|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 5:53PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
Why should a wall be DC 10 for a 1st level character to climb but DC 20 for a higher level character to climb? That makes no sense to me at all.
Nor should it. I apologize for my unclear choice of words. While I'll admit to some minor tweaking (in both directions) based on how skilled a character is in a particular endeavor the real benefit of customized DCs is providing granularity to task difficulty.
Put another way, I'd rather be able to say that three tasks A, B, and C of increasing difficulty have DCs of 13, 15, and 17 than say that they are all of moderate difficulty and default to 15.
And, speaking generally, the statistical variance between 13, 15, and 17 on a d20 and those three numbers on a d20+dX are two different things.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 5:56PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
Well, I am sorry to hear that it is not for you. So long as it remains the base mechanic, I hope you get a module that caters to your needs. Out of curiosity, however, can you please explain how anything is taken out of the DMs hands? Because, I am really not seeing it...
If you believe, as I do, that the probability curve of d20+dX is more difficult to read than that of a single d20, it becomes difficult for a DM to be adequately informed regarding the success rate represented by a given DC. As other posters have commented, this encourages reliance on a table of preset DCs.
Can you please explain to me what is harder about the current math given the information I have posted? Also, haven't all editions of D&D had a list of preset DCs?
In my opinion, setting DCs to match party capabilities is more or less the most important mechanical thing the DM does at the table, and a table of preset DCs, while a helpful guide, ought not to be relied upon.
As I noted, a DM can still set DCs to party capabilities if they feel the need to. You find the mean roll (which you need to be able to do to set the DC with only 1d20+mod as well). You then treat a range within +/- 6 of the mean roll as you would a linear scale, and numbers outside of that range as very likely to succeed/fail. Can you explain to me why you feel that DMs can no longer cater numbers to the party?
Additionally, although I'm only noting this now, the table of preset DCs that a few posters have quoted, being the set of multiples of 5 up to 35, could easily mislead anyone into thinking that these DCs are evenly spaced statistically, which is not the case at all. In fact, the statistical difference between these set DCs changes with the size of the skill die used.
Huh. I could not disagree more. I was not mislead.
I don't know. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on everything. Because, I just do not agree with any of what I have seen you type. Thank you, however, for trying to explain it to me (and if you could further answer my questions in this thread I would appreciate it--I am still trying to understand where you are coming from).
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 6:01PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
Why should a wall be DC 10 for a 1st level character to climb but DC 20 for a higher level character to climb? That makes no sense to me at all.
Nor should it. I apologize for my unclear choice of words. While I'll admit to some minor tweaking (in both directions) based on how skilled a character is in a particular endeavor the real benefit of customized DCs is providing granularity to task difficulty.
Put another way, I'd rather be able to say that three tasks A, B, and C of increasing difficulty have DCs of 13, 15, and 17 than say that they are all of moderate difficulty and default to 15.
And, speaking generally, the statistical variance between 13, 15, and 17 on a d20 and those three numbers on a d20+dX are two different things.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I get what you're saying now.
I don't think the DC table is meant to be set in stone, but rather serve as a general example. There's nothing stopping you as the DM from saying "I think this task is a bit easier than a "hard" task, so I'm going to make the DC 18 instead of 20.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 6:08PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2011
|
Why should a wall be DC 10 for a 1st level character to climb but DC 20 for a higher level character to climb? That makes no sense to me at all.
Nor should it. I apologize for my unclear choice of words. While I'll admit to some minor tweaking (in both directions) based on how skilled a character is in a particular endeavor the real benefit of customized DCs is providing granularity to task difficulty.
Put another way, I'd rather be able to say that three tasks A, B, and C of increasing difficulty have DCs of 13, 15, and 17 than say that they are all of moderate difficulty and default to 15.
And, speaking generally, the statistical variance between 13, 15, and 17 on a d20 and those three numbers on a d20+dX are two different things.
You can still do that with the current system. If you want the DC to be inbetween moderate and difficult make it a 17. Better yet, just let the player roll and if you think he rolled high enough narrate accordingly. If he rolled too low narrate accordingly.
It is true that the randomness of the skill die will never let you or the player calculate the exact chance of success, but to me that is a positive because it forces players to make in-character decisions based on how difficult they believe a task is without calculating probabilities, which often stops players from doing interesting things.
At first level, if the DM says it is an easy roll, I'll go for it. If he says it's a moderate roll, I'll go for it if I feel as if it is one of my strengths. If it is difficult, I'll go for it if it is a strength and I have skill mastery. When my skill dice goes up to 1d6, I may become a bit more daring, but I'd probably stick to the same decisions unless failing couldn't harm me. When my skill die goes to 1d8, I may take more risks, etc.
Come to think of it, the skill dice system is a system that encourages roleplaying more than in game min/maxing (or cost benefit analysis).
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 6:26PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
Yea, you can add me to the list of people who does not understand why you can set tasks between difficulties by picking numbers between the set difficulties in the book. If the target number falls in the plateau then the change will work exactly as it would have given a linear modeling. If it falls in the fringe ranges, then the standard statement will still apply. I don't see why you need to know the exact percentile rate of success in those ranges, as one way or the other a character will still be either very likely to fail or very likely to succeed...
And, as Rhenny pointed out, not knowing your exact percentile rate of success in all cases might actually be a benefit. We can't instantly calculate our percentile chance of succeeding at any given task in real life. We must experiment and then holistically judge based on feedback with the real world. Only complicated experiments and data gathering allows us to move from a holistic judgement to a scientifically accurate one. It might be a good thing for the game to model that.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 6:42PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
I think that everything that can be said on this topic has been said, and all of the conclusions that can be drawn have been drawn. We are just repeating ourselves, now. I consider this matter settled.
Forgive me for not rehashing my concerns for you again, Dave, but that is exactly what I would be doing in order to answer your questions. You may not understand my position but it is not for lack of knowledge. You are just approaching this problem from a very different perspective than mine.
|
|
|
