Table 10-2 is a GM's Nightmare

[thelostgod]

As a long-time GM, I'd just like to say that the arbitrarily growing DC numbers and, as a result, the need for a chart like Table 10-2 is a nightmare for running the game smoothly.

It seems to be that you're setting the difficulty of a task twice, for one. Also, since the chart does not grow in a linear fashion (sometimes +1 between levels and sometimes +2 or +3), there is a need to have your book open to page 337 the entire game.

To me, it would almosts be easier to just ask each player what their total bonus to a skill is and then set the number on-the-fly according to how much chance of succeeding you feel they'd have. NOT a good solution by any means, but still quicker and (potentially) more reliable than the current chart.

Is there any way to fix this so that DCs are set and the "level" and "difficulty" simply exist as modifiers? That way we could actually memorize the DC scaling and then control it from there.

[thorin001]

Here is how to use the chart:

Pick a character that you want to use as a baseline.
Pick a number that you want the player to have to roll on the d20 to succeed.
Add that number to the character's skill modifier.
Find a number on the chart that matches your number.

[RobRendell]

I tried pivoting table 10-2 so I could get a better feel for it. The below version shows how challenging a given DC would be for characters of various levels.

DCs from 10 to 55 are listed down the left-hand side, and then it lists the level ranges for which that DC is Extremely difficult, Severely difficult etc. down to Trivial.

For a given DC, it shows the levels which table 10-2 shows as having that DC +/- 2 as the given category (so, for DC 15 it shows the levels that say DC 13 to 17).

I've had to pad it with underscores, because this forum doesn't have any way to format tables that I can see.

DC_______Extreme_______Severe_______High_______Low_______Trivial
_________________________________For levels__________________________
10__________0____________0 - 1_________0 - 3_________________________
15__________0____________0 - 2_________1 - 3_______2 - 4_______4 - 8__
20________1 - 3___________3 - 5_________4 - 6_______5 - 8_______9 - 13_
25________4 - 7___________6 - 9_________7 - 10______9 - 12____14 - 18_
30________8 - 10________10 - 12_______11 - 13_____13 - 15____19 - 21_
35_______11 - 12________13 - 15_______14 - 16_____16 - 19____22 - 23_
40_______13 - 16________16 - 19_______17 - 20_____20 - 21____________
45_______17 - 20________20 - 21_______21 - 22_____22 - 23____________
50_______21 - 22________22 - 23_________23__________________________
55_________23_______________________________________________________

Given the design of the playtest I think you'd still need the original table 10-2, because it's used to determine the DC of various monster abilities etc. Still, I thought it was interesting enough to share.

[EberronHoward]

One reason it's not linear is because PCs gain Skill Training in addition to the Proficiency bonus.

It's a good tool in building an adventure. If you want a 5th level dungeon that has a wind wall in the entrance that's meant to be flavour instead of a threat, give it a DC 14 Athletics to pass. Some PCs might be buffeted back, but it won't stop them. Now, if you want a secret door for the BBEG to escape from his lair to the entrance, give that door a DC 25 Perception to find. Maybe they'll find it, but probably not.

[Hurká]

It's a tool for those of us who aren't experienced with 2E or are bad at math to understand how challenging a DC is for "average PCs" at each level. I find it very useful.

Also, you shouldn't need the table open all the time. Your PCs should all be about the same level. So even if you're making up DCs on the fly every 5 minutes, you just need to write down one row.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

I am not a huge fan of the tables myself, it feels absolutely mandatory to have ready all the time, though I could likely get used to it.

[DarkKnight27]

Agreed, this table is kind of a pain but it's not the worst thing in the Playtest.

[Mudfoot]

The table is wrong because apart from Trivial the difficulties go up in rather irregular parallel with Extreme. Which means that there's a tiny gap between Trivial and Low at 1st level but a big gap at 20th. I can see why Severe and Extreme grow like that (they're for optimised specialists) but Low is described as something a second-line character could do, such as a rogue doing Athletics. So it ought to diverge from Trivial more slowly.

And the irregularity of it is just crude and arbitrary anyway.

/maths gripe

[Tamago]

What bothers me is that there are several places where the rules say, "The GM sets the DC", but there's no guidance on what sorts of DCs should be used. Even if they would say something like, "This should be an Easy DC based on the level of the opponent" or something, it would help.

Ideally, I really think there needs to be some examples of the DCs of common tasks listed with the thing that calls for them. Having to flip back and forth to find the skill DC chart all the time is maddening. And it's large enough that there's not really any hope of memorizing it.

For example, the Track skill really ought to have some example DCs for things, like:
Track an animal through fresh snow - 5
Track a large animal across soft ground - 10
Follow game through a dense forest - 15
Identify a type of humanoid based on its boot-prints - 20
Track a bird that passed across open water on a cloudy moonless night - 40

[Tamago]

Mudfoot wrote:

The table is wrong because apart from Trivial the difficulties go up in rather irregular parallel with Extreme. Which means that there's a tiny gap between Trivial and Low at 1st level but a big gap at 20th. I can see why Severe and Extreme grow like that (they're for optimised specialists) but Low is described as something a second-line character could do, such as a rogue doing Athletics. So it ought to diverge from Trivial more slowly.

And the irregularity of it is just crude and arbitrary anyway.

/maths gripe

I also think that the Trivial DCs are way too high. A level 1 Trivial check is DC 10. Someone trained in the skill and with a +2 ability score (+3 total) will still fail 30% of the time. That doesn't seem very trivial to me!

I would expect that a Trivial check would be something that even someone fairly incompetent (say, an 8 in the ability score and untrained, so a -2 total modifier) would still be able to succeed at most of the time. In fact, that character will fail more than half the time (55%)!

