The DC chart is a bit of a trap.

[Ring_of_Gyges]

In theory, the DC chart is supposed to tell me how hard a task is for PCs of a given level given designer's estimates of what PC bonuses might be.

In theory, the same task should have the same DC regardless of who attempts it. Picking the lock on Lord Gyr's bedroom door should be the same if a 5th level rogue tries or a 15th. Lord Gyr is the 13th level lord of a prosperous city, maybe he has a level 13 lock with a DC around 30.

In practice, I don't think it will get used that way. Without developing new habits (be it habits for home GMs or editorial oversight for publishers) we run the risk of a treadmill where the DCs make no sense in the setting and undermine the coherence of the setting.

Spoilers for some problematic DCs and situation from The Frozen Oath:

Spoiler:

What should the DC be to examine a pile of furs in a warehouse and discover that a family of rabbits has burrowed into them to make a nest? An observer isn't certain to succeed, a big pile of furs might not look like much, but it is possible. The rabbits will have torn at the fabric, they'll have left droppings, they might have hollowed out a noticeable tunnel. If a first level Druid searches, what might his odds be?

5% says The Frozen Oath. That is a DC 24 check. He may be wise, he may be trained in perception, but no he is basically incapable of doing it.

What should the DC be for the druid to gently wake a sleeping rabbit without startling it? Low enough that a normal human might succeed? Low enough that someone wise and an expert in animal handling might succeed? 15 maybe?

27 says the Frozen Oath. This is exactly the dc of a hard check for the level the scenario is pitched to, but it creates a senseless world. If this situation came up in a level 5 scenario I guarantee the author would have picked 20 and if in a level 15 scenario a 33.

If I'm playing the Druid I discover at level 5 I have about a 50% chance of doing any animal related task, at level 10 I also have a 50% chance, and likewise at level 15. I never get any better is one problem, but I don't know what my skills mean is another. Does +15 animal handling mean I can probably calm that rabid dog? No one knows. If I have a +15 at low level then yes, +15 is plenty to calm a DC 20 rabid dog. If through bad choices and poor optimization I have a +15 at high level then no, it isn't enough because a rabid dog is suddenly DC 30.

To be clear, this isn't a system problem. The system works just the same if it is given a DC 5, 15, or 50. This is a scenario problem. The DC doesn't have anything to do with the world, so the world and the numbers stop making any sense. In theory a rabid dog should always be the same DC and at high levels you're calming demonically possessed dire wolves or whatever, but in practice the DC table creates a lazy shortcut where you don't actually think about how hard the task is, you just plug in the PCs level and do whatever the chart tells you.

It is a solvable problem, but the solution is careful habits from GMs and editorial oversight from Paizo or we'll have more failures like

Spoiler:

DC 27 to calm a bunny

[Garretmander]

Good point, but I'd argue that this is a problem with the system as well as the scenario writing.

It's sounds like these sleeping bunnies wouldn't and shouldn't be a level appropriate challenge.

But if it's not a level appropriate challenge, the PC's don't get experience.

So, either there's this encounter that anyone can succeed in, and no one benefits from, or there's nonsensical scaling of skill challenges.

[Ring_of_Gyges]

I think level inappropriate challenges are a vital part of play. Suppose a 10th level party is traveling from city A to B and are attacked on the road by ten 1st level bandits.

One theory is that such an encounter should never happen. It is a trivial threat, just skip it and get to the 10th level adventure in city B.

There are lots of fun ways that encounter can resolve though. The PCs can flatten them in a round, which is a fun power fantasy. They can overcome them non-violently, talk and get clues about the local politics that have led them to brigandage, etc... etc...

Good encounters can be had by interacting with characters or the environment in a way that tells you something interesting about the plot, the PCs, the setting, or whatever. The haughty wizard who fireballs the bandits and rides on has demonstrated a different character than the crafty rogue who hires them and puts them to use as informants. It is by those roleplaying choices that we express characters and build stories.

A challenge isn't a necessity for a good scene. If you find the strange carvings in the dungeon that tell the story of the ancient alien contact with the dwarves who built the place, the interesting thing is the story, not that the DC was such that you could have failed your linguistics to make sense of it.

