RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
As I see it, table 10-02 is not (should not be) a GM tool.
It's a designer's tool. It makes sense to have a range of DCs available when writing a module. Is not something that should be referenced as a matter of course when running a game.
Unfortunately, my first experience with it was playing a bard, and being forced to refer to it as a player whenever I used lingering performance. And it becomes clear that no, your bard's never going to get better at it.
That plus any time a player wants to Recall Knowledge, the GM has to pick a DC. Which comes up a lot.
Also, the Death & Dying rules require you to look up the table to find out the save DC. I really wish those were just printed in the monster's stat block.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I see it, table 10-02 is not (should not be) a GM tool.
It's a designer's tool. It makes sense to have a range of DCs available when writing a module. Is not something that should be referenced as a matter of course when running a game.
Unfortunately, my first experience with it was playing a bard, and being forced to refer to it as a player whenever I used lingering performance. And it becomes clear that no, your bard's never going to get better at it.
Not all DMs use premade modules. I like to make up my own crap sometimes and I need a table that tells me about appropriate challenges by level with some associated DCs. So, I have no conceptual problem with a table like 10.2.
My issue with it is that its WAY too granular. As a DM, I dont want to try to conceptualize how a level 5 challenge is somehow tangibly different than a level 6 challenge. If they just condensed these down into a half-dozen tiers, it would be much more manageable.
Then they could just give us 6 or 7 examples of appropriate challenges. It should be one per challenge per tier. We would also need to know how, situationally, these challenges can shift from trivial to very hard at that level (looks like a two-axis DC system to me).
So, what does climbing look like at tier 1 (climbing a standard 15 foot wall?) vs tier 7 (climbing up the back of a gargantuan flying titan as it glides through an ongoing airship battle or something). How does the tier 1 challenge shift from trivial to very hard? How about the tier 7 one?
Without that kind of deep explanation though, this thing is kinda useless to me and we would be way better off with a handful of set DCs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
<tongue in cheek>
Here's how to use Table 10-2. Or rather, how not to use it, but end up with the same result anyway:
Step 1: starting with the value of 11, add 1 for every 2 points of attribute they have below 18, subtract 1 for every 2 points above 18
Step 2: add 1 for every 5 levels the player has (this will counteract the effects of having stats above 18 and is intended)
Step 3: add 1 for every point of TEML below Legendary (and an extra 1 for being untrained)
Step 4: subtract 1 for every 7 levels below 21 (round down).
Step 5: if the task is "difficult" add 2, "very difficult" add 5. "Easy" subtract 3. "Trivial" just skip: they succeed!
Step 6: ask the player what their natural die roll was.
Step 7: did they roll this number or better? If so, they succeed!
Works for everything, even monster saves and AC!
</tongue in cheek>
Feel free to try that set of steps out and compare to the table. I'll be SHOCKED if the value is off by more than 1 (take the value arrived at in step 5, add the character's skill bonus, compare to the "High" column on 10-2; step 5 changes columns left and right) and too high.
I like the idea that Table 10-2 is a tool for designers, but that GMs have leeway to use whatever DC they think fits (using that table as a reference).
Also, if the final Dying rules match it, I would like the DC for dying be matched with the creature (with different results if they have STR attacks and spell-based attacks).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea that Table 10-2 is a tool for designers, but that GMs have leeway to use whatever DC they think fits (using that table as a reference).
I mean, as the GM you always have the ability to ignore or overrule the rulebook. It's just that for playtest purposes it's best to run it "by the book", which isn't really a problem since Doomsday Dawn tells you what the DCs should be.
I thought the dying DC was matched since the DC was based on the attack mod or spell dc the creature used? Did I read that wrong? Dying system confuses me slightly.
I thought the dying DC was matched since the DC was based on the attack mod or spell dc the creature used? Did I read that wrong? Dying system confuses me slightly.
If it was an effect that has a saving throw, the DC is the same as that effect. If it doesn't, you use the Class DC (if it has one, using an appropriate stat) otherwise consult table 10-2.
I thought the dying DC was matched since the DC was based on the attack mod or spell dc the creature used? Did I read that wrong? Dying system confuses me slightly.If it was an effect that has a saving throw, the DC is the same as that effect. If it doesn't, you use the Class DC (if it has one, using an appropriate stat) otherwise consult table 10-2.
Seems silly. Why not just add 10 to the attack mod and call it a day?