[Shaheer-El-Khatib]

I have problem to find situation matching the dc of the table since we have only few example and none are of High level.

If swimming in a stormy ocean is level 5, What could be a swimming challenge at higher level ?
Swimming in stormy ocean while meteorites falling ?

I an very confused by how low level are the examples.

[Githzilla]

It seems like this is the table you need to use to come up with the Fort Save DC for every time a creature knocks out a character correct? This will probably be the most often used reason for using the table.

[Tamago]

Githzilla wrote:

It seems like this is the table you need to use to come up with the Fort Save DC for every time a creature knocks out a character correct? This will probably be the most often used reason for using the table.

That's another gripe. It would be way easier to just include the DC in the monster's stat block so that we don't need to go look it up all the time.

[Laik]

I ended up not using this table at all, tbh. I am used to adjudicate DC of a particular task, not basing in on PC level, and likely to continue that. When I adjudicate that "persuading this NPC to come as ally for BBEG fight" is 25 DC +price, while "persuading the same NPC to tell about her problems and hardships to strangers" is DC 10 task, both my decisions have nothing to do with the PC level.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Tamago wrote:

What bothers me is that there are several places where the rules say, "The GM sets the DC", but there's no guidance on what sorts of DCs should be used. Even if they would say something like, "This should be an Easy DC based on the level of the opponent" or something, it would help.

Ideally, I really think there needs to be some examples of the DCs of common tasks listed with the thing that calls for them. Having to flip back and forth to find the skill DC chart all the time is maddening. And it's large enough that there's not really any hope of memorizing it.

For example, the Track skill really ought to have some example DCs for things, like:
Track an animal through fresh snow - 5
Track a large animal across soft ground - 10
Follow game through a dense forest - 15
Identify a type of humanoid based on its boot-prints - 20
Track a bird that passed across open water on a cloudy moonless night - 40

I happen to agree, even if the intent is to allow the GM a bit more freedom (not unlike the +/-4 for favorable circumstances/good RP) what every GM deserves is a fair bit of guidance, and when it comes to skills I would love more guidance about proper proficiency gating.

[Xenocrat]

Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

I have problem to find situation matching the dc of the table since we have only few example and none are of High level.

If swimming in a stormy ocean is level 5, What could be a swimming challenge at higher level ?
Swimming in stormy ocean while meteorites falling ?

I an very confused by how low level are the examples.

Swimming shouldn't be that big of a challenge at high level. But if you want it to be, you make it something worse than a stormy sea - a full on hurricane or an elemental vortex.

Tamago wrote:

I also think that the Trivial DCs are way too high. A level 1 Trivial check is DC 10. Someone trained in the skill and with a +2 ability score (+3 total) will still fail 30% of the time. That doesn't seem very trivial to me!

I would expect that a Trivial check would be something that even someone fairly incompetent (say, an 8 in the ability score and untrained, so a -2 total modifier) would still be able to succeed at most of the time. In fact, that character will fail more than half the time (55%)!

Mark explained on the forums that a trivial task should be trivial for a party of four to overcome, not for an individual character. The idea is that someone can almost certainly do it, not that everyone can reliably do it. It's the same for difficulty of encounters - a trivial combat encounter expects the entire party to be fighting against it, not one guy soloing it.

[DerNils]

And remember, this is expressively not intended to reflect the Level of the party or character acting. It's supposed to reflect the Level of whoever set up this Problem.
So in the example of the BBEG's secret door, Party Level never enters the equation - you take the BBEG's Level and than adjucate how much care he gave to hide it.

I am not defending this table, just wanted to clarify the intent. And put me down for "we Need more examples", because the DC's in Doomsday Dawn certainly don't help to make anything clearer.

[Mr.CoffeeCup]

thelostgod wrote:

As a long-time GM, I'd just like to say that the arbitrarily growing DC numbers and, as a result, the need for a chart like Table 10-2 is a nightmare for running the game smoothly.

It seems to be that you're setting the difficulty of a task twice, for one. Also, since the chart does not grow in a linear fashion (sometimes +1 between levels and sometimes +2 or +3), there is a need to have your book open to page 337 the entire game.

To me, it would almosts be easier to just ask each player what their total bonus to a skill is and then set the number on-the-fly according to how much chance of succeeding you feel they'd have. NOT a good solution by any means, but still quicker and (potentially) more reliable than the current chart.

Is there any way to fix this so that DCs are set and the "level" and "difficulty" simply exist as modifiers? That way we could actually memorize the DC scaling and then control it from there.

I agree. I made DCs on the fly often when running it because it keeps the game moving. I hate having to refer to tables.

The only time I ended up using the table was to describe the difficulty of a task to the PCs for something that was obvious. I wanted to give a frame of reference and try to keep some semblance of immersion, not just say, "It's a DC of X." For example, climbing the ledge in A7 (DC 15) was a severe challenge for the level 1 PCs.

Also, it doesn't make sense to me to include the table but then include actual DCs throughout the adventure. There was a lack of consistency. If the table is integral in the game, then reference it or say that a task is a high difficult task for level 1 PCs.

So many DCs in the adventure were more than extreme for the party too, it didn't make sense to me. Maybe that is one of the things they were trying to "stress test."

[Fumarole]

I have a GM screen that you can put inserts into. I just added table 10-2 to my screen and I am good to go. I know some GMs prefer not to use a screen for hiding rolls and such but this kind of screen is extremely handy to have at the table simply to use as a reference. I put various things for the players on their side, like maps, artwork of the city they are in, a list of conditions and a brief explanation, etc. I couldn't imagine going back to playing without such a screen.

