| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DCs are not static. The DCs we get in adventures were changed to conform to the new Table 10-2 when the table was revised. The Mirrored Moon is the worst offender here, but DCs in all the scenarios were changed. There is no such thing as a static DC in PF2.
In Pathfinder Society, this was already true in PF1. Scenarios have DCs that change depending on which tier the scenario is used at, with no corresponding change in the setting.
---
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that Table 10-2 should be destroyed
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do wish there was a more straightforward formula to remember, though. If a Medium check was DC 12 + level and a Hard check was DC 15 + level, for example, I'd like that.
The problem here is than not only level increases for the PCs - you also gain better ability scores, better TEML training, items, and buffs.
This could kind of work if the game accepted that the tasks heroes do are more exceptional at higher levels. If listening to one conversation at a time is Easy, two is Medium, 4 is Hard, 8 is Extreme (use whatever escalating terms you like), then as the non-level modifier increased, you'd be able to do more extreme tasks as you level up.
However, if this is approach used, we might just as well just NOT add levels and keep the DCs entirely static.
---
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that Table 10-2 should be destroyed
The playtest rules say not to set the DC based on PC level, then talk at length about setting DCs based on PC level. It chases its own tail around in a circle.Does it? I'm curious to know which text you are reading that way. To me, it says not to set the DC based on PC level and then talks at length about setting DCs based on the level of the obstacle.
Not meaning to jab here - I'd honestly like to know what you are reading differently than I am. If you and I are reading the same text to mean different things, that might explain why there is so much confusion about this subject, and help shed light on what wording Paizo could change to make it more clear.
It seems fairly obvious to me that Challenges are supposed to go up at a rate of about one level per PC level, like monster CRs, because how else could it work?
Obviously, non-challenges - like climbing your own rope - should not change. But if something is part of an adventure and meant to be something you get experience for, it will normally be of level-appropriate difficulty.
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.
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
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.
Note that this doesn't say you mustn't increase the DC; just that you need to justify it rather than do it in an arbitrary manner.
So if we're creating a Challenge, we basically have to set the DC to swim the river based on the party level, and then try to justify it by describing the river. Or, we decide the river is a trivial non-challenge and we don't need to roll.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like a table is going to be more helpful to people than a formula if you have to give one, but you could always give both a table and the formula which generates it.
Also I thought "Difficulty classes are based on the world, not the party" was clear in the playtest book.
The problem here is the examples set by the scenario designers and the rules (things like Medicine and Lasting Inspiration) that have DCs depend on the player characters' levels. These examples are much stronger than some text recommendation.
---Furthermore, I am of the opinion that Table 10-2 should be destroyed
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a mistake to conflate "the module offers no below level skill checks based on diagetic circumstances" and "there are no static checks."
Since the module writers might have done whatever they did, but RAW is that the DC to climb the same tree is the same at level 20 as it at level 1.
Like the GM or adventure writer has always been able to stack the deck for or against the PCs to get a desired range of probable results (and this might or might not be a good thing) but let's not mistake "the adventure does this" for "the system itself does this."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do wish there was a more straightforward formula to remember, though. If a Medium check was DC 12 + level and a Hard check was DC 15 + level, for example, I'd like that.The problem here is than not only level increases for the PCs - you also gain better ability scores, better TEML training, items, and buffs.
This could kind of work if the game accepted that the tasks heroes do are more exceptional at higher levels. If listening to one conversation at a time is Easy, two is Medium, 4 is Hard, 8 is Extreme (use whatever escalating therms you like), then as the non-level modifier increased, you'd be able to do more extreme tasks as you level up.
However, if this is approach used, we might just as well just NOT add levels ad keep the DCs entirely static.
---
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that Table 10-2 should be destroyed
Adding level is what makes high level characters able to do more impressive things than low level characters.
That is a different effect than having a completely linear DC per level progression would do.
For example, with no level added to the DC, a 3rd level adventurer and a 14th level adventurer could go adventuring together. As long as both had similar investment in athletics, then they could both be challenged by the same wall climbing challenge. In fact, a decent percentage of the time, the 3rd level character could beat the 14th level character up the wall.
