The issue I have with the skills DC table

[ryric]

It makes the world feel inconsistent. Setting aside the issue of GMs misusing the table, which will happen, as both 4e history and current discussions show, the fact that every skill DC refers to this table is a big problem for me.

One, the table isn't built on a clear mathematical base so I can't just generate it in my head when needed. I need to have the full table available at all times while running.

My second point needs some examples. What is the DC to do the following tasks - but I'm not going to give you the level of the person doing them because that shouldn't matter:

Climb a rough masonry wall
Recall who Karzoug is
Forage for food in a lush rainforest
Know who the royalty are from a neighboring nation
Recognize the holy symbol of an obscure cult

I bet if we gave a list like this to a bunch of GMs, we would get a different set of answers from each of them. Worse, if we gave this list to a bunch of GMs, got their answers, and then waited a month and gave it again, we would get different answers form the same GM. With no DCs I can't even arrange consistency in my own games without taking notes about every trivial thing the PCs attempt. Because we all know that 6 months and 7 levels later some PC is going to want to climb that same wall and he or she is sure as heck going to remember what the DC was if you set it to something else.

Here's another problem I have; compare the DCs for these two related tasks:

Tracking a tiny animal (level 0) through the woods.
Tracking a gargantuan lumbering beast(level 12) that smashes its way through the same woods.

Objectively, the first one should be a tougher task by far. But how many PF2e GMs would look at the first situation and call it an extreme level 0 DC, while the second one is a trivial level 12? But the problem is that that makes tracking the super big lumbering beast harder then tracking a mouse. In a vacuum each individual call makes sense, but when you compare them you realize the results are nonsensical.

[Starfox]

I agree very much. Quoting myself from another thread.

Starfox wrote:

The problem is the mindset of challenges being level appropriate. It makes sense that in an 12th level adventure, the walls of the infernal city of Dis are hard to climb. I have no quarrel with that.

But when rolls like Lingering Composition and Medicine automatically increase in DC as you increase in level, it just feels WRONG. You are automatically getting worse every level, your level increase, ability increases, skill feats, and items have to be spent just to fight this all-consuming entropy.

Groetus is right, the end approaches, and the higher you level up, the closer it gets!

[Uchuujin]

I have to agree. Not only is having to constantly reference this table a headache but too many things scale with level.

My thoughts are that if I had the formulas so I could quickly figure the DCs without referencing a table it would help me, personally a lot.

As for the scaling DCs, it makes sense sometimes, like trying to craft a high level magic item. In others, like those ryric mentioned, there is no reason for it.

[Shaheer-El-Khatib]

You manage to say exactly What was on my mind but I didn't manage to explain it as clearly as you did.

Thanks.

[ChibiNyan]

Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

You manage to say exactly What was on my mind but I didn't manage to explain it as clearly as you did.

Thanks.

The OP is the best way to explain the issue I've had and been unable to express properly. Good work.

[Bardarok]

That seems about right. We need static DC examples for all the skills and I am not sure that the table is worth the trouble it causes. I don't see any problem with just letting bards eventually have inspire courage always last three rounds, they are still spending a spell point to do it. Not sure what's the best way to deal with treat wounds but I am sure there is something.

[Dire Ursus]

I mean there's really no solution. Paizo can't list every single skill challenge that could possibly come up. GMs have to make a decision on what level task something is. Would I like more examples? Sure but there's still going to be a ton of things that paizo can't list.

I like having a chart I can look at to decide the difficulty of a task.

[StratoNexus]

ryric wrote:

Here's another problem I have; compare the DCs for these two related tasks:

Tracking a tiny animal (level 0) through the woods.
Tracking a gargantuan lumbering beast(level 12) that smashes its way through the same woods.

Objectively, the first one should be a tougher task by far. But how many PF2e GMs would look at the first situation and call it an extreme level 0 DC, while the second one is a trivial level 12? But the problem is that that makes tracking the super big lumbering beast harder then tracking a mouse. In a vacuum each individual call makes sense, but when you compare them you realize the results are nonsensical.

Ironically, your example, in my opinion actually demonstrates that the system is pretty close to a good spot.