[thelostgod]

It's a definite must-have on the GM screen, for sure. Though generally, I prefer to have my screen loaded up with stuff I know I'll need to look up because, no matter how much I use said information, I'll usually need to reference it to make sure I'm doing it right (conditions, cover, concealment, average hardness/hps, terrain modifiers perhaps...).

As far as scaling DCs for skill use, it seems burdensome.

"I want to seduce the barmaid so she gives me free beer."

"Ok... lesse... That would be a... challenging? task. And you're level 2, so lemme look across this chart here..."

The PF1 system was much cleaner (albeit balanced with the math from PF1). I could just say "15" or "20" and then decide that the barmaid hated adventurers (+4 to the DC) or that perhaps she had just broken up with her b/f and was on the rebound (-4 to the DC) and then the number was made. Throughout every level and every random-ass encounter that the PCs demanded to make a roll on.

Considering the sheer level of nonsense rolls that PCs like to make, having to reference a chart every time is going to produce low-level migraines.

[Tamago]

Xenocrat wrote:

Tamago wrote:

I also think that the Trivial DCs are way too high. A level 1 Trivial check is DC 10. Someone trained in the skill and with a +2 ability score (+3 total) will still fail 30% of the time. That doesn't seem very trivial to me!

I would expect that a Trivial check would be something that even someone fairly incompetent (say, an 8 in the ability score and untrained, so a -2 total modifier) would still be able to succeed at most of the time. In fact, that character will fail more than half the time (55%)!

Mark explained on the forums that a trivial task should be trivial for a party of four to overcome, not for an individual character. The idea is that someone can almost certainly do it, not that everyone can reliably do it. It's the same for difficulty of encounters - a trivial combat encounter expects the entire party to be fighting against it, not one guy soloing it.

If that is the intent, then the math makes a little more sense. But that's not what I understood from reading the text. The facing page says, "These are good DCs for when a task is going to be rote for the more skilled members of the party; you can usually skip rolling and assume the characters succeed against trivial DCs.". To me, at least, a 30% chance of failure is definitely not "rote"! That's "I have a pretty good shot at this, but I should be careful because there's still a one-in-three chance I'll screw it up."

[Mudfoot]

That line about "you can usually skip rolling and assume the characters succeed against trivial DCs" wouldn't be needed if people could just TAKE 10 which would get rid of half of this nonsense.

[EberronHoward]

DerNils wrote:

And remember, this is expressively not intended to reflect the Level of the party or character acting. It's supposed to reflect the Level of whoever set up this Problem.

So in the example of the BBEG's secret door, Party Level never enters the equation - you take the BBEG's Level and than adjucate how much care he gave to hide it.

That would be great in a sandbox, where players can choose where they go, and can just leave a dungeon they can't complete. But if you're running a campaign where the party is supposed to get through the dungeon, and some of the DCs are too high for them to ever bypass? The dungeon might need to be rethought.

[Cyouni]

Mudfoot wrote:

That line about "you can usually skip rolling and assume the characters succeed against trivial DCs" wouldn't be needed if people could just TAKE 10 which would get rid of half of this nonsense.

I'm going to point out that Take 10, in practical use, eliminates any DC high-difficulty or less for any character with sufficient setup. And usually, only one person needs to succeed in those.

So take 10 carves off half the table in usable challenges, just like that.

[Mathmuse]

Cyouni wrote:

Mudfoot wrote:

That line about "you can usually skip rolling and assume the characters succeed against trivial DCs" wouldn't be needed if people could just TAKE 10 which would get rid of half of this nonsense.

I'm going to point out that Take 10, in practical use, eliminates any DC high-difficulty or less for any character with sufficient setup. And usually, only one person needs to succeed in those.

So take 10 carves off half the table in usable challenges, just like that.

Yes, some challenges are interesting only once or twice, so we want them carved off the table.

If a character gets on a horse for the first time, to start an overland journey of 100 miles, then rolling Handle Animal checks is appropriate. It sets the story that the character is inexperienced. Dealing with horses is a new challenge. Three levels later, after 250 miles on horseback, the character is experienced, but he has only +3 to Handle Animal beyond what he had at the beginning, so he could still fall out of the saddle on a low roll. But riding is not an important skill to the character build, so the player did not spend the feat for Assurance.

The GM skips asking for the roll, because he does not want a comedy routine about bad horseback riding. Take 10 would be more thematic than outright GM fiat.

[Previloc]

First off - really like the direction of the game. I have some integrated table suggestions (re: Tables 4-3, 4-4, 6-13, 10-series, 11-1 and MM Table 2 (Hazards)), including methods to provide DCs (GM provides a DC...). I've got Excel tables and graphs (but don't know how to attach for any interest). I retired from DoD SE/algorithm work and enjoy this kind of thing.

4-3 and 4-4 can be combined, and populated with scaled values 'impossible' expertise magnitudes (Rogue can be Expert at 2, and I think Legendary comes in at 17). I balanced income to the number of days it would take to reduce an item of "2 levels under a PCs level" to half cost, and smooth out the graphs (e.g. so a 14th level PC making a 12th level item spends a little more time than a 13th level PC a 11th level item, as most values imply as a design goal). Populating the table in full allows a a GM to evaluate using a higher DC than typical, and for high expertise character to create more value at a low (level) task, even if "the town" can't pay. This helps tie Table 10-2 (the DC) to Table 4-3/4 (the result). I don't know how to attach the Excel, but Expert values are close to 1.6x Trained Values, Expert values 1.8x Trained, and Legendary 2x Expert. I tweaked values to get close to even divisibles that look better. I renamed the columns to Ordinary (Trivial/Fail), Trained(Moderate), Expert(High), Master(Severe), Legendary(Extreme).