With the current system, the 3rd level character and the 14th level character couldn't be challenged by the same wall. Either the DC would be too much for the 3rd level character, or it would be trivial for the 14th level character. If instead the 3rd level character is climbing a CR 3 wall and the 14th level character is climbing a CR 14 wall, then they would have approximately equal chances of success. There is a good chance that the level 3 character could climb his easy wall faster than the level 14 character could climb his difficult wall.
Now the difference that the linear DC progression makes. The level 3 character and the level 14 character still need different walls to climb. The level 14 character climbing a CR 14 wall has a noticeably higher chance of success compared to the level 3 character climbing the CR 3 wall. It is unlikely that the level 3 character is going to reach the top of his easy wall before the level 14 character gets to the top of the CR 14 wall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The frequency that 10th level PCs climb a level 1 cliff is just about the same frequency that 10th level PCs fight a level 1 monster...
The thing is that level 10 characters might very well climb level 1 walls, but do so at breakneck speed, in the rain, at freezing temperatures, in total darkness. The task itself might be the same, but the situation makes it very different. But these modifications come from the situation and player choices, and might well be mitigated by PC abilities. A PC with endure elements, darkvision, suction cups (that actually benefit from things being wet) and choosing to climb slowly, the task is easy as all the modifiers are taken away.
Using PF1, this is simple to GM. Each of the problems have a modifier, and having the right counter removes that modifier. With Table 10-2, the GM arbitrarily sets the original task to level 10, and each mitigating circumstance might lower the level of the task by 2. Is this more intuitive than the PF1 system? I say no. PF1 gave a feel for the physical reality of the task, it gave the world substance. Table 10-2 creates a world made of gel that takes any form or difficulty depending on GM whim.
Yes, I admit it will be hard to create example tasks that are level 10 and above. Most such tasks will be compound problems like the one I presented here. We can have just a few examples and leave defining more tasks to scenario designers.
---
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that Table 10-2 should be destroyed
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I admit it will be hard to create example tasks that are level 10 and above. Most such tasks will be compound problems like the one I presented here. We can have just a few examples and leave defining more tasks to scenario designers.
I am a scenario designer - for my own games at home. I need something like table 10-2.
Table 10-2 isn't meant for players. The only thing it helps players do is metagame.
Table 10-2 is needed for content creators.
Yes, I admit it will be hard to create example tasks that are level 10 and above. Most such tasks will be compound problems like the one I presented here. We can have just a few examples and leave defining more tasks to scenario designers.
I am a scenario designer - for my own games at home. I need something like table 10-2.
Table 10-2 isn't meant for players. The only thing it helps players do is metagame.
Table 10-2 is needed for content creators.
I agree here. A list of expected skill bonuses at various levels (with skill DCs being 10 higher, as usual) would be a valuable adventure design tool. I believe @Bardarok said something very similar earlier.
But this should strictly be an adventure designer tool, and not a general guide for setting difficulties of tasks in play. It would kill abuses like the Medicine DC to rest back Hp and Perform for Inspire Courage automatically increasing as you level up.
Most rolls in the game that matter should be opposed. If you are invading the theives' guild, the DC of traps would depend on the trapmaking skills of the guild (and the resources they spent on this lock/trap - peripheral areas get less attention). The DC to climb a castle wall depends on the architect and engineers. The DC to see what fighting style/skill an opponent has is Deception. A revised Table 10-2, with common skill rating for characters of each level depending on their degree of specialization, would be a great help here. But for this to work, monster skills must be de-inflated to match what PCs can reach.
---
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that Table 10-2 should be destroyed
With Table 10-2, the GM arbitrarily sets the original task to level 10, and each mitigating circumstance might lower the level of the task by 2.
Isn't this backwards? The original wall is level 1, and each compounding factor increases the difficulty level until it becomes a level 10 challenge.
