Quote Originally Posted by tbarrie View Post
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.
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."

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.