First, without even bothering with the numbers the GM should apply the actual rules to this scenario.
"Some tasks are always trivial and have no need to be rolled, like climbing a ladder in ordinary circumstances. You can allow automatic successes at lower levels than listed if that makes your game run more smoothly."
I have never experienced a situation where we couldn't track the Gargantuan lumbering beast. As a matter of fact, I would expect the GM to use the swath of trampling to impress the danger the beast poses (not to say I wouldn't have it be difficult to track a Gargantuan Green Dragon who is not lumbering, but the word lumbering generally takes this out of needing a check at all). Obvious things are obvious. You do not make PCs roll a perception check to notice the blood in the blood splattered room, you describe it. You do not make the PCs roll a check to track the Lumbering Gargantuan beast. The challenge comes elsewhere.

To track the level 12 gargantuan lumbering beast, "You can usually skip rolling and assume the characters succeed against easy DCs unless it’s necessary for everybody to try the check."

The numbers will not make sense when applied to situations the rules clearly call out should not use the numbers.

[Deadmanwalking]

I'm inclined to agree. You can probably solve this with a much expanded Table 10-3...but the fact that it requires a solution means there's a real issue here.

They could also include what skill you use for things like identifying different kinds of monster in such a table. Which would be great, since we lack that info.

Really, we just need a set of benchmarks for what common DCs in the world are.

[swordchucks]

If table 10-3 (or, better yet, the skills section) simply called out "levels" for the various challenges, I wouldn't mind that very much.

Let's say that climbing a rope is a level 0 challenge. The DM might decide it's a trivial check (knotted rope with a wall to brace on) or a hard check (the rope is slick from blood and there is wind) or anything else at that level, it would be fine. Climbing a rope is still never going to be a level 10 check.

I wouldn't mind going with a world where everything is a leveled DC as long as things were consistent on what level they were.

[ErichAD]

The chart could be salvaged by combining the tables, using Tables 10-3,4,5,6 as examples within the first table. However, I think the old +/- adjustments we saw in PF1's climb skill are a better way to go about it. I understand there's some need to accommodate those who can't manage math, but the old solution is the better of the two over all.

[Ring_of_Gyges]

The problem is the same if you run at it from the other direction. Suppose you want your 12th level Rogue to be challenged by a DC 30 wall surrounding a fiend's tower in Hell. What does that look like in the narrative?

Is a DC 30 wall a writhing mass of burning sinners trapped in soulstone that bite and push against anyone trying to climb them? Or is it just really smooth glass?

How is it different from a DC 40 wall? What does a DC 50 wall look like? Is it something mythic, like literally climbing a cloud? Or is it something realistic but very hard like a super smooth glass surface?

[John Lynch 106]

Here were my thoughts back in March. Nothing I have seen really changes that opinion and at that stage of the playtest people were less inclined to accuse me of having an agenda despite the fact my message has remained consistently the same.

[ErichAD]

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

The problem is the same if you run at it from the other direction. Suppose you want your 12th level Rogue to be challenged by a DC 30 wall surrounding a fiend's tower in Hell. What does that look like in the narrative?

Is a DC 30 wall a writhing mass of burning sinners trapped in soulstone that bite and push against anyone trying to climb them? Or is it just really smooth glass?

How is it different from a DC 40 wall? What does a DC 50 wall look like? Is it something mythic, like literally climbing a cloud? Or is it something realistic but very hard like a super smooth glass surface?

"Hank, you ever notice how it's always snowing when we need to climb walls, but never when we need to follow tracks?"

Hank rolls a level appropriate recall knowledge check
"Nope."

I guess I see the problem doing it that way as well.

[ENHenry]

ryric wrote:

My second point needs some examples. What is the DC to do the following tasks - but I'm not going to give you the level of the person doing them because that shouldn't matter:

Climb a rough masonry wall
Recall who Karzoug is
Forage for food in a lush rainforest
Know who the royalty are from a neighboring nation
Recognize the holy symbol of an obscure cult

I bet if we gave a list like this to a bunch of GMs, we would get a different set of answers from each of them. Worse, if we gave this list to a bunch of GMs, got their answers, and then waited a month and gave it again, we would get different answers form the same GM.

This is in no way different from PF1. If I gave this list to the same DMs a month apart, with a greater than 50% chance I'd get a different list of numbers, because the majority of DMs eyeball this to get numbers than "feel right", anyway. I have never known a good GM who slows down the table flow by stopping to look up every single modifier that would affect one of these rolls, and usually wings it based on their comfort with the possible success range of the characters at the table. That's not a characterization of the game, it's the characterization of the majority of GMs out there.

