D&D 5E Calibration of single character skill checks

[Charlaquin]

They take 10, if it is genuinely easy.

Take 10 isn’t a thing in 5e.

 

[R_J_K75]

So actually there is very good reason not to enter in explanations in the 5e books themselves

Thanks. If this is the paradigm on how the rules for the game were created, should be taken into account when creating adventures, and understanding how the mechanics are supposed to work I would like a little explanation to be included in the core books. But this isn't a topic for this thread.

 

[Lyxen]

Take 10 isn’t a thing in 5e.

True, but ignoring the dice is absolutely official, however.

 

[CleverNickName]

Low stakes usually means low fun with my gaming group, so I calibrate my DCs to the most effective member of the party. A common padlock could have a DC as low as 12 or as high as 18, depending on how highly-optimized the rogue is for burglary.

 

[clearstream]

Take 10 isn’t a thing in 5e.

In the DMG, it advises doing so in circumstances where practice makes perfect, and to focus "attention on truly tense, difficult situations".

 

[Charlaquin]

In the DMG, it advises doing so in circumstances where practice makes perfect, and to focus "attention on truly tense, difficult situations".

can you give me a page number?

 

[clearstream]

can you give me a page number?

239

 

[Swarmkeeper]

In a lot of cases, the published adventure will have enough context to at least suggest an approach to a goal and a corresponding DC. (I can't say all cases because I'm sure there are some without it.) I think often the DC is just a shorthand for the writer to communicate difficulty, which is why we sometimes see no meaningful consequence for failure spelled out in the description.

True enough.

For published adventures, I guess I'd rather see the DC be left up to the DM and, when an actual challenge is presented, some suggested meaningful consequences be spelled out to help DMs get their creative juices flowing. Since that's realistically not going to happen, we are left with DCs as shorthand for difficulty where, at least part of the time, context gives no real clue as to meaningful consequences.


Here is an example (honestly, just randomly picked out of Rime):

Characters who inspect the windows of Elva's cottage can make a DC 10 Intelligence (Investigation) check. On a success, they find wee tracks leading away from a snowy windowsill of the cottage toward a nearby thicket. A character who succeeds on a DC 14 Wisdom (Survival) check can discern three individual sets of tiny footprints. Some of the footprints have a thin furrow in the snow alongside them, as if something was being dragged behind the creatures.

Playing House
By following the tracks, a character with a passive Wisdom (Perception) score of 13 or higher can pick up the sound of movement from behind the conifers, where three chwingas (see appendix C) are playing atop the snow in a clearing. A dinner plate with branches and pinecones arrayed on it is placed between them, and one chwinga is sitting at the edge of the plate while the two others are moving a fork and a knife as if to cut and eat the "food."


Maybe I'm just lacking some creativity here but here's what I see:

Failing the initial INT(Investigation) check creates a roadblock that effectively ends the sidequest. UNLESS, a DM is experienced enough and/or given some guidance with adjudication using success at a cost. The WIS(Survival) check success gives us the number of creatures while failure... just doesn't give us the number? The final WIS(Perception) passive check allows the PC to hear the non-hostile creatures behind the trees - but they've already been following the tracks so what is gained or lost either way?

TL;DR: More guidance, less shorthand.

 

[Charlaquin]

239

That’s the automatic success optional rule. That’s very different than take 10.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Okay, you are writing a module. Where do you put the DCs?

See above. As per my previous answer, I think DCs on their own in published adventures can be misleading at best. If I were writing a module, I'd adjust the description to let the DM decide the DC but give them some advice on what might happen on failure.

Or better yet, please read the example and give one fo those recommendations to the DM to calibrate it - do they calibrate that their superstar can often get the DC but still fail regularly, or that someone focusing so much shoudl pass almost all the time?

FWIW, I do think @Charlaquin's answer is solid. DCs, as they exist, are most likely based on first tier individual PCs with middling scores and proficiency OR PCs with medium-high scores and no-proficiency (amounting to +2 to +3 modifiers). Good advice for DMs looking to calibrate DCs on the fly.

Please contribute positively to the thread.

I... am? Or at least I am trying to -- where "contributing positively" = "sharing my thoughts in hopes of learning something that will help our table... while possibly providing a viewpoint that might help others at their tables".