It's not much different from adding a template to a monster to make it a more appropriate challenge for the party (and thus increasing the CR).
Isn't this backwards?
You are right, but the end result is the same. Its merely a matter of where you choose to begin the calculation.
---Furthermore, I am of the opinion that Table 10-2 should be destroyed
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would agree with that, except for the fact that player abilities like lingering performance and treat wounds (player abilities) directly reference it.Yes, I admit it will be hard to create example tasks that are level 10 and above. Most such tasks will be compound problems like the one I presented here. We can have just a few examples and leave defining more tasks to scenario designers.
I am a scenario designer - for my own games at home. I need something like table 10-2.
Table 10-2 isn't meant for players. The only thing it helps players do is metagame.
Table 10-2 is needed for content creators.
We should fix that problem by addressing things like Treat Wounds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, things like raining don't raise the level, they change the column. That's why the table has all those columns.
The wall is level 10 Normal. But it's raining so level 10 Hard. But you're racing against the clock and climbing too fast so now it's level 10 Legendary.
That's also what table 10-4 is doing. Setting common LEVELS for ordinary task and then giving a couple examples of things that can change the DIFFICULTY COLUMN if those things apply.
I agree here. A list of expected skill bonuses at various levels (with skill DCs being 10 higher, as usual) would be a valuable adventure design tool. I believe @Bardarok said something very similar earlier.But this should strictly be an adventure designer tool, and not a general guide for setting difficulties of tasks in play. It would kill abuses like the Medicine DC to rest back Hp and Perform for Inspire Courage automatically increasing as you level up.
OK. Paraphrasing my understanding of this so that you can correct me if I have misunderstood something:
Table 10-2 gets completely removed (in preparation for its replacement).
Tables 10-3 through 10-whatever for the standard DCs of basic tasks stay, yes?
Then a new table gets created that has the PCs level for each row, and columns listing things like 'no competency', 'basic competency', 'typical optimization', and 'very optimized'. The table is filled with the expected modifiers that the player characters will have at each level.
So then when my players decide they want to climb into the building through a darkened second story window rather than bluffing, intimidating, or sneaking past the guard at the door like I had planned, then I can look at the table for the character's level, pick an optimization level that I expect them to be at, get the base DC, then modify the DC by a few points to make the challenge easier or harder.
My conclusion:
This seems to have a very similar effect of table 10-2 for on-level challenges. However, it is even easier to misunderstand the idea and make it so that all challenges have to be on-level. Notice that this is exactly what I did in the example above.
That is because the first column of this new table is actually the PC's level. Table 10-2 is technically the CR level of the opposing entity.
I could instead look on table 10-4 for common athletics checks and use that DC instead. There are two problems with this. One is that climbing the outside wall of a mansion is not currently listed in the table. The other is that the DCs on that table are typically CR 0 to CR 3. If I am having 8th level characters going through this adventure, then the characters are going to breeze through the challenge.
At that point I need to either: forbid them from doing it - hopefully with some role-playing justification; not give them any experience points - because the CR of the challenge that they actually accomplished was too low; or come up with some replacement challenge on the fly that they have to do instead.
To be honest, I would have to do this anyway if I decide that climbing the wall of the mansion is a low CR challenge. But I think it is much easier to miss that if I am looking up a table of expected bonuses by player level than if I am looking up a table of skill DCs by CR rating.
Most rolls in the game that matter should be opposed. If you are invading the theives' guild, the DC of traps would depend on the trapmaking skills of the guild (and the resources they spent on this lock/trap - peripheral areas get less attention). The DC to climb a castle wall depends on the architect and engineers. The DC to see what fighting style/skill an opponent has is Deception. A revised Table 10-2, with common skill rating for characters of each level depending on their degree of specialization, would be a great help here. But for this to work, monster skills must be de-inflated to match what PCs can reach.
Totally agree with this here. Table 10-2 is for helping decide what the DC should be for something that doesn't have skill stats to oppose with. Or for coming up with a DC on the fly for some NPC that I didn't fully stat out (didn't expect the player to try and pick pocket the deus ex machina priest that I made up for them during the play session to remove the poison that was about to kill off one of the characters).
