D&D 5E Static DCs

[kenada]

Has anyone here ever run 5e using a standard, static DC for most rolls?

Let me provide a bit of background. I’m currently running a sandbox *crawl in Pathfinder 2e. It does the exploration stuff reasonably well, but I am not a fan of the way it does skills. Even using Proficiency Without Level, the scaling is just too steep. If you use the suggested simple DCs, they’re too high. I’m also not a fan of skill actions.

For that and some other reasons, I’m currently prepping an OSE one-shot for my group. Frankly, my style hews much more closely towards old-school than modern games. I already crib a lot from OSE for exploration anyway, so why not try the actual thing? However, if my players don’t take to OSE, I want a backup plan. That backup is probably 5e.

Something I like about OSE is its static skill progression. You just roll against your skill, and you obviously get better over time. This is in contrast to games with progression treadmills where if you are always tackling appropriate challenges, you end up with a static (or slightly increasing) success rate over the level range.

Bounded accuracy helps a bit with this because the scaling is less severe, but I was wondering if anyone had tried just using a fixed DC for everything with the rare modifier (or even just using advantage or disadvantage) for exceptional situations.

For example, I could just use e.g., DC 16 as the universal DC. If the PCs wanted to sneak past something or scale a cliff or open a lock, they would just make an appropriate check against DC 16. If both success and failure don’t have interesting outcomes, I can just assume they succeed and not waste time having them roll the check.

 

[Charlaquin]

I haven’t gone so far as to only use a single DC for all tasks, but I generally only use three DCs, except in specific cases like using a creature’s passive perception as the DC when sneaking past them. Otherwise, I mostly just use 10 (easy), 15 (moderate), and 20 (hard). Using 15 (or 16 if you prefer) for all DCs and giving advantage for easy tasks and disadvantage for hard tasks would give you the same three degrees of difficulty, with similar odds, but it would also make advantage and disadvantage more likely to come up as a result of the task’s baseline difficulty, rather than as a situational modifier. I’d recommend having instances of advantage and disadvantage stack if you were to do it this way, so that players are still rewarded for seeking out situational advantage on easy and hard tasks.

If both success and failure don’t have interesting outcomes, I can just assume they succeed and not waste time having them roll the check.

I think this is a practice all DMs should engage in regardless of what DC range they use.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Bounded accuracy helps a bit with this because the scaling is less severe, but I was wondering if anyone had tried just using a fixed DC for everything with the rare modifier (or even just using advantage or disadvantage) for exceptional situations.

For example, I could just use e.g., DC 16 as the universal DC. If the PCs wanted to sneak past something or scale a cliff or open a lock, they would just make an appropriate check against DC 16.

I think 5e does a nice job of simplifying DCs. Your proposal, in the context of 5e rules, would be to simplify it even further by making everything essentially a moderate challenge with the occasional tweak. It certainly could work at your table or you might find you want to fine tune some challenges as you progress through the campaign. (Note that I'm not suggesting that you scale up the challenge of various tasks as the PCs level up - just that various tasks in the game world can have different difficulty levels regardless of when the party encounters them.)

Typical DCs (DMG p237)

Task	DC
Very easy	5
Easy	10
Moderate	15
Hard	20
Very hard	25
Nearly impossible	30

If both success and failure don’t have interesting outcomes, I can just assume they succeed and not waste time having them roll the check.

Indeed, that's what the 5e rules call for, so you are on the right track here:

Using Ability Scores (DMG p237)
When a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores. For example, a character doesn't normally need to make a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room or a Charisma check to order a mug of ale. Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:

• Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
• Is a task so inappropriate or impossible-such as hitting the moon with an arrow-that it can't work?

If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate. The following sections provide guidance on determining whether to call for an ability check, attack roll, or saving throw; how to assign DCs; when to use advantage and disadvantage; and other related topics.

 

[loverdrive]

I do, for like a decade now. Static DCs are just straight up better than floating ones.

I use a following table:
18+ or nat 20: you do it
11-17: you do it, but there's a complication
10- or nat 1.: you fail and there's a complication

 

[Mistwell]

We will run an awful lot with 10 DC for easy, 15 DC for medium, 20 DC for hard, and just handwaive it that way. For skills, for saves, sometimes even for AC. We use that particularly when we want to speed up an encounter. Did you sneak past the guard? Roll high and yes, roll low and no, we're not going to try and figure out this particular guard's passive perception bonus because this isn't the main attraction of this area of the encounters.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

This is in contrast to games with progression treadmills where if you are always tackling appropriate challenges, you end up with a static (or slightly increasing) success rate over the level range.

Progression treadmill in 5e only occurs if the DM decides to set up challenges that way. A DM can (really, should, IMO) certainly throw challenges at PCs of any level that are super easy, nearly impossible, or anywhere on the spectrum in between. Indeed, I'd argue that a DM should focus on that broad spectrum in-between cakewalk and impossible to let the players have some easier wins as well as tense challenges that may or may not be solvable by combat or current PC abilities -- all in an effort to generally keep them on their toes in a less-than-predictable game world.

 

[Charlaquin]

I do, for like a decade now. Static DCs are just straight up better than floating ones.

I use a following table:
18+ or nat 20: you do it
11-17: you do it, but there's a complication
10- or nat 1.: you fail and there's a complication

Very PbtA.

 

[loverdrive]

Very PbtA.

Well, I'm firmly in PbtA camp since AW came out, so it's no surprise

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, I'm firmly in PbtA camp since AW came out, so it's no surprise

It’s a great system, though personally if I wanted to run a fantasy game in that style I’d just run Dungeon World rather than tweak D&D. Different tools for different jobs.

 

[dave2008]

Has anyone here ever run 5e using a standard, static DC for most rolls?

Let me provide a bit of background. I’m currently running a sandbox *crawl in Pathfinder 2e. It does the exploration stuff reasonably well, but I am not a fan of the way it does skills. Even using Proficiency Without Level, the scaling is just too steep. If you use the suggested simple DCs, they’re too high. I’m also not a fan of skill actions.

For that and some other reasons, I’m currently prepping an OSE one-shot for my group. Frankly, my style hews much more closely towards old-school than modern games. I already crib a lot from OSE for exploration anyway, so why not try the actual thing? However, if my players don’t take to OSE, I want a backup plan. That backup is probably 5e.

Something I like about OSE is its static skill progression. You just roll against your skill, and you obviously get better over time. This is in contrast to games with progression treadmills where if you are always tackling appropriate challenges, you end up with a static (or slightly increasing) success rate over the level range.

Bounded accuracy helps a bit with this because the scaling is less severe, but I was wondering if anyone had tried just using a fixed DC for everything with the rare modifier (or even just using advantage or disadvantage) for exceptional situations.

For example, I could just use e.g., DC 16 as the universal DC. If the PCs wanted to sneak past something or scale a cliff or open a lock, they would just make an appropriate check against DC 16. If both success and failure don’t have interesting outcomes, I can just assume they succeed and not waste time having them roll the check.

5e already has static DCs. Generally I don't ask for a check if its below a moderate DC (15) and your trained. So by default DC 15 becomes the standard, with some DCs being harder as needed.