D&D 5E How do you set DCs?

[ECMO3]

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?

I always set the DC one higher than the player rolls.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

I always set the DC one higher than the player rolls.

lawful chaotic

 

[iserith]

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.)

I'm not sure I think about it that deeply. I just do what the DMG says, which is that if you only every use 10, 15, or 20, then your game will work fine. So that's what I do. First I decide if the approach to the goal succeeds or fails outright. If I'm not sure and I can clearly see a meaningful consequence for failure, it gets a DC 10, 15, or 20 and a call for an ability check.

 

[jgsugden]

I'm not sure I think about it that deeply. I just do what the DMG says, which is that if you only every use 10, 15, or 20, then your game will work fine. So that's what I do. First I decide if the approach to the goal succeeds or fails outright. If I'm not sure and I can clearly see a meaningful consequence for failure, it gets a DC 10, 15, or 20 and a call for an ability check.

While I'll second that this works absolutely perfectly fine, I will say there are some small benefits to adding more diversification. Beyond the math impact, it conveys something to the PCs when you set a DC. Often, that distinction won't mean much, but sometimes it tells a story. My little notes on setting DCs focus on setting a DC baed upon how much luck someone trained in the effort would take.

An easy task (DC 10) is something most people do not screw up, regardless of training, unless they're under pressure (DC10) . A DC 12 (moderately easy) task is something that amateurs generally fail at, but you can do with a little training or natural skill. A moderate task (DC 15) is something that you often do not get right unless you have training - I think of it as entry level professional tasks.

With that in mind, why would setting a DC of 12 versus 10 or 15 have an impact on a game? If players understand how I set DCs, which is publicly available information in my rules, it can tell PCs about a scenario. For example, the PCs come upon the corpse of a humanoid lying at the base of a door. They talk and come up with the hypothesis that the door might have been trapped. They search and find it and I tell them it was moderately easy (DC 12) to find it. What have they learned?

1.) The trap on the door was not well hidden. It was not good enough to hide from a journeyman professional, but was fine to stop the rabble.
2.) Despite being not terribly hard to find, the corpse at the base of the door did not find it. That means they were likely not trained and didn't have any natural skill in finding traps.

Could a DC 15 have worked? Yes. But not as well. It would have conveyed that an entry level professional was necessary - and that it highly unlikely that an amatuer, even with natural skill, would succeed in finding it. That is different. It paints a different story about who and why the trap was set, and who the corpse might have been.

It is not a huge impact, but we find it meaningful in my game.

 

[Scott Christian]

For D&D, the DC is set two ways:

• Based on how the player is interacting with the object, environment, or person in question. For example, trying to intimidate the captain of the guard who has seen war and monsters might increase the DC, but if one were to be straightforward and honest with her, the DC may lower. This type of adjustment works for most skill checks. (Note: I prep on the heavy side, so if there are obvious checks my players are doing, I generally write all of these out for reference to keep the game consistent.)
• I use the standard of 3s: 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21. If it falls in the 6 range, I almost never have the players roll, that is, unless there is some special circumstance. Then, the large majority of rolls fall in the 9-18 roll range. This range allows me to set things from moderately difficult to extremely difficult. Again, these can be adjusted based on circumstance and approach (see above).

For my own system, I use S.H.E.: Simple, Hard, Epic. The players have the numbers for each, and generally, before they roll, I just say, it is a Hard Skill Challenge. They know exactly what they need to do. It keeps it simple and hands control over to the players.

 

[overgeeked]

The level-scaling PC bonuses compared to the level-scaling monster stats and DCs is an illusion. They all progress at almost exactly the same rate. Giving the illusion of progress while keeping the chance of success at +/-5% of where you started. So I ignore DCs in favor of the raw die roll.

Expert 8+. Trained 11+. Unskilled 14+.

This gives experts a 65% chance of success, trained a 50% chance, and unskilled a 35% chance of success.

I also use a lot of automatic success and failure to avoid too many rolls and keep the game moving.

 

[iserith]

While I'll second that this works absolutely perfectly fine, I will say there are some small benefits to adding more diversification. Beyond the math impact, it conveys something to the PCs when you set a DC. Often, that distinction won't mean much, but sometimes it tells a story. My little notes on setting DCs focus on setting a DC baed upon how much luck someone trained in the effort would take.

