| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm having trouble understanding how to set DCs.
First you have to pick a level. I don't feel there are enough examples to help me understand this concept enough to set DC's on the fly.
Example... PC wants a new weapon goes to the blacksmith and wants to bargain for a cheaper price. What's the DC? Well sounds like Diplomacy (Request) but that requires the target to be friendly or helpful. So PC starts by making a Diplomacy (Make an Impression) against the taget's Will DC. So what is a blacksmith's Will DC? Let's assume I don't want to stat out the NPC character. Do I pick a level for the blacksmith? Let's say he's level 2. Then difficulty? Let's default to hard. So DC 15?
What I'm not sure about is whether level 2 is appropriate? The blacksmith is the blacksmith and will always be the same blacksmith so his base level shouldn't be dependent on the PCs level. Is level 2 appropriate for a trained blacksmith. What about an expert of master?
Long story short is I feel like I need a lot more information on what the levels mean for setting difficulties especially for DCs that shouldn't be dependent on the PC's level. In PF1E I had a gut sense of this but PP2E I'm very uncertain with the information currently presented.
What is the level for breaking down a door barricaded by a bookcase?
What is the level for throwing a 20lb crate through a second story window?
What is the level for searching a library for uncommon information?
I don't want each of these defined specifically but I feel I need a better Rosetta Stone for understanding how to set it myself.
Anyone else feeling this way?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I read, it's not scaling DCs with regards to the party, it's DCs scaled to the element. So the level 2 blacksmith will always be a level 2, even when the PCs return at level 11. He'll be really easy to convince to do stuff for them then, but being level 2 he can only do so much.
But level 2 could just be the apprentice, and the actual blacksmith is level 7 or 10, or something else, even when the party first comes there at level 1.
Likewise, an area might have a general level, with challenges being near that, with some exceptions (say simple walls and doors you have a set levels for and use them most places, for example).
|
From what I read, it's not scaling DCs with regards to the party, it's DCs scaled to the element. So the level 2 blacksmith will always be a level 2, even when the PCs return at level 11. He'll be really easy to convince to do stuff for them then, but being level 2 he can only do so much.
But level 2 could just be the apprentice, and the actual blacksmith is level 7 or 10, or something else, even when the party first comes there at level 1.
Likewise, an area might have a general level, with challenges being near that, with some exceptions (say simple walls and doors you have a set levels for and use them most places, for example).
That's pretty much correct. I'd just like to see more benchmarks.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not good though.. cause this means that ALOT of stuff will be imposible for low level characters and auto success for high level characters.. and there will be an interesting sweet spot in the middle.. the game is not fun for players if they cant succeede with anything and its equally boring when they can do whatever they want and always succeed. The main problem is the "+level" in everything. I made a post about alternate skill systems where i try to fix this and make the game fun, interesting and engageing at all levels regarding skills.
Well a lot of stuff should be impossible for low level adventurers. That's why low level adventures feature crossing a chasm as a difficult challenge, while it's a chance to show off your athletics or new flight ability at medium and high levels.
The party goes to the best blacksmith in town, and he grumpily states he has no time for children playing with swords. After he leaves, the blacksmith's apprentice goes over to apologize. He's lower level and it's much easier to convince him to do some work. Later on the party might be diplomatic enough to get some high level equipment from the more experienced NPC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When it comes to opposed checks or checks dealing with NPC, setting level isn't too difficult. However, even in such cases, I have to wonder how long it will take to memorize parts of the 'level = DC' table, otherwise I'll constantly be doing a double reference to figure out/remember what DC something should be.
