New Skill DC Difficulty Chart Boggles

[StratoNexus]

Ok. I am not sure how this passes the smell test.
First, the difference between Easy and Medium Difficulty (which are just one difficulty stage apart) is now assumed to be a massive FIVE point difference at the low levels and becomes a 9 point difference by level 20 (the old chart had it start as a 2 point difference at the low levels, but did ramp up to the same 9 point difference at level 20). Alright, I understand, to an extent, that we are covering the gap between Untrained and Trained here and really driving home the point how much Trained matters, which I appreciate.

However, even by level 10 we are looking at a 7 point difference. That does not even compute as a rational difference between two tiers with the way the math works in PF2.

Second, below is the layout of what changed from the original system to the new. Positive numbers indicate when the DC went down and negative numbers indicate that the DC went UP in the new system (backwards thinking am I). The Easy (trivial) DCs all dropped. Low level Medium and Hard DCs actually increased and even in the middle levels of 7-13, looking at Medium to Ultimate, 20 of the 28 DCs increased or stayed the same.
Where they did decrease, it was not by much, until you get to the very top tier of challenges that are above 20.
This is not going to accomplish the goal of characters growing into CertitudeTM.

_L__E__M__H__I__U
00__2_-1_-1__0__1
01__2_-1_-1_-1__0
02__2_-1_-1_-1__0
03__2__0__0_-1__1
04__2__1__1__0__2
05__2__0__1__0__2
06__2__0__1__0__1
07__2_-1__1_-2__0
08__2_-1__0_-1__1
09__2__0__0_-2__0
10__2__0__0_-2__0
11__2__0__0_-2__0
12__2__1__1_-1__1
13__2__1__2__0__2
14__2__1__2__0__1
15__2__2__2__0__0
16__2__1__2__1__1
17__2__2__2__0__0
18__2__2__2__0__0
19__2__2__2__0__0
20__2__2__2__1__0
21__4__4__4__2__1
22__5__5__4__2__1
23__6__5__4__2__1

I would suggest the following chart. First, you generally want to avoid the double step difficulty increases at levels 5, 10, and 15, since those are the same levels as the Stat Bump increase (unless we can convince Paizo to have an alternate Stat Bump process). Players should be able to enjoy the fruits of that bump for 2 or 3 levels, before it gets harder. Second, the difference between Easy and Medium should be much less pronounced. Let us be the Master of Our Domain!

_L___E___M___H___I___U
00___7___9__11__13__15
01___8__11__13__15__17
02___9__12__14__16__18
03__10__13__15__18__19
04__11__14__16__19__21
05__12__15__17__20__22
06__13__16__19__22__24
07__14__18__20__23__25
08__15__19__21__24__26
09__16__20__22__25__28
10__17__21__23__26__29
11__18__22__24__28__31
12__19__24__26__30__33
13__20__25__27__31__34
14__21__26__28__32__36
15__22__27__29__33__37
16__23__28__31__35__38
17__24__30__32__36__40
18__25__31__33__37__41
19__26__32__34__38__42
20__27__33__36__40__44
21__28__34__37__42__46
22__29__36__38__43__47
23__30__37__40__45__49

[Deadmanwalking]

As I've previosuly noted in a few different places I'm in complete agreement with your basic point here.

I actually don't think you've gone far enough on toning down the Medium difficulty, since it still gets harder for people who don't invest stat-bumps (to the tune of 15% harder, actually). It shouldn't, given its premise of being checks that people who don't invest beyond Trained have a solid shot at.

Contrariwise, I think you may have gone a tad too far on the Hard difficulty stuff, which starts with an optimal person having a 65% chance of success and peaks at a 95% (would be 100% if 1s didn't auto-fail) for a true specialist. That's a bit too good, IMO. A 60% at 1st level rising to 85% at 20th would be perfectly sufficient, IMO, assuming it scaled quickly enough at low levels. The higher difficulty stuff should likewise probably be a bit higher, though only a bit.

But yeah, this is a real issue and in need of more solving than the current errata seems to actually do. I mean, the current errata is better than the first difficulty chart, but not enough to actually make skills and skill characters functional and fun.

[StratoNexus]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I actually don't think you've gone far enough on toning down the Medium difficulty, since it still gets harder for people who don't invest stat-bumps (to the tune of 15% harder, actually). It shouldn't, given its premise of being checks that people who don't invest beyond Trained have a solid shot at.

That 15% is obviously coming from the “extra” increases at levels 7, 12, and 17. I can appreciate your point. However, I believe the higher level medium difficulty should at least expect higher level tools/gear if not higher natural ability (or some small combination of both). Thus I prefer the extra increases.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Contrariwise, I think you may have gone a tad too far on the Hard difficulty stuff, which starts with an optimal person having a 65% chance of success and peaks at a 95% (would be 100% if 1s didn't auto-fail) for a true specialist. That's a bit too good, IMO. A 60% at 1st level rising to 85% at 20th would be perfectly sufficient, IMO, assuming it scaled quickly enough at low levels. The higher difficulty stuff should likewise probably be a bit higher, though only a bit.

Possibly. My expectation is that higher level full optimization should be succeeding 90-95% off the time on Hard stuff, only starting to occasionally fail at Incredible and naturally fail regularly at Ultimate. ~50% failure rate on Ultimate seems ok to me, for a full optimization, but I could see other thoughts on that. I also may not understand full optimization and could be missing some optimization options.

Fully Optimized at level 10 should be Level (10) + Master (2) + Stat (5) + Item (2) = 19
Guaranteed Easy, only a 1 fails on medium, 15% to fail Hard, 30% to fail incredible, 45% to fail Ultimate.

Fully Optimized at level 20 is Level (20) + Legendary (3) + Stat (7) + Item (3) = 33
Guaranteed Easy and medium, 10% to fail Hard, 30% to fail incredible, 50% to fail Ultimate.

[Red Griffyn]

It is a pretty big overstatement for Paizo to say that they dropped DCs when PCs will be rolling against medium/hard for most checks and Incredible/Ultimate are virtually impossible to hit the DC (even with full investment). There isn't a clear decrease in DCs until level 12+. So there is virtually no improvement to the treadmill that PCs have to run. Gimped class features like lingering performance DCs won't improve (especially since they also nerfed the virtuosic performer feat) so I fail to see what has changed for the hardest levels early on.