On costs, (11-1, 6-13, ...) I changed Level 17 to read 8k and 16k (for high permanent item value), and 6-13's 1st and 2nd level values to 8sp and 16 respectively (these make item cost tables virtually identical and smooth out cost annomalies).

Table 10-2's Trivial DCs contradict the values given in 10-3-10-6, which appeared to be 4 under 10-2's Trivial. To give 10-2 better spread, I then went -2 to Trained, and -1 to Expert, and then rebalanced the values so that DC's increased smoothly and with more consistency so increasing level is just +1 or +2, and increasing expertise/difficulty started at +3's (5, 8, 11, 14, 17), to +5's at 20th (27, 32, 37, 42, 47). I renamed the columns to Ordinary/Trivial, Trained(Moderate), Expert(High), Master(Severe), Legendary(Extreme).

I've labeled the new 10-2 Expert track as "ID Spell" (Table 4-2). This does provide two DCs (assuming spells at half of PC level), which allows some room for roleplay, reputation, or spell choice. I also labeled each column as hints for Recall Knowledge information.

Table 10-2 can then be used for Hazard (Table 2) To-Hit (Trained), Perception DC and lesser Save (Expert), AC and greater Save (Severe). I modified Hazard Hardness/Dents to retain damage, but start Hardness at 3 and 18 at 20th (10 dents at 20th) because of the expense of an Adamantine item, what level you'd get it, and what Hazards it would apply to (Legendary Hardness 17 costs 15k, more money than you get going through 18th level). I also rescaled Simple damage to 50% a tame 6+6 character of that level, and Complex to 1/3 that amount (as in pretest, Average Hazard damage is 75% that character's hp - very likely to one-shot such characters if unwounded).

To answer the "How do I make a DC" question, with 10-2 (DCs) mirroring 4-3/4, you've got 5 DCs for every level, and 5 matching results. I would suggest the Crafting checks meeting the Trivial value not waste the materials, but not allow an instant purchase until the right DC is met (so, proceeding at risk).

Again, I like the game - and the math here in the playtest is, as printed, better than the initial official releases I bought of other 'prime' product.

[Scythia]

DerNils wrote:

And remember, this is expressively not intended to reflect the Level of the party or character acting. It's supposed to reflect the Level of whoever set up this Problem.

So in the example of the BBEG's secret door, Party Level never enters the equation - you take the BBEG's Level and than adjucate how much care he gave to hide it.

I am not defending this table, just wanted to clarify the intent. And put me down for "we Need more examples", because the DC's in Doomsday Dawn certainly don't help to make anything clearer.

I've heard that idea, but there's a problem with it: I have a cave network that's being used as a kobold lair. The cave system once featured a river, and the passage between some caves is both elevated and smooth because of that. What DC do I use for Athletics checks to climb those? Do I use the level of the kobolds? Do I use the level of the former river, since the river is what caused the issue (related: what is the level of a river)? Am I supposed to decide "well this is a level one cave system" because I'm using it for a first level party? In that case, I suppose I can't have the party return later and discover more in the cave system, unless caves can level up?

[thorin001]

Scythia wrote:

DerNils wrote:

And remember, this is expressively not intended to reflect the Level of the party or character acting. It's supposed to reflect the Level of whoever set up this Problem.

So in the example of the BBEG's secret door, Party Level never enters the equation - you take the BBEG's Level and than adjucate how much care he gave to hide it.

I am not defending this table, just wanted to clarify the intent. And put me down for "we Need more examples", because the DC's in Doomsday Dawn certainly don't help to make anything clearer.

I've heard that idea, but there's a problem with it: I have a cave network that's being used as a kobold lair. The cave system once featured a river, and the passage between some caves is both elevated and smooth because of that. What DC do I use for Athletics checks to climb those? Do I use the level of the kobolds? Do I use the level of the former river, since the river is what caused the issue (related: what is the level of a river)? Am I supposed to decide "well this is a level one cave system" because I'm using it for a first level party? In that case, I suppose I can't have the party return later and discover more in the cave system, unless caves can level up?

You are supposed to use the level of the party because they are the ones being challenged. Then you decide if it is a low, high, or extreme difficulty for the specific task.

This was the answer I got from John Compton.

[DerNils]

Scythia wrote:

Am I supposed to decide "well this is a level one cave system" because I'm using it for a first level party? In that case, I suppose I can't have the party return later and discover more in the cave system, unless caves can level up?

That is exactly what you are expected to do. And when your Party Comes back later, I hope you do not Level the cave - that is the difference between static and dynamic DC's. Swimming/Scaling the same river should not be as difficult to your Level 5 Party as it was for your Level 1 Party, that is the whole shtick of +1/Level to everything.

Or you can refer to table 10-4 instead of choosing your own Level, to see where typical environmental challenges are regardings DC's.

[Previloc]

A 10-2-like table is an essential tool unless character statistics don't change over levels. Does party level matter to how you run your game? Absolutely. Few want to constantly regenerate characters figuring out how to survive (Dragon's Lair, anyone?), and few want to spend much of the evening on a wimpy encounter (if you thought they'd be there at low level, and they get there much later - develop it to be interesting, or don't even waste time rolling on it). The game, like a book/movie, is centered on the viewpoint characters (which the players control) and their challenges, as much as it is the GM's world/plot/...setting (that the GM controls). Can the players hold the GM hostage? Sort-of. If players won't cooperate, something needs to change. But, player has their PC jump down a smooth 5'r deep dark hole and imagines it's a bat-cave chute...splat (Paizo's 3.5 'Final Resting Place', Dungeon May '05).

