D&D General The Resurrection of Mike Mearls Games.

[Jaeger]

3.0 used very similar DCs to WEG SW as well.

Last played D6 long time ago aka last year.

FWIW:

STAR WARS D6 (1987)
Difficulty number chart:
Very Easy 3-5
Easy 6-10
Moderate 11-15
Difficult 16-20
Very Difficult 21-30

CP2020 (1993)
Task Difficulties:
Easy 10+
Average 15+
Difficult 20+
Very Difficult 25+
Nearly Impossible 30+

5e D&D (2014)
Typical DCs:
Very Easy 5+
Easy 10+
Moderate 15+
Hard 20+
Very Hard 25+
Nearly Impossible 30+


In my opinion; game design does not happen in a vacuum, the progression is rather clear. I find it rather interesting that 5e DC's, and CP2020's Target numbers are essentially the same with only some slightly different names used.

If one did not want to use levels as the advancement mechanic - You could knock up a skill list and basically re-create CP2020 using 5e's underlying d20 'bounded accuracy' system, rather than interlocks exploding d10...

In my opinion it would be a rather straightforward from a design point of view. You'd really only have to decide where you wanted to fix the HP for the PC's.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure am glad I didn't say they were then

"fixes a lot of problems" while it doesn't outright says that suggests its a more reliable answer than it actually is.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Bards I agree are an unusual circumstance, guidance though is not. Way too many classes get it as a cantrip, and there really is no reason not to take it.

Advantage I would also argue is a common experience with skills, especially certain ones like knowledge checks where often you have some time at your disposal. the help action is easy to do.

All you need is a +10 roll to for impossible checks to become possible, and a rogue can do that at level 5. With guidance and advantage, its not even that unlikely. If we assume just the minimum guidance result (1), so I need a 19 or 20 to get it, that's a 19% chance of success with advantage. A 1 in 5 chance of doing something for a 5th level character with a cantrip I don't consider "impossible" by any stretch of the imagination.

That's why I think 35 is a much better reflection of an "impossible" DC, you need to be absolutely the pinnacle of a skill, or have major magic/bardic assistance, and even then not a high chance of making it. THAT's impossible.

So it is the name "impossible" you don't like. Yeah make "impossible" DC 100. Then you are absolutely sure it is really impossible. Fixed.

Or "impossible" just means: "seemingly impossible for common people, who are not adventurers with magical aid or very high level".

Since this is too long, I go with impossible at DC 30.

 

[Greg K]

Or "impossible" just means: "seemingly impossible for common people, who are not adventurers with magical aid or very high level".

This lines up with what Tweet or Reynolds stated in Dragon Magazine about the original DCs in 3.0. The DCs were based on the what the designers referred to as the "Commoner Standard" (or was it "Common Standard") which was how difficult a task is for a common human with no training or (edit: ability) modifiers.

 

[Greg K]

Regarding DCs in other games, let us not forget that Jonathan Tweet was an original designer for Ars Magica which used d10+ability+skill vs DC (called Ease Factor?) as a resolution mechanic and that he became the lead for 3.0 after being brought in by Peter Adkison to replace him on the design team.

 

[Zardnaar]

FWIW:

STAR WARS D6 (1987)
Difficulty number chart:
Very Easy 3-5
Easy 6-10
Moderate 11-15
Difficult 16-20
Very Difficult 21-30

CP2020 (1993)
Task Difficulties:
Easy 10+
Average 15+
Difficult 20+
Very Difficult 25+
Nearly Impossible 30+

5e D&D (2014)
Typical DCs:
Very Easy 5+
Easy 10+
Moderate 15+
Hard 20+
Very Hard 25+
Nearly Impossible 30+


In my opinion; game design does not happen in a vacuum, the progression is rather clear. I find it rather interesting that 5e DC's, and CP2020's Target numbers are essentially the same with only some slightly different names used.

If one did not want to use levels as the advancement mechanic - You could knock up a skill list and basically re-create CP2020 using 5e's underlying d20 'bounded accuracy' system, rather than interlocks exploding d10...

In my opinion it would be a rather straightforward from a design point of view. You'd really only have to decide where you wanted to fix the HP for the PC's.

Iirc one of the SW D6 designers worked on 3.0.

 

[Greg K]

While doing a search to confirm that DCs in Ars Magica were called Ease Factor, I just saw a 2013 post in which a poster wrote that he asked Monte Cook at a convention about the origin of DCs in D&D and Monte confirmed that it came from Jonathan Tweet.

 

[Staffan]

Regarding DCs in other games, let us not forget that Jonathan Tweet was an original designer for Ars Magica which used d10+ability+skill vs DC (called Ease Factor?) as a resolution mechanic and that he became the lead for 3.0 after being brought in.

I think Ars Magica just used "difficulty". Ease Factor was from James Bond, where you would roll d100 lower than your skill x the task's Ease Factor to succeed.

Iirc one of the SW D6 designers worked on 3.0.

None of the primary 3e designers were Star Wars alumni, but I know TSR and thus Wizards of the Coast had picked up some of West End Games designers, notably Bill Slavicsek and Ed Stark. I think Slavicsek was in a more managerial position at the time though.

 

[Greg K]

I think Ars Magica just used "difficulty". Ease Factor was from James Bond, where you would roll d100 lower than your skill x the task's Ease Factor to succeed.

Ars Magica also used the term Ease Factor. From Redcap.org, " In Ars Magica, the Ease Factor is the minimum number a player has to roll (after modifiers) in order for a character to succeed at a task".

 

[Zardnaar]

I think Ars Magica just used "difficulty". Ease Factor was from James Bond, where you would roll d100 lower than your skill x the task's Ease Factor to succeed.

None of the primary 3e designers were Star Wars alumni, but I know TSR and thus Wizards of the Coast had picked up some of West End Games designers, notably Bill Slavicsek and Ed Stark. I think Slavicsek was in a more managerial position at the time though.

Skaveksek was the one I was thinking of.

Back in the day when I saw 3.0 skill DCs I thought it looked familiar.