Here is the difference table re-posted in a clearer format:

[code]
Level Easy Medium Hard Incredible Ultimate
0 2 -1 -1 0 1
1 2 -1 -1 -1 0
2 2 -1 -1 -1 0
3 2 0 0 -1 1
4 2 1 1 0 2
5 2 0 1 0 2
6 2 0 1 0 1
7 2 -1 1 -2 0
8 2 -1 0 -1 1
9 2 0 0 -2 0
10 2 0 0 -2 0
11 2 0 0 -2 0
12 2 1 1 -1 1
13 2 1 2 0 2
14 2 1 2 0 1
15 2 2 2 0 0
16 2 1 2 1 1
17 2 2 2 0 0
18 2 2 2 0 0
19 2 2 2 0 0
20 2 2 2 1 0
21 4 4 4 2 1
22 5 5 4 2 1
23 6 5 4 2 1
[/code]

I think Paizo absolutely missed the boat here! We were asking for increased reward for specialization and a larger difference between proficiency ranks. What we wanted was a -2/0/2/4/6 proficiency scale, not a -4/0/1/2/3 proficiency scale. They haven't rewarded specialization because there isn't any difference between and expert/master/legend beyond a handful of skill feats (many of which aren't mechanically special). Instead they've rewarded generalization and putting skill bumps to getting trained vs. expert/master/legendary because of the MASSIVE gap in trained/untrained now.

They have now manufactured the idea of getting better at things by making PCs even WORSE at achieving level appropriate DCs in levels 1 to 5. This 2e design philosophy of 'dropping the power floor' instead of 'increasing the ceiling' is really detrimental to enjoyment of the game. Not Impressed.

Note that this link will connect you to a paizo forum browser extension that allows you to preserve white space for a nicer table (use the 'code' functionality).

[DM_Blake]

Yes, this is clearly not the d20 system anymore.

It's the d2 system. Roll a d2. On a 1 you fail, 2 you succeed. No matter what level. No matter what task.

Every bit of math boils down to, ultimately, a coin toss.

[Syndrous]

I think the chart is fine the way it is, due to the interaction with the ordinary tasks charts.

Since ordinary tasks fall to the point of eventually not being rolled, I don't think that Table 10-2 is even going to effect us as often as we thing it is.

Climbing a Cliff is the best example of this. It's a level 2 task according to chart 10-4. Depending on the adjustments that you apply the DC can range from Easy (9) to Ultimate (19).

At level 8, the task of climbing a cliff become trivial meaning you are no longer required to even attempt the roll.

The act of Climbing the Cliff requires a mostly static check, adjusted by circumstances. It doesn't use a scaling DC.

[thenobledrake]

DM_Blake wrote:

Every bit of math boils down to, ultimately, a coin toss.

Yeah, but it's a weird coin that sometimes has 1-2 extra sides to it that might show up.

[Mats Öhrman]

thenobledrake wrote:

DM_Blake wrote:

Every bit of math boils down to, ultimately, a coin toss.

Yeah, but it's a weird coin that sometimes has 1-2 extra sides to it that might show up.

Well, a coin does have an extra side.

[Scythia]

Syndrous wrote:

I think the chart is fine the way it is, due to the interaction with the ordinary tasks charts.

Since ordinary tasks fall to the point of eventually not being rolled, I don't think that Table 10-2 is even going to effect us as often as we thing it is.

Climbing a Cliff is the best example of this. It's a level 2 task according to chart 10-4. Depending on the adjustments that you apply the DC can range from Easy (9) to Ultimate (19).

At level 8, the task of climbing a cliff become trivial meaning you are no longer required to even attempt the roll.

The act of Climbing the Cliff requires a mostly static check, adjusted by circumstances. It doesn't use a scaling DC.

If that's the intent then they didn't present it very clearly. You're the first person I've seen mention this ordinary tasks chart in all of the discussion about skill DCs.

[Deadmanwalking]

Scythia wrote:

Syndrous wrote:

I think the chart is fine the way it is, due to the interaction with the ordinary tasks charts.

Since ordinary tasks fall to the point of eventually not being rolled, I don't think that Table 10-2 is even going to effect us as often as we thing it is.

Climbing a Cliff is the best example of this. It's a level 2 task according to chart 10-4. Depending on the adjustments that you apply the DC can range from Easy (9) to Ultimate (19).

At level 8, the task of climbing a cliff become trivial meaning you are no longer required to even attempt the roll.

The act of Climbing the Cliff requires a mostly static check, adjusted by circumstances. It doesn't use a scaling DC.

If that's the intent then they didn't present it very clearly. You're the first person I've seen mention this ordinary tasks chart in all of the discussion about skill DCs.

I've see it come up before and mentioned it myself. It's a good chart, and Syndronus is right about how it's to be used.

That doesn't make the current odds of success vs. on-level challenges okay though. Those are the DCs to be used when going up against equal level opposition, and the current odds of success an average PC can achieve on them are, frankly, pretty bad in many cases.

Now, Mark Seifter has said that they're probably gonna redo skill items (and/or make them more available) rather than change the chart, and that's fine if it works to change the odds of success (which it very likely will on the Medium DC level at least), but regardless of how the change is to be achieved, a change to odds of success on most PCs seems necessary.

[Syndrous]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Scythia wrote:

Syndrous wrote:

I think the chart is fine the way it is, due to the interaction with the ordinary tasks charts.

Since ordinary tasks fall to the point of eventually not being rolled, I don't think that Table 10-2 is even going to effect us as often as we thing it is.

Climbing a Cliff is the best example of this. It's a level 2 task according to chart 10-4. Depending on the adjustments that you apply the DC can range from Easy (9) to Ultimate (19).

At level 8, the task of climbing a cliff become trivial meaning you are no longer required to even attempt the roll.

The act of Climbing the Cliff requires a mostly static check, adjusted by circumstances. It doesn't use a scaling DC.

If that's the intent then they didn't present it very clearly. You're the first person I've seen mention this ordinary tasks chart in all of the discussion about skill DCs.

I've see it come up before and mentioned it myself. It's a good chart, and Syndronus is right about how it's to be used.

That doesn't make the current odds of success vs. on-level challenges okay though. Those are the DCs to be used when going up against equal level opposition, and the current odds of success an average PC can achieve on them are, frankly, pretty bad in many cases.

Now, Mark Seifter has said that they're probably gonna redo skill items (and/or make them more available) rather than change the chart, and that's fine if it works to change the odds of success (which it very likely will on the Medium DC level at least), but regardless of how the change is to be achieved, a change to odds of success on most PCs seems necessary.

I believe making the proficiency array - 4, 0, 2, 4, 6 will fix it.

Though a hard difficulty being capped at 50% +/-15% success rate seems fine, as that leaves us with two harder and two easier difficulty levels to use as circumstance dictates.

Treat this as an exercise in problem solving. Your players guide you through the way they solve an issue, based on their discriptions you determine the final DC, if their approach warrants a DC reduction, maybe you use the medium DC, maybe the hard or severe. The running the game section seems to be built more along the lines of general guidelines and a toolbox to allow GM's some wiggle room. We are all jumping on the DC's like they are static things, but there are a lot of role play opportunities that can be used to make some of them much easier from Aid Another to kits or items, to weather, magical shenanigans or out of the box solutions, we have been given tools that encourage our players to be creative in character to help over come problems. In fact, there are very few skill checks that I can foresee players having excessive issues on. Stealth is probably the worst offender in my minds eye.

