D&D 5E Ability check DC based on level

pemerton · Mar 9, 2021

Reynard said:
this BBEG is designed for 13th level PCs so the DCs in his fortress are X. They remain X even if the party comes ta him at 8th or 20th level.

Laurefindel said:
If a lower character attempts the same task, it will remain the same DC. When the character come back 5 levels later, it will still be the same DC, except that what was hard for them back then might be easy now.

The DC isn't a property of the fiction. It's a mechanical conceit. It can be set in various ways for various purposes. I assume that @Corrosive either (i) wants to set "fair" DCs, or (ii) wants to know what range of DCs will (roughly, on average) have what sorts of pacing consequences. Either of those seem to me like sensible things to think about when setting DCs.

DCs can also be used to establish the "feel" or details of the fiction. This will then put the burden of ensuring fairness and/or adequate pacing somewhere else. I don't know the full range of techniques D&D GMs use for this purpose. I suspect that player-side interventions - in particular, circumventing or significantly modifying DCs by the use of spells and other magic - play a fairly big role in this respect.

As for the "5 levels later": I don't know how often D&D play involves the same fictional situation, with no changes, at 5-level intervals. But I don't think it's that common, and so could probably be handled on an ad hoc basis if it were to come up.

Laurefindel · Mar 10, 2021

pemerton said:
As for the "5 levels later": I don't know how often D&D play involves the same fictional situation, with no changes, at 5-level intervals. But I don't think it's that common, and so could probably be handled on an ad hoc basis if it were to come up.

Yeah, "easier" is not the term I should have used, as it does not pertain to the difficulty level called "easy".

In those 5 levels, they may have boosted their ability scores, they may have acquired magic items, they may have learned/unlock new abilities, they may have access to new spells etc. that relate to the task at hand.

Assuming a +5 bonus on Athletics check at level 1, chances to succeed on a DC 15 check is about 50%. Five levels later, proficiency bonus is higher, ASI might increase Str, expertise might be developed, new spells may have been acquired, etc, and their Str (Athletics) checks is now +8 bonus (hypothetically). The cliff remained a DC 15, but the character now has better odds of succeeding. I said they'd have an "easier" time succeeding, but the word was poorly chosen.

pemerton · Mar 10, 2021

Laurefindel said:
Yeah, "easier" is not the term I should have used, as it does not pertain to the difficulty level called "easy".

In those 5 levels, they may have boosted their ability scores, they may have acquired magic items, they may have learned/unlock new abilities, they may have access to new spells etc. that relate to the task at hand.

Assuming a +5 bonus on Athletics check at level 1, chances to succeed on a DC 15 check is about 50%. Five levels later, proficiency bonus is higher, ASI might increase Str, expertise might be developed, new spells may have been acquired, etc, and their Str (Athletics) checks is now +8 bonus (hypothetically). The cliff remained a DC 15, but the character now has better odds of succeeding. I said they'd have an "easier" time succeeding, but the word was poorly chosen.

But if a GM decides that, for pacing reasons, it makes sense to set the DC higher than it was set 5 levels earlier, it's incredibly easy to establish the requisite fiction: it's raining, or the wind is very strong today, or . . . (and of course if the players then have their PCs use weather control or similar effects, well that's part of "smart play" in D&D).

Shiroiken · Mar 10, 2021

6ENow! said:
FWIW, I think the linear d20 is too swingy for ability checks (luck becomes more important than skill...) which is why a lot of groups use 2d10 or 3d6 for ability checks.

Interestingly, there's already a good optional rule for this that very few seem to like. The proficiency die is commonly despised because it "feels random," but in reality it reduces randomness the same way the 2d10 and 3d6 do. The downside is the overall increase in final value, partially due to the fact that the die adds 0.5 on average to the result, but by simply increasing the DCs from 10/15/20 to 11/16/21 largely eliminates the issue. Sadly no amount of math has convinced my group to even try it.

Ovinomancer · Mar 10, 2021

Shiroiken said:
Interestingly, there's already a good optional rule for this that very few seem to like. The proficiency die is commonly despised because it "feels random," but in reality it reduces randomness the same way the 2d10 and 3d6 do. The downside is the overall increase in final value, partially due to the fact that the die adds 0.5 on average to the result, but by simply increasing the DCs from 10/15/20 to 11/16/21 largely eliminates the issue. Sadly no amount of math has convinced my group to even try it.