[Ascalaphus]

The table reads a lot like "doing the same thing stays just as hard as you level up". As if tasks have no objective difficulty, but only a relative difficulty compared to the hero attempting them. If the hero goes up a level, the DC of the task goes up too.

That's not entirely fair; the book doesn't quite say that, and some DCs are set "objectively". The book suggests GMs should challenge higher-level PCs with more impressive tasks. But it doesn't actually help much in doing that.

It's going to be hard to feel immersed in a world if you seem to be running in place. I think what we need is the following:

1) A robust collection of objective task DCs in the skills chapter. Players can see the DCs and can compare to their skill scores to determine just how good they are (or aren't).

2) A table for GMs with what kind of DCs should be challenging for PCs of a given level right now. Because skill bonuses are more bounded up and down, this table could be fairly accurate.

3) Advice to writers seeking to challenge level X PCs, to look up what the DC would be, and then to hunt through the skills chapter looking for tasks with that DC. So to keep challenging PCs, they get increasingly impressive tasks.

YES Task DCs stay the same, but you get challenged with objectively harder tasks.

NO The same task is just as hard at level 10 as at level 1 because the GM just looked up a DC in a table of "what is challenging".

[Data Lore]

Here is my version of Table 10-2. The current table is far too granular and does not coincide with easily dileniated tiers of play. I would prefer something like 4 tiers but Paizo tends to release APs in more parts and the numbers seem tight in PF2, so this is how I would do it:

Tier (level range)
Trivial, Low, High, Severe, Extreme

Beginning Tier (L1-3)
10,12,15,18,21

Early Tier (L4-6)
13,17,21,23,26

Early Intermediate Tier (L7-9)
16,20,24,27,30

Intermediate Tier (L10-12)
19,24,28,32,35

Late Intermediate Tier (L13-15)
22,29,33,37,40

Late Tier (L16-18)
25,33,38,41,45

Epic Tier (L19-20)
28,37,41,44,47

This is still like 7 tiers, which is alot. However, now instead of needing 20+ examples of what different levels of a difficulty should look like, we just need 7. This should also help players and gms judge what is possible or impossible for characters to do.

So, we can see, what are appropriate physical, mental and social challenges at each tier? And how do difficulties cut across that axis?

It would be interesting if there were some more clear rules around setting up difficulty across what appears to be two axis. So, the tier of the task suggests the sorts of things those characters will be doing at a given tier and the difficulty is a more situation modifier.

So, once we know the "tier" of the lock, what does the crosscutting difficulty mean there? Is picking locks not a thing at higher tiers? I dunno, this needs to be simplified some and really clarified through very clear examples.

I would suggest that if they bound proficiency a bit more (maybe halving the proficiency bonus you gain per level), you could probably limit this table further to about 4 or 5 tiers. That would make things alot more manageable.

[HWalsh]

Tamago wrote:

What bothers me is that there are several places where the rules say, "The GM sets the DC", but there's no guidance on what sorts of DCs should be used. Even if they would say something like, "This should be an Easy DC based on the level of the opponent" or something, it would help.

Ideally, I really think there needs to be some examples of the DCs of common tasks listed with the thing that calls for them. Having to flip back and forth to find the skill DC chart all the time is maddening. And it's large enough that there's not really any hope of memorizing it.

For example, the Track skill really ought to have some example DCs for things, like:
Track an animal through fresh snow - 5
Track a large animal across soft ground - 10
Follow game through a dense forest - 15
Identify a type of humanoid based on its boot-prints - 20
Track a bird that passed across open water on a cloudy moonless night - 40

They didn't do that because they don't want Players to be able to reference a chart and inform the GM that they automatically succeed at something. That is something I saw in pfs/pf1 all the time.

[Tamago]

HWalsh wrote:

Tamago wrote:

What bothers me is that there are several places where the rules say, "The GM sets the DC", but there's no guidance on what sorts of DCs should be used. Even if they would say something like, "This should be an Easy DC based on the level of the opponent" or something, it would help.

Ideally, I really think there needs to be some examples of the DCs of common tasks listed with the thing that calls for them. Having to flip back and forth to find the skill DC chart all the time is maddening. And it's large enough that there's not really any hope of memorizing it.

For example, the Track skill really ought to have some example DCs for things, like:
Track an animal through fresh snow - 5
Track a large animal across soft ground - 10
Follow game through a dense forest - 15
Identify a type of humanoid based on its boot-prints - 20
Track a bird that passed across open water on a cloudy moonless night - 40

They didn't do that because they don't want Players to be able to reference a chart and inform the GM that they automatically succeed at something. That is something I saw in pfs/pf1 all the time.

If they really could succeed on a 1, then why is that a problem? Seems like it would save time at the table.

[PossibleCabbage]

So the way I look at it is since the largest number people will be adding to their skill checks will often be their level, and to that people will add a number which ranges from -6 to +10, we can figure out pretty easily how often a baseline character of a given level is going to succeed or fail on the roll.

In fact Paizo did that, and shared their results so I didn't have to recreate.

I see the table as pretty much a "these are the ranges of DCs for a certain level which are high enough as to interesting but low enough that they are achievable." When something falls out of that range it's probably too easy to be bother rolling on or too high to be something the PCs are asked to do. Something like the master of survival tracking a mundane animal in favorable conditions are probably too easy to be worth rolling anyway.

It's worth considering what the value is in asking people to roll dice if the outcome is already essentially certain. Some of this is okay, but a lot of rolling for the "you climb the ladder" stuff is kind of a waste of time.