Most rolls in the game that matter should be opposed. If you are invading the theives' guild, the DC of traps would depend on the trapmaking skills of the guild (and the resources they spent on this lock/trap - peripheral areas get less attention). The DC to climb a castle wall depends on the architect and engineers. The DC to see what fighting style/skill an opponent has is Deception. A revised Table 10-2, with common skill rating for characters of each level depending on their degree of specialization, would be a great help here. But for this to work, monster skills must be de-inflated to match what PCs can reach.So what would the DC for the traps in an ancient crypt now full of undead be? The trapmaking skills of the long dead designer? Who I have to invent and stat up, just for the purpose of figuring out how tough the traps are.
Or in your castle wall example, I have to do the same for your architect and engineers.
It's similar effort to choosing what level the trap or wall is just with some actual justification.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The frequency that 10th level PCs climb a level 1 cliff is just about the same frequency that 10th level PCs fight a level 1 monster...The thing is that level 10 characters might very well climb level 1 walls, but do so at breakneck speed, in the rain, at freezing temperatures, in total darkness. The task itself might be the same, but the situation makes it very different. But these modifications come from the situation and player choices, and might well be mitigated by PC abilities. A PC with endure elements, darkvision, suction cups (that actually benefit from things being wet) and choosing to climb slowly, the task is easy as all the modifiers are taken away.
Using PF1, this is simple to GM. Each of the problems have a modifier, and having the right counter removes that modifier. With Table 10-2, the GM arbitrarily sets the original task to level 10, and each mitigating circumstance might lower the level of the task by 2. Is this more intuitive than the PF1 system? I say no. PF1 gave a feel for the physical reality of the task, it gave the world substance. Table 10-2 creates a world made of gel that takes any form or difficulty depending on GM whim.
Yes, I admit it will be hard to create example tasks that are level 10 and above. Most such tasks will be compound problems like the one I presented here. We can have just a few examples and leave defining more tasks to scenario designers.
---
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that Table 10-2 should be destroyed
Ok Cato.
Kind of my point: So you figure out what kind of challenge you want, look on the table to get the right numbers, then fill in description and backstory as appropriate.It's similar effort to choosing what level the trap or wall is just with some actual justification.
Most rolls in the game that matter should be opposed. If you are invading the theives' guild, the DC of traps would depend on the trapmaking skills of the guild (and the resources they spent on this lock/trap - peripheral areas get less attention). The DC to climb a castle wall depends on the architect and engineers. The DC to see what fighting style/skill an opponent has is Deception. A revised Table 10-2, with common skill rating for characters of each level depending on their degree of specialization, would be a great help here. But for this to work, monster skills must be de-inflated to match what PCs can reach.So what would the DC for the traps in an ancient crypt now full of undead be? The trapmaking skills of the long dead designer? Who I have to invent and stat up, just for the purpose of figuring out how tough the traps are.
Or in your castle wall example, I have to do the same for your architect and engineers.
I really prefer it the other way around since it helps GMS avoid the treadmill effect. But as long as it makes sense in the end it doesn't matter I guess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we make the table linear with no jumps, then the ability score increases, the training level increases, and the item bonuses and such will make things easier at higher levels.
I would see this as a perk rather than a drawback. If you invest heavily in a skill, I think you should get a good chance of succeeding most of the time.
Of course, this approach does have drawbacks, and it might be easier design-wise to keep the DC table as-is, leaving me to tweak DCs in published adventures downward as appropriate to my game. This edition has lots of easily tweaked dials, which makes me happy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ye gods that's the absoloute worst possible way for table 10-2 to be used in my eyes. I'd be mortified at using it that way. I understand it's different for other tables, but for me:
Doing it like that implies everything the PCs try and do is an on-level challenge, rather than part of a world that has a variety of levels. If you're judging the level of a challenge, then looking it up, neat! It's a usable table. But assuming the PC's level is the right row of the table is how you make it feel like characters don't progress in skills at all as they level up. The devs doing that with Doomsday Dawn and making many DCs of relatively mundane tasks pointlessly high beause the PCs were higher level has been the biggest complaint at my table.
