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

[Maxperson]

The take that proficiency with skills and tools, or becoming a class, doesn't represent any training whatsoever in the fiction is clearly one you feel strongly about. I haven't run or encountered games run that way, so I think I'll just stick to the fiction that is common in my experience and that doesn't cause the problems you seem irate about.

You've never played in a game where someone went to 2nd level and multiclassed into something they didn't take years, months, or even days to train at becoming? Or took a feat and gained proficiency, expertise or an ability to do something that they've barely used?

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes. There are ways to do it with rules changes and/or strategies to make sure that there isn't time for the rogue to retry forever. That doesn't change, though, that a typical 1st level rogues can open all but the hardest of locks(DCs 26-30), and if the rogue rolls and has rolled an 18 and picks expertise, 30 becomes the only lock that they can't get. At 1st level.

One way to combat this in 5.5 could be to rule picking a lock to specifically be a Dexterity (Thieve’s Tools) check instead of Dexterity (Sleight of Hand), since Theives’ Tools are no longer explicitly listed among the things the Rogue can take expertise in. Though, as you say, without expertise they can still hit DC 25 from 1st level, albeit at a very low chance. Personally, I’m fine with this. Picking locks is a huge part of the rogues’ shtick, and I feel like D&D would have a lot fewer locked doors if there wasn’t a whole class known primarily for picking locks. When it’s that big a part of their identity, I’m fine with them being very good at it. I basically consider mundanely locked doors and chests in D&D like red doors in Metroid after you get the missiles. They’re functionally no different than blue doors, they just exist to make the player think “wow, I’m sure glad I got the missile upgrade.” If you actually want to keep PCs out of somewhere, you need barred doors, portcullises, magical locks, and/or puzzle locks.

 

[Maxperson]

One way to combat this in 5.5 could be to rule picking a lock to specifically be a Dexterity (Thieve’s Tools) check instead of Dexterity (Sleight of Hand), since Theives’ Tools are no longer explicitly listed among the things the Rogue can take expertise in. Though, as you say, without expertise they can still hit DC 25 from 1st level, albeit at a very low chance. Personally, I’m fine with this. Picking locks is a huge part of the rogues’ shtick, and I feel like D&D would have a lot fewer locked doors if there wasn’t a whole class known primarily for picking locks. When it’s that big a part of their identity, I’m fine with them being very good at it. I basically consider mundanely locked doors and chests in D&D like red doors in Metroid after you get the missiles. They’re functionally no different than blue doors, they just exist to make the player think “wow, I’m sure glad I got the missile upgrade.” If you actually want to keep PCs out of somewhere, you need barred doors, portcullises, magical locks, and/or puzzle locks.

I wouldn't mind if it were really a very low chance like all of the other skills. That barbarian with +5 athletics can hit a 25 with a low chance, and that's fine. Even with advantage.

My issue is that with retries under the rules, success at the 25 is guaranteed in an average of 2 minutes unless the DM limits it in some way, either through house rules or in fiction limitations(time, an earthquake happening, etc.).

I know some DMs choose to have the first roll represent the best effort of the rogue, because it doesn't make sense that the rogue wasn't trying very hard just because he rolled a 3 on the die. That 3 represents the lock being beyond him despite his best efforts.

 

[bsss]

I know some DMs choose to have the first roll represent the best effort of the rogue, because it doesn't make sense that the rogue wasn't trying very hard just because he rolled a 3 on the die. That 3 represents the lock being beyond him despite his best efforts.

Since I already apply take 10/20 and fail forward sensibilities in my games, this is informally how I do things, and I think it's very keen. I should just make it a formal houserule at this point.

 

[Hriston]

When playing D&D, I use target numbers conforming to the following difficulties/percent chances of success (based on a d6 roll):

• Very hard - 16 2/3%
• Hard - 33 1/3%
• Medium - 50%
• Easy - 66 2/3%
• Very easy - 83 1/3%

These numbers can be modified up or down by various situational factors (depending on the design space allowed by the granularity of the resolution mechanic being used), or the difficulty itself can be increased to support an environment of progressive challenge. For example, opening a door on the upper levels of a dungeon might be resolved with a hard check while on the lower levels it might be resolved with a very hard check. This would be reflected in the fiction by the door on the lower levels being described as made of stronger, nigh unbreakable materials or having magical protections, etc.

 

[ECMO3]

I generally ask the player what they rolled and then add 2 to that number.

 

[Weiley31]

Just do what my DM does when he doesn't want us to pass something.

One Example: "You take Triple Disadvantage on this roll.'

Me mentally: Where the <REDACTED> is Triple Disadvantage mentioned at all in the PHB.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Just do what my DM does when he doesn't want us to pass something.

One Example: "You take Triple Disadvantage on this roll.'

Me mentally: Where the <REDACTED> is Triple Disadvantage mentioned at all in the PHB.

Ah, skipping straight past double disadvantage for the triple i see

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Years of training? What years of training? You can literally be a 1st level PC with hours of difference between being level 0 and gaining your class. There's no requirement for any amount of training for any of the classes. Being a class doesn't require training. Gaining proficiency doesn't require training. None. Let alone years of it.

Or you can have an In-Depth back story where you’ve been raised in the thieves guild and been picking locks since you were 8.

The average person has a stat of 9 or 10. Anyone with a 16 is exceptional. Anyone with proficiency in a particular skill can make a living with that skill and anyone with expertise in a skill is an expert. Level 1 doesn’t matter.

the difference between a level 0 expert locksmith and a level 1 and a level 20 is the stories.

One is picking locks as a job, one is picking locks in a dungeon and the other is picking locks in the Abyss. It’s the story of how they got to the lock that matters. Not that they can all pick a dc 25 lock.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You've never played in a game where someone went to 2nd level and multiclassed into something they didn't take years, months, or even days to train at becoming? Or took a feat and gained proficiency, expertise or an ability to do something that they've barely used?

Yes indeed! Agree wholeheartedly.

This is why I'm always saying that game mechanics are in no real way an actual representation of the world the characters live in (or indeed of the characters themselves.) They are there mainly to allow us players to play the "game" part of the 'roleplaying game', and throw us a few bones of story and fluff to make us think these numbers actually represent something real. When in point of fact, almost none of it does because we are all able to come up with thousands of ways game mechanics do not actually show a true representation of what things are actually like in the fantasy world and fantasy story. The DCs for skill use (and indeed the skill list itself) is just one of multitudes of things that have been simplified down to give us part of the "game" to play... as are the multiclass rules to somehow represent the years of "additional training" a character has done in the "background" of their lives that we never see, but somehow have their abilities suddenly pop into existence 'onscreen' as part of the story we are representing during our gameplay.