[Aramar]

HWalsh wrote:

Tamago wrote:

What bothers me is that there are several places where the rules say, "The GM sets the DC", but there's no guidance on what sorts of DCs should be used. Even if they would say something like, "This should be an Easy DC based on the level of the opponent" or something, it would help.

Ideally, I really think there needs to be some examples of the DCs of common tasks listed with the thing that calls for them. Having to flip back and forth to find the skill DC chart all the time is maddening. And it's large enough that there's not really any hope of memorizing it.

For example, the Track skill really ought to have some example DCs for things, like:
Track an animal through fresh snow - 5
Track a large animal across soft ground - 10
Follow game through a dense forest - 15
Identify a type of humanoid based on its boot-prints - 20
Track a bird that passed across open water on a cloudy moonless night - 40

They didn't do that because they don't want Players to be able to reference a chart and inform the GM that they automatically succeed at something. That is something I saw in pfs/pf1 all the time.

While I, on the other hand, want my players to be able to just that. It makes my job a lot easier, especially if I don't have any particular DC or easier/harder difficulty in mind.

[EberronHoward]

Scythia wrote:

I've heard that idea, but there's a problem with it: I have a cave network that's being used as a kobold lair. The cave system once featured a river, and the passage between some caves is both elevated and smooth because of that. What DC do I use for Athletics checks to climb those? Do I use the level of the kobolds? Do I use the level of the former river, since the river is what caused the issue (related: what is the level of a river)? Am I supposed to decide "well this is a level one cave system" because I'm using it for a first level party? In that case, I suppose I can't have the party return later and discover more in the cave system, unless caves can level up?

Well, I'd give the Kobolds some way to traverse the cliffs. If that requires skills, then it should definitely be within a DC they could make. The entire cave system can be of different DCs, based on the flavour and where I would keep certain things locked-off. The path to the right might have an easy level 1 DC, the path to the right might have an easy level 3 DC, and the middle road has a severe level 1 DC.

Basically, use the DCs to determine what you want to happen in the cave:
- Explore anywhere? Low DCs for their level everywhere.
- Railroad them down one path? Low DCs for one path, extreme DC for all the others.

[Grimcleaver]

Here's my big problem with the DC numbers. I tried to explain this elsewhere but people got hung up with the example I used and the whole discussion went sideways.

The notes on choosing a DC say this under the heading "Creating Appropriate Challenges":
It’s important that you don’t simply make the DC arbitrarily higher or lower with the PCs’ level. Any increase must be justified based on how the challenge actually increased, and thus how success is more impressive. For checks against opponents’ DCs, higher-level adversaries have higher skills, so the players can clearly see improvement as they challenge and surpass more powerful foes.

What this means is that you're stuck not only with this table of DCs based on level and severity of the task you're having the characters do, which is hard to muddle through and buried on page 337--but not only that! You're also responsible as a GM for justifying the arbitrary math that causes things to get harder to do every level by inventing reasons why whatever they're doing is harder now than it was a level ago. It can't just be that the DCs are harder now because their level has gone up and otherwise they wouldn't be level appropriate (the real reason).

So consequently you're stuck trying to figure out why when they're about to fall into a pit trap that now the DC is a 17 instead of a 14 to catch the edge (like are all edges slippery now? covered in spikes? what?)

Which is entirely backward. It should be that tasks have DCs based on how hard they are irrespective of level--they should have fixed difficulty. But in this, how hard a task is is mostly determined by how high level the character attempting the task is--and then on top of that the GM gets forced trying to bend the story to fit the arbitrary game mechanic.

Not a fan of that.

[Lyee]

It's also not backed up by Paizo. I'm playing Doomsday Part 4, the level 9 section, and every DC is in the 24-28 range. At no point does it say 'scouting the wilderness is relatively mundane, so the DC is only 16' or 'these guys actually really need help, dispite their standoffish nature, the situation is in your favour and it's a DC 14 diplomacy' - nope, everything is 24-28. It's rubbish. My players don't feel particuarly competent even at their specialties. I understand that 'oh, you're trying to talk to that powerful beast? The inherently hostile one? Yeah, that's a level appropriate challenge. A really tough one, even. DC 30!' Not everything should be easy. But... have some range to these DCs!

[Shaheer-El-Khatib]

Grimcleaver wrote:

Here's my big problem with the DC numbers. I tried to explain this elsewhere but people got hung up with the example I used and the whole discussion went sideways.

The notes on choosing a DC say this under the heading "Creating Appropriate Challenges":
It’s important that you don’t simply make the DC arbitrarily higher or lower with the PCs’ level. Any increase must be justified based on how the challenge actually increased, and thus how success is more impressive. For checks against opponents’ DCs, higher-level adversaries have higher skills, so the players can clearly see improvement as they challenge and surpass more powerful foes.

What this means is that you're stuck not only with this table of DCs based on level and severity of the task you're having the characters do, which is hard to muddle through and buried on page 337--but not only that! You're also responsible as a GM for justifying the arbitrary math that causes things to get harder to do every level by inventing reasons why whatever they're doing is harder now than it was a level ago. It can't just be that the DCs are harder now because their level has gone up and otherwise they wouldn't be level appropriate (the real reason).

So consequently you're stuck trying to figure out why when they're about to fall into a pit trap that now the DC is a 17 instead of a 14 to catch the edge (like are all edges slippery now? covered in spikes? what?)

Which is entirely backward. It should be that tasks have DCs based on how hard they are irrespective of level--they should have fixed difficulty. But in this, how hard a task is is mostly determined by how high level the character attempting the task is--and then on top of that the GM gets forced trying to bend the story to fit the arbitrary game mechanic.

Not a fan of that.

