Hoping for from whom?
D&D 5E Ability check DC based on level
It would be nice to have some DCs that help DMs differentiate between the type of challenges you might expect to face in, say, Phandalin vs City of Brass. Perhaps a list of typical DCs by Tier. 13th Age has a chart like this that I think is helpful for not just adjucating DCs, but suggesting to DMs the changing challenges that PCs should face as they level up.
jgsugden
Legend
Consider this situation:
BBEG has a locked vault. It is intended to keep his MacGuffin safe, and he knows the PCs have a master lockpick, so he went out of his way to get the most insanely great lock possible (DC 35)
That is a story driven decision by an NPC opponent that results in a high DC for the part. I am all for that type of factoring in of PC abilities.
Switch it up a bit now. The BBEG has never heard of the PCs, and doesn't know they have a master lockpick. He doesn't have a reason to get the best lock in the world, but instead should believe that a very good lock (DC 25) should suffice.
The party PC, the Master Lock Pick, A 17th level rogue, has devoted Proficiency, Expertise and High Dexterity, as well as Gloves of Thievery, to his craft. He is +22 on those checks. He is the best Lock Pick - ever.
+22 versus a DC of 25 sounds a bit bland. Right? He'll snooze through it. Why bother?
Because it pays off the investment.
Being able to breeze through this challenge is a payoff for investing so much into that ability. It makes him feel like that world's ultimate Lock Pick. It makes him feel hlike a high level hero able to accomplish amazing things.
Ah, but being faced by an insanely difficult lock like in our first example ALSO makes him feel like a hero. Nobody else could even have a chance! That is heroic! Agreed - when it is an earned challenge. In our first example, the high DC was there as an intentional response by a BBEG to the capabilities of the PCs. There was a reason for it to be there.
If we apply that same unreasonably high DC without there being a great reason for it to be there, we make the amazingly high DC mundane - and make the incredibly devoted Master just seem like a middle of the run struggler. It also strips out the incentive of a PC to invest in abilities like this one. Why be the world's best lock pick when you realize that whether you have a +7, +12, +17 or +22; all that will be required is a roll of 12. You're better off getting guidance or enhance ability.
If people invest heavily, they should get a chance to breeze through the challenges that are addressed by their investment.
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
The OP. Maybe they already specified the intent and I missed it (the price of being on the forums while distracted LOL)?
Because, the information they found (IMO) basically just shifts what 5E presents as the levels (roughly) since "easy" is always 8, "moderate" is about 12ish, and hard averages out around 16. You can use the information from that page in two ways:
1. To design your adventure to meet the party you expect to meet it (as you and other suggest), but the challenge remains constant and the DC is not adjusted.
2. To adjust the DCs (changing the "difficulty") to match the party level regardless of when they meet it. A challenge might be DC 13 at level 1 but DC 19 at level 20 even though the "challenge" remains the same.
The former is what I am hoping the OP wants the information for, but I have known DMs who use such information to do the latter.
Also, the information they reference suggests a universal success rate of 65%. As I mentioned, IMO 65% success does not make a challenge "hard", it is actually rather moderate in my view.
Anyway, if that isn't clear, I'll clarify it after work when I get home tonight.
This isn't possible without knowing the makeup of the party. You can make up numbers, but any number you pick will be wrong for a large number of parties.
Let's say you've got an 8th-level party and you call for an Deception check.
Party A has no Charisma-specialized classes. The Cha 10 rogue is focused on stealth and scouting, but happened to pick up Deception due to her background. The highest mod in the party is +3.
Party B has a bard with Expertise, and a cleric who knows the guidance cantrip. The highest mod in the party is +12 to +15 (11+1d4).
And this is just fairly routine stuff, moderate level, not hyper-specialized, not using any limited resources. You can have much greater extremes. If Party A is a bunch of optimized dungeon crawlers with Cha 8 across the board, their highest mod could be -1! If Party B has a second bard, they could toss on another 1d8 with bardic inspiration, and then start looking for sources of advantage.
Let's say you've got an 8th-level party and you call for an Deception check.
Party A has no Charisma-specialized classes. The Cha 10 rogue is focused on stealth and scouting, but happened to pick up Deception due to her background. The highest mod in the party is +3.
Party B has a bard with Expertise, and a cleric who knows the guidance cantrip. The highest mod in the party is +12 to +15 (11+1d4).
And this is just fairly routine stuff, moderate level, not hyper-specialized, not using any limited resources. You can have much greater extremes. If Party A is a bunch of optimized dungeon crawlers with Cha 8 across the board, their highest mod could be -1! If Party B has a second bard, they could toss on another 1d8 with bardic inspiration, and then start looking for sources of advantage.
