Printable View
hallo, I was rreading through the DMGs, and I'm faced with a difficult conundrum. both books have tables listing skill DC's by level, but seem to vary by 9 to ten. the Dungeon master's screen agrees with the DMG 1, but the ones listed there seem too high, and those listed in the DMG 2 seem too low. what are the DCs that other people have found effective? has official policy changed?
Check the DMG 1 Errata for the current DMG 42 numbers.
Personally, I've become a fan of the Obsidian Skill Challenge numbers; they work all right.
That DMG errata does not contain the most recent DC numbers. They can be found on the new DM screen from Feb of this year while that errata is from last year.
Here are the numbers:
Lvl Easy Mod Hard
1-- 8--- 12-- 19
2-- 9--- 13-- 20
3-- 9--- 13-- 21
4-- 10-- 14-- 21
5-- 10-- 15-- 22
6-- 11-- 15-- 23
7-- 11-- 16-- 23
8-- 12-- 16-- 24
9-- 12-- 17-- 25
10- 13-- 18-- 26
11- 13-- 19-- 27
12- 14-- 20-- 28
13- 14-- 20-- 29
14- 15-- 21-- 29
15- 15-- 22-- 30
16- 16-- 22-- 31
17- 16-- 23-- 31
18- 17-- 23-- 32
19- 17-- 24-- 33
20- 18-- 25-- 34
21- 19-- 26-- 35
22- 20-- 27-- 36
23- 20-- 27-- 37
24- 21-- 28-- 37
25- 21-- 29-- 38
26- 22-- 29-- 39
27- 22-- 30-- 39
28- 23-- 30-- 40
29- 23-- 31-- 41
30- 24-- 32-- 42
Thanks Gill, I've been wondering what the new DCs are.
Pretty close to the original ones, I like it.
I'm a fan of this sheet which contains the DCs (as per Gillric's post) and a bunch of other useful stuff on a single bit of paper.
I think the new DCs for "hard" are too high. The text in essentials states that skill checks should be achieved 65% of the time by an appropriately trained character. So that is an 8+ on d20.
The "hard" DCs describe an appropriately trained character as 18 or higher stat with training in the skill (or +9). But such a character would only succeed 55% at a difficult check. As you increase in level, the gap widens until "hard" tasks become too hard even for the world's most competent heroes.
Characters who gun for hard DCs can be assumed to have an item bonus, maybe a racial or power bonus, and possibly a feat bonus.
At 30th level, you can have +15 from levels, +5 for training, +6 for an item, and +4 for putting level boosts into the stat. That's +30 towards the hard DC of 42, assuming a starting stat of 10. Assuming a postracial start of 18, that puts you at your 65% even before other modifiers are factored in.
I would be on board except for two points.
First, the sample of a "hard" skill that accompanies the new DCs is hanging on while being dragged behind a wagon. To me, that sounds like a stock heroic skill check. It shouldn't require an 18 str character trained in athletics to achieve that only 55% of the time. I'm not sure what the 30th level equivalent to that is (being dragged behind an elemental roc?), but it certainly shouldn't require a a +6 item and all of your stat raises to achieve the same.
Second, a lot of what skill checks do is determine if you can attempt other actions. In other words, a failed balance DC may mean you cannot take your standard action like you planned. As you increase in level, the consequence of losing your standard action also increases. Comparatively, the benefit of your other actions becomes a lesser portion of the overall potential of your entire round.
This creates a perverse incentive to not risk your standard action by not taking other actions which might risk it. Often, the other actions are things like putting yourself in a situation wherein you might be forced to make a skill check to see if you can hold on while being dragged behind the elemental roc.
Those are fun moments and I don't want to discourage them. I think the new DC chart does.
You're not blowing your level-boosts just to be good at a skill. It's assumed that skills you put effort into mastering - skills you expect to regularly hit hard DCs for - will be ones linked to stats that are already important for your class. It's the same reason smart characters like knowledge skills while dexterous ones like sneaky skills. An item or other investment is just a way to further cement the player's desire to make mastery of said skill part of their character concept.
And I guess we're looking at the situation differently. If most of the battlefield, say, is covered in ice, the DM is trying something really low if the PCs have to roll against a high DC. If only one strategic corner is, to make the rogue's player happy he invested in Acrobatics, that's something different. There's a difference between feats of derring-do you attempt to gain an advantage, vs. ones you're forced into. The former should have the DC set high enough to discourage every tom, **** and harry. The latter should work hard to avoid autofails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gillric
so... is that for skills specifically or the general DC's, supposing a +5 to the DC for skill checks?
Um, DCs are for skills? What else would they be for?
I don't know exactly, but on page 42 of the dmg, it specifies that "For skill checks, increase DCs by 5. For Attacks with Weapons or Against AC, Increase DCs by 2"
You can just use the DCs as given in the table for skill checks
That footnote got canned ages ago, in pretty much the first errata they ever publishedQuote:
Originally Posted by Dr paradox
Thats a pretty good sheet. I might have to make my own version, since I tend to... DM oddly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous
Opinion: The 3.5e skill DCs made more sense and gave examples of what these numbers meant. I'll EDIT in examples in a bit. The point is, if a character wants to do the same thing at a higher level, suddenly the DC is higher. If I attempt to climb Mountain A at Level 3 at a moderate DC, that's a 13. If I try to climb that same mountain at Level 22, the EASY DC is 20!
