The Fundamental Flaw with the Revised DCs

[RigaMortus2]

See, I would have went about Skill Challenges in a slightly different manner...

First, I'm not sure I would have classified them as easy, moderate, or hard challenges. The first one doesn't really make any sense. If it is supposed to be a challenge, then it wouldn't be easy, would it? Still, I like the idea behind it. You need to get X successes before Y failures. What the DM is inflating is how long it will take you to complete the challenge.

Second, I would let the player make the choice on how he wants to try and win the challenge (with an easy, moderate or hard skill check). A player can choose not to participate, but it would be in their best interest to at least HELP by making some sort of skill check. This is where my idea differs from how 4e does it...

Player chooses an Easy skill check.
Success means he can choose a player to get +2 to their next skill roll, but this doesn't count as a "success" for the skill challenge.
There is no consequence for failure when failing on an easy skill check.

Player chooses a Moderate skill check.
Success means you gain 1 success towards completing the skill challenge.
Failure means you gain 1 failure towards the skill challenge.

Player chooses a Hard skill check.
Success means you gain 1 success towards completing the skill challenge, and a player of your choice gains +2 on their next skill check.
Failure means you gain 1 failure towards the skill challenge, and the next player that makes a moderate or hard skill check for this skill challenge gets a -2 to their attempt (assume that whatever the player did somehow screws up the next player's try, perhaps incorrect information was given, the wrong wire on a trap was cut, etc.).

Anyway, just my quick thoughts on the subject

 

[LostSoul]

I'm fine with that, because then as a DM I can create "insane" DCs, which well impossible for the lowly guy, are perfectly in bounds for the well trained guy. So if that's WOTC's intent, that's fine, just give us that insane DC table, and we will be good to go. If not, then the DCs do need to be readjusted.

The "insane" DCs are there - they are the higher level DCs.

I think the DCs have been lowered because 1st level PCs are cool in 4th edition.

 

[GoLu]

What gets me about the new DCs is the taking 10 rule. An untrained person with a 10 in the proper attribute and no bonuses can make "moderate" rolls automatically when not under stress. That seems (yes, opinion here) too low, given that there is a still easier category and we're talking about someone with +0 in the skill.

Plus, it seems like anything that could be accomplished with a DC 5 roll (the "easy" difficulty) is so mundane that it's basically not worth rolling for. I don't hit people with DC 2 rolls to put their shoes on in the morning, or DC 1 rolls to not stab themselves in the eye with their toothbrush.

(Of course, the DCs of skill challenges might have to be lower from the DCs of single rolls, just because the mechanics of skill challenges make it harder to succeed. So maybe it's intended for that?)

 

[LostSoul]

Plus, it seems like anything that could be accomplished with a DC 5 roll (the "easy" difficulty) is so mundane that it's basically not worth rolling for. I don't hit people with DC 2 rolls to put their shoes on in the morning, or DC 1 rolls to not stab themselves in the eye with their toothbrush.

Why would you think that? The OP quotes the PHB where it says that "All DCs assume acting in situations that are far from mundane; the DM should call for checks only in dramatic situations." (PHB, p.178)

DC 5 checks are things like trying to climb a tree when wolves are nipping at your heels.

If you want to call for checks to brush your teeth, that's your perogative as DM. I plan on sticking to the advice in the books.

 

[Verision]

Hard you say? I can do that while looking the wrong way and poking myself in the eye.

My main problem with the new DCs is simple: Passive Perception.

Now, I'm going to talk about Keep on the Shadowfell (KotS) here for a moment, so if you haven't played it...


~~~~~~~~~~~~!!!!!!!!!!!!KOTS SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!~~~~~~~~~~~






There are two secrete doors in KotS. One of them requires a Perception check of 20; the other is harder to find and requires a Perception check of 25 (the harder one leads to bedchamber of the leader of the Goblins, who is currently asleep. If you find the secrete door, you basically get to walk in and kill him for free).

I'm the DM in my campaign and one of my PCs, the cleric, has a Passive Perception of 20. I thought that that was perfect with the old DCs: he automatically passes moderate DC skill checks for perception. This makes sense to me: The cleric has an 18 Wis and training in perception (and +1 from being 2nd level), he shouldn't have any trouble passing moderate challenges, but should have to do pretty good to pass Hard challenges (in this case, roll a 15).

So, to find the better hidden secrete door, the cleric actually has to look and has to roll at least a 15 (in my campaign he, and one of the other PCs, rolled high enough to find the door to the goblin leader's room).

Now, a hard skill check for PCs level 1-3 is 15. That means the DC for finding the secrete door to the goblin leader's room is a 15 perception check. My cleric passes that check without a roll. In fact, two of my other PCs would pass that check without a roll (one has training in perception the other has "jack of all trades").

If I use the "DM's best friend" (DMG page 42 under "Actions the rules don't cover"...or something like that), then the cleric in my group could find the secrete door to the goblin leader's room while looking in the wrong direction (-2) and poking himself in the eye (another -2 for a passive perception of 16).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~End KotS Spoilers~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


So, I am going to use 10,15,20 for the base DCs at first level and I will scale them from there in the same way they are now scaled. That way, the cleric will still find the secrete door without looking, but at least he won't be able to do it while looking the wrong way and poking himself in the eye.