If the DC in my 10th level tomb is 15, then the barbarian can interpret the glyphs and suddenly his being 10th level means something, his getting +1/level to everything did something, even if the wizard can do it without rolling. If the DC is 30 because the party is level 10, nothing ever changes for anyone. Giving everyone a +1 to hit and everyone a +1 to AC is literally the same as doing nothing at all.

Regarding overpowered encounters, if the 1st level party is traveling and crest a hill only to see three trolls down on the road ahead eating the remains of a horse and rider you can still have a good scene. They can fall back, they can sneak around, they can set an ambush and try to pick them off one by one, but whatever they do they know they live in a world with its own rules and logic that doesn't just exist for them. That is vital to the world seeing real.

One huge benefit is that they start thinking. If every adventure is written such that "charge in and kill everyone" is always a viable plan then that is a default plan they'll keep falling back on. If some of the encounters are over their level, they need to think more carefully, they need to decide whether they think they can take three trolls rather than just say "well, I trust our GM has done the math and wouldn't give us more than we can handle".

I do agree with your concern about experience points. I tend to house rule experience points quite a lot, the default system doesn't really do what I want it to. By default the experience system ignores the encounter with the low level bandits (or a social interaction with a bartender) despite those being fun opportunities for role play that maybe should have some mechanical incentive. I tend not to worry too much about it, my players are generally pretty willing to engage in all sorts of shenanigans with or without experience points as a reward.

[ChibiNyan]

So much for "Climbing the DC10 tree remains DC10 forever", I guess they forgot the caveat of "Unless it's in an official module, then it's a medium challenge DC appropiate to your level."

I agree gretly with Gyges second post. It's not always about "challenging" players, this isn't a videogame where later areas are just automatically harder than earlier areas for gameplay convenience. There is still a lot of interaction to be had with easy encounters or hard encounters (though the latter may not be worth it this edition).

Even the lv10 hero has a chance to fail the DC10 tree climb if he rolls an 1. Climbing up to spy on the nearby Hill Giant encampment would be a totally trivial task at that level, but even if you don't wanna get too creative, it can still affect the narrative in some unexpected and fun way.

EDIT: I actually did the lv1 thugs attack level 7 party scenario recently from a Riddleport random encounter table. The party was very amused!

[RazarTuk]

ChibiNyan wrote:

Even the lv10 hero has a chance to fail the DC10 tree climb if he rolls an 1.

This one's still a myth. Yes, they extended auto-success on 20 and auto-fail on 1 to skill checks. But because of crit successes and fails, that Lv 10 character rolling a 1 merely doesn't get to move, as opposed to falling. This, of course, supposing you should even be rolling. Unless time is critical (like in a battle), there's a penalty for failing (like climbing so high up that you'd maximize fall damage), or the party wizard is doing something stupid like donning the paladin's armor and attempting to climb a tree (an automatic failure), you should just let them succeed.

[Mark Carlson 255]

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

I think level inappropriate challenges are a vital part of play. Suppose a 10th level party is traveling from city A to B and are attacked on the road by ten 1st level bandits.

One theory is that such an encounter should never happen. It is a trivial threat, just skip it and get to the 10th level adventure in city B.

There are lots of fun ways that encounter can resolve though. The PCs can flatten them in a round, which is a fun power fantasy. They can overcome them non-violently, talk and get clues about the local politics that have led them to brigandage, etc... etc...

Good encounters can be had by interacting with characters or the environment in a way that tells you something interesting about the plot, the PCs, the setting, or whatever. The haughty wizard who fireballs the bandits and rides on has demonstrated a different character than the crafty rogue who hires them and puts them to use as informants. It is by those roleplaying choices that we express characters and build stories.

A challenge isn't a necessity for a good scene. If you find the strange carvings in the dungeon that tell the story of the ancient alien contact with the dwarves who built the place, the interesting thing is the story, not that the DC was such that you could have failed your linguistics to make sense of it.

If the DC in my 10th level tomb is 15, then the barbarian can interpret the glyphs and suddenly his being 10th level means something, his getting +1/level to everything did something, even if the wizard can do it without rolling. If the DC is 30 because the party is level 10, nothing ever changes for anyone. Giving everyone a +1 to hit and everyone a +1 to AC is literally the same as doing nothing at all.

Regarding overpowered encounters, if the 1st level party is traveling and crest a hill only to see three trolls down on the road ahead eating the remains of a horse and rider you can still have a good scene. They can fall back, they can sneak around, they can set an ambush and try to pick...