It doesn't, though. The curve for the d20+proficiency die, when plotted against d20+proficiency bonus, is nearly identical except at the bottom end, like 1, 2 and 3 and at the upper end, where you can exceed the value of +proficiency alone. The rest of the curve is the same, offset by +/- 0.5, depending on if you're correcting for the die average being .5 higher or not. It, effectively, makes no difference on the likelihood of most DCs.

Whereas the 2d10, and moreso the 3d6 versions significantly reduce the likelihood of failure for DCs under 11, and increase the likelihood of failure for DCs over 11. It's hard to say these are less random, though, when they just move the distribution function around and make easier tasks easier and harder tasks harder to accomplish.

Vaalingrade · Mar 10, 2021

Reynard said:
Setting DCs based on the PC's skill is saying "I want the PC to have an X% chance of succeeding." The problem with that, IMO, is that it fails to model the world in any way.

I disagree.

Some things don't care how skilled you are and so should scale with level. For example, slick surfaces. No matter if you're a circus acrobat or a candlestick maker, 'balancing' while walking on ice is a measure of raw agility more than skill at balance because unlike a tightrope, random ice is random.

So I feel like the difficulty of things like that should remain static relative to the PCs while other things become easier or enter the range of possibility as the PCs level up.

I also feel like this is super important to stop things like how eventually every door the PCs run into is suddenly adamantine, the floors are slick with astral slime and every wall is 'of force'.

DND_Reborn · Mar 10, 2021

Shiroiken said:
Interestingly, there's already a good optional rule for this that very few seem to like. The proficiency die is commonly despised because it "feels random," but in reality it reduces randomness the same way the 2d10 and 3d6 do. The downside is the overall increase in final value, partially due to the fact that the die adds 0.5 on average to the result, but by simply increasing the DCs from 10/15/20 to 11/16/21 largely eliminates the issue. Sadly no amount of math has convinced my group to even try it.

Yeah, I love the idea of it, but with my group adding another die to the rolls and making them add even more will just slow things down.

Manbearcat · Mar 16, 2021

Ovinomancer said:
Apparently, @Corrosive has a different design goal in mind, and just failed to articulate it in the post. If I had to guess, it was to try and avoid questions about what they're trying to do and the inevitable conversation that follows. Still, it seemed a pretty easy question to figure out on your own, given the limited range of DCs in the game, and the result is actually far more forgiving that the standard recommendation of 10/15/20.

That is correct.

He clearly was looking to avoid an edition war conversation that actively didn’t answer his question but instead told him the idea is wrong on its face. See the first response to his question for reference.

Then he would have to break down why he disagreed, have a long drawn out conversation about why “Shrodinger’s x” is a complete misunderstanding of the concept of subjective DCs, how keyword Fire effects can actually ignite materials, maybe get into a Dissociative Mechanics conversation, the nature of RPGs, what it means to actually “be D&D”, are HPs meat, Damage on a Miss/what is a to-hit roll, are Skill Challenges just an exercise in fiction-disconnected dice rolling, and on and on and on and on and on and on and on (I was thinking about copy/pasting this for an hour).

So good job by the OP for (a) not engaging with the sort of non-answer in post 2 and (b) finding his answer himself.

turnip_farmer · Mar 16, 2021

Vaalingrade said:
I disagree.

Some things don't care how skilled you are and so should scale with level. For example, slick surfaces. No matter if you're a circus acrobat or a candlestick maker, 'balancing' while walking on ice is a measure of raw agility more than skill at balance because unlike a tightrope, random ice is random.

So I feel like the difficulty of things like that should remain static relative to the PCs while other things become easier or enter the range of possibility as the PCs level up.

If the difficulty of something should be static regardless of how skilled you are and relies on raw ability, simply don't let anyone to add a proficiency bonus.

auburn2 · Mar 16, 2021

commandercrud said:
Hey, level 10 thief, pick this lock.

That is too hard. How about you, level 1 thief?

No problem.

If this is the case it is because the level 10 thief did not invest in slieght of hand, while the level 1 thief did. If so it is entirely appropriate.

This is no different than Level 10 fighter with a 8 strength: Hit that BBEG with a great sword - that is too hard

How about you Level 1 fighter with an 18 strength - No Problem.

D&D 5E Ability check DC based on level

pemerton

Legend

Laurefindel

Legend

pemerton

Legend

Shiroiken

Legend

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

Vaalingrade

Legend

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin

Manbearcat

Legend

turnip_farmer

Adventurer

auburn2

Adventurer

Similar Threads