I do want to note that Mark Seifter also mentioned specifically, in my other thread about this exact set of tables, that they used more of the difficult DC's in the table in Doomsday Dawn, which leads me to believe a normal AP will have considerably lower DC's.

[Lyee]

That proficiency array doesn't help. Part of the current problem is that trained, which you leave at 0, falls behind too much. Magic items being assumed for everything above trivial is the main gripe I see at the moment.

[Deadmanwalking]

Lyee wrote:

That proficiency array doesn't help. Part of the current problem is that trained, which you leave at 0, falls behind too much. Magic items being assumed for everything above trivial is the main gripe I see at the moment.

Which is why having mundane skill items easy to use and readily available does a lot to solve the problem. And is hopefully in the offing.

[DerNils]

I find that kind of baffling, given their statement that they didn't like the Christmas tree effect. They even invented resonance to combat it. Replacing all the Christmas lights with mundane bonus baubles does not counter the equipment bloat, it just renames it.

[Red Griffyn]

My issue is that it does nothing for the PC who wants to achieve a high rate of success for medium-incredible DCs in a handful of particular skills. They can't get a meaningful increase in bonus vs. other PCs. Even if you grant that they have min-maxed stat bonuses, magic items, etc. they still at best come to like a ~70 on medium (according to math in other places on this form) at high levels. That means even on a hard check, the best PC around is still stuck at a coin flip. Not to mention that another PC who has invested some resources will only be ~10-20%% at most behind the supreme ultimate expert. Just feels like they constantly reward generalists and want to punish people who know what they want their PC to be good at.

Rogue MC Bard for Versatile Performance will be the king of everything because he can afford to get to 'trained' in everything. After that point it is pretty much a very non-gratifying treadmill to keep your 50% success rate for all skills.

[Greg.Everham]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

As I've previosuly noted in a few different places I'm in complete agreement with your basic point here.

I actually don't think you've gone far enough on toning down the Medium difficulty, since it still gets harder for people who don't invest stat-bumps (to the tune of 15% harder, actually). It shouldn't, given its premise of being checks that people who don't invest beyond Trained have a solid shot at.

Contrariwise, I think you may have gone a tad too far on the Hard difficulty stuff, which starts with an optimal person having a 65% chance of success and peaks at a 95% (would be 100% if 1s didn't auto-fail) for a true specialist. That's a bit too good, IMO. A 60% at 1st level rising to 85% at 20th would be perfectly sufficient, IMO, assuming it scaled quickly enough at low levels. The higher difficulty stuff should likewise probably be a bit higher, though only a bit.

But yeah, this is a real issue and in need of more solving than the current errata seems to actually do. I mean, the current errata is better than the first difficulty chart, but not enough to actually make skills and skill characters functional and fun.

Where did so many players get this idea that getting higher in level means you get better at something? Clearly, you're mistaken as everything in this system is designed around the idea that as you get higher in level you get less consistent with your abilities and less able to perform tasks. ((heavy sarcasm for those wondering))

[MaxAstro]

DM_Blake wrote:

Yes, this is clearly not the d20 system anymore.

It's the d2 system. Roll a d2. On a 1 you fail, 2 you succeed. No matter what level. No matter what task.

Every bit of math boils down to, ultimately, a coin toss.

Okay that's nice and pithy but it's... CLEARLY not true.

A level 15+ character can fairly effortlessly have an 85% chance to succeed at Medium difficulty tasks. If you optimize, then it IS a coin toss... but the coin is "did I crit or just regularly succeed?"

[Mark Seifter]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Even if you grant that they have min-maxed stat bonuses, magic items, etc. they still at best come to like a ~70 on medium (according to math in other places on this form) at high levels.

As MaxAstro implies above, if optimized, you can eventually get to a bonus so high that you would normally succeed at Medium on-level checks on a 1 if it wasn't a natural 1 (and therefore can't critically fail, though a nat 1 is still a failure), purely with optimized stat, proficiency rank, and item, and ignoring a variety of other bonuses to which you probably have access by that level. Since the max Hard DC is 3 higher, this means 85% for Hard.

[MaxAstro]

I will say, though, Mark, that I am starting to be of the idea that the legacy auto-fail on 1/auto-succeed on 20 is bad for the math and therefore bad for the system.

It feels nice in play, though, so I'm of two minds.

[ereklich]

I feel like the current setup is punishing failure to optimize rather than rewarding optimization.

You say you want my base %chance to be 50% far an at level challenge and difficulty? That's fine and dandy. But taking Expert, Master, and Legendary should then slide that up to 55, 60, and 65%. Spending my gold/feats/skill bumps/etc should improve my odds of success, not simply prevent them from going down.

While we're at it, can we please get back to fixed DCs for things like jumping pits? Jumping a 5' pit should be an objective DC that doesn't give a flying flip what level/stat block/feats you are.

[Zorae]

ereklich wrote:

While we're at it, can we please get back to fixed DCs for things like jumping pits? Jumping a 5' pit should be an objective DC that doesn't give a flying flip what level/stat block/feats you are.

That is pretty much a static DC. It's listed under the Long Jump use of athletics:

Quote:

You Stride, and if you move at least 10 feet, roll an Athletics check in an attempt to Leap horizontally in the same direction. The DC of the check is equal to 5 plus the total distance in feet you’re attempting to move during your Leap (so Leaping 20 feet would require a DC 25 check). You can’t Leap farther than your Speed. This DC might be increased or decreased due to the situation, as determined by the GM.

I assume they mention of increase/decrease is for situations where you wanted to jump from something slippery/rickety or land on something narrow.

[Syndrous]

ereklich wrote:

I feel like the current setup is punishing failure to optimize rather than rewarding optimization.

You say you want my base %chance to be 50% far an at level challenge and difficulty? That's fine and dandy. But taking Expert, Master, and Legendary should then slide that up to 55, 60, and 65%. Spending my gold/feats/skill bumps/etc should improve my odds of success, not simply prevent them from going down.

This is where we disagree. You are arguing that against an at Level, HARD DC (the one we have been discussing), you should have a greater than 50% chance of success from skill bumps and ability increases. This goes directly against the stated intent of Hard Difficulty Challenges. Hard challenges are by design supposed to be a challenge for the specialist. It says so in the description:

Playtest Errata wrote:

A hard skill DC, the most common in the game, represents something that an average commoner might not try but that adventurers attempt frequently. This DC challenges even characters who have strongly focused on the skill and can often be overcome by a character who has increased their modifier or proficiency rank. A character who’s really strong in the skill starts at around a 50% chance of succeeding but ends up almost certain to succeed at higher levels.