An easy task (DC 10) is something most people do not screw up, regardless of training, unless they're under pressure (DC10) . A DC 12 (moderately easy) task is something that amateurs generally fail at, but you can do with a little training or natural skill. A moderate task (DC 15) is something that you often do not get right unless you have training - I think of it as entry level professional tasks.

With that in mind, why would setting a DC of 12 versus 10 or 15 have an impact on a game? If players understand how I set DCs, which is publicly available information in my rules, it can tell PCs about a scenario. For example, the PCs come upon the corpse of a humanoid lying at the base of a door. They talk and come up with the hypothesis that the door might have been trapped. They search and find it and I tell them it was moderately easy (DC 12) to find it. What have they learned?

1.) The trap on the door was not well hidden. It was not good enough to hide from a journeyman professional, but was fine to stop the rabble.
2.) Despite being not terribly hard to find, the corpse at the base of the door did not find it. That means they were likely not trained and didn't have any natural skill in finding traps.

Could a DC 15 have worked? Yes. But not as well. It would have conveyed that an entry level professional was necessary - and that it highly unlikely that an amatuer, even with natural skill, would succeed in finding it. That is different. It paints a different story about who and why the trap was set, and who the corpse might have been.

It is not a huge impact, but we find it meaningful in my game.

This sounds like a lot more effort and granularity for not enough upside in my view. And a higher chance of being inconsistent with the DCs on accident. My middle-aged brain is all for simplicity these days!

 

[Ancalagon]

I usually use DCs of 10, 13, 15, 18, 20 and rarely 25. I also sometimes use a DC 5 for a check, but I only make a PC roll such a low DC if it's something they are "bad at", for comedic reasons (and that's something to use with moderation)

 

[DEFCON 1]

The level-scaling PC bonuses compared to the level-scaling monster stats and DCs is an illusion. They all progress at almost exactly the same rate. Giving the illusion of progress while keeping the chance of success at +/-5% of where you started. So I ignore DCs in favor of the raw die roll.

Expert 8+. Trained 11+. Unskilled 14+.

This gives experts a 65% chance of success, trained a 50% chance, and unskilled a 35% chance of success.

I also use a lot of automatic success and failure to avoid too many rolls and keep the game moving.

This method is just as valid as any other. There's no necessity in having individual skill levels or DCs, because at the end of the day... all any of this comes down to is the party is creating a narrative and story as they do things.

And while the narrative and story can be perfectly viable, entertaining, and fun if everything they wish to accomplish happens without any issue... oftentimes it is the roadblocks that pop up and have to be worked around that lead to creativity and more entertaining action on the part of the players. The story becomes grander and more memorable based on the challenges and setbacks you had to fight to get to the end.

Any time a check of some type comes up, that's just a potential obstacle in the story's progression that the DM and group are inventing. And the type of check it is (like what skill is involved) just changes what the ideas of the group to get past said roadblock will be. A failed Athletics check will create different roadblocks and solutions towards moving forward than a failed Religion check. But all the granularity that games give to DMs and players to distinguish the different types of obstacles and the different levels or failures of success to get around them are there merely to help in the creativity of the players involved to come up with new and exciting drama in their story.

The narrative that will be created and improvised out of a sequence of a failed Stealth check, failed Arcana check, successful group Athletics check, Nat 1 on an Insight check, then a subsequent combat will be much different than a sequence of a failed Stealth check, successful Arcana check, failed group Perception check, successful Acrobatics check, then a Nat 20 on the Thieve's Tools check that ends up bypassing the combat altogether. But the specific numbers and DC themselves won't ultimately matter in the story, merely the results... so how any DM determines what mechanic they use to create those results is up to them.

That's why there are so many different RPG mechanics after all... they are all just different ways to determine the different types of invented obstacles and the degrees of success or failure to overcome them that the group at the table then creates a binding narrative and story around.

 

[CubicsRube]

When I used to set DCs I'd use a scale of 1-10 x 3. Easy is therefore a 9. I wouldn't call for a 3 or 6 DC unless there's a reason that charavter might fail, and 27 and 30 i would only use for something legendary.

Which mostly leaves 9, 12, 15, 18, 21 and 24 as my main DCs. Gives me a bit more granularity as I like to change DCs depending on circumstances. Have a crowbar to bust open that grate? Knock the DC down a notch.