Thanks for making this important point.

Also IMHO, the idea that the "funnest combat" is 1 NPC/Monster per party member also does not apply to any group or game that I have played since 1978.
MDC

[WhiteMagus2000]

It is pretty annoying that unopposed checks don't have some kind of listed DCs. Players shouldn't still have a 50/50% of doing the same stuff they could do at level 1 (like identifying a rabbit nest), they should be doing more epic stuff. People have already complained about the DC of medicine checks increasing with level, but how about all the other skills? Treading water in a pond when you are level 1 might be DC 11, while treading water in the same pond at level 20 might be DC 30 (it might even require expert training). This kind of thing really breaks immersion for the players, and makes the world feel like unreal or stacked against them.

Paizo either needs to list some DC guidelines for each un-opposed skill or they could save themselves some time, really "simplify", and make each skill check a coin flip. Heads; you can do the thing, and tails you can't.

A really amusing scenario would be when a high level player fails to roll a DC 30 to climb a tree, only to watch a child climb it a few minutes later.
Player: "What? How did he roll a climb check of 30?"
GM: "Well, he's only level 1, the DC is 11 for him and he rolled a 13."

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

Regarding overpowered encounters, if the 1st level party is traveling and crest a hill only to see three trolls down on the road ahead eating the remains of a horse and rider you can still have a good scene. They can fall back, they can sneak around, they can set an ambush and try to pick them off one by one, but whatever they do they know they live in a world with its own rules and logic that doesn't just exist for them. That is vital to the world seeing real.

Indeed. The most memorable encounter in part 3 of Strange Aeons is when they are in a city that is attacked by a CR 26 Old One. They aren't supposed to fight a thing that looks and acts like Godzilla (@ level 7) and deserve to die if they try.

[Darigaaz the Igniter]

RazarTuk wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

Even the lv10 hero has a chance to fail the DC10 tree climb if he rolls an 1.

This one's still a myth. Yes, they extended auto-success on 20 and auto-fail on 1 to skill checks. But because of crit successes and fails, that Lv 10 character rolling a 1 merely doesn't get to move, as opposed to falling. This, of course, supposing you should even be rolling. Unless time is critical (like in a battle), there's a penalty for failing (like climbing so high up that you'd maximize fall damage), or the party wizard is doing something stupid like donning the paladin's armor and attempting to climb a tree (an automatic failure), you should just let them succeed.

Yeah, if only there was a rule for this kind of thing. Like letting the roller assume they got an appropriately average number on the die, such as a 10, then take that number and add their skill modifier to it to get a quick easy result. But nah, PF2 apparently doesn't need a rule like that.

[Tholomyes]

WhiteMagus2000 wrote:

A really amusing scenario would be when a high level player fails to roll a DC 30 to climb a tree, only to watch a child climb it a few minutes later.

Player: "What? How did he roll a climb check of 30?"
GM: "Well, he's only level 1, the DC is 11 for him and he rolled a 13."

Well then, it's a good thing PF2e doesn't work like that. Like, at all.

[Bardarok]

Damn. This really takes the wind out of my arguments that +lvl scaling doesn't lead to a treadmill. I don't think it necessarily should but if that's how the APs are going to be written then it clearly is just a treadmill.

[WhiteMagus2000]

Tholomyes wrote:

WhiteMagus2000 wrote:

A really amusing scenario would be when a high level player fails to roll a DC 30 to climb a tree, only to watch a child climb it a few minutes later.

Player: "What? How did he roll a climb check of 30?"
GM: "Well, he's only level 1, the DC is 11 for him and he rolled a 13."

Well then, it's a good thing PF2e doesn't work like that. Like, at all.

I wasn't being literal. It's the "non listed DC for anything so just assume that you can do it on about half the time" that is the problem. Identifying a rabbit nest should be a nature or survival DC of about 10. Peasant hunters do that kind of thing every day. Assigning a DC 27 to a task that a 14 year old farmer could do is just artificially inflating the numbers and most players are going to be smart enough to notice that.

[Rob Godfrey]

Tholomyes wrote:

WhiteMagus2000 wrote:

A really amusing scenario would be when a high level player fails to roll a DC 30 to climb a tree, only to watch a child climb it a few minutes later.

Player: "What? How did he roll a climb check of 30?"
GM: "Well, he's only level 1, the DC is 11 for him and he rolled a 13."