Asking to ignore built in ability bumps and skill proficiency increases for the DC set to challenge your specialist character seems counterproductive. At that point they should make the default DC medium, which is what you are asking for, even if indirectly.

[ereklich]

Syndrous wrote:

ereklich wrote:

I feel like the current setup is punishing failure to optimize rather than rewarding optimization.

You say you want my base %chance to be 50% far an at level challenge and difficulty? That's fine and dandy. But taking Expert, Master, and Legendary should then slide that up to 55, 60, and 65%. Spending my gold/feats/skill bumps/etc should improve my odds of success, not simply prevent them from going down.

This is where we disagree. You are arguing that against an at Level, HARD DC (the one we have been discussing), you should have a greater than 50% chance of success from skill bumps and ability increases. This goes directly against the stated intent of Hard Difficulty Challenges. Hard challenges are by design supposed to be a challenge for the specialist. It says so in the description:

Playtest Errata wrote:

A hard skill DC, the most common in the game, represents something that an average commoner might not try but that adventurers attempt frequently. This DC challenges even characters who have strongly focused on the skill and can often be overcome by a character who has increased their modifier or proficiency rank. A character who’s really strong in the skill starts at around a 50% chance of succeeding but ends up almost certain to succeed at higher levels.

Asking to ignore built in ability bumps and skill proficiency increases for the DC set to challenge your specialist character seems counterproductive. At that point they should make the default DC medium, which is what you are asking for, even if indirectly.

I'm asking for no such thing. The relevant text is right there in what you just quoted!

Quote:

This DC challenges even characters who have strongly focused on the skill and can often be overcome by a character who has increased their modifier or proficiency rank. A character who’s really strong in the skill starts at around a 50% chance of succeeding but ends up almost certain to succeed at higher levels.

The fact that my percentage chance of success doesn't increase as I bump things is in direct contravention of the designers own stated goals for these checks.

[Syndrous]

ereklich wrote:

...

The design is to literally keep an ability and proficiency appropriate PC at 50% success. Not factoring in mundane or magical items or spell effects.

If they adjust to make proficiency increase the chance of success that is the medium DC track.

[ereklich]

Syndrous wrote:

ereklich wrote:

...

The design is to literally keep an ability and proficiency appropriate PC at 50% success. Not factoring in mundane or magical items or spell effects.

If they adjust to make proficiency increase the chance of success that is the medium DC track.

In what way is keeping the chance of successat 50% "ends up almost certain to succeed at higher levels"?

I think I'm just asking their DCs to live up to their own guidelines. If you think that's me asking for a change, then I am.

[thorin001]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

Even if you grant that they have min-maxed stat bonuses, magic items, etc. they still at best come to like a ~70 on medium (according to math in other places on this form) at high levels.

As MaxAstro implies above, if optimized, you can eventually get to a bonus so high that you would normally succeed at Medium on-level checks on a 1 if it wasn't a natural 1 (and therefore can't critically fail, though a nat 1 is still a failure), purely with optimized stat, proficiency rank, and item, and ignoring a variety of other bonuses to which you probably have access by that level. Since the max Hard DC is 3 higher, this means 85% for Hard.

Not until level 20 you can't. That is with maxed stat, potent item, legendary proficiency, and +4 item bonus. That gives a +34, which fails on a 1 vs a DC 36 level 20 medium check, and so is a critical failure.

[StratoNexus]

ereklich wrote:

Syndrous wrote:

ereklich wrote:

...

The design is to literally keep an ability and proficiency appropriate PC at 50% success. Not factoring in mundane or magical items or spell effects.

If they adjust to make proficiency increase the chance of success that is the medium DC track.

In what way is keeping the chance of successat 50% "ends up almost certain to succeed at higher levels"?

I think I'm just asking their DCs to live up to their own guidelines. If you think that's me asking for a change, then I am.

As I outlined in my original post, the numbers in the current chart are too high and provide too much challenge to both an optimized skill as well as those skills that are improved, just not optimally (obviously this extends to skills you do not improve, but those are not as vital to analyze, although it is important to see what a Level 15 character with a 10 stat can do Untrained to make sure that matches intent, it is not something I am going to discuss much now that the -4 is in place).

There are two issues with the 1-3 chart (both of which my proposed chart fixes; there are drawbacks to the smaller increases on my chart, though, in that it creates a narrower design space for allowing circumstances to adjust the DCs plus it lessens the spotlight on the optimizer).

First, Medium is too much of a step up from Easy. This throws the numbers off for the three higher difficulties as well.

Second, there are some odd little extra bumps in DC on all the non-easy charts. Now I think it is important that there be some spots on the Medium and higher columns where the DC increases by 2, instead of 1. I outline the specifics of this issue in this post from the blog thread, I will summarize below.

From levels 1 through 20 (ignoring 0, and 21-23 for now):
There are 4 extra steps in the Medium column, but three is sufficient.
There are 5 in the Hard, but 4 would be better.
There are 7 in Incredible, but 6 is better.
There are 10 in Ultimate, but 8 is sufficient, although i could also see 9.

All that said, I am OK with the idea of easily available, easy to use mundane tools/gear that might grant a +1 or +2 in early levels and improve. I rounded out a lot of characters with skill bump items in PF1 and I always prefer the expert tool over the magic gear when reasonable and feasible (not that I am opposed to magic gear that improves a skill, I just like the flavor of the mundane item usually).

These types of gear usually are easy to grab for anyone, do not take a valuable build choice and add some fun flavor (hopefully). Now, I still like where my chart settles out even including a good gear system, but if Paizo decides on 5-10% more difficult in some areas, I think I will be OK (15 is right out).

[Syndrous]

ereklich wrote:

Syndrous wrote:

ereklich wrote:

...

The design is to literally keep an ability and proficiency appropriate PC at 50% success. Not factoring in mundane or magical items or spell effects.

If they adjust to make proficiency increase the chance of success that is the medium DC track.

In what way is keeping the chance of successat 50% "ends up almost certain to succeed at higher levels"?

I think I'm just asking their DCs to live up to their own guidelines. If you think that's me asking for a change, then I am.

Because it's failing to capture the fact that the vast majority of DC's are never going to use the chart. Chart 10-2 is for odd-ball things. Because of the way the ordinary task tables are set, it's highly likely that you will never set a task above level 10. This means that the High DC checks that we are afraid of are going to be outliers.

Things like your 12 Barbarian attempting to scale a castle wall, naked, during a thunder-storm while warding off a giant bat.

That's what chart 10-2 is for. Because of the way they preset some of the examples, they established that many cliffs are a level 2 task and that tracking the average creature over hardstone is a level 4 task.

