D&D 5E Create a DC 20 Skill check

[bedir than]

Not to derail the thread too much more, but I'll quickly add since most DCs are set in increments of 5 giving the descriptive terms, I like adding a little randomness to DCs, such as climbing a cliff might be a DC of 14+1d6, giving you a 15-20 range. So, perhaps the section the PC choose might be a bit easier (DC 15 with a 1 on the d6) or harder (DC 20 with a 6 on the d6).

I prefer to narrate those differences as to why the person with the high roll succeeded and the low roll failed

 

[James Gasik]

Becoming a Chik-Fil-A franchise???

Nah, that's a series of skill checks because you have to work for the company and eventually impress the Dark Overlords with your overall performance.

It's basically the reward for completing a campaign.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not to derail the thread too much more, but I'll quickly add since most DCs are set in increments of 5 giving the descriptive terms, I like adding a little randomness to DCs, such as climbing a cliff might be a DC of 14+1d6, giving you a 15-20 range. So, perhaps the section the PC choose might be a bit easier (DC 15 with a 1 on the d6) or harder (DC 20 with a 6 on the d6).

That’s a fun technique. If you lower a static DC by 5 and add +2d4 to it, you get the same average with a range of + or - 3 from that average, and a bit of a bell curve. Easy becomes 7-13, Medium becomes 12-18, Hard becomes 17-23, and Nearly Impossible becomes 22-28

 

[James Gasik]

The way I handle skill checks, is I assume a metaphorical "average PC" who has proficiency and 16 ability. They should be able to hit a DC 15 half the time, or all the time if it's something that they can endlessly retry without any real pressure.

Then I apply the old "DM's secret rule". If I think it's a bit tougher or easier, I go with DC 13 or 17. I don't usually worry about checks below 10 because in my mind, those should be trivial to most adventurers. Sure, you're going to get that guy with a dump stat and no proficiency with a -1 check in theory, but oh no, now they only succeed 45% of the time. Eh.

Knowing that anyone can roll a 20, anything I think a person can reasonably do with sufficient motivation or adrenaline, I set there. I know people can fall from a mile up and not die (it's happened!), so if someone gets chucked off a mile high cliff on some outer plane, I'd probably set the DC there. Maybe 22 if they can fall on sharp rocks or something.

25, to me, is right about where I'd put "one in a million shots", like taking on the Death Star. After all the Bismarck was damn near impossible to take out, yet, despite all it's armor, a lucky torpedo crit jammed her rudders and from there the engagement's CR was inverted, the same way your big boss fight goes belly up when the BBEG fails a save against the Monk's Stunning Fist.

Sure, at the higher end of play, it's not unreasonable for someone to have a +11, just opening up the possibility of DC 30 (unless they're a Rogue), but I don't plan on ever setting a DC that high. Maybe a 27. Because 30 is the kind of feat that happens once, ever. The fact that you can conspire to make it possible to hit that routinely I consider a bug, not a feature.

If I want something to be impossible, I say it's impossible and don't even entertain a roll. If I want the players to have a chance at success, I don't gate rolls behind bleeding edge optimization.

Anyways, to answer the question of what a DC 20 check looks like? Something that people could deem impossible, but really isn't- sufficient optimization can allow even normal Tier 1 humans to accomplish. Like how people felt the four-minute mile was impossible until 1954- and now is the benchmark for middle distance runners.

A 25? Probably US Airways Flight 1549. Something you can look at and say "oh yeah, he rolled a 20".

 

[overgeeked]

5E is supposed to have PCs succeed 65% of the time, which is an 8+ on a d20. If you’re going for DC 20, that’s someone with a +12 bonus between stat and prof. You can assume +4 or +5 for the stat. Which brings it down to +7 or +8 from prof. The only way to get that is expertise or magic items. Say expertise, so that means a +4 stat bonus, a +4 prof bonus, and expertise. So the PC is level 9-12. What jumps out is a pick locks check, a stealth check, or a performance check. Rogues and bards for expertise. A really complicated lock, incredibly alert guards, or a very tough room.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Here's another one for the cliff divers: DC 20 Acrobatics to deliberately dive 85-feet into water without injury.

My formula for diving into water in a jump farther than 10 feet: DC 5 + 1 per five feet falling beyond 10 feet

For reference: In 2015 Swiss diver Laso Schaller set a world record men's cliff jump at 193 feet. This would be a DC 41 check according to my guidelines. Another way to interpret my guidelines is "How much is the fall damage mitigated by?" For example, if Laso Schaller rolled 20 on his Acrobatics, he'd deduct 85 feet from the fall height of 193 feet, to get 108 feet, and take 10d6 damage (well, I also house rule falling into water is d4's, but there ya go)

i mean...in that case, my question would be that if his dive was a DC 41, how did he do it? even assuming he were a level 20 rogue (which i refuse to believe he is, but for the sake of argument i'll assume it), the highest check he could make would be a DC 37, which would be 170* feet. and he did it without injury, which i would take in this context to mean he took no damage.

EDIT: * - forgot the initial 10 feet, fixed

 

[Hriston]

5E doesn't have skill checks. It has ability checks. Sometimes, an ability check might reflect a task associated with a particular skill.