Well then, it's a good thing PF2e doesn't work like that. Like, at all.

tell that to the people writing the modules.

[Deadmanwalking]

I must agree that this is a serious potential issue. I didn't think so upon looking at the chart for all the good and logical reasons presented by defenders of the chart, but the module design thus far makes me seriously concerned.

Almost every DC we've seen so far in all adventures is on-level, and often in circumstances where that makes little sense. It can be argued that's specifically for playtesting, but it sets an unfortunate and, frankly, dangerous precedent.

[Lucas Yew]

(shakes head fervently up and down in agreement with OP)

That chart may have been intended to never make that exact fiasco, but alas, due to its written structure it's extremely easy to be abused as exactly that way. And as DMW pointed out, the very playtest scenario already made such mistakes.

[Mats Öhrman]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I must agree that this is a serious potential issue. I didn't think so upon looking at the chart for all the good and logical reasons presented by defenders of the chart, but the module design thus far makes me seriously concerned.

Almost every DC we've seen so far in all adventures is on-level, and often in circumstances where that makes little sense. It can be argued that's specifically for playtesting, but it sets an unfortunate and, frankly, dangerous precedent.

If the advenures does this (I cannot check myself, I'm intend to play these adventureses when we get to them) I would not say "trap" as the OP. I'd say "bait and switch". with 10-3 through 10-6 as windowdressing bait and 10-2 as the switch.

[Vidmaster7]

Or for this scenario that they threw together for testing the system they wanted to test level appropriate DC's (maybe they should stat that more but I feel they keep emphasizing a lot of things are the way they are because its in the play test phase.)

[Lyee]

I strongly agree that the concept of the table and theory written near it is good, but the numbers probably need some tweaking, and the use of the table in the only published content we've seen is abyssmal.

[Deadmanwalking]

Mats Öhrman wrote:

If the advenures does this (I cannot check myself, I'm intend to play these adventureses when we get to them) I would not say "trap" as the OP. I'd say "bait and switch". with 10-3 through 10-6 as windowdressing bait and 10-2 as the switch.

According to the designers, it's just to test if on-level DCs work, rather than intentional deceit of any sort, and I see no reason not to believe that.

My issue is the worry that it sets a dangerous and unfortunate precedent.

[Envall]

Just take a mallet and hammer it in to all future module writers.
"THE TABLE LEVEL REFERS TO TASK LEVEL, NOT PLAYER LEVEL"
"THE TABLE LEVEL REFERS TO TASK LEVEL, NOT PLAYER LEVEL"
"THE TABLE LEVEL REFERS TO TASK LEVEL, NOT PLAYER LEVEL"

[Franz Lunzer]

maybe change the table-header, from "Skill DCs by level and difficulty" to "DCs by task level and difficulty"?

[Vidmaster7]

Hmm not a bad start^

[Matthew Downie]

Tholomyes wrote:

WhiteMagus2000 wrote:

A really amusing scenario would be when a high level player fails to roll a DC 30 to climb a tree, only to watch a child climb it a few minutes later.

Player: "What? How did he roll a climb check of 30?"
GM: "Well, he's only level 1, the DC is 11 for him and he rolled a 13."

Well then, it's a good thing PF2e doesn't work like that. Like, at all.

Except when treating wounds.

[Vidmaster7]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Tholomyes wrote:

WhiteMagus2000 wrote:

A really amusing scenario would be when a high level player fails to roll a DC 30 to climb a tree, only to watch a child climb it a few minutes later.

Player: "What? How did he roll a climb check of 30?"
GM: "Well, he's only level 1, the DC is 11 for him and he rolled a 13."

Well then, it's a good thing PF2e doesn't work like that. Like, at all.

Except when treating wounds.

I think treat wounds is a working project (really all of it is) but the limiting factor to it is the crit fail. if the DC is to low youll never have to stop healing with it. So I think that is why the DC increases linearly. The easy change would be to have the dc based on the subject instead of your level. Ofcourse I think thats still nto perfect. I have been thinking on it and I just haven't been able to think of a logical and effective way to limit first aid. Once per day is dumb if you have it once per would then you have to track each hit speratly which is a pain. I wonder if anyone has come up with any good limiters for healing?