You said what was on my mind but I didn't know how to say it.

Thanks you !

[Dreamtime2k9]

Lyee wrote:

It's also not backed up by Paizo. I'm playing Doomsday Part 4, the level 9 section, and every DC is in the 24-28 range. At no point does it say 'scouting the wilderness is relatively mundane, so the DC is only 16' or 'these guys actually really need help, dispite their standoffish nature, the situation is in your favour and it's a DC 14 diplomacy' - nope, everything is 24-28. It's rubbish. My players don't feel particuarly competent even at their specialties. I understand that 'oh, you're trying to talk to that powerful beast? The inherently hostile one? Yeah, that's a level appropriate challenge. A really tough one, even. DC 30!' Not everything should be easy. But... have some range to these DCs!

As one of his players, i concur with the above statement. We pretty much just started assisting the person with the highest modifier because it was the only way most of us felt we could contribute with our modifiers and have a chance at success against the harsh DC.

Having a table like this that scales with level; it doesn't feel like you progressed with your character, which is taking away the player feeling of realising that the character has improved after going through countless encounters with dangerous foes to improve ones own abilities which i would call growth; i think its a big part of roleplaying games thats important to have in order to be enjoying yourself. It is just absent because of this particular table.

It also doesn't make sense, if you climbed the same tree every single day for an entire year, you would expect the person climbing the particular tree to get better at it and either his modifier to go up or the difficulty class to go down for climbing the tree as effort was put into getting better at this particular task. You probably wouldn't start struggling more as you get stronger yourself, right?

[Shaheer-El-Khatib]

Dreamtime2k9 wrote:

Lyee wrote:

It's also not backed up by Paizo. I'm playing Doomsday Part 4, the level 9 section, and every DC is in the 24-28 range. At no point does it say 'scouting the wilderness is relatively mundane, so the DC is only 16' or 'these guys actually really need help, dispite their standoffish nature, the situation is in your favour and it's a DC 14 diplomacy' - nope, everything is 24-28. It's rubbish. My players don't feel particuarly competent even at their specialties. I understand that 'oh, you're trying to talk to that powerful beast? The inherently hostile one? Yeah, that's a level appropriate challenge. A really tough one, even. DC 30!' Not everything should be easy. But... have some range to these DCs!

As one of his players, i concur with the above statement. We pretty much just started assisting the person with the highest modifier because it was the only way most of us felt we could contribute with our modifiers and have a chance at success against the harsh DC.

Having a table like this that scales with level; it doesn't feel like you progressed with your character, which is taking away the player feeling of realising that the character has improved after going through countless encounters with dangerous foes to improve ones own abilities which i would call growth; i think its a big part of roleplaying games thats important to have in order to be enjoying yourself. It is just absent because of this particular table.

It also doesn't make sense, if you climbed the same tree every single day for an entire year, you would expect the person climbing the particular tree to get better at it and either his modifier to go up or the difficulty class to go down for climbing the tree as effort was put into getting better at this particular task. You probably wouldn't start struggling more as you get stronger yourself, right?

You got it wrong.

Climbing a tree is always the same DC not matter the PCs level. Once you set a DC for something it won't change as long as the conditions are the same.
So your PC would become better and better at climbing that tree to the point you don't even need to roll to succeed.

The issue however is that the game made the GM think backward.

Usually I would look at the PC modifiers, then deciding how hard it should be and then looking for appropriate challenge.

"They have +8 climb but I want it to be fairly challenging so I pick a DC of 20 and then look at a table to found something around that (Ok the wall need to be like this or maybe it is like that but with this special circumstances)"

But right now PF2 is :
"They are level 10 so I must put something level 10 to make it a bit challenging. It is DC 27. Now I need to improvise an explication for this difficulty"

It looks pretty much close system but as you try to use it you Will see that it is not at all.

[Lyee]

Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

You got it wrong.
Climbing a tree is always the same DC not matter the PCs level. Once you set a DC for something it won't change as long as the conditions are the same.
So your PC would become better and better at climbing that tree to the point you don't even need to roll to succeed.

The issue however is that the game made the GM think backward.

Usually I would look at the PC modifiers, then deciding how hard it should be and then looking for appropriate challenge.

"They have +8 climb but I want it to be fairly challenging so I pick a DC of 20 and then look at a table to found something around that (Ok the wall need to be like this or maybe it is like that but with this special circumstances)"

But right now PF2 is :
"They are level 10 so I must put something level 10 to make it a bit challenging. It is DC 27. Now I need to improvise an explication for this difficulty"

It looks pretty much close system but as you try to use it you Will see that it is not at all.

Sure, that's what they say happens. But you didn't read the post you quoted very well, he's not arguing against the rule book, he's arguing against actual play using the Paizo-given adventure.

From what I've seen in actual Paizo-written, Paizo-published content, all DCs are scaled to your level. If there was a tree to climb for those level 9 characters, it would be DC 24 at the lowest.

It's all nice saying that it makes the GM think backward, but when it makes Paizo think backward and publish backward content, there is a serious issue.

[Franz Lunzer]

The current Paizo published content is all in regards to playtesting the system. They already know that a character level 9 easily passes climbing an ordinary tree, as that is a level 0 task that is trivial by level 5 (See page 338, table 10-4).

[Rameth]

Lyee wrote:

It's also not backed up by Paizo. I'm playing Doomsday Part 4, the level 9 section, and every DC is in the 24-28 range. At no point does it say 'scouting the wilderness is relatively mundane, so the DC is only 16' or 'these guys actually really need help, dispite their standoffish nature, the situation is in your favour and it's a DC 14 diplomacy' - nope, everything is 24-28. It's rubbish. My players don't feel particuarly competent even at their specialties. I understand that 'oh, you're trying to talk to that powerful beast? The inherently hostile one? Yeah, that's a level appropriate challenge. A really tough one, even. DC 30!' Not everything should be easy. But... have some range to these DCs!