Seems silly. Why not just add 10 to the attack mod and call it a day?
For attacks it would work out to that value (or very nearly). Its non-attack non-save effects that are the edge case. How? No idea. Things should be one or the other.
Persistent damage maybe?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, I hope they clean things up so I dont need to reference that table in play. Me no likee that table. Especially not when Im three beers in.
Btw, anyone already sorted out how do you adjudicate dying conditions from falling damage? Ground/falling objects don't have a level to use with table 10.2.
+1 to ditchinhg the 10.2 table. It does not do anything useful for GM or players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Btw, anyone already sorted out how do you adjudicate dying conditions from falling damage? Ground/falling objects don't have a level to use with table 10.2.
The planet itself is of mythic tier difficulty, so you use the last row on the table. ;P
Though I suspect the answer from the purple golem is "whatever the DC of the cliff you fell off of was."
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.
Yes! Yes! Yes! One thousand times yes! Why not just include the DC in the monster's stat block? Definitely something I would want to have on a GM screen.
<tongue in cheek>
Here's how to use Table 10-2. Or rather, how not to use it, but end up with the same result anyway:
Step 1: starting with the value of 11, add 1 for every 2 points of attribute they have below 18, subtract 1 for every 2 points above 18
Step 2: add 1 for every 5 levels the player has (this will counteract the effects of having stats above 18 and is intended)
Step 3: add 1 for every point of TEML below Legendary (and an extra 1 for being untrained)
Step 4: subtract 1 for every 7 levels below 21 (round down).
Step 5: if the task is "difficult" add 2, "very difficult" add 5. "Easy" subtract 3. "Trivial" just skip: they succeed!
Step 6: ask the player what their natural die roll was.
Step 7: did they roll this number or better? If so, they succeed!Works for everything, even monster saves and AC!
</tongue in cheek>
Feel free to try that set of steps out and compare to the table. I'll be SHOCKED if the value is off by more than 1 (take the value arrived at in step 5, add the character's skill bonus, compare to the "High" column on 10-2; step 5 changes columns left and right) and too high.
Clever. You know I do wish they didn't add Prof into it however I feel like that bonus should be pure plus without it being countered.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm quoting something old and much of this has been discussed already, but I wish to comment on a quote to show how easy it is to fail to understand how to use Table 10-2 correctly. So, this is not me against Hurká, its me against the Paizo designers.
...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.
This is exactly how NOT to use table 10-2. Each DC should be based on the problem's "level", as defined by the setting. Not the PC's levels. That people gets this wrong AGAIN and AGAIN shows how intuitive this rule is.
Not only players get it wrong, Paizo also uses it wrong. AGAIN and AGAIN.
The developers should either be frank and say that this is a metagame tool and that all DCs should be based on PC levels, or they should scrap Table 10-2. I would vastly prefer seeing it die.
In Red Flags that I ran this weekend, I used Table 10-2 as a metagame tool like I suggested above. If I wanted a task to be easy, but not so easy that iw was automatic, I used the level 14 easy DC, and so on. It actually worked decently, I even used some Hard DCs.
|
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.
Ah, take 10. The most controversial and widely varying rule I've ever seen. No two GMs seem to run it the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is exactly how NOT to use table 10-2. Each DC should be based on the problem's "level", as defined by the setting. Not the PC's levels.
Let's say the party are crossing a wobbly bridge with a broken handrail, and I'm trying to set a DC for them not to fall off. I want it to be pretty easy, because the entire party has to get across, not just the most skilled PC.
The party is, let's say, level 7. What is the level of the bridge?
This is exactly how NOT to use table 10-2. Each DC should be based on the problem's "level", as defined by the setting. Not the PC's levels.Let's say the party are crossing a wobbly bridge with a broken handrail, and I'm trying to set a DC for them not to fall off. I want it to be pretty easy, because the entire party has to get across, not just the most skilled PC.
The party is, let's say, level 7. What is the level of the bridge?
Ignoring the level of the party at the moment, I would say that a rope bridge is a level 0 trivial task. Depending on how unsteady it is that could translate into a level 2 hard check or even a level 6 hard check. That puts the DC at either DC 16 or a DC 21. Now looking at the party these DCs put it between a level 7 easy to medium check. A medium check has a decent chance for a low skilled character to pass. So long as they take some basic precautions I would expect the party to be able to move across the bridge with minimal risk. So this would be a level appropriate challenge.