The main gist of that table's problem. Apparently the 4th edition of that another game had a similar table that made the same mistake. Totally born of an anti-simulationist agenda (sarcasm), and even if not, trivially abusable. And don't even mention what they did with Medicine checks already...
If the table stays anyway, I'd like it to fade to the background, and just reuse the numbers accordingly on separate static tables ripe with examples for each skill, just like in PF1. And put big red warning signs in the rulebook in case the GM really wants to access the raw table, so they can NEVER make picking up a common book in an ordinary bookstore an "on-level" 20th level challenge as long as they are willing to be sane arbiters.
----
P.S. Slightly unrelated but personally, I'm fine about PCs getting +40 or some similar mega bonus at something they specialized, and steamrolling stuff like Diplomacy checks. It feels extremely good that what I invested for the character's whole career actually paid off splendidly in the form of guaranteed success, quite unlike in (the totally unfair) real life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So characters who could steamroll any skill check of the kind they specialized in weren't really doable with just the CRB in PF1, so I think it would be a mistake to bake them into PF2 right from the onset.
Actually, things like raining don't raise the level, they change the column. That's why the table has all those columns.
The wall is level 10 Normal. But it's raining so level 10 Hard. But you're racing against the clock and climbing too fast so now it's level 10 Legendary.
That's also what table 10-4 is doing. Setting common LEVELS for ordinary task and then giving a couple examples of things that can change the DIFFICULTY COLUMN if those things apply.
The problem with this reasoning is that (in this example I just made up) this party climbed the very same wall under ideal conditions at level 1. Back then, climbing it was a level 1 task. Now they are back and due to circumstances, they have to climb the wall in much harsher conditions. And Level 1 legendary is WAY too easy to be a challenge for a level 10 party.
---Furthermore, I am of the opinion that Table 10-2 should be destroyed
OK. Paraphrasing my understanding of this so that you can correct me if I have misunderstood something:
This is just about right. And yes, the problems you outline are real. But in my mind, finding the path of least resistance is part of the challenge of an adventure. If the GM had planned for the players to talk their way and pass a labyrinth full of traps, and the PCs have a cat burglar capable of bypassing all of that, I find that cool. I love such situations. Just like you can avoid a monster, you can avoid other kinds of challenges.
Something very much like this actually happened in one of my games. If I recall, the PCs then had some troubling getting OUT of the trapped tower - the NPC they freed could not climb as well as the PCs. Good times!
---
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that Table 10-2 should be destroyed
Treadmill effect is part of the game.
It's why you don't spend most of your time at high level crushing the little goblins and wolves you fought at first level. You get tougher, you can fight tougher enemies.
You become a better climber, you can climb harder routes.If my 20th level rogue needs the same roll to climb the polished and greased adamantine overhang that he needed to climb the rough stone cliff when he was first level, that's not a treadmill - that's awesome.
I mean, what a lot of people seem like they are upset about is that the player's bonuses do not appear to grow appreciably faster than do the DCs for level-appropriate challenges.
But if that weren't the case, then high level play would get out of hand and those "level appropriate challenges" would not pose an appropriate challenge for someone of your level.
Most rolls in the game that matter should be opposed. If you are invading the theives' guild, the DC of traps would depend on the trapmaking skills of the guild (and the resources they spent on this lock/trap - peripheral areas get less attention). The DC to climb a castle wall depends on the architect and engineers. The DC to see what fighting style/skill an opponent has is Deception. A revised Table 10-2, with common skill rating for characters of each level depending on their degree of specialization, would be a great help here. But for this to work, monster skills must be de-inflated to match what PCs can reach.So what would the DC for the traps in an ancient crypt now full of undead be? The trapmaking skills of the long dead designer? Who I have to invent and stat up, just for the purpose of figuring out how tough the traps are.
