Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Yet Another Take on Page 42
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="seusomon" data-source="post: 4395311" data-attributes="member: 68641"><p>The guidelines on page 42 of the DMG certainly have the potential of being a DM's best friend. But the DCs as originally printed seemed too high, especially when combined with the misdesigned skill challenge rules. The corrections issued by WotC, though, seem to swing too far in the other direction, lowering the DCs and also removing the footnotes for attacks and skill checks.</p><p></p><p>I haven't been too bothered by this confusion. As a DM, I have a fair understanding of what DCs will challenge the characters in my campaign, and so I'm happy to use the ideas behind the table, without necessarily adhering to the exact numbers. Yet it got me thinking. I've seen somewhat persuasive arguments for both high and low DCs, and it occurred to me that there is a key factor missing from the whole business.</p><p></p><p>There are really two different ways in which a party can be challenged by an ability check, skill check, or attack-like action.</p><p></p><p>It may be a challenge that only one member of the party needs to succeed at. Knowledge checks are often like this. If any character recognizes the demonic emblem on the castle bridge, then the whole party will know about it and act accordingly. Diplomacy is often this way too: the party's most diplomatic character speaks for the others, and his/her success is what matters.</p><p></p><p>On the other hand, it may be a challenge that all party members must face, or that may be faced by any arbitrary member of the party. Marching through a blizzard tests everyone's endurance, not just the endurance of the toughest character.</p><p></p><p>The first type of situation requires higher DCs to challenge the party. And, it seems to me, those DCs that test the party's best character will also need to increase somewhat more with increase in level, because players will continue to improve their best attributes whenever possible.</p><p></p><p>With these considerations in mind, I put together my own version of the DCs by level table. It has two sets of numbers, one for "average PCs" and one for "specialized PCs". The first is for challenges that any party member may face, the second is for challenges directed specifically at the PC best equipped to face them.</p><p></p><p>I've attached a pdf file of the table, but here's the basic set up:</p><p></p><p><strong>Average PCs</strong></p><p>begin with DCs of 5/10/15 (easy/moderate/hard) for levels 1-3</p><p>increase by 1 every 2 levels (using three-level bands, this means increasing by 2 and 1, alternately)</p><p>footnotes: add 2 for attacks, add 3 for skill checks</p><p></p><p><strong>Specialized PCs</strong></p><p>begin with 10/15/20 for levels1-3</p><p>increase by 2 for every three-level band</p><p>footnotes: add 3 for attacks, add 5 for skill checks</p><p></p><p>The faster progression for specialized PCs assumes that a character's bonuses for their strongest attributes will increase by 1 every 6 levels due to ability increases, feats, or magic items - in addition to the steady 1/2 level increase. For these characters, I also increased the attack adjustment by 1, figuring that a party's best attacker will have a class feature or feat that offers at least a +1 bonus to attack rolls.</p><p></p><p>Our characters are still low level, so my system may fall out of synch at higher levels, but the basic idea of it seems to work.</p><p></p><p>I'd love any comments, possible problems, or suggestions for improvement.</p><p></p><p>Thanks!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="seusomon, post: 4395311, member: 68641"] The guidelines on page 42 of the DMG certainly have the potential of being a DM's best friend. But the DCs as originally printed seemed too high, especially when combined with the misdesigned skill challenge rules. The corrections issued by WotC, though, seem to swing too far in the other direction, lowering the DCs and also removing the footnotes for attacks and skill checks. I haven't been too bothered by this confusion. As a DM, I have a fair understanding of what DCs will challenge the characters in my campaign, and so I'm happy to use the ideas behind the table, without necessarily adhering to the exact numbers. Yet it got me thinking. I've seen somewhat persuasive arguments for both high and low DCs, and it occurred to me that there is a key factor missing from the whole business. There are really two different ways in which a party can be challenged by an ability check, skill check, or attack-like action. It may be a challenge that only one member of the party needs to succeed at. Knowledge checks are often like this. If any character recognizes the demonic emblem on the castle bridge, then the whole party will know about it and act accordingly. Diplomacy is often this way too: the party's most diplomatic character speaks for the others, and his/her success is what matters. On the other hand, it may be a challenge that all party members must face, or that may be faced by any arbitrary member of the party. Marching through a blizzard tests everyone's endurance, not just the endurance of the toughest character. The first type of situation requires higher DCs to challenge the party. And, it seems to me, those DCs that test the party's best character will also need to increase somewhat more with increase in level, because players will continue to improve their best attributes whenever possible. With these considerations in mind, I put together my own version of the DCs by level table. It has two sets of numbers, one for "average PCs" and one for "specialized PCs". The first is for challenges that any party member may face, the second is for challenges directed specifically at the PC best equipped to face them. I've attached a pdf file of the table, but here's the basic set up: [B]Average PCs[/B] begin with DCs of 5/10/15 (easy/moderate/hard) for levels 1-3 increase by 1 every 2 levels (using three-level bands, this means increasing by 2 and 1, alternately) footnotes: add 2 for attacks, add 3 for skill checks [B]Specialized PCs[/B] begin with 10/15/20 for levels1-3 increase by 2 for every three-level band footnotes: add 3 for attacks, add 5 for skill checks The faster progression for specialized PCs assumes that a character's bonuses for their strongest attributes will increase by 1 every 6 levels due to ability increases, feats, or magic items - in addition to the steady 1/2 level increase. For these characters, I also increased the attack adjustment by 1, figuring that a party's best attacker will have a class feature or feat that offers at least a +1 bonus to attack rolls. Our characters are still low level, so my system may fall out of synch at higher levels, but the basic idea of it seems to work. I'd love any comments, possible problems, or suggestions for improvement. Thanks! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Yet Another Take on Page 42
Top