders are a sharp lot so I'd like to hear your view on skill DCs. Am I being too critical?

 

[nnms]

It just doesn't matter that much. As long as the DCs are reasonable, it works. For those who are new, there's lots of solid numbers and guidance. For those who don't need it, the system works fine with a bit more variance in difficulties.

Basically, it's no big deal.

 

[Quickleaf]

Given that this *is* a D&D site that goes without saying for pretty much all our posts I'd argue that you leave out the vastly larger group of players, those who aren't playing redbox and who aren't up to date with errata(or even care about online errata). A 10% change in success rate may not seem like much, but it's just as significant as the lowering of elite/solo defenses or having perpetual combat advantage. And moderate/hard DCs at paragon/epic exceed 10% loss in success rate compared to the original DCs in core books. As an example, our new virgin DM is using original skill DCs without any errata; he's of the wait and see philosophy. We have an uber athlete PC and a "face" PC. Because the athlete relies on simulationist skills he has a better chance of success than the face who relies on skills governed by the old DCs. So during char creation our face ends up spending more resources than athlete to get the kind of odds she wants. It's not a big deal but it does affect the game. Now I'm also a DM and I've grown a bit...uncertain... of WotC's game math around skills; it's entirely reasonable for me to ask for a better explanation of the new DCs than what that meager article offered. And some explanation for the ping-ponging skill DCs would be enlightening, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Bongo]

I have the same concerns, but I tend to think the questions being raised in this thread tend to go beyond the scope of "introductory" books. New DMs might need a little more gaming experience and background reading before they understand some of the finer points. For instance, the term "simulationist" might not mean much to someone that has never played an RPG before.

Maybe we could try to create a list of questions to send to the developers, so they can write a development article or have a podcast episode or make a post with some answers.

1) What do these new rules offer that makes them better than sticking with the previous rules? (follow up: why do the skill rules change so often?)

2) How do I describe what makes the same task harder as PCs level?

and so on.

I still haven't put the new skill rules to the test yet, and I'm not too sure about the new DCs, but I like the tighter rules around skill challenges. The math in that area seems to be lot tighter (X hard checks, X moderate checks, X advantages, X chance of success). I don't like having to do math and they pretty much wrote down what I was doing by hand before. It looks like it will save me a lot of time.

 

[Alex319]

I mean there's no discussion of how these scaling DCs relate to the more simulationist skills...

What do you mean "simulationist skills"? Which skills would fall under this category?

How do I describe what makes the same task harder as PCs level?

It's not "the same task." The level based DCs are based around the level of the ENCOUNTER, not the PCs. It's not that the same task magically gets harder just because the PC is higher level, it's that higher level PCs are going on more dangerous adventures (higher level encounters) and are doing harder tasks.

 

[Aspeon]

I'm going to make some wild speculation here: the first two rounds of DC tables were off because the designers didn't build them based on how PC's skills matched up.

The table on DMG1 pg. 42 is designed as a baseline for individual ability checks, and just adds 5 to get the skill DC- it uses the example of swinging on a chandelier (Acrobatics vs. the table) and kicking an orc into a brazier (STR vs. orc's Fortitude). From the perspective of an ability check, it sort of makes sense- if you start with an 18 in your primary stat, you have a 75%/50%/25% to make an easy/medium/hard check at level 1, your secondary stat will be a bit worse than that, and the checks scale at approximately half level.

I suspect the designers weren't expecting players to use it for skill checks as much as they did, and using it for skill checks breaks because just making it a flat +5 makes the check near impossible if you aren't trained, and the chances are too low over a series of repeated checks even if you are. The DMG2 DCs look like they were designed with a baseline of succeed on a 5, probably to make skill challenges make some sort of sense- if you assume an untrained person has +0, someone with the attribute but no training is about +5, and someone minmaxed is +10 at level 1, they scale at half-level from there. The problem is that that isn't broad enough to compensate the differences between skill values or how many riders you can get to skills as you level.

 

[Quickleaf]

What do you mean "simulationist skills"? Which skills would fall under this category?

Acrobatics, athletics, endurance, perception... those are the ones that first spring to mind. Maybe stealth and perception. These skills attach very specific DCs/modifiers to various tasks in an attempt to simulate reality. Less tangible social/knowledge skills are the ones that rely more on the generic DCs, since they provide the DM with fewer guidelines.

It's not "the same task." The level based DCs are based around the level of the ENCOUNTER, not the PCs. It's not that the same task magically gets harder just because the PC is higher level, it's that higher level PCs are going on more dangerous adventures (higher level encounters) and are doing harder tasks.

But what does that look like for skill checks without an opposed skill or imbeded DC? For example take Thievery. Open lock has imbeded DCs ascending as the locks get more sophisticpted... we might not know any particulars about what makes a paragon lock more challenging than a heroic lock, but we know it's got something to do with the lock. When it comes to traps we know nearly exactly why a given trap is more difficult to disable. And with Pick Pockets we justify the increasing DC by the level of the opposition (which is basically the same as an opposed check only it's passive). But with Sleight of Hand we have just a straight DC of 15. So what if a DM runs a skill challenge for a group of high level PCs where a player wants to palm a notebook while being searched by a superior? What makes this situation more challenging than palming at 1st level? What in the narrative could explain that?And how do you reconcile that with a static DC?

 

[Aspeon]

And with Pick Pockets we justify the increasing DC by the level of the opposition (which is basically the same as an opposed check only it's passive). But with Sleight of Hand we have just a straight DC of 15. So what if a DM runs a skill challenge for a group of high level PCs where a player wants to palm a notebook while being searched by a superior? What makes this situation more challenging than palming at 1st level? What in the narrative could explain that?And how do you reconcile that with a static DC?

This might just be a "handwave it with fluff" situation. At epic Thievery checks, you're not palming the notebook, you're palming the ink off of the appropriate page of the notebook.

 

[fuzzlewump]

If you're being searched, that seems like an opposed perception (of the superior) versus thievery of the palming party.

If there's no direct conflict, then yeah, let that paragon PC revel in his awesome skills and score an auto success.

I think the idea is that you have to get at least a 15 to even passably palm something. And if you rolled a 15, someone would have to roll a 15 to see it perception. (Or do opposed skills have to be one over? Well, whatever.) If you rolled under a 15 to palm something, people automatically notice that you tried and failed without a perception check. Maybe roll a check anyway and make them not notice on a 1. Over a 15 on palming is gravy, just increases the DC of noticing it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

How in the world is it that WotC is only now, 2+ years into 4th edition, getting skill DCs dialed in? I mean what was going on in their playtest groups that made either the initial DCs or the first revision DCs seem like a "good idea"?

Every additional book printed by WotC gives us the possibility of crunch that raises our skills. What our skills levels are now at a particular level is not that same as what they would have been following just the printing of the first Player's Handbook.

Backgrounds didn't exist at the time of PH1. So that's a potential additional +2 to player skills that might now skew DCs. Adventurer's Vault didn't exist at the time of PH1. So there are quite a number of magic items that grant bonuses to skills that might now skew DCs. Skill Powers exist that lessen the penalties associated with using certain skills certain ways that might now skew with DCs.

Things change. Things get more or less powerful over time. Lessons are learned. And you can either accept it and allow your game to be open to these changes and adjust as needed as you go along... or you can stick your head in the sand and refuse to accept that things change and that you were 100% correct the first time for ALL time. But if you want to be that way about your game... don't be surprised if people stop playing it.

"Get with the times" is not just a clever little epitaph. It holds a grain of truth.