Yes there will be outliers, such as tracking a tiny or diminutive sized creature over hard stone or my Barbarian example but they will be exactly that.

They provided us a set of examples for figuring out the frame of reference for deciding the effective task level, and I can honestly say that I don't forsee many tasks being set as level appropriate. Many of them will be off level tasks, and a large amount of that many will be lower level.

They even give examples of circumstances that could make it easier or harder.

This section of the book is a tool-kit.

Their design objective was to keep the Hard DC at ~50% success across all levels for at level, strong ability modifier, highly proficient characters that don't have items or magic for boosts, as stated in my quote and they have done that well.

You want the table to not account for proficiency at the Hard DC, but that is the whole point of the Hard DC, per Paizo's stated rules document. To argue that is against design intent is to ignore the printed description of the Hard DC, which lays out the design intent.

Now, if your suggestion is that Hard DC checks should not be a 50% success/fail rate, that's a whole different conversation than the chart not meeting their stated intent.

[ereklich]

Playtest Errata wrote:
A hard skill DC, the most common in the game, represents something that an average commoner might not try but that adventurers attempt frequently. This DC challenges even characters who have strongly focused on the skill and can often be overcome by a character who has increased their modifier or proficiency rank. A character who’s really strong in the skill starts at around a 50% chance of succeeding but ends up almost certain to succeed at higher levels.

This entire paragraph, that you first quoted at me, says the exact opposite of what you say it does.

Either that, or you are the only person I've run across on the entire internet who has correctly divined the developer's intentions. When basically every source, including, for example, the YouTube channel "Complex games apologist" (and doesn't that name just say it all!) is talking about how mystified they are that walls magically get slicker as you level up, if they don't intend table 10-2 to be the baseline they really futzed up on presentation.

Because either table 10-2 is not in line with their own written guidelines, or they wrote those guidelines very very wrong.

[MaxAstro]

ereklich wrote:

is talking about how mystified they are that walls magically get slicker as you level up

That's because those people read that section wrong.

Walls don't magically get slicker as you level up; as you level up, you are likely to encounter slicker walls.

This is critically different because if you go back to the walls you climbed at a lower level they are no harder to climb.

[Fuzzypaws]

I still want to know why the system calls out Hard as the typical DC you should default to in almost every situation. I would think Medium would be the default for non-trivial tasks that actually call for a check. Easy would be when there are favorable circumstances, Hard shouldn't happen unless there are unfavorable circumstances.

[MaxAstro]

Fuzzypaws wrote:

I still want to know why the system calls out Hard as the typical DC you should default to in almost every situation. I would think Medium would be the default for non-trivial tasks that actually call for a check. Easy would be when there are favorable circumstances, Hard shouldn't happen unless there are unfavorable circumstances.

I assume it's because the default assumption of the system is that the heroes are facing epic threats and nigh-insurmountable odds; most of the meaningful things they do should be things that are hard to do, because they are heroes.

[ereklich]

MaxAstro wrote:

ereklich wrote:

is talking about how mystified they are that walls magically get slicker as you level up

That's because those people read that section wrong.

Walls don't magically get slicker as you level up; as you level up, you are likely to encounter slicker walls.

This is critically different because if you go back to the walls you climbed at a lower level they are no harder to climb.

In which case Paizo really needs to rewrite it, from the ground up, to make how setting DCs work be vastly clearer.

Also in that case, the '50%' benchmark should not, should never be, calibrated based on a fully optimized PC! That's punishing failure to optimize, rather than rewarding pcs who do optimize. Calibrate your dc so that a Trained pc with average stats for their level has a 50% chance.

[Syndrous]

Fuzzypaws wrote:

I still want to know why the system calls out Hard as the typical DC you should default to in almost every situation. I would think Medium would be the default for non-trivial tasks that actually call for a check. Easy would be when there are favorable circumstances, Hard shouldn't happen unless there are unfavorable circumstances.

I am actually confused about that as well, because Mark Seifter has mentioned using the table values too often in Doomsday Dawn.

That statement implies that the DC's used for future adventure paths may not align with the values present in this chart as well.

My purpose in these discussions is to try and make sure we are considering this from all angles, it's what I do, I am a debater type personality. I'll take a position I don't agree with and defend it just to make sure we cover everything.

So far, that's a great thing, because folks have been ignoring the rest of the picture which is the Ordinary Task charts (10-3/4/5/6) and how they relate to Chart 10-2. Chart 10-2 gives an arbitrary list of DC's and tells use what level they are appropriate to. It gives us no idea of the tasks we will have at those levels. That's where the other charts come in, and believe me they still need fleshing out.

I don't necessarily disagree with you guys re:hard not needing to be the default difficulty, but someone has to make sure we are understanding this right, and right now there is a lot of misunderstanding happening.

My reading of this section of the book is that the GM assigns a task a level and difficulty, as it relates to the example tasks in charts 10-3/4/5/6, and then determines the DC's. Then the GM has a baseline to work with, that baseline is modified by the circumstance when the PC's get to that particular task.

Are they being chased by bandits when they find the collapsed bridge that requires 3 Athletics checks to jump across the remaining supports? Is there detrimental weather? These are all things that will modify the DC against the party. You could shift the DC to the right as needed.

Does the wizard have levitate, could the wizard bypass the challenge completely with a teleport.

Everyone is so focused in on Chart 10-2 that by and large the rest of this section is being ignored.

Using the other charts as a reference makes chart 10-2 make a lot more sense.

A Cliff is a Level 2 challenge, if it has no modifiers, a bleeding Cliff! Discounting modifiers, climbing a cliff is really one of the more dangerous things a character can do. That means that your level 18 PC's scaling a cliff, even the piddly wizard if he so chooses not to waste a spell slot on it, are still rolling against the level 2 Hard DC, unless you as GM add some awesomeness to that cliff, and therefor, likely don't need to even roll, because they are over the level where the task becomes trivial. This is the kind of stuff people are missing in this discussion.

Do the Task charts need fleshing out, yes. They do. I unequivocally accept that, as there isn't a way to gage certain tasks because the charts all stop well before level 10. Is chart 10-2 the problem? Nope, they really want you to have a 50% chance to succeed an on-level Hard Task, because, well they are hard, and require a GM to put some actual thought into designing them.

[ereklich]

Quote:

Nope, they really want you to have a 50% chance to succeed an on-level Hard Task, because, well they are hard, and require a GM to put some actual thought into designing them.

But if a *fully optimized* character only has a 50% chance? That's not hard, that's insane. Because that means the rest of the party is screwed if they have to make the check too.

[MaxAstro]

ereklich wrote:

In which case Paizo really needs to rewrite it, from the ground up, to make how setting DCs work be vastly clearer.