Off the cuff, using the DC table, I'd say:

Climb a rough masonry wall - Rough wall, maybe crumbling? This wall I estimate should probably be a challenge for a level 1 or 2 character, so DC 16. If it's a study wall but with plenty of tiny grooves for mortar, then DC 18. (Hard for an up to Level 4 character, but anyone higher should find it easier).

Recall who Karzoug is - Karzoug is a legendary figure from thousands of years ago, but legendarily powerful, too, so probably a medium DC for a level 9 character (DC 23) which just also happens to be easy for a 16th level character.

Forage for food in a lush rainforest - What's the challenge level of the Rain forest? Should it be easy enough for Level 3 or 4 critters to be there, or has anything below Level 8 died out? If it's not exceptional in any way (like say some isolated primordial valley that time forgot) and "lush" is the descriptor you used, then Foraging should probably be a DC 13 (Medium level 1) task. On the other hand, if it's some dinosaur-infested verdant hellscape, then DC 21 to forage.

Know who the royalty are from a neighboring nation - Popular nation? DC 10. (Level 3 easy, Level 0 medium)

Unknown insular nation? DC 16 (Level 4 Medium). By Level 9, if trained you should be making this check in your sleep.

Recognize the holy symbol of an obscure cult? - Obscure enough that someone would have to be Mid to High Level to give them a challenge? Then DC 25. (Level 11 Medium)

This would not be any different in PF1 except for the foraging one and climbing a wall one -- and even then, you have to ask - is there a corner to brace against? Is it slippery with water? Is it crumbling or not? For survival, it's a DC 10 to forage -- but it seems to make no provision for what kind of wilderness? Could a simple DC 10 easily find food in a desert? What about a blasted scrubland? The PF1 rules don't seem to make any easy to find determinations on these things.

Do we need more guidance? Maybe. However, in a game where they designers seem to be trying to get away from "a rule for every single corner case" which is simply impossible to achieve (and I hope no one tells me that PF1 was able to answer every single corner case, because it definitely did not) if they give us tools to help the GM get a feel for difficulties and come up with numbers on the fly that fit the characters at hand, rather than try to come up with universal numbers for every eventuality, then I honestly believe we'll have a better game for it, and a game that more new players want to give a shot.

[Dasrak]

I'd concur; the table is very counterproductive in most cases. If I don't have a very clear idea of what level challenge the task should be, then it provides me no help in setting a DC. The table is useful in cases where there is an explicitly defined level, such as when crafting or repairing a magic item. But for tasks such as climbing a wall it's not helpful.

With regards to the example of tracking a creature, I feel the correct approach is that if the creature isn't hiding their tracks it's a fixed DC to track, but if they are hiding their tracks it should be survival check of the tracker vs survival DC of the creature hiding their tracks. No reason for the level table to even come into play at all.

[Siro]

I can see some virtue to the chart in building for both players and DM's. For a player, the chart can be useful in determining roughly the numbers they are expected to hit, for example, a Level 12 Rouge investing in Thievery knows roughly they should be able to hit 'Hard' DC 29 most of the time, and should have at least 50% or better for the higher checks.

For DM's when building a particular adventure, say for graverobbing a Level 12 Kings tombs, they know roughly the spectrum of DC's for the challenges therein. {ie what DC to disable the traps and open the locked doors.)

The problems come in practice has the world does not have everything neatly labeled with a level, and DM's will have to decide on the spot how difficult something will be, pitfalls and all. Now this was the case in PF1 as ENHenry pointed out {and did a good job showing how it can be done in PF2, along with showing the advanatge of the system in terms of situational modifiers}, and at the heart of it, this still holds true in PF2. But it is made much more complex with the inclusion of also having to consider level as well. Sometimes it can be easy if you have an 'anchoring' point {For example, the Level 12 king probably did have the influence, money and power in his life to get at least level 12 people to make his tomb, so the challenges should be along those lines.} But what does a Level 4 mountain look like, or the Level of challenge to track down a lost cat?

I don't think its a bad systemm and its something I think both players and DM's can get used to. However the addition of having to consider Levels {due to levels making charaters more powerful in everything}, does put a kink into the works that will take some time to iron out, and a bit more guadiance could make this transition easier.