Had the DC ended up being an Incredible or Ultimate DC for a level 7 group, as the adventure designer I would have considered how important it is that the party cross that bridge and either provide them with the information in an alternate format or ensure that if they were clever there were alternative ways across the bridge.
I was trying to decode the math behind table 10-2.
The Easy column is pretty much (level + 7). Which would be equal to what a PC rolling a 12 in an untrained skill with a -1 stat adjustmet would need for an easy task of equal level.
The Medium column follows what a PC rolling a 12, who is trained in a skill with a +1 stat boot every 5 levels would need to succeed.
The hard column follows what a PC rolling a 10 would get for a skill where they have maxed the stat and skill training for their level.
The Incredible column seemed to track about 10% more than hard.
The Ultimate column seemed to track about 20% more than hard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depending on how unsteady it is that could translate into a level 2 hard check or even a level 6 hard check.
How did you get the numbers "2" and "6"? Why "hard"?
If I'd said it was a level 1 party, would you have come to the same conclusion?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is exactly how NOT to use table 10-2. Each DC should be based on the problem's "level", as defined by the setting. Not the PC's levels.Let's say the party are crossing a wobbly bridge with a broken handrail, and I'm trying to set a DC for them not to fall off. I want it to be pretty easy, because the entire party has to get across, not just the most skilled PC.
The party is, let's say, level 7. What is the level of the bridge?
I'll paste in another post of mine I feel is relevant here.
In Red Flags that I ran this weekend, I used Table 10-2 as a metagame tool like I suggested above. If I wanted a task to be easy, but not so easy that iw was automatic, I used the level 14 easy DC, and so on. It actually worked decently, I even used some Hard DCs.
There are two ways to resolve this, one is simulationist, the other is gamist/metagamey.
#1 Simulationist Model: In the simulationist model, a rope bridge is level 0 (commoners cross it all the time). Normally, the task is automatic. After a rain, it might become easy (7). In a rainstorm, it might be medium (11). If the bridge has been hit by lightning, making all the floorboards shaky, its Hard (13). If the bridge is all but destroyed, its Incredible (14) and it its just the tether line still hanging its Ultimate (16). As this shows, defining the bridge as level zero makes even hard tasks involving it quite easy. This doesn't seem to be the way to go.
#2 Metagame Model: In the metagame model, the party is level 3 For an adventurer, rope bridges are no big thing, and the difficulty collumn is determined by the GMs idea of what a 3rd level adventurer should be capable of. So I'll now do some top-of-my-head DC. Crossing it in rain should not require a roll. In a windstorm, the task is still easy (10), and when unstable it is medium (15). When almost destroyed its Hard (17), when just the supporting line is there Incredible (19) and if the bridge is starting to fall as the hero crosses it becomes Ultimate (20).
Notice how the metagame model could accommodate a situation that the simulationist version could not. A bridge that is collapsing simply is not a level 0 event, even at ultimate difficulty.
I am normally a simulationist player, so I'd naturally tend towards the first model. But I am starting to feel more and more that Table 10-2 is meant to be used ONLY in the metagame mode. It is not a tool for emulating reality, however much the designers want to convince us that it is. It is an entirely gamist/metagame tool that tells you what DCs the PCs can tolerate.
[Minor spoilers for Sombrefell Hall, Mirrored Moon and Red Flags ahead]
What Table 10-2 lacks is any kind of fail-forward mechanism. Difficulties that are Hard or higher should only be used when the game works out just fine even if the players fail the roll. In Sombrefell Hall, there was an investigation bit with 10-2 DCs, but it had very little bearing on the actual problem at hand. If you failed/didn't do it, it didn't really affect anything. In Mirrored Moon, the scouting DCs were in this range (adding +4 to the DC because everyone was allowed to roll) because all the roll did was save a day of exploration. In Red Flags, the initial Gather Information DCs could be 10-2 ridiculous, because all the information really was only fluff the PCs could very easily learn in the main adventure. The problem with this is that players have to make a lot of frustratingly difficult rolls that are all basically pointless. I believe we did more than 150 exploration rolls in Mirrored Moon over these minor stakes. This is the opposite of fun.
To sum this up, I now think I understand how Table 10-2 is supposed to be used, and I still hate it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depending on how unsteady it is that could translate into a level 2 hard check or even a level 6 hard check.How did you get the numbers "2" and "6"? Why "hard"?