[Matthew Downie]

There are many possibilities. A stamina-like system (eg, damage taken when below half HP cannot be healed by first aid), or a maximum amount of mundane healing a character can receive in a day, or something like that. Most require some extra book-keeping.

But there are other threads already devoted to discussing that.

[Vidmaster7]

Oh I haven't seen one for first aid in particular I'll have to look and see what they came up with.

[Bartram]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Except when treating wounds.

And lingering a performance.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

If I remember correctly, they even asked in a survey whether it was clear that the DC table should be based on the difficulty of the task (and appropriate level) and not the PCs level. I think at we have at least one thread that argues for more set DCs and I am in favor of that.

Of course in PFS multitable scenarios we have a precedent of changing some variables to fit the scenario to the level of the group (pits get deeper etc.) but I feel that is kinda necessary for those.

[RazarTuk]

Lyee wrote:

I strongly agree that the concept of the table and theory written near it is good, but the numbers probably need some tweaking, and the use of the table in the only published content we've seen is abyssmal.

On a tangential note, I think the table is poorly designed in general. I prefer when tables can be easily recreated, like how average BAB is strictly floor(0.75*Lv), as opposed to not increasing BAB at a random 5 levels. Contrast with the advancement tables in 1e, which roughly follow {30,20,13} encounters/Lv * XP/encounter, but include all sorts of random variance. (And contrast that with the advancement tables in 3.5, which were 1000*current level to level up, or Lv*(Lv-1)*500 total)

The DC tables are clearly meant to follow floor(a*Lv+b), since every step size except Incredible difficulty level 6 to level 7 is either +1 or +2. (Stated without proof, if a is between 1 and 2, the step size must always be +1 or +2) But as it stands, they're effectively all random numbers, not an easily recognizable pattern.

[DerNils]

Doomsday Dawn sets a dangerous example, where absolutely mundane Tasks become Level appropriate due to the test Environment, but there is no indicator as to why These challenges are as they are.
My pet example is the Gather Information skill checks in Red Flags - you are asking about the event of the year of the most famous captain in town - there is absolutely no reason for These DC's to be Level appropriate challenges, especially as they give you no valuable "secret" informations, just General chit Chat.
Finding something under a pillow should not be a DC 20 Perception check, Independent of the Level of the guy who hid it or whatever.
So please, future Module writers, refer to all the tables, not only 10-2. And Paizo, please expand massively on These other tables.

[Ludovicus]

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

In theory, the DC chart is supposed to tell me how hard a task is for PCs of a given level given designer's estimates of what PC bonuses might be.

In theory, the same task should have the same DC regardless of who attempts it. Picking the lock on Lord Gyr's bedroom door should be the same if a 5th level rogue tries or a 15th. Lord Gyr is the 13th level lord of a prosperous city, maybe he has a level 13 lock with a DC around 30.

In practice, I don't think it will get used that way. Without developing new habits (be it habits for home GMs or editorial oversight for publishers) we run the risk of a treadmill where the DCs make no sense in the setting and undermine the coherence of the setting.

Spoilers for some problematic DCs and situation from The Frozen Oath:
** spoiler omitted **...

I love this post, but it makes me feel like a broken record: "Change base proficiency to level/2! Change base proficiency to level/2! Change base proficiency to level/2!"

[Bardarok]

Ludovicus wrote:

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

In theory, the DC chart is supposed to tell me how hard a task is for PCs of a given level given designer's estimates of what PC bonuses might be.

In theory, the same task should have the same DC regardless of who attempts it. Picking the lock on Lord Gyr's bedroom door should be the same if a 5th level rogue tries or a 15th. Lord Gyr is the 13th level lord of a prosperous city, maybe he has a level 13 lock with a DC around 30.

In practice, I don't think it will get used that way. Without developing new habits (be it habits for home GMs or editorial oversight for publishers) we run the risk of a treadmill where the DCs make no sense in the setting and undermine the coherence of the setting.

Spoilers for some problematic DCs and situation from The Frozen Oath:
** spoiler omitted **...

I love this post, but it makes me feel like a broken record: "Change base proficiency to level/2! Change base proficiency to level/2! Change base proficiency to level/2!"

I have been convinced over the past weeks that this is probably the way to go. The critical system makes every +1 count almost double so to keep similar power scaling as PF1 half level works better. I don't think that would solve the issue of designers overusing table 10-2 though. I think only explicet static DCs like they had in PF1 would do that.