Or in your castle wall example, I have to do the same for your architect and engineers.
The traps can have deteriorated just enough to give DCs reasonable for your party. But they should never be HIGHER than it makes sense for them to have been originally. Except that in an exceptional case the rust, collapsed ceiling, or whatever might actually have made a trap or door harder to bypass, creating an interesting variance in the adventure, something that needs to be circumvented intelligently.
This is not really more strange than including level-appropriate traps and monsters. If the opposition is level 10, and invest their resources about evenly throughout an adventure, the difficulty of traps and encounters should reasonably be in the 6-9 range, with the final encounters being level 10. But if there is a random wall someplace, that wall should not be level-appropriate. If the dungeon builder wants a level 10 wall, they have to invest in it and make it correspondingly exceptional.
---
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that Table 10-2 should be destroyed
If my 20th level rogue needs the same roll to climb the polished and greased adamantine overhang that he needed to climb the rough stone cliff when he was first level, that's not a treadmill - that's awesome.
A first level rogue is trained in a lot of skills. Climbing is Athletics, so you are likely bad at it (Strength and Intelligence are the rogue dumps stats). So you have a bonus around +1. At level 20, you might be Legendary, you have likely increased your Strength to 18. You are likely Legendary, perhaps you even have an item bonus. Your skill bonus is around +30 and might be higher. If the DC at level 1 was 11, it is now 40. This is all good. Change to succeed is 50% in both cases.
But if it was an Arcana check? At 1st level, if you are trained, you have a +1 skill bonus, same as above. But at level 20, you have not invested anything other than level - you are still only trained, Intelligence is your dump stat, and naturally you have not put any precious skill increases or items into Arcana. You now have a +20 bonus, giving you a 5% chance to succeed.
A rogue can keep up their level of training in 6 skills. All other classes can do so in a maximum of 3 skills. You can increase 4 out of 6 ability scores. Item bonuses are few and far between, considering cost and Resonance. Most skills will inevitably slip. This means you actually have fewer skills where you can consider yourself competent at level 20 than at level 1.
---
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that Table 10-2 should be destroyed
|
I'm glad to have this table up front rather than assumed in the background because this approach has been used in practice since... well, since we started having DCs for things. 1999?
Higher level adventures have consistently had higher DCs across the board. Occasionally, you'd get a throw away line about how a lock is particularly good or a noble particularly intractable to excuse it. But, for the most part, DCs in the 20s and 30s just creep in as the adventure's level gets higher. Even things that, in theory, have defined DCs are buoyed by the same tide.
I think the biggest advice is just to be sure to give PCs awesome new stuff to do as they go up in levels. If they're doing the same stuff at level 6 that they were at level 1, you might misuse a DC chart like this. But that's, at best, a symptom of a larger disconnect.
At that point I need to either: forbid them from doing it - hopefully with some role-playing justification; not give them any experience points - because the CR of the challenge that they actually accomplished was too low; or come up with some replacement challenge on the fly that they have to do instead.To be honest, I would have to do this anyway if I decide that climbing the wall of the mansion is a low CR challenge. But I think it is much easier to miss that if I am looking up a table of expected bonuses by player level than if I am looking up a table of skill DCs by CR rating.
See, I'd say that's exactly the wrong way to do it. You don't want to either make static actions unreasonably hard (or easy) just to fit the appropriate CR or punish players (with loss of XP) for finding a clever way around what you expected them to do.
Agreed. That isn't very good GM'ing.
Unfortunately the alternatives are not easy.
If you've already described the place as a standard mansion, then they get to climb a standard mansion wall at the normal chances - based on Tables 10-3+.
Table 10-4 doesn't have DC for climbing a manufactured wall.
And get xp for being clever.
Absolutely.
They still dealt with the obstacle (the guards) - in this case by avoiding them. (Of course, if they cause a ruckus and have to deal with the guards on the way out ...)
That may happen. If so, then everything will be fine. I might also use the existence of guards to increase the difficulty of the wall climb/window entry. They now have to do it quietly.
