Unified DC's for faster resolution

[Sadrik]

I agree that it would be a good thing to have a unified set of DCs.. that way you can tell a player "That cliff looks like a difficult climb" which gives the player enough metagame knowledge to judge if the character is willing to risk it.

Of course, some skills would have to be adjusted somewhat. As mentioned above, Know: uses 10 as the base of 'easy', so perhaps have a 10 point penalty to Know checks in order to match the unified DCs.

Knowledge type skills when using a library, become routine...

 

[Sadrik]

In light of the new trap R&D:

There is also one additional type of skill check -->

Take 10 compared to a DC. "Take 10" is the new "take 20" it seems?

So that leaves these possible d20 checks:
1. opposed roll
2. roll vs. a defense (defense being a calculated equation: AC, fort, ref, will)
3. roll vs. a DC (and hopefully this will be unified for all skills and be simple to adjudicate without table look ups)
4. "take 10" vs. a DC (and again hopefully these will be simple to adjudicate.)

I have a problem with the "take 10" mechanic. Because you are not rolling, some metagaming can go into this characters can try and make sure they hit the 10/15/20/25/30/40 plateaus while "taking 10". I especially see this as a problem with searching. So, I think that the "take 10" should only be vs. a defense (an equation) to mitigate the metagaming problem.

Where would the "take 10" mechanic be used other than searching and spotting?

 

[Oldtimer]

In light of the new trap R&D:

There is also one additional type of skill check -->

Take 10 compared to a DC. "Take 10" is the new "take 20" it seems?

So that leaves these possible d20 checks:
1. opposed roll
2. roll vs. a defense (defense being a calculated equation: AC, fort, ref, will)
3. roll vs. a DC (and hopefully this will be unified for all skills and be simple to adjudicate without table look ups)
4. "take 10" vs. a DC (and again hopefully these will be simple to adjudicate.)

I have a problem with the "take 10" mechanic. Because you are not rolling, some metagaming can go into this characters can try and make sure they hit the 10/15/20/25/30/40 plateaus while "taking 10". I especially see this as a problem with searching. So, I think that the "take 10" should only be vs. a defense (an equation) to mitigate the metagaming problem.

Where would the "take 10" mechanic be used other than searching and spotting?

It sounds like you think "take 10" is a new mechanic? Rather, it's been around since 3.0, so it will probably work the way it's worked since then.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It's a common mistake, but ...

No book lookup just assign a DC as the DM and wala!

It's voila.

 

[Ahglock]

It's voila.

wala wala bing bang at least that's how I determine DCs. But my players think I'm odd, but hey its all about my male pride.

 

[Vrecknidj]

You mean you don't make up the DCs for everything on the fly? I guess I have been cheating as a DM for years, and no one has noticed.

That's how I do it, which makes RPGA DMing a bit of a pain.

I think that a problem with the intention is that the defining terms are themselves open to interpretation.

I mean, why is the difference between "routine" and "easy" a difference of 25% likelihood of success? Using the SRD's climb skill as an example:

DC 5; A rope with a wall to brace against, or a knotted rope, or a rope affected by the rope trick spell.
DC 10; A surface with ledges to hold on to and stand on, such as a very rough wall or a ship’s rigging.

There have to be incremental DCs in between these. I mean, not all uses of climbing fall neatly into the quantized categories listed in the SRD.

So, if the target descriptions of the "D" part of DC are vague, then why not make up the DC on the fly?

Dave

 

[Sadrik]

It sounds like you think "take 10" is a new mechanic? Rather, it's been around since 3.0, so it will probably work the way it's worked since then.

Ah yes but my hypothesis wasnt that "take 10" is new but rather that "take 10" is the new "take 20".

 

[jgbrowning]

If I'm remembering properly RoleMaster did this for movement maneuvers.

joe b.

 

[Umbran]

DC 30 by 5th level?

Lets see:
Base Roll (1d20) + Trained (+5) + Stat (+4) + 5th Level Bonus (+2) = 1d20+11 vs. 30

So, that means on a 19 or 20 you can do it. No not impossible but damn hard and that is with an 18 stat. If not trained it is only 1d20+6 and that is impossible.

You're not including feats and synergies, which can often bring the bonus up to +13 or +15, making the roll much more likely.

 

[Sadrik]

I think that a problem with the intention is that the defining terms are themselves open to interpretation.

I mean, why is the difference between "routine" and "easy" a difference of 25% likelihood of success?

Well this is exactly the point the interpretation does not have to be based on the exact description of the wall. It might be an easy wall but is wet so 15. Rather than looking that up give the DM and players the power to interpret DC's themselves.

Wouldn't it be nice if the skill descriptions had no DC's listed and the DC's were listed at the beginning of the skill section and then in the descriptions of the skills it just offered possible examples of easy and hard etc. - and I emphasize 'possible' examples.

The strength of a table-top game is not table look ups but interpretation and extrapolation.