D&D General How do you set the DC of an ability check

[Dessert Nomad]

Most people run into trouble for skill checks when they either decide to house rule away from how the books say to run skill checks, fail to consider what makes sense for 'success' and 'failure' or add failure conditions that don't make sense. The system is pretty simple and straightforward, but a lot of people want to over complicate it. I don't see the point in keeping a big reference lists of tasks by DC, most things people try to do are in the 10-20 range, maybe 25, very rarely 30. If you're taking your time setting DCs you can be fiddly with them if you're doing them on the fly then doing them by 5s should give enough variety and reduces the mental load in the moment.

Consequences of failure should generally make sense - sometime people like to add weird stuff like 'if you try to pick a lock and fail, it's forever beyond your ability' because 1e did it that way, but it doesn't really make sense, and if you don't add that then you get the sensible result that even a basic rogue can get through non-special but difficult locks with a few minutes of fiddling. So a rogue really only needs to roll to pick a lock if time is of the essence or there's something about the lock that makes the attempt difficult (like failed attempt triggers a trap), what I usually do is have them roll and if they fail just say it takes a few minutes to get through (which may just be fluff or may mean someone spots them depending on circumstance).

The player narrates what they're trying to do and the DM sets success and failure conditions, what the player says they're trying to do isn't the success condition. If a player declares that he's trying to convince the king to hand over his kingdom and the DM calls for a persuasion check, a success probably means 'the king laughs at your joke and treats you well rather than have you thrown in irons your your impudence' and not 'well you have a whole kingdom now'.

The DC is always 8+ whatever their total modifier is. You get a +37 to your roll? Great, the DC is 45. You get a +7 to your roll? Great, the DC is 15.

This means the PCs always have 100%, 87.75%, 65%, 42.25%, or 0% chance of success.

So in your system, there's no point in keeping up with skills and expertise or ability scores for skill checks, and characters never get better at doing anything they work at, and all characters are equally as good at all skills?

 

[overgeeked]

Why have modifiers to the roll, at that point?

So in your system, there's no point in keeping up with skills and expertise or ability scores for skill checks, and characters never get better at doing anything they work at, and all characters are equally as good at all skills?

It’s how AC is designed for monsters, so it works just as good here. Assumed highest score in main stat, proficiency bonus, and assumed progression of ASIs +8 is the default AC across all levels. Sure, a few outliers exist, but it’s right there in the math.

The game’s designed around an assumed 65% chance of success. Better to be honest about that than hide it behind layers of rules.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

It’s how AC is designed for monsters, so it works just as good here. Assumed highest score in main stat, proficiency bonus, and assumed progression of ASIs +8 is the default AC across all levels. Sure, a few outliers exist, but it’s right there in the math.

The game’s designed around an assumed 65% chance of success. Better to be honest about that than hide it behind layers of rules.

You didn't explicitly answer my question, but it looks like the answer is "Yes, there is no point in tracking skills, expertise, or ability scores for skill checks, and characters never get any better at anything they work at" in your system.

 

[overgeeked]

You didn't explicitly answer my question, but it looks like the answer is "Yes, there is no point in tracking skills, expertise, or ability scores for skill checks, and characters never get any better at anything they work at" in your system.

I did. Progression in 5E is a mathematical illusion. I just pull back the curtain and ignore the pretense. You’re assuming there’s a point to all that in the regular game when there isn’t. The referee can set any TN they want for any reason. As seen by the other replies in the thread. If my method isn’t useful to you, don’t use it. Simple as.

 

[Ashrym]

I usually keep it simple and set it by the rules in the book or when those aren't specified follow the basic guideline..

• Easy = 10
• Moderate = 15
• Hard = 20

Harder DC's are exceptions to typical play but it depends on what the player is trying to do and how hard I think that would be.

 

[Maxperson]

Consequences of failure should generally make sense - sometime people like to add weird stuff like 'if you try to pick a lock and fail, it's forever beyond your ability' because 1e did it that way, but it doesn't really make sense, and if you don't add that then you get the sensible result that even a basic rogue can get through non-special but difficult locks with a few minutes of fiddling. So a rogue really only needs to roll to pick a lock if time is of the essence or there's something about the lock that makes the attempt difficult (like failed attempt triggers a trap), what I usually do is have them roll and if they fail just say it takes a few minutes to get through (which may just be fluff or may mean someone spots them depending on circumstance).

I'm torn on that one. On the one hand, retries make sense. On the other hand, a 1st level rogue with a 16 dex is at +5, which would make him able to auto open any DC 25 lock or lower, and DCs only go to 30.

 

[Distracted DM]

You didn't explicitly answer my question, but it looks like the answer is "Yes, there is no point in tracking skills, expertise, or ability scores for skill checks, and characters never get any better at anything they work at" in your system.

I think Overgeeked was trying to demonstrate that attack rolls and AC follow the same idea, that as the characters' attacks increase the enemy's defenses increase to compensate, and that they just applied that same philosophy to skill checks.