But remember that this is only one example. I'm sure we can all think up scenarios where the players bypass the planned adventure without any recourse.
It also feels like I as the GM am being punished in the scenario where my players end up bypassing the adventure that I had planned. I have a story that I am trying to tell. I also spent hours building all of this content - that now the players are skipping. All because I didn't think of some skill or ability that the players had and come up with some way to thwart it before presenting it to the players. I certainly don't promote retaliation as a result, but it does still sting.
Or you could add challenge in some other way. A lock or trap on the window. Someone in the darkened room. Etc. I'd be sparing with that: discouraging players from thinking laterally is not what I want to do.
And now we are back to having to create a replacement challenge on the fly during the game session.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Treadmill effect is part of the game.
It's why you don't spend most of your time at high level crushing the little goblins and wolves you fought at first level. You get tougher, you can fight tougher enemies.
You become a better climber, you can climb harder routes.If my 20th level rogue needs the same roll to climb the polished and greased adamantine overhang that he needed to climb the rough stone cliff when he was first level, that's not a treadmill - that's awesome.
But without guidance that won't happen. Inexperienced GMs won't know that a lvl 20 wall should be a polished greased adamantine overhang and will instead say "you're lvl 20 so it's a lvl 20 wall". That is what happens with just table 10-2. It shouldn't be used that way but it is both by people in the forums already and in the adventure design of Doomsday Dawn. That's the problem.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing that annoys me about it isn't necessarily how at lv14 you face a lv14 cliff, or how you get to climb a lv20 wall - that's adventure design and it would've had the same DC regardless, otherwise it would've been handwaved as "you can do it".
No, what pisses me off is scaling.
Hard, Impossible, Incredible tasks scale faster than you level, fine.
But regular tasks also scale faster than your level, so what's the point of adding to them every level if it's not enough to keep up with my level????? How is that training???? Why do I need a magic item to be able to do just as well as before in the things I already got better at???
Massive dislike.
And massive dislike also for all the items "with a powerful active effect" that become absolutely useless after a couple levels but still provide a very much mandatory item bonus.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The table makes encounters conform to it just by being there. You say I need a challenge for a level X party, it's pretty easy so I look up the DC for an easy DC for level X.
The problem is the world doesn't have levels, thinking of the level of something is impossible to do well, the only reference you have is the level of the party so you choose that.
Something like 10-2 should only be used for things already with levels, something like opposed checks against a creature or cursed item.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a sandbox adventure if the level of the doors and walls and trees and rivers goes up at the same rate as your character level no matter where you go, that's the world levelling with you.
In a more linear campaign, where at level 20 you're literally venturing into hell and the doors are demonic and the walls are made of frozen blood and the trees are trying to kill you and the rivers are made of angry spiders, high DCs feel more natural.
Hard, Impossible, Incredible tasks scale faster than you level, fine.
But regular tasks also scale faster than your level, so what's the point of adding to them every level if it's not enough to keep up with my level????? How is that training???? Why do I need a magic item to be able to do just as well as before in the things I already got better at???
Well "Trivial lvl 20 task" does seem a bit oxymoron.
Can there be such a thing as trivial or regular high level task?Maybe the table has a bit of a flavor problem rather than a number problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I must say I like this discussion - even from those who's opinions I don't share. Its mainly been polite and constructive, Kudos all!
--
Tagline suspended for now
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My issue with the table is that the terms feel counter to the idea of DC by level. I think a lot of people would rather think of a task as a DC x than trying to think of one task as easy for level x, hard for level y. I agree with folks that say the table would be fine in a gm focused section, while a chart of what static DCs look like should be presented to Players so they can get a sense of what these numbers mean in a more concrete sense.
Hard, Impossible, Incredible tasks scale faster than you level, fine.
But regular tasks also scale faster than your level, so what's the point of adding to them every level if it's not enough to keep up with my level????? How is that training???? Why do I need a magic item to be able to do just as well as before in the things I already got better at???Well "Trivial lvl 20 task" does seem a bit oxymoron.
