D&D 5E Ability check DC based on level

[Ovinomancer]

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 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.

It's still establishing the DC independent of the action declaration, which was the division I was pointing to. Sure, it's a wrinkle on the preset DC side of things, but my post wasn't about techniques to use for either side, but that the rules say DC comes after action declaration, but lots of people and published adventures put DC before action declaration.

 

[overgeeked]

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.

Exactly. If the DM always puts your chances at 5, 10, or 15 or better on a d20 (or only a nat 20) no matter what level you are, skills you have, or items you use, there’s no point bothering. Might as well not have a character sheet at that point. All that matters is the d20.

 

[Reynard]

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).

For my own part, I think it is best to have PC approaches to problems determine modifiers (including advantage/disadvantage) rather than DCs. I think tasks should have static DCs based on the fiction -- that wall is DC 17 to climb -- and PCs bring equipment or clever methodology (or follishness!) should make their chances of hitting that 17 better (or worse!).

 

[Charlaquin]

On the topic of passive checks, IMO 10 is too high. If you're making a check, the idea that 10 is the default means half the time you are better off "not trying" (in the passive sense). I like passive of 5+, personally.

I think 8 would be a good number, as it would mean you passively succeed at an easy task if you have at least 10 in the relevant ability and an applicable proficiency, or 14 if you don’t have proficiency. And it nicely mirrors the formula for save DCs.

 

[Ovinomancer]

For my own part, I think it is best to have PC approaches to problems determine modifiers (including advantage/disadvantage) rather than DCs. I think tasks should have static DCs based on the fiction -- that wall is DC 17 to climb -- and PCs bring equipment or clever methodology (or follishness!) should make their chances of hitting that 17 better (or worse!).

I'm the opposite. I can write in my prep that this door has an excellent lock on it and be done with prep. In play, if the players attempt to pick it, I know it's an excellent lock, so that's going to be hard. If they try to bash it off, I know it's an excellent lock, so that's again going to be hard. If they come up with something clever, then I can compare it to my fiction and assign a DC based on whether or not I think that approach will be easy, moderate, or hard (or very hard, etc.). My prep is easy, my play is directly straightforward, and I don't think I lose anything at all over having written down DCs ahead of time for things I think the players will do. I also can't be caught offguard with an un-prepped situation!

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

This. An easy lock is an easy lock regardless of what level the rogue trying to pick it is. But the places high level chars go adventuring in probably shouldn’t have easy locks.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

Right. If the 19th level rogue is picking the lock of the village turnip chest with a chicken bone, I'm not even gonna ask for a roll. If that same rogue is trying to lift the Orb of Dragonkind from a boobytrapped pedestal in Tiamat's lair on Avernus, that's going to be a high DC check.

 

[overgeeked]

This. An easy lock is an easy lock regardless of what level the rogue trying to pick it is. But the places high level chars go adventuring in probably shouldn’t have easy locks.

Right. But the DC list provided does go up to ridiculous levels. It tops out at 30. A 20th-level rogue with expertise in thieves’ tools and maxed DEX has a +17 to pick locks. Setting the DC at 30 gives them a 13+ on the d20 to succeed. That’s a good chance. And literally no one else in the party would be able to pull it off, short of magic. Other than advice that reads “use the higher end of the chart for higher level characters” would people need? I though that was a given.

What I would object to is tailoring the challenges specifically to the characters in play and their stats. Making everything exactly tuned to the PCs makes all the differences between characters meaningless. If I will have to roll a 15+ on a d20 at level one to pick a lock and still have to roll a 15+ at level 20 despite years of training and the acquisition of magic items...no matter what everything is always exactly as difficult...then why bother?

 

[Blue]

This. An easy lock is an easy lock regardless of what level the rogue trying to pick it is. But the places high level chars go adventuring in probably shouldn’t have easy locks.

...Unless it makes sense. That's the critical difference. Not everyone in a high level adventure would have access to high quality locks.

 

[Charlaquin]

...Unless it makes sense. That's the critical difference. Not everyone in a high level adventure would have access to high quality locks.

Oh, for sure! This is especially relevant in sandbox campaigns where the PCs can easily just go to lower level areas if they so choose.