The existence of an ability check presupposes a player makes a valid action declaration the outcome of which is in doubt. I also like to require there to be a significant consequence for failure, otherwise the player's intent is achieved.

For an example of a DC 20 ability check, here's a link to a play report of a somewhat recent game and the following excerpt:

The party's goal in adventuring, as stated by my kids, is to acquire treasure.

...

The session began with the party opening the door revealing a bare room with no other exits. Inside the room were nine humans wearing arms and armor: two fighters and their seven hirelings. I rolled hostile reactions for the two fighters, so I had them declare themselves to the party as the Baronet Dreue and the Princess Matillis and that they were claiming for themselves the right to explore the dungeon and keep its treasure. My daughter, speaking for the party, said they would begin backing away from the door in order to continue moving down the hall, to which the Baronet responded by ordering the party to halt and go no further.

My daughter, sensing the situation was about to escalate and checking her character sheets for the character with the highest Charisma, stated Ozmir, the paladin, stepped forward and lied saying the party were just travelers passing through the dungeon and posed no threat to the NPCs' claims. I asked her for a DC 20 Charisma check to convince the NPCs and said if Ozmir is proficient in Deception, he'd be able to add his proficiency bonus. We'd previously left skill choices open except for the elf's Perception, so my daughter decided to assign one of Ozmir's proficiencies to Deception and rolled and succeeded on the check at which point the Baronet and Princess, who apparently have a soft spot for travelers, allowed them to continue on their way.

So, in the play example, a DC 20 Charisma check was required to convince NPCs who were hostile to the party's goal of acquiring treasure to allow them to continue unhindered through the dungeon which did not require the NPCs to take any particular risks themselves. The consequence for failure on the check would probably have been an escalation in hostilities, most likely leading to combat.

 

[ezo]

I prefer to narrate those differences as to why the person with the high roll succeeded and the low roll failed

How does this have anything to do with what I was talking about? I mean, I also narrate why a PC succeeds or fails on any roll... but using a system to randomly determine the DC given a range instead of always using a set DC seems unrelated.

That’s a fun technique. If you lower a static DC by 5 and add +2d4 to it, you get the same average with a range of + or - 3 from that average, and a bit of a bell curve. Easy becomes 7-13, Medium becomes 12-18, Hard becomes 17-23, and Nearly Impossible becomes 22-28

Sure, bell-curve or linear, which ever and depending on the range you want to establish. I generally go with DC X + 1d6 because it always provides a 5-point range. If I want the average to be 15, for instance, I'll just do DC 12 + 1d6 (to get close) or DC 10 + 2d4 if I want exactly 15 average. For a wider range I rarely even use DC X + 2d6, such as DC 8 base yields DCs 10-20, with 15 average.

It works well if I don't really have an "in world" narrative reason to set a particular DC.

5E doesn't have skill checks. It has ability checks.

LOL, of course someone HAS to bring this up... It is a needless distinction IMO and when people insist on making this point it nearly always comes across as "You fools, don't you even understand how the game works? I know better, so here let me set you straight so you will not make such a foolish mistake again."

IMO, it works better the other way...

I want to intimidate the pickpocket I caught (or whatever). I push them around, show my power over them, etc. What I am doing is Intimidate, using Strength to influence it. It makes more sense than saying I am going to Strength them, using Intimidate. If I want to verbally threaten the pickpocket using the force of my personality to establish dominace over them, I am still Intimidating them, but now with Charisma.

Anyway, I could go on and on and on, but whatever.

 

[Charlaquin]

LOL, of course someone HAS to bring this up... It is a needless distinction IMO and when people insist on making this point it nearly always comes across as "You fools, don't you even understand how the game works? I know better, so here let me set you straight so you will not make such a foolish mistake again."

I mean, I think it’s an important distinction, but I’ve stopped saying it because I’ve noticed it elicits reactions like this from a lot of people. If it makes more sense with how you conceptualize and run checks to think of them as skill checks and call them such, then more power to you. For me, it’s really helpful to think of the ability as the thing being checked, and proficiency (be it in a skill, a tool, or even a weapon) being a sort of conditional modifier to that check. Plus the ability-first format allows me to focus on calling for one of 6 checks instead of one of 18, and allow the players to add their proficiency bonus if they have a relevant proficiency (again, skill, tool, or even weapon). But, of course, it’s not wrong to conceptualize checks differently than that.

 

[ezo]

For me, it’s really helpful to think of the ability as the thing being checked, and proficiency (be it in a skill, a tool, or even a weapon) being a sort of conditional modifier to that check. Plus the ability-first format allows me to focus on calling for one of 6 checks instead of one of 18, and allow the players to add their proficiency bonus if they have a relevant proficiency (again, skill, tool, or even weapon).

Could you provide an example how you feel it is more helpful for you to conceptualize it "ability-first"?

But, of course, it’s not wrong to conceptualize checks differently than that.

Certainly neither is wrong or right, it is what works. But when people insist on bringing up this point (after 10 years!), it just comes off as "I know better than you" IME, intentionally or not.