Because of the dearth of guidelines in the playtest I translated the PF1e guidelines into their PF2e equivalent. The answer would have been the same had it been against a level 1 party. You'll see I came up with the numbers independent of the PC's level.
As for the appropriate use of Table 10-2, I think it should only be used as a guideline on how likely the PCs are to succeed.
Let's say the party are crossing a wobbly bridge with a broken handrail, and I'm trying to set a DC for them not to fall off. I want it to be pretty easy, because the entire party has to get across, not just the most skilled PC.
The party is, let's say, level 7. What is the level of the bridge?
First, what's the purpose of the bridge related to the story? Is it intended to be a significant and memorable challenge, or is it part of some travel montage?
I'm not likely to challenge a 7th level party with a rickety bridge as part of establishing that travel took place during the story. It can be part of a narrative... "Across a rickety bridge and through the woods, to grandmother's house you went."
To me, a better use for a rickety bridge encounter for 7th levelers would be NPCs needing assistance in crossing, providing a contact for something later in the story. The PCs actions related to crossing the bridge would be a guaranteed success though I might make the players roll dice if they hatched a particularly risky plan for providing assistance. "Honest m'lord, the plank will support the weight of your loaded wagon."
Even then, who cares what the DC is? Unless the accidental death of his lordship would be important to the story and an acceptable outcome to the DM.
DC 5. How's that?
The most important thing would be if the PCs acted in a manner that would lead his lordship to trust them later.
First, what's the purpose of the bridge related to the story? Is it intended to be a significant and memorable challenge, or is it part of some travel montage?
Presumably not as a travel montage or I wouldn't be asking.
Here's a more concrete example. Let's say I'm converting this from a D&D 5e adventure:
The steep stairs from area 14 lead to an uneven stone bridge extending over a dark pit. The bridge slopes downwards 40 feet to another stairwell leading down.
Moisture drips down from the high ceiling, covering the bridge in a slick moss that hangs over the edge in green cascades. Any creature moving along of the bridge must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed saving throw, a creature can attempt a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to cling to the bridge rather than fall off into the darkness.
There are enemies shooting arrows at the PCs from the other side of the bridge. Falling is dangerous, but not instant death.
(This isn't an example of a well-defined hazard in its original form since, there appears to be no safe way to cross, even though this is apparently a bridge the enemy cross routinely. I ruled that you could move safely at 5-foot speed, or save with Advantage if moving at half speed.)
I've removed the original DCs. Can you set an appropriate DC for the bridge without knowing the level of the party?
The source adventure specified a DC 14 Dex save, and a DC 10 Acrobatic check to catch yourself if you failed it. This was for a level 8 party.
I rate both your answers as pretty good; better balanced than the original, since a level 8 character in 5e could easily have +0 on their Dex save, giving them a 65% chance of failure.
Here's a more concrete example...
I've removed the original DCs. Can you set an appropriate DC for the bridge without knowing the level of the party?
Yes, I'd say DC 10, which would be a challenge to a normal person, but also at a level that a normal person with preparation could overcome, such as stating that they cling to a rope or the railing as they attempt to move.
That is, unless you want to emphasize the downward slope, which would appear to make it more of a climbing obstacle. Then I think you end up with a classic rope climbing DC, which is also going to be something like 10 with preparation, but perhaps a DC 15 or 20 without. The description just gives me the length of the slope, not the angle, which is what would be important.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's say the party are crossing a wobbly bridge with a broken handrail, and I'm trying to set a DC for them not to fall off. I want it to be pretty easy, because the entire party has to get across, not just the most skilled PC.
The party is, let's say, level 7. What is the level of the bridge?
First, what's the purpose of the bridge related to the story? Is it intended to be a significant and memorable challenge, or is it part of some travel montage?
I'm not likely to challenge a 7th level party with a rickety bridge as part of establishing that travel took place during the story. It can be part of a narrative... "Across a rickety bridge and through the woods, to grandmother's house you went."
It matters because not every game is an adventure path where there is a defined story the bridge serves. The bridge could have been a previously described piece of background in the PCs home city. Say there is an old manor accessible only by this bridge that the PCs saw at level 1, but at level 5 the DM decided to put a plot-hook in the manor. So now its important to know how to evaluate the bridge because we want to know "is this even hard for heroes of level 5?"