While not every DC is within that range (there are several DC 18s) it still is exactly as you say. Every DC seems to be based off of the group being lvl 9, which is exactly what they said they weren't going to do.

I would argue against several of those DCs being that high. For instance one of them is against a CR 4 Creature and the DC is 26. Why?? Shouldn't you use a DC based off a High level 4 challenge and adjust from there? That means a max of DC 23 at extreme difficulty. The 26 doesn't make sense. I can understand some of the others but come on.

I wonder if the other DCs are scaled the same way...*goes to look*

[Shaheer-El-Khatib]

Lyee wrote:

Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

You got it wrong.
Climbing a tree is always the same DC not matter the PCs level. Once you set a DC for something it won't change as long as the conditions are the same.
So your PC would become better and better at climbing that tree to the point you don't even need to roll to succeed.

The issue however is that the game made the GM think backward.

Usually I would look at the PC modifiers, then deciding how hard it should be and then looking for appropriate challenge.

"They have +8 climb but I want it to be fairly challenging so I pick a DC of 20 and then look at a table to found something around that (Ok the wall need to be like this or maybe it is like that but with this special circumstances)"

But right now PF2 is :
"They are level 10 so I must put something level 10 to make it a bit challenging. It is DC 27. Now I need to improvise an explication for this difficulty"

It looks pretty much close system but as you try to use it you Will see that it is not at all.

Sure, that's what they say happens. But you didn't read the post you quoted very well, he's not arguing against the rule book, he's arguing against actual play using the Paizo-given adventure.

From what I've seen in actual Paizo-written, Paizo-published content, all DCs are scaled to your level. If there was a tree to climb for those level 9 characters, it would be DC 24 at the lowest.

It's all nice saying that it makes the GM think backward, but when it makes Paizo think backward and publish backward content, there is a serious issue.

If Paizo can't use their own system there is indeed a huge issue that need to be adressed.

[thorin001]

Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

Dreamtime2k9 wrote:

Lyee wrote:

It's also not backed up by Paizo. I'm playing Doomsday Part 4, the level 9 section, and every DC is in the 24-28 range. At no point does it say 'scouting the wilderness is relatively mundane, so the DC is only 16' or 'these guys actually really need help, dispite their standoffish nature, the situation is in your favour and it's a DC 14 diplomacy' - nope, everything is 24-28. It's rubbish. My players don't feel particuarly competent even at their specialties. I understand that 'oh, you're trying to talk to that powerful beast? The inherently hostile one? Yeah, that's a level appropriate challenge. A really tough one, even. DC 30!' Not everything should be easy. But... have some range to these DCs!

As one of his players, i concur with the above statement. We pretty much just started assisting the person with the highest modifier because it was the only way most of us felt we could contribute with our modifiers and have a chance at success against the harsh DC.

Having a table like this that scales with level; it doesn't feel like you progressed with your character, which is taking away the player feeling of realising that the character has improved after going through countless encounters with dangerous foes to improve ones own abilities which i would call growth; i think its a big part of roleplaying games thats important to have in order to be enjoying yourself. It is just absent because of this particular table.

It also doesn't make sense, if you climbed the same tree every single day for an entire year, you would expect the person climbing the particular tree to get better at it and either his modifier to go up or the difficulty class to go down for climbing the tree as effort was put into getting better at this particular task. You probably wouldn't start struggling more as you get stronger yourself, right?

You got it wrong.

Climbing a tree is always the same DC not matter the PCs level. Once you set a DC for something it won't change as...

Yes, a tree that you climbed at 1st level will have the same DC at 9th level. But, every tree you encounter at 9th level will be a 9th level tree. No description of what makes it harder, more sparse limbs, slime moss, whatever; it is just a 9th level tree.

The way you described how you set a DC is exactly how Paizo set their DCs. Except they used the absolute most optimized character possible as the baseline, max stat, max skill level, max item bonus.

[vestris]

I would really like to see some clarification here from the design team, by the rules the DC table gives you DC's for every level to design challenging things the table on 338 gives you some examples but way too few to really get a feel as how to setup challenges. That monsters seem to be overtuned in the skill department does not help.

So yeah the important question is, are the playtest (including PFS) scenarios overtuned to test the appropriate or an even higher level of DC's without having to roll for easy things or has the design philosophy not been used.

[PossibleCabbage]

Franz Lunzer wrote:

The current Paizo published content is all in regards to playtesting the system. They already know that a character level 9 easily passes climbing an ordinary tree, as that is a level 0 task that is trivial by level 5 (See page 338, table 10-4).

I feel like this is a large part of the reason for the skill check DCs being so high in Doomsday Dawn- that DD is designed to specifically stress test some of the math of the system and is focused on the tools it can use to do this. It doesn't contain things you would expect in a normal adventure path (e.g. random encounter tables) since that's not what they are testing.

But if you're running anything else with the playtest rules, you're free to have a wide array of skill check DCs. So if it makes sense for there to be an inattentive guard or an easy-to climb wall, just throw one in there.

[Grimcleaver]

Franz Lunzer wrote:

The current Paizo published content is all in regards to playtesting the system.

Okay, awesome. If they want to playtest the system they've written I'd like to see them test out try out making story explanations to justify the weirdly level appropriate DCs the rules demand. I think it'd be a useful experiment.

I'm all for testing the system math, but lets not do that to the exclusion of testing what the system math means for the game.