This very well may be my one issue with 4e.
EDIT: The DC Examples in 3.5e...
Spoiler
{table]Difficulty (DC) | Example (Skill Used)
Very easy (0) | Notice something large in plain sight (Spot)
Easy (0) | Climb a knotted rope (Climb)
Average (10) | Hear an approaching guard (Listen)
Tough (15) | Rig a wagon wheel to fall off (Disable Device)
Challenging (20) | Swim in stormy water (Swim)
Formidable (25) | Open an average lock (Open Lock)
Heroic (30) | Leap across a 30-foot chasm (Jump)
Nearly Impossible (40) | Track a squad of orcs across hard ground after 24 hours of rainfall (Survival)[/table]
No, that is not what the table is for. Normal tasks for each skill have fixed DCs just like in 3.5 (climbing an uneven surface such as a cave wall has an Athletics check DC of 15, for example). That table is more for improvising something not found in the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by drawingfreak
That's not quite what it means.Quote:
Originally Posted by drawingfreak
In your example, if they climb the same mountain under the same circumstances at level 22, it's not going to be a challenge and you should probably not even bother getting the players to roll.
If for some reason you want the players to be challenged climbing the same mountain at level 22, you're going to need to change the circumstances to match the new DC, such as during the biggest thunderstorm in living memory, or while a tribe of stone giants are pelting them with boulders from on top.
*double checks the skills spreadsheet for the party he DM'sQuote:
Originally Posted by Runeward
The 15th level rogue in our party will hit that "hard" number for Thievery about 85% of the time -- he just needs a 4 or higher. The same-leveled wizard in the party will hit it for Arcana without spending her reroll utility power 70% of the time. In fairness, that same rogue would need an 11 to make a Hard Stealth check, for example.
Now both of these are moderately high-end cases, and take into consideration that the players know I expect them to put just as much effort into their skill selection/boosting as they do their combat powers. But as I've said before, I think de-emphasizing skill selection/feats/powers is a mistake too many 4e DM's are making.
Am I the only person that thinks a "hard" task should not be doable 65% of the time? That doesn't seem very hard to me.
I think "easy" is 90-100% success rate, "normal" is 60-70% success rate, and "hard" is 30-40% success rate.
Hitting a baseball is hard. The best players in the world, when matched up against someone who is talented at throwing a baseball, succeed in actually hitting the thing maybe 60% of the time (and a lot of those contacts result in the ball going nowhere near where the batter wanted it to go, i.e. foul balls). In actually getting a "hit" as defined in baseball is even harder, and the best players OF ALL TIME succeeded 36% of the time. A record set by Ty Cobb by the way, who retired in 1928.
Note that in this example, getting a 'hit' and ending up on base is the success, not just making contact.
That makes sense if your party dedicates resources to it. I guess my issue is that part of the 4e system that I enjoy is that everyone has a reasonable chance to do stuff at higher levels. But when the DCs are set with the expectation that a character is trained with an 18+ stat and stat raises and some feat or racial power... we are back to square one. Characters that aren't specialized have little to no hope of success.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEmerged
The DC for level 15 hard is 30. So a trained character with a 16 and no other feats (+10) has a 30% chance to succeed. By 30th level, training and a 20 stat (+25 modifier) has only a 20% chance to succeed at a standard hard task. It feels, to me, that the system is either demanding you spend feats on skills or devaluing your skill training. Since I find skill feats sort of boring, I don't find either option attractive.
A "hard" task is supposed to be doable 65% of the time by somebody highly specialized in that skill. A typical adventurer,or even one well above average in that skill, is expected to succeed considerably less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Archwizard
Consider that even the most mundane background benefits typically give +2 to a particular skill check, and things such as themes, class features, utility powers, and skill powers are there to aid a character, it should be said that a character with a 16 in their relevant ability score and training who has absolutely no other investment in skills (which means their investment is totally towards combat) will have a difficult time with "hard" skill checks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Runeward
I don't see this as a problem.
Except that italicized statement isn't true according to Heroes of the Fallen Lands (if the table was again updated I defer). A "hard DC is a reasonable challenge for characters who have training in a particular skill and also have a high ability score (18 or higher) in the skill's key ability." Page 281. That is a lower standard than "highly specialized."Quote:
Originally Posted by tbarrie
I concur that there are themes and backgrounds and feats and whatever else that add to a skill check. But the fact is that the DCs seem to be set assuming ongoing investment in things like themes/backgrounds/feats/magic items as well as stat increases. This makes the statement provided in the book (training + 18 stat or higher) inaccurate unless we append additional assumptions onto it like your "highly specialized."
The worst part, in my opinion, is that because the table presumes ongoing investment, anyone who doesn't commit stat increases and feats and themes to a skill has a diminishing chance to succeed at it. One of the *good* changes in 4e is that the 1/2 level bonus added to most checks ensured that as characters increased in levels they had a greater chance to succeed at most tasks. This table reverses that trend. The DCs take into consideration the ability to specialize and because you have more opportunities to specialize as you increase in level, the DCs increase at a rate greater than the 1/2 level bonus.
The result, a low level character is more versatile when facing level appropriate challenges than a high level character. I think that is poor design.