From the rulebook, page 336 (emphasis mine):

Quote:

CREATING APPROPRIATE CHALLENGES

As characters increase in level, they should face ever more deadly opponents and complex traps, seek out increasingly obscure information, and display increasing skill in many other areas. Such challenges increase in difficulty.

DCs are determined partly by the level of a check, which is tied to the underlying task, and partly by the check’s difficulty, which represents helpful or adverse circumstances. For example, crossing a river on a bridge is a different task from crossing on a log, and using a bridge is easier, so its level is lower. In contrast, crossing a bridge is the same task whether it’s dry and well maintained or icy and crumbling, but the circumstances make the former easier and the latter more difficult.

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.

Many tasks are not opposed and have no reason to change in level. If you decide climbing the ordinary pine tree next to the temple is a level 0 task, climbing it doesn’t arbitrarily get harder when the PCs are higher level; its level stays 0. If you need a task with a significantly higher DC to challenge your PCs, you should choose one that’s inherently harder rather than artificially inflating the level of a simple task to increase its DC. For instance, when the PCs’ level is relatively low, they might be faced with climbing a stone wall with handholds, but later in the campaign they should encounter tougher obstacles, like a smooth iron wall.

I'm not sure how Paizo could make that more clear, honestly. In my opinion, I think the confusion is from people skimming/misinterpreting that section or simply assuming it works the way they are afraid it works, rather than Paizo being unclear.

If you look at Table 10-2 in a vacuum and completely ignore the text surrounding it, yeah, it's pretty confusing.

[ereklich]

MaxAstro, thank you very much for your reply. Having only been a player to this point, it now makes more sense to me, and I think I now see the real root of the dissonance between designer intent and player experience.

Put simply, the designers are asking GMs to set DCs in a very non-intuitive way.

If the players are doing something the GM never planned for, most GMs will not think, "okay, that wall would be easy/medium/hard for a level X party", they will simply think, "yeah, that wall should be easy/medium/hard".

Based on this, I have an even more radical proposal: ditch the adjectives altogether. Collapse the chart into a single column, and simply refer to a "level X DC". As with creatures, an at-level DC is a significant challenge, so most should be a bit lower than the party level. This makes it consistent for mod designers/gms planning, and doesn't require the GM to consider a non-intuitive 2-dimensional difficulty setting when adjudicating on the fly.

[ChibiNyan]

ereklich wrote:

MaxAstro, thank you very much for your reply. Having only been a player to this point, it now makes more sense to me, and I think I now see the real root of the dissonance between designer intent and player experience.

Put simply, the designers are asking GMs to set DCs in a very non-intuitive way.

If the players are doing something the GM never planned for, most GMs will not think, "okay, that wall would be easy/medium/hard for a level X party", they will simply think, "yeah, that wall should be easy/medium/hard".

Based on this, I have an even more radical proposal: ditch the adjectives altogether. Collapse the chart into a single column, and simply refer to a "level X DC". As with creatures, an at-level DC is a significant challenge, so most should be a bit lower than the party level. This makes it consistent for mod designers/gms planning, and doesn't require the GM to consider a non-intuitive 2-dimensional difficulty setting when adjudicating on the fly.

Agree with this. How do I know what level hazard that rocky cliff is? Seeing as how it says players should be rolling "hard" checks, if I need to adjudicate on the spot it's not gonna be easy or am just gonna pick the level appropiate one.

In PF1 we did have guidelines for this, the DCs for steepness and density of handholds and such. This is a lot lot more useful than the meta way of thinking of "Okay, I want this to be hard so I pick Hard on their level." Which is more of an "design" mentality, as compared to first analyizing the cliff to figure out it's approximate DC and then consulting table to see where it ends up on: "So it adds up to DC21, so for my lv4 party that's extreme." Which I think is how the table should be used.

[thenobledrake]

ereklich wrote:

Based on this, I have an even more radical proposal: ditch the adjectives altogether. Collapse the chart into a single column, and simply refer to a "level X DC". As with creatures, an at-level DC is a significant challenge, so most should be a bit lower than the party level. This makes it consistent for mod designers/gms planning, and doesn't require the GM to consider a non-intuitive 2-dimensional difficulty setting when adjudicating on the fly.

If the goal is to make setting appropriate DCs more intuitive, I don't think this proposed solution achieves the goal.

There are already plenty of examples on this forum alone of people interpreting things having levels just like characters do improperly (for example: people thinking monsters of the party's level are the 'go-to' fight difficulty while the game says they are boss-tier enemies, or people thinking items having levels means a character with a sack full of money can't get an NPC store clerk with an item on the shelf of higher level than the character to let them buy hte item).

The resulting DC chart would have those same people likely complaining that the DCs are all too high because they can't understand that the 'go-to' level for a check would be lower than the characters' actual level...

I'm not sure what would be a workable solution though, since it seems to me like putting the paragraphs that talk about how to set the level of a challenge and then not change it just because the characters level up preceding the chart is doing everything necessary to get people to understand how to set DCs and use that chart.

[Syndrous]

I think Paizo needs to give us more examples in the Ordinary Tasks list. Once we have some appropriate tasks to compare with, determining it will become easier.

I also think we need some rules about how weather would effect checks.

[StratoNexus]

ereklich wrote:

Quote:

Nope, they really want you to have a 50% chance to succeed an on-level Hard Task, because, well they are hard, and require a GM to put some actual thought into designing them.

But if a *fully optimized* character only has a 50% chance? That's not hard, that's insane. Because that means the rest of the party is screwed if they have to make the check too.

That is NOT the intent of the system as we level.

The intent for Hard is clearly stated to be as follows:

Quote:

A character who’s really strong in the skill starts at around a 50% chance of succeeding but ends up almost certain to succeed at higher levels.

I have been working on a larger post, but it shows that even with the current 1-3 chart, on the Hard column fully optimized you start at 55%, but as you level you slowly improve over the 20 levels to succeed 80% of the time. While I do not think that is quite enough improvement, there is definitely character growth and your character does improve. I am hoping to get it posted Soon(TM)

[Syndrous]

StratoNexus wrote:

ereklich wrote:

Quote:

Nope, they really want you to have a 50% chance to succeed an on-level Hard Task, because, well they are hard, and require a GM to put some actual thought into designing them.

But if a *fully optimized* character only has a 50% chance? That's not hard, that's insane. Because that means the rest of the party is screwed if they have to make the check too.

That is NOT the intent of the system as we level.

The intent for Hard is clearly stated to be as follows:

Quote:

A character who’s really strong in the skill starts at around a 50% chance of succeeding but ends up almost certain to succeed at higher levels.

I have been working on a larger post, but it shows that even with the current 1-3 chart, on the Hard column fully optimized you start at 55%, but as you level you slowly improve over the 20 levels to succeed 80% of the time. While I do not think that is quite enough improvement, there is definitely character growth and your character does improve. I am hoping to get it posted Soon(TM)

Unless you factor in items you don't actually become more likely to succeed. Your chance to succeed only increases from items, magic and feats.

