D&D 5E Ability check DC based on level

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, I know that. I'm assuming that somebody on the internet has done the math for me and put together what DCs are easy for a party of X level though.

Dc 10 is pretty easy for a party of X level.

 

[Waller]

Dc 10 is pretty easy for a party of X level.

Don't worry about it. I found what I needed.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The easiest solution is to either reintroduce "taking 10/20" or to just not roll unless it really matters. Why would a 10th level thief fail to pick the lock? Answer that question both from an in-world perspective and a meta-game perspective and you'll probably find you don't need to roll at all: it's either automatic, or impossible.

Personally, I liked the take 10/20 options when time isn't a factor (especially taking 10 more so than 20...).

Why would a 10th level thief fail to pick the lock? Lots of reasons. In-world: the lock is insanely complex, the party is under attack, he'll die if he fails due to some trap, etc. Meta-game: The DC is so high he has no chance even with a natural 20 because he lacks proficiency and/or expertise, there is a significant consequence for failure (injury or death), a complication can occur (his tools get lodged in the lock), etc.

If it's automatic or impossible, you should never roll (that is the normal concept for when not to waste time rolling) anyway. IME, truly automatic things are common at higher levels due to the bonuses being so high you aren't really ever likely to fail (even if you suffer a set-back) and impossible are only at lower levels when the DCs are so high and bonuses so low there is no chance to succeed. shrug

 

[DND_Reborn]

Don't worry about it. I found what I needed.

Well, I am glad you found it, but IMO it makes little sense to use such a system...

A task is a task regardless of who attempts it. If someone is more skilled, the task (itself) becomes easier. A difficult task for someone who is highly skilled is impossible for someone without skill (due to the fact they can't hit the DC).

But, to each their own. Glad you have what you're looking for.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Personally, I liked the take 10/20 options when time isn't a factor (especially taking 10 more so than 20...).

Why would a 10th level thief fail to pick the lock? Lots of reasons. In-world: the lock is insanely complex, the party is under attack, he'll die if he fails due to some trap, etc. Meta-game: The DC is so high he has no chance even with a natural 20 because he lacks proficiency and/or expertise, there is a significant consequence for failure (injury or death), a complication can occur (his tools get lodged in the lock), etc.

If it's automatic or impossible, you should never roll (that is the normal concept for when not to waste time rolling) anyway. IME, truly automatic things are common at higher levels due to the bonuses being so high you aren't really ever likely to fail (even if you suffer a set-back) and impossible are only at lower levels when the DCs are so high and bonuses so low there is no chance to succeed. shrug

Passive checks are 5e's version of take 10. Automatic success encompasses take 20 in 5e, wrapping it up with a number of other things in a tidy package.

 

[Reynard]

Passive checks are 5e's version of take 10. Automatic success encompasses take 20 in 5e, wrapping it up with a number of other things in a tidy package.

Is there such a thing as a passive lock picking check?

 

[Waller]

Well, I am glad you found it, but IMO it makes little sense to use such a system...

For the purpose I'm using it, it makes total sense.

A task is a task regardless of who attempts it. If someone is more skilled, the task (itself) becomes easier. A difficult task for someone who is highly skilled is impossible for someone without skill (due to the fact they can't hit the DC).

Yes, I fully understand that point.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, I am glad you found it, but IMO it makes little sense to use such a system...

A task is a task regardless of who attempts it. If someone is more skilled, the task (itself) becomes easier. A difficult task for someone who is highly skilled is impossible for someone without skill (due to the fact they can't hit the DC).

But, to each their own. Glad you have what you're looking for.

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.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Is there such a thing as a passive lock picking check?

Absolutely! The issue, I think, is that "passive" is read literally, as a thing you don't put effort into, when it's described in the rules as a repeated effort over time, and used to avoid lots of rolls for a repetitive action. It's poorly named.

I would consider using passive checks if a scene involved bypassing many locked doors, but there was no real consequence for an individual failure, just to speed things along. I'd probably just settle on narrating it, though, but that's because I tend to avoid scenes where there's lots of relatively trivial things to roll for.

 

[Reynard]

Absolutely! The issue, I think, is that "passive" is read literally, as a thing you don't put effort into, when it's described in the rules as a repeated effort over time, and used to avoid lots of rolls for a repetitive action. It's poorly named.

I would consider using passive checks if a scene involved bypassing many locked doors, but there was no real consequence for an individual failure, just to speed things along. I'd probably just settle on narrating it, though, but that's because I tend to avoid scenes where there's lots of relatively trivial things to roll for.

The section on Passive Checks definitely leans toward making it seem like it used for perception-like things, not active actions like tool use.

Passive Checks​

A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the GM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster. Here’s how to determine a character’s total for a passive check: 10 + all modifiers that normally apply to the check If the character has advantage on the check, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. The game refers to a passive check total as a score. For example, if a 1st-level character has a Wisdom of 15 and proficiency in Perception, he or she has a passive Wisdom (Perception) score of 14. The rules on hiding in the “Dexterity” section below rely on passive checks, as do the exploration rules.

Not that it explicitly forbids things like tool use, but it definitely highlights stealth and perception.