D&D 5E How do you set DCs?

[Stoutstien]

I find the RAW DC's to be too punitive for "typically skilled", especially at lower levels. So I pretty much use this revised DC chart: Difficulty Classes for Ability Checks in 5e D&D

I generally don't call for "Very Easy" checks, rather those are the sorts of things that don't require rolling dice, and you can just do. Similarly, if something is impossible, I'm not going to go through the pretense of having a player roll hoping for a nat 20 – I'll just say "that's impossible in this situation." But I'm also of the "fewer rolls, more meaning attached to those rolls" school of thought as a GM.

Easy 8
Moderate 10
Tricky 12
Hard 15
Very Hard 20
Incredibly Hard 25

This approach to DC's means that players who invest in Expertise generally succeed more often on those skill checks, which I'm ok with.

One way I arrive at the exact DC number is I'll count up the narrative "downshifts or upshifts", for example: Climbing Out of a Well.

OK, start from DC 10. There are clear handholds and some uneven projecting stones, so I downshift to DC 8. But it's a sheer surface, no slope, so I upshift back to DC 10. It's slick, so I upshift to DC 12. There is no light down here, it's nighttime, and the PC doesn't carry a light source, they do have darkvision, but this is a situation where color-differentiation of algae on the rocks would really help, so I upshift one more time to DC 15.

Aye for one and done checks they are brutal for anyone who doesn't go all in.

 

[clearstream]

If I'm setting DC's then I've assessed the difficulty of the task/obstacle to be risk-worthy and thus a roll is required. Character level plays no part in the decision-making process for me.
I usually decide what would the DC 10 benchmark equate to for that particular task/obstacle and take stock of factors which notably increase the difficulty of the task/obstacle in the fiction. If the PC's have any realisable benefits I would allow for Advantage on the roll.

As an example for Dexterity(Acrobatics) or Strength(Athletics) checks, player can select.

[05] Crossing a wooden bridge (NO ROLL)
[08] Crossing a wooden rickety bridge (NO ROLL)
[10] Crossing a slippery wooden rickety bridge
[12] Crossing a slippery, unstable, wooden rickety bridge
[15] Crossing a slippery, unstable, wooden rickety bridge in the middle of violent winds (possible fantastical location)
[18] Crossing a slippery, unstable, wooden rickety bridge, in the middle of violent winds and a blinding fog (possible fantastical location)
[20] Crossing, in haste, a slippery, unstable, wooden rickety bridge in the middle of violent winds and a blinding fog (likely fantastical location)

Using safety gear would likely provide Advantage on the roll, except in [20] since the obstacle was performed with haste, which means there was likely no time for preparation.
In this type of scenario failures would usually result in a fail forward or success with complication.
If a second roll is called for, and that was a further fail, then I'd max the complication or see the person fall off the bridge.

As an example for Intelligence (Knowledge) checks

[05] Recognise the creature
[10] As above, aware of natural attacks, defences and abilities, knowledge of basic lore
[15] As above, aware of supernatural attacks, defences and abilities, knowledge of advanced lore
[20] As above, aware of possible weaknesses, knowledge of esoteric lore
[25] As above, knowledge about this specific creature's past (named creature)

Do you preformulate those for each skill?

 

[Charlaquin]

15 is go-to for anything that doesn’t seem particularly easy or hard. 10 for easy tasks, 20 for hard. On rare occasions when something seems like it should be very hard I’ll use 25. Also if the action directly opposes a specific creature I’ll often use a passive check from that creature as the DC, as in the case of stealth vs. passive perception, for example.

 

[cbwjm]

I follow the 50/50 rule from an old dungeoncraft article. Basically, if it's something that a commoner should be able to do at least 50% of the time, I set DC 10, then adjust DCs based on that. Often though, I won't even set a DC if someone in question is trained in a skill.

 

[clearstream]

15 is go-to for anything that doesn’t seem particularly easy or hard. 10 for easy tasks, 20 for hard. On rare occasions when something seems like it should be very hard I’ll use 25. Also if the action directly opposes a specific creature I’ll often use a passive check from that creature as the DC, as in the case of stealth vs. passive perception, for example.

I do something similar. Overall I have roughly this in mind

• The process starts from the fiction: has a player described something that should call for a check?
• Some acts require specialised tools or skills etc. as part of their triggering fictional position
• DM says if it's uncertain (i.e. neither impossible nor guaranteed)
• DM explains why something's impossible (if it is) and the DM and players together can say how it could become possible (DM wearing hats both of neutral arbiter and manager of adversity/adversaries)
• DM and players together establish if it's consequential (the stakes) where approach itself may imply something, too
• Difficulty is not a function of character level: it's from the constant point-of-view of a low-level character (the risks)
• It's okay if some characters auto-succeed
• In outcome, the risks can be mitigated by performance or in other ways
• DC 8 / 12 / 16 / 20 / 24 / 28 / 32
• Starting DC is always 8
• Each move has four to six guideline factors
• Each circumstantial factor steps up DC, e.g. from 8 to 12
• Each contesting factor adds another entity's ability|proficiency, e.g. str|athletics

One could just use the standard DC table. I find it too aggressive (5 for each step is too much.) I'm not interested in calling for checks unless it's palpably uncertain (hence 8) which is taken to not be the case for characters described doing mundane things within their background. I'm also interested in preformulating outcomes of things we often want to do in our chosen fiction.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Do you preformulate those for each skill?

It is a passion project for me to expand on that chapter in the PHB, with preformulated DCs for each of the skills but alas I have never gotten around to it. 3.x I believe has done much of this in their books, it just needs to be translated into 5e.