The level 20 Hard DC is 39. A character that is naked, because the DC is designed to challenge specifically ability and proficiency optimized characters, has a Legendary Proficiency (+3) and a max ability score for level 22 which gives us (+6).

This gives us a total of level (+20) + proficiency (+3) + ability mod (+6) for a total modifier of +29, so you succeed on a 10.

The whole description clearly states that Hard DC challenges those who keep up with ability investment and proficiency investment.

You get to 80% because of items (both mundane and magical), feats, magic and ancestral feats.

This means that yes, the intent of the chart is to keep a naked barbarian with Legendary Athletics and Maxed Ability Mod at a 50/50 shot to climb an on level task. Key thing here is naked.

I do think they need more varied magic items to boost the various skills that are available at different level, and much better magical and feat support for this whole concept.

[StratoNexus]

Syndrous wrote:

So far, that's a great thing, because folks have been ignoring the rest of the picture which is the Ordinary Task charts (10-3/4/5/6) and how they relate to Chart 10-2. Chart 10-2 gives an arbitrary list of DC's and tells use what level they are appropriate to. It gives us no idea of the tasks we will have at those levels. That's where the other charts come in, and believe me they still need fleshing out.

I don't necessarily disagree with you guys re:hard not needing to be the default difficulty, but someone has to make sure we are understanding this right, and right now there is a lot of misunderstanding happening.

Indeed, I think a lot of the static DCs are pretty good and overall they give solid guidance. I do agree with another poster who said it would be nice if the actual DCs were listed in those tables, rather than just a level reference, but I also understand they were trying to let the DM use the level as a reference, because the DM might decide it was a Low challenge, and if the chart had the High challenge on it instead, that would be more confusing.

I am actually OK, with Hard (old High) being the default for a lot of game elements that our characters will face. That gives specialists an opportunity to shine and emphasizes those who only dabble have a solid chance to either succeed or fail, while the untrained will only succeed if they get lucky.

However, I think Table 10-2 is much more important as a guide to adventure design, rather than an on the fly tool for DMs (not that the latter is not useful, just that I would generally use the chart in my session prep/adventure design more often than during the game, I think).

Therefore, the chart very much needs to model the target success rate, because I expect all AP and scenario designers will be heavily referencing the chart when creating the game elements of their story.

[StratoNexus]

I created a character build layout to compare to the DC chart and see how well everything lined up with the below goals stated in the Update 1-3 document.

Quote:

A medium DC provides little challenge for highly skilled characters and a decent chance to succeed for low-skilled characters who don’t have a good proficiency or a high ability score. This DC is good to use when each PC will attempt the check and when it matters how many PCs succeed or fail. Except at low levels, a medium DC will be a challenge only for characters who aren’t keeping up with the skill. Medium DCs become easier and easier for characters who have invested in the skill to succeed over time.

A hard skill DC, the most common in the game, represents something that an average commoner might not try but that adventurers attempt frequently. This DC challenges even characters who have strongly focused on the skill and can often be overcome by a character who has increased their modifier or proficiency rank. A character who’s really strong in the skill starts at around a 50% chance of succeeding but ends up almost certain to succeed at higher levels.

The bolded is a change from the actual 1-3 update, but I am pretty sure it was intended to say Medium rather than Easy.

The below summary assumes a non-Rogue character with items and Character Wealth as presented in the rules. There are some magic items that give +3, right around Level 9 or 10 (which would generally mean you get them at 10-12, based on current assumed treasure), however I did not include them, because they are not ubiquitous yet, but a +3 item the character gets at level 11-12 (so a level 9-10 item) would help smooth out progression nicely, but will not affect the end game values, since we eventually assume the +4 item.

The Specialist skill was bumped as soon as possible in all cases, except items, instead getting a combat item first, then the skill item a level or two later (in some cases the skill item might be a combat item, think Armbands of Athleticism, but I did not assume that).
The Focused skill was bumped regularly and eventually all the way to Legendary, although not necessarily as soon as possible. A level or two after getting a skill item for his main, he picked one up for this.
The Dabbler skill was bumped to Expert eventually and the stat was increased regularly. This stat could start out at 12 or 14, but will eventually be bumped to 18 either way (I started at 12 in my example below). Items were definitely bought eventually.
Skill Increases were laid out as follows: Level 3-Expert A, 5-Expert B, 7-Master A, 9-Expert C, 11-Master B, 13-Expert D, 15-Legend A, 17-Master C, 19-Legend B
This gives 2 Legendary, 1 Master, 1 Expert, a few to several Trained depending on class and Intelligence.

Specialist roll needed for success from level 1-20 vs. same level Medium Difficulty.
1-3 chart 8,8,7,6,7 | 7,7,7,6,5 | 4,5,6,6,4 | 3,3,3,3,2
my chart 6,6,5,4,4 | 4,4,4,3,2 | 2,3,3,3,1 | -,-,-,-,- (from 15 on, only a 1 fails)
Specialist roll needed for success from level 1-20 vs. same level Hard Difficulty.
1-3 chart 10,10,9,8,9 | 9,8,9,9,8 | 8,8,7,8,7 | 5,6,6,6,5
my chart 8,8,7,6,6 | 7,6,6,5,4 | 4,5,5,5,3 | 2,2,2,2,2

Focused roll needed for success from level 1-20 vs. same level Medium Difficulty.
1-3 chart 10,10,10,10,9 | 8,9,9,9,8 | 6,6,7,7,7 | 8,6,6,5,4
my chart 8,8,8,8,6 | 5,6,6,6,5 | 3,4,4,4,4 | 4,3,3,2,1
Focused roll needed for success from level 1-20 vs. same level Hard Difficulty.
1-3 chart 12,12,12,12,11 | 10,10,11,12,11 | 9,9,9,9,10 | 10,9,9,8,7
my chart 10,10,10,10,8 | 8,8,8,8,7 | 5,6,6,6,6 | 7,5,5,4,4

Dabbler roll needed for success from level 1-20 vs. same level Medium Difficulty.
1-3 chart 11,11,11,11,11 | 11,12,11,11,10 | 10,10,9,9,8 | 9,9,9,7,7
my chart 9,9,9,9,8 | 8,9,8,8,7 | 7,8,6,6,5 | 5,6,6,4,4
Dabbler roll needed for success from level 1-20 vs. same level Hard Difficulty.
1-3 chart 13,13,13,13,13 | 13,13,13,14,13 | 13,13,11,11,11 | 11,12,12,10,10
my chart 11,11,11,11,10 | 11,11,10,10,9 | 9,10,8,8,7 | 8,8,8,6,7

All three Skill types above show gradual improvement from levels 1-20. Using the 1-3 chart, more of that improvement occurs at the later levels, outside of bumping skills to Master ASAP. My opinion is 1-3 is too harsh in the low levels, which also affects the end result not getting to the stated goals. My chart starts a bit easier than the stated goals, but I believe, at first level, a maxed stat, Trained skill should be better than 50% chance for Hard, while a 12 stat, Trained person should be right about 50%.