Can there be such a thing as trivial or regular high level task?Maybe the table has a bit of a flavor problem rather than a number problem.
No.
If I just level up from lv12 to lv13, my Medicine improved by +1.
At the same time, the DC to heal myself increases by +2.
I just got better at something, but my success chances worsened.
This is absolutely a number problem, if not an item problem.
(Example is made win Treat Wounds and base 10.2, but you could make another with, say, Bard’s features and the new 10.2, it’s the same issue on a different line)
No.If I just level up from lv12 to lv13, my Medicine improved by +1.
At the same time, the DC to heal myself increases by +2.I just got better at something, but my success chances worsened.
This is absolutely a number problem, if not an item problem.(Example is made win Treat Wounds and base 10.2, but you could make another with, say, Bard’s features and the new 10.2, it’s the same issue on a different line)
Task DC must assume you gain bonus points from other sources instead of just yourself, because treasure that assists you is fact about the game. Treat wounds is a special case since it targets a person and his level is the basis of the DC.
But in the abstraction, it is not based on the level of the person as much as it is assumed that higher level people have been wounded by more and more exotic means and thus it is harder to heal. The wounds are scaling up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Am I missing something? I don't see a "Treat Wounds" ability and all the Medicine uses I see listed have either static DCs or based on the particular thing (disease or poison) being treated.No.
If I just level up from lv12 to lv13, my Medicine improved by +1.
At the same time, the DC to heal myself increases by +2.I just got better at something, but my success chances worsened.
This is absolutely a number problem, if not an item problem.(Example is made win Treat Wounds and base 10.2, but you could make another with, say, Bard’s features and the new 10.2, it’s the same issue on a different line)
Treat Wounds is in the playtest updates as a new action with Medicine. It takes 10 minutes and restores CON * Level HP to up to six people if you succeed, with the DC based on the level of the people you are using it on.
And yes, the idea that you gain a level, get better at Medicine, and it gets *harder* to treat the same wounds as the day before is really odd. But that's becuase it has a success DC, rather than it simply being "your check result was X, therefore you heal Y HP". Which is a house rule I would use instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Am I missing something? I don't see a "Treat Wounds" ability and all the Medicine uses I see listed have either static DCs or based on the particular thing (disease or poison) being treated.No.
If I just level up from lv12 to lv13, my Medicine improved by +1.
At the same time, the DC to heal myself increases by +2.I just got better at something, but my success chances worsened.
This is absolutely a number problem, if not an item problem.(Example is made win Treat Wounds and base 10.2, but you could make another with, say, Bard’s features and the new 10.2, it’s the same issue on a different line)
Treat Wounds is in the playtest updates as a new action with Medicine. It takes 10 minutes and restores CON * Level HP to up to six people if you succeed, with the DC based on the level of the people you are using it on.
And yes, the idea that you gain a level, get better at Medicine, and it gets *harder* to treat the same wounds as the day before is really odd. But that's becuase it has a success DC, rather than it simply being "your check result was X, therefore you heal Y HP". Which is a house rule I would use instead.
I've been toying with making it DC 10 for the base effect, then every 1 by which you exceed is +1 HP. No Critical Success or Critical Failure effect at all. Makes Medicine Assurance actually worth it, though it does mean the only limit the PCs have for healing is Time, which may not sit well with a lot of GMs (I personally don't care).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been toying with making it DC 10 for the base effect, then every 1 by which you exceed is +1 HP. No Critical Success or Critical Failure effect at all. Makes Medicine Assurance actually worth it, though it does mean the only limit the PCs have for healing is Time, which may not sit well with a lot of GMs (I personally don't care).
That's pretty reasonable, yeah. I might make it +2 or +3 though, as people are gaining a lot more than 1HP per level while the average check result won't scale up as fast.
I also limit it to once between encounters, although I might change that to once per hour. The goal isn't to let a group sit around spamming treat wounds between each encountre, but to have them do it once to regain some HP and then move on.