But more static DC's are weird for me to understand as a function of level - while the DC will be increasing insofar as the party is encountering more difficult environments, trying to assign a level to something like a waterfall or tree branches or bookshelves or the Cliffs of Insanity feels like it takes a lot more understanding of what I want to be accomplish-able at certain levels rather than simply upping a DC, especially when the idea of level is often based off of a 'base' action and then scaled in difficulty, rather than increased in level. This will also be impact by how well I know other comparable levels and the DC's that those correlate to - so even if I remember that climbing a cliff is a level 2 challenge, and I remember that that default to a high difficulty DC of 15 - are the cliffs of insanity one difficulty higher? two? Would they be the same base level? And how does a cliff compare to walls of various type, level-wise? It feels very easy to over- or under-shoot, and subject to varying opinions by DM's with different experiences/expectations.
I did some GM prepwork for a fictional upcoming session in order to playtest how doing GM prepwork performs (I don't yet have enough understanding of the rules to suggest a real playtest). My results are below.
TLDR - CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
- As a result of the playtest I see value in having the DC by level table included in the rules.
- More information is needed to determine DCs reliably. I have listed DCs and guidance on what factors may increase or decrease the DC. But no idea how much those factors could influence the DC.
- The only comprehensive list of DCs is the DC by level and the surrounding text reinforces using that table to determine DCs, which means many, many, many GMs will simply default to using that table.
- Table 10-3 should be listed before Table 10-2 to discourage GMs going straight to the DCs by Level table.
PLAYTEST REPORT
- I checked the skills chapter to find guidelines on DCs and found nothing (specifically spotting footprints made in muddy ground, althogh an unknown number of days afterwards. So this would be a DC that adjusts on the fly based on PC action).
- On page 335 we have an introduction saying it's my job (as GM) to provide DC's where they're not set. Thus far I've only found set DC's related to class abilities. I've checked the index and respective pages and nothing. So I continue on with page 335.
- Creating Appropriate Challenges: A lot is said about making sure you have in-world justifications for the DCs you give. But no guidance on what challenges should have what DC beyond a handful of examples.
- Adjusting the Chance of Success: I finally get some actual DCs. Except it's the DC by level table. This is bad. If I stop here all I'll be doing is setting the challenge based on the PC's level because I have no other guidance thus far beyond brief examples.
- Proficiency gated tasks gives me 3 examples of where proficiency rank determines the ability to try. That's it. So my 15th level wizard is going to be climbing all sorts of things without any need for magical aid.
- Table 10-3 Ordinary Tasks finally gives me what I want. But all I get is a table with a list of tasks (it's a pretty small list but I'll just use tracking in dirt as my guideline). It says age of tracks helps determine DC which is exactly what I need. And then I get the level trivial DC for the check. No guidelines on how the age of the tracks affects the DC. This is true for all of the influencing factors listed in this table.
- Adjudicating Common Skills (Crafting): Examples are good and spot on.
- Adjudicating Common Skills (Gathering Information): This simply reinforces me using the DC by level table with guidelines on whether it's trivial information or extreme information. This means if PCs try to Gather Information at level 5, I'll use the level 5 DCs without thinking about whether the in-game reality and simply use the level 15 trivial or the level 15 extreme.
- Adjudicating Common Skills (Perform): It uses DC by audience level which is good advice. I also get guidance on how to determine an audience's level. This is helpful.
- Adjudicating Common Skills (Lore): Better than Gathering Information. Not as great as Perform. But you're going to be struggling here due to the breadth of possible lore skills.
- Adjudicating Common Skills (Knowledge Skills): It's "ok" guidance. But because of how poor Gathering Information is I still don't know what DC to use besides DC by level which means I'll just use those. Monster Identification and Training an Animal is actually good advice and finally justifies the existence of the DC by level table.
As I said in the concluding thoughts and above, the surrounding text is pushing me towards using the DC by level table. D&D 4th ed had more comprehensive guidance and yet people still misused the DC by level table. With the lack of guidance I'm seeing here, I'm going to have to use DC by level or make my own table DCs, relying on PF1e. This is not good for GMs who don't have the time to do that or the knowledge of PF1e to do that.
My suggestion: Set an arbitrary level (use the sparse guidelines and hazards as an example) and use the High DC.