At this time items are necessary to achieve the goals at higher levels. I am still pondering and weighing my opinions on Skill items, but plan to post more on that in the future. At the moment, I think skill items can be a fun and cool way to build a character. I have always generally liked them conceptually and rarely found them burdensome mechanically. I think Skill items should probably range from 0-3 (0 exists for the skills where you should need an item just to attempt the skill). The more I look into the system and the more sessions I play, the less enamored I become of +5 to a skill and even +4 seems a bit much.

There is one other type of Skill advancement I want to discuss briefly, and that is the simply Trained skill. If you spend no other resource as you level up, you will fall slightly behind on higher level challenges (but still easily accomplish most static DCs by mid-levels, and Easy DCs will be easy all the way to 20). Spending one or two relevant Stat Bumps and getting an Expert or Master item will keep you close to even on the 1-3 chart and definitely keep you even on mine for Medium and Hard. In my opinion, it is fine to require this very minor level of investment to keep pace.

Below are the build layouts I used to get the above values. I figured I’d include it for anyone who wanted to reference it. Obviously there will be variation on the below from character to character, but I think this hits a general average expectation.

Specialist should be Level (01) + Trained (00) + Stat (04) + Item (00) = 05
Specialist should be Level (02) + Trained (00) + Stat (04) + Item (00) = 06
Specialist should be Level (03) + Expert (01) + Stat (04) + Item (00) = 08
Specialist should be Level (04) + Expert (01) + Stat (04) + Item (01) = 10
Specialist should be Level (05) + Expert (01) + Stat (04) + Item (01) = 11
Specialist should be Level (06) + Expert (01) + Stat (04) + Item (01) = 12
Specialist should be Level (07) + Master (02) + Stat (04) + Item (01) = 14
Specialist should be Level (08) + Master (02) + Stat (04) + Item (01) = 15
Specialist should be Level (09) + Master (02) + Stat (04) + Item (02) = 17
Specialist should be Level (10) + Master (02) + Stat (05) + Item (02) = 19
Specialist should be Level (11) + Master (02) + Stat (05) + Item (02) = 20
Specialist should be Level (12) + Master (02) + Stat (05) + Item (02) = 21
Specialist should be Level (13) + Master (02) + Stat (05) + Item (02) = 22
Specialist should be Level (14) + Master (02) + Stat (05) + Item (02) = 23
Specialist should be Level (15) + Legend (03) + Stat (06) + Item (02) = 26
Specialist should be Level (16) + Legend (03) + Stat (06) + Item (04) = 29
Specialist should be Level (17) + Legend (03) + Stat (06) + Item (04) = 30
Specialist should be Level (18) + Legend (03) + Stat (06) + Item (04) = 31
Specialist should be Level (19) + Legend (03) + Stat (06) + Item (04) = 32
Specialist should be Level (20) + Legend (03) + Stat (07) + Item (04) = 34

Focused should be Level (01) + Trained (00) + Stat (02) + Item (00) = 03
Focused should be Level (02) + Trained (00) + Stat (02) + Item (00) = 04
Focused should be Level (03) + Trained (00) + Stat (02) + Item (00) = 05
Focused should be Level (04) + Trained (00) + Stat (02) + Item (00) = 06
Focused should be Level (05) + Expert (01) + Stat (03) + Item (00) = 09
Focused should be Level (06) + Expert (01) + Stat (03) + Item (01) = 11
Focused should be Level (07) + Expert (01) + Stat (03) + Item (01) = 12
Focused should be Level (08) + Expert (01) + Stat (03) + Item (01) = 13
Focused should be Level (09) + Expert (01) + Stat (03) + Item (01) = 14
Focused should be Level (10) + Expert (01) + Stat (04) + Item (01) = 16
Focused should be Level (11) + Master (02) + Stat (04) + Item (02) = 19
Focused should be Level (12) + Master (02) + Stat (04) + Item (02) = 20
Focused should be Level (13) + Master (02) + Stat (04) + Item (02) = 21
Focused should be Level (14) + Master (02) + Stat (04) + Item (02) = 22
Focused should be Level (15) + Master (02) + Stat (04) + Item (02) = 23
Focused should be Level (16) + Master (02) + Stat (04) + Item (02) = 24
Focused should be Level (17) + Master (02) + Stat (04) + Item (04) = 27
Focused should be Level (18) + Master (02) + Stat (04) + Item (04) = 28
Focused should be Level (19) + Legend (03) + Stat (04) + Item (04) = 30
Focused should be Level (20) + Legend (03) + Stat (05) + Item (04) = 32

Dabbler should be Level (01) + Trained (00) + Stat (01) + Item (00) = 02
Dabbler should be Level (02) + Trained (00) + Stat (01) + Item (00) = 03
Dabbler should be Level (03) + Trained (00) + Stat (01) + Item (00) = 04
Dabbler should be Level (04) + Trained (00) + Stat (01) + Item (00) = 05
Dabbler should be Level (05) + Trained (00) + Stat (02) + Item (00) = 07
Dabbler should be Level (06) + Trained (00) + Stat (02) + Item (00) = 08
Dabbler should be Level (07) + Trained (00) + Stat (02) + Item (00) = 09
Dabbler should be Level (08) + Trained (00) + Stat (02) + Item (01) = 11
Dabbler should be Level (09) + Trained (00) + Stat (02) + Item (01) = 12
Dabbler should be Level (10) + Trained (00) + Stat (03) + Item (01) = 14
Dabbler should be Level (11) + Trained (00) + Stat (03) + Item (01) = 15
Dabbler should be Level (12) + Trained (00) + Stat (03) + Item (01) = 16
Dabbler should be Level (13) + Expert (01) + Stat (03) + Item (02) = 19
Dabbler should be Level (14) + Expert (01) + Stat (03) + Item (02) = 20
Dabbler should be Level (15) + Expert (01) + Stat (04) + Item (02) = 22
Dabbler should be Level (16) + Expert (01) + Stat (04) + Item (02) = 23
Dabbler should be Level (17) + Expert (01) + Stat (04) + Item (02) = 24
Dabbler should be Level (18) + Expert (01) + Stat (04) + Item (02) = 25
Dabbler should be Level (19) + Expert (01) + Stat (04) + Item (04) = 28
Dabbler should be Level (20) + Expert (01) + Stat (04) + Item (04) = 29