I don't necessarily agree with the entire idea there; skill checks are usually for a "finite" challenge, whereas an enemy combatant can be dynamic and increase or decrease in relative skill... but I do see the underlying concept and understand how someone might see that as the way to go.



Personally, I use the standard DC 10 15 20 25 30, but I use A5E and their various bonuses, including Expertise Dice, mean that characters will quickly be hitting those 20s and 30s.

Once characters are rolling in the 20s and 30s regularly I will admit that if I think something should be challenging, I have used DCs as high as 35, but only in extreme circumstances... and they usually succeeded anyway 'cuz they're working on getting advantage on these checks as well. So yes, characters can become very very good at skill that they focus on, which I guess is right and proper- they should succeed frequently if they're experts. On the other hand I do want to challenge them, so making things difficult even for the experts can fit if the moment's right.

I use DC 15 as the "standard challenge," and 20 for tougher stuff... I've not-5's as well, for example climbing a rope (in a difficult situation) is DC 10, climbing a wall with handholds is DC 15, but different circumstances might move that DC 10 to 12, or the 15 to 13, etc. So I guess I run it by-the-book-ish, with some traditions inferred from 3.Xe.

 

[bsss]

It’s how AC is designed for monsters, so it works just as good here. Assumed highest score in main stat, proficiency bonus, and assumed progression of ASIs +8 is the default AC across all levels. Sure, a few outliers exist, but it’s right there in the math.

The game’s designed around an assumed 65% chance of success. Better to be honest about that than hide it behind layers of rules.

I did. Progression in 5E is a mathematical illusion. I just pull back the curtain and ignore the pretense. You’re assuming there’s a point to all that in the regular game when there isn’t. The referee can set any TN they want for any reason. As seen by the other replies in the thread. If my method isn’t useful to you, don’t use it. Simple as.

I think I agree with you to some degree in that I believe 5e's implementation of bounded accuracy is poor and leads to poor outcomes, but the rest of your justification is backwards to me. People aren't going through character creation and advancement choices and so on, and roleplaying scenes and expecting their DM to add to the context of conflict and challenge, to test probability engines. The "pretense" kind of is the point.

Additionally, players expect and deserve some in-world consistency. If I told two players that them attempting the same task at the same time has different individualized DCs, or that a particular monster's AC or task's DC went up in parallel with the PCs getting stronger, because that's what the system math allegedly expected, they'd be incredulous or think I was pulling their leg. And if I told them the system already decided their odds no matter what they did, they'd probably get up and leave.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I use DC 8 and 12 a lot.

So tasks that are super easy but may fail are DC 5 but I hand waive those as a success most of the time.

Then I go from there.

DC 5 but there’s a complication so it’s DC 8

DC 10 (fairly easy) but there’s something making easier DC 8. Or DC 10 but it’s slightly tougher, then it’s DC 12

So like a lot of people I use 5,10,15,20 and modify from there.

I use advantage/disadvantage on the player’s side. Do they have the right tools or came up with a good idea? Advantage. Do they lack the basic tools or trying to do it faster than the basic amount of time required for the check? Disadvantage.

These DCs don’t change based on level. Obviously, high level characters might be doing tasks that average people can’t do so some dungeons might be full of masterwork locks, for example. But an average lock always has the same DC. Heroic rogues with expertise, getting advantage to pick them don’t even need to roll against a dc 15 lock unless there’s time pressure.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

I did. Progression in 5E is a mathematical illusion. I just pull back the curtain and ignore the pretense. You’re assuming there’s a point to all that in the regular game when there isn’t. The referee can set any TN they want for any reason. As seen by the other replies in the thread. If my method isn’t useful to you, don’t use it. Simple as.

I think Overgeeked was trying to demonstrate that attack rolls and AC follow the same idea, that as the characters' attacks increase the enemy's defenses increase to compensate, and that they just applied that same philosophy to skill checks.

The claim that AC follows the rules Overgeeked wrote is simply untrue. If one character has a +8 to an attack roll and another has a +10 because they've gotten an item that gives +2 to hit and the other hasn't, the character with a +10 hits more often than the character with a +8. If a wizard has a +10 to magical attacks (+4 prof, +5 int, +1 item) and a +6 to physical attacks with a dagger(+4 prof, +2 dex) and a -1 to hit with attacks with a greatsword (no prof, -1 STR), they have a better chance to hit with their spell than their dagger and a much better chance to hit with either of those than the greatsword. The enemy's AC doesn't change to compensate. Enemies of the same CR have different ACs, the chance to hit an enemy considered level-appropriate is not the same for all enemies. The encounter building rules recommend using enemies of different CR, who also have different ACs, so even if the level scaling thing was true, there would still be different hit chances in the same fight.

The argument for the method is simply factually incorrect. Attack rolls and AC don't work like Overgeeked claims they do or like their skill check method does. If AC worked like overgeek's method, then a character would have the same chance to hit an enemy with a spell using their primary stat, spell using a lower stat, a proficient weapon using a lower stat, and non-proficient weapon using a dump stat, and that's simply not how the game works.