 

[Charlaquin]

I do something similar. Overall I have roughly this in mind

• The process starts from the fiction: has a player described something that should call for a check?
• Some acts require specialised tools or skills etc. as part of their triggering fictional position
• DM says if it's uncertain (i.e. neither impossible nor guaranteed)
• DM explains why something's impossible (if it is) and the DM and players together can say how it could become possible (DM wearing hats both of neutral arbiter and manager of adversity/adversaries)
• DM and players together establish if it's consequential (the stakes) where approach itself may imply something, too
• Difficulty is not a function of character level: it's from the constant point-of-view of a low-level character (the risks)
• It's okay if some characters auto-succeed
• In outcome, the risks can be mitigated by performance or in other ways
• DC 8 / 12 / 16 / 20 / 24 / 28 / 32
• Starting DC is always 8
• Each move has four to six guideline factors
• Each circumstantial factor steps up DC, e.g. from 8 to 12
• Each contesting factor adds another entity's ability|proficiency, e.g. str|athletics

One could just use the standard DC table. I find it too aggressive (5 for each step is too much.) I'm not interested in calling for checks unless it's palpably uncertain (hence 8) which is taken to not be the case for characters described doing mundane things within their background. I'm also interested in preformulating outcomes of things we often want to do in our chosen fiction.

I agree with most of this. The tweaked DC progression is interesting - 20% steps up in difficulty instead of 25%. Makes sense if you want a bit more granularity in difficulty levels, I suppose.

 

[iserith]

I do something similar. Overall I have roughly this in mind

• The process starts from the fiction: has a player described something that should call for a check?
• Some acts require specialised tools or skills etc. as part of their triggering fictional position
• DM says if it's uncertain (i.e. neither impossible nor guaranteed)
• DM explains why something's impossible (if it is) and the DM and players together can say how it could become possible (DM wearing hats both of neutral arbiter and manager of adversity/adversaries)
• DM and players together establish if it's consequential (the stakes) where approach itself may imply something, too
• Difficulty is not a function of character level: it's from the constant point-of-view of a low-level character (the risks)
• It's okay if some characters auto-succeed
• In outcome, the risks can be mitigated by performance or in other ways
• DC 8 / 12 / 16 / 20 / 24 / 28 / 32
• Starting DC is always 8
• Each move has four to six guideline factors
• Each circumstantial factor steps up DC, e.g. from 8 to 12
• Each contesting factor adds another entity's ability|proficiency, e.g. str|athletics

One could just use the standard DC table. I find it too aggressive (5 for each step is too much.) I'm not interested in calling for checks unless it's palpably uncertain (hence 8) which is taken to not be the case for characters described doing mundane things within their background. I'm also interested in preformulating outcomes of things we often want to do in our chosen fiction.

One thing I learned from tinkering with ICRPG is that granularity is not necessarily a good thing because differentiating between a 12 or a 13 DC is not really all that meaningful to the play experience. So this further reinforced to me that 10, 15, and 20 is fine as long as it's reasonably consistent with substantially similar tasks perfomed in the past.

(What I'm less enamored with in ICRPG is that any given challenge has a static DC that doesn't really change at all (same DC for attack, skill, etc.), though the DM can modify specific rolls with bonuses or penalties based on whether they assess it's easy or hard. It took a little getting used to.)

 

[Flamestrike]

I'm curious about what rubrics folk follow to set DCs? Do you just use DC 10? Do you have factors in mind that consistently establish a DC? Do you roll 4d6 and keep the two lowest for moderate and three highest for hard?

What procedure do you follow in setting DCs?

Things an ordinary human could reliably do (climb a rope or a tree etc) there is no DC. You just do it, unless there is some extraordinary complication (in the middle of a storm etc)

If it maybe warrants a check (climbing a building wall, some handholds) DC 10.

For most checks (difficult free climb up a sheer cliff, a few handholds/ cracks), DC 15. This is my default.

Hard task, unlikely to succeed (inverse ledges, very few handholds, those that do exist are barely more than cracks)? DC 20 or possibly even 25.

Lolyeahright, but not impossible (never been climbed before, but arguably possible. Most die trying)= DC 30.

Ballpark, I assume an absolute peak of their ability master of a skill (Human Commoner, skill expert, Ability score of 18) bonus of +10, which represents the very best a of a (non PC's) abilities (Olympic level gold medalists, multiple Grammy winning artists, master craftsmen known throughout the realm etc). They would represent the absolute best in the world in the skill, with bonuses of +5's (Ability score 1, pr6oficiency) being at the default 'expert' level.

Obviously PCs can (and do) routinely exceed that, but hey. They're the heroes of the story for a reason.

 

[clearstream]

One thing I learned from tinkering with ICRPG is that granularity is not necessarily a good thing because differentiating between a 12 or a 13 DC is not really all that meaningful to the play experience. So this further reinforced to me that 10, 15, and 20 is fine as long as it's reasonably consistent with substantially similar tasks perfomed in the past.

(What I'm less enamored with in ICRPG is that any given challenge has a static DC that doesn't really change at all (same DC for attack, skill, etc.), though the DM can modify specific rolls with bonuses or penalties based on whether they assess it's easy or hard. It took a little getting used to.)

I'm with you on that. I definitely do not want to get into smaller than 20%ish steps. One reason is the experienced delta at the table (so not, is the %age a different value, but do we experience it as a different value?!)

I've found that as few as two and as many as six factors seem to make sense. It might be that it's better to keep the steps 25%, which argues for no more than four factors (the four steps from 10 > 15 > 20 > 25 > 30.) That's what you would lean toward, right? (Noting the princple is - all checks are DC 10 unless there are factors that step them up.)