That's a long post, but nothing in it is obviated by my (much shorter!) post.
Laurefindel
Legend
The table simply defines "hard" as a task that will require a specialised PC to succeed 65% of times.The OP. Maybe they already specified the intent and I missed it (the price of being on the forums while distracted LOL)?
Because, the information they found (IMO) basically just shifts what 5E presents as the levels (roughly) since "easy" is always 8, "moderate" is about 12ish, and hard averages out around 16. You can use the information from that page in two ways:
1. To design your adventure to meet the party you expect to meet it (as you and other suggest), but the challenge remains constant and the DC is not adjusted.
2. To adjust the DCs (changing the "difficulty") to match the party level regardless of when they meet it. A challenge might be DC 13 at level 1 but DC 19 at level 20 even though the "challenge" remains the same.
The former is what I am hoping the OP wants the information for, but I have known DMs who use such information to do the latter.
Also, the information they reference suggests a universal success rate of 65%. As I mentioned, IMO 65% success does not make a challenge "hard", it is actually rather moderate in my view.
Anyway, if that isn't clear, I'll clarify it after work when I get home tonight.
A "hard" task might not be that hard to succeed for a highly specialised PC. If it seems moderate in your view, that's because the PC invested into being able to succeed in this particular task. The same table does not provide the odds at the same DC for less proficient characters; only that a moderately proficient PC of the same level will require a lower DC to have the same success rate.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
This discussion highlights a key disfunction in the rules -- how the game explains play vs how people write adventures (especially for commercial ventures!).
The rules make it pretty clear that the DC is decided by the fiction of the moment and the details of the action declaration. A wall's DC to climb is based on the presented fiction of the wall (sheer ice cliff in a thaw sound very challenging) and also how the player's action declaration is formed -- ie, if they try to freeclimb it, that sound nearly impossible, so a high DC is applied (30) whereas if they break out ice crampons and a climbers kit and leave all other gear behind, this make it more manageable and so the DC is maybe just hard (20).
This can't work for published adventures, or in the way many are familiar with adventure prep. Here, the DC needs to be fixed based only on the fiction, with maybe a callout for a change or advantage/disadvantage if the players come up with the anticipated help.
These two things are at odds, and continue to fuel the discussion, because the people that write adventures (perhaps very rightly) feel that if they don't include DCs, people will be upset at having to do that work and it will cost them sales. At home, GMs prepping adventures are conditioned into this approach, and so continue to use it out of comfort and familiarity.
And, to be clear, there's nothing at all wrong with this, or bad about it, or not a 100% valid way to enjoy the hobby. I'm commenting on the tension between how the rules present things and then how it's quite often played (and sold, with regard to official adventures, which also violate encounter guidelines and a few other things).
The rules make it pretty clear that the DC is decided by the fiction of the moment and the details of the action declaration. A wall's DC to climb is based on the presented fiction of the wall (sheer ice cliff in a thaw sound very challenging) and also how the player's action declaration is formed -- ie, if they try to freeclimb it, that sound nearly impossible, so a high DC is applied (30) whereas if they break out ice crampons and a climbers kit and leave all other gear behind, this make it more manageable and so the DC is maybe just hard (20).
This can't work for published adventures, or in the way many are familiar with adventure prep. Here, the DC needs to be fixed based only on the fiction, with maybe a callout for a change or advantage/disadvantage if the players come up with the anticipated help.
These two things are at odds, and continue to fuel the discussion, because the people that write adventures (perhaps very rightly) feel that if they don't include DCs, people will be upset at having to do that work and it will cost them sales. At home, GMs prepping adventures are conditioned into this approach, and so continue to use it out of comfort and familiarity.
And, to be clear, there's nothing at all wrong with this, or bad about it, or not a 100% valid way to enjoy the hobby. I'm commenting on the tension between how the rules present things and then how it's quite often played (and sold, with regard to official adventures, which also violate encounter guidelines and a few other things).
Laurefindel
Legend
So you're saying that what is hard for group A might not be that hard for group B.
That's exactly what this table illustrates. Unless that was your point altogether? I'm not sure where you stand with your post.
Last edited:
Laurefindel
Legend
The table allows you to approach the issue from the opposite angle:
For this adventure, I want a hard wall for the PC to climb. Knowing my PCs and their level, the table allows me to figure out that what the fiction needs in this case, is a sheer ice wall.
It's a case of chicken and egg. What comes first, a relative difficulty that guides the fiction, or a fiction that guides the relative difficulty? In my experience, neither work 100% of the time; you need the tools to do both.
Similar Threads