The part where the rules are really letting us down is not telling us how much the difficulty adjustments actually adjust the DC by. It would also do well to have more examples and to explain how a trivial level 20 challenge (DC 20 for climbing a typical dungeon wall) can actually be achieved by someone of a lower level. A trivial challenge for a level 11 character would be a low challenge for level 7 or a high challenge for a level 4 character.
There is no logic, no rime no reason.. ppl are grasping at straws to justify the skill system because they want to play characters that can do anything and everything like true gods and have no flaws... makes me sad.. because this probably means that the skill system wont be changed...
I came into this playtest quite unhappy about the skill system and skill DCs. One of my earliest playtest posts was a plea for Paizo not to do exactly what they've done. We're in the thread where I reviewed the rules paragraph by paragraph. If you want to dismiss me as some fawning paizo sycophant, fine. But I think my posting history demonstrates otherwise.
Low level characters cant do anything; because level.
Objectively not true. Re-read gated proficiencies. There's only three uses of skills marked out as being gated.
High Level Characters can do anything with any skill; Because level.
Again, not true. DCs exist above 37 (which is beyond an untrained ability score 8 character's ability to achieve). By the way Pathfinder 1e DCs could go as high as DC 37 as well). What is true is that character's gain baseline proficiency in things (minium +17) whereas in Pathfinder 1e they don't.
It is a different paradigm. I'm still undecided on it. In PF1e wizards could do anything a low level fighter could do because magic and the cost for the wizard was negligible. In PF2e their spellslots are reduced so to compensate they've been given +level-2 to everything. Fighter have also been given +level-2 to everything so for the first time wizards can do any physical or intellectual task a low level wizard can do.
This is one of the shot's at the Linear Fighter/Quadratic Wizard problem that Paizo has taken. Whether they've gone too far I don't know.
Why isn't a "really hard level 7 task" just a level 9 task?
They probably wanted to indicate to GMs what is and isn't 'hard'; if it was just a single table, there'd be no guideline as to whether a level 8 task is a fair challenge for level 7 players, or whether you should go much higher.
And a simple "+2 for hard" rule wouldn't work too well because at higher levels there are more bonuses potentially available, so it's not as simple a relationship as that.
It's also not linear
|
|
One of my favorite tests of a skill system is to look at grappling. I loved the PF 1 version. very simple and rewarded investment.
I tried the grapple and push checks and the book said to use the monster's athletics check. I looked in the Beastiary and found athletics of 2 for some creatures and 17 for others. So what I thought was, Use the table on 337 at the default of high then add the athletics bonus to get a DC.
So to grapple an orc warrior Level 1 with an athletics bonus of +6. I would get: 14 from the table + 6 athletics = 20.
Is this correct?
As far as I can tell the DC should be 10 + Skill Bonus (So 16 to grapple an orc).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of my favorite tests of a skill system is to look at grappling. I loved the PF 1 version. very simple and rewarded investment.
I tried the grapple and push checks and the book said to use the monster's athletics check. I looked in the Beastiary and found athletics of 2 for some creatures and 17 for others. So what I thought was, Use the table on 337 at the default of high then add the athletics bonus to get a DC.
So to grapple an orc warrior Level 1 with an athletics bonus of +6. I would get: 14 from the table + 6 athletics = 20.
Is this correct?
No. When you grapple someone, you roll athletics against their fortitude save. This is explicitly called out in the Grapple action. An orc has a +4 fort save, so it has a fort DC of 14.
If the orc grapples you, and you want to use a Break Grapple action, you roll athletics against his athletic DC. The orc has +6 athletics, which means the DC you need to beat is 16.
When it says "roll against X DC," it usually means "The Bonus to X thing +10." So my stealth DC is my stealth bonus+10. My Perception DC is my perception bonus+10. etc.
...Also, you thought grappling was simple in PF1? Most folks needed a literal flow chart to make sense of it.