D&D 5E Static DCs

[zarionofarabel]

If both success and failure don’t have interesting outcomes, I can just assume they succeed and not waste time having them roll the check.

Internalize this! This is one of the most important things to do when running a game. Don't waste the time making rolls for things that you can just say Yes or No to!

 

[loverdrive]

It’s a great system, though personally if I wanted to run a fantasy game in that style I’d just run Dungeon World rather than tweak D&D. Different tools for different jobs.

I personally think that it's something that one would already use -- like there's always should be some kind of risk when rolling (otherwise, why bother rolling at all?) and most of the GMs already use some kind of way to determine how well did the PC succeed or fail, just a bit more honest and clear.

 

[Charlaquin]

I personally think that it's something that one would already use -- like there's always should be some kind of risk when rolling (otherwise, why bother rolling at all?)

Oh, absolutely! Only call for rolls when the action has a chance of success, a chance of failure, and a cost for trying and/or a consequence for failing.

and most of the GMs already use some kind of way to determine how well did the PC succeed or fail, just a bit more honest and clear.

This is where I differ. Tasks in D&D 5e are generally pass or fail, with a few exceptions such as certain saves having worse consequences if the character fails the save by a certain threshold (usually by 5 or by 10). The complete success > success at a cost > failure > dramatic failure breakdown is great for some games, but I don’t think it’s appropriate for D&D 5e.

 

[kenada]

Thanks all for the responses. I’ve run 5e before, so I’m aware of the narrow range of DCs the system provides. Also, thanks for quoting the table. I tried to dig around for it in the D&D Beyond mobile app when I posted, but I never have any luck finding things there.

@Charlaquin makes a good point about advantage and disadvantage. I may want to just use modifiers, which in that case I might as well just make DC 15 the standard DC and use easy or hard when it seems appropriate — but not pervasively.

We played 3e/3.5e/PF1 for about fifteen years. I think I got used to thinking of DCs as some kind of simulation. Maybe the wall is moderate, but it’s a little slick, and so on; so let’s make that a 21 instead of a 15. I’ve run 5e before, but I was still going through the thought process (“this is a little harder than harder, so DC 22, or whatever). After reading OSE, I had a revelation: that stuff doesn’t really matter.

The approach described by @loverdrive is interesting. I definitely had PbtA in mind when I was thinking about static DCs. I swear I’ve read something by Vincent Baker that made effectively the same argument (it’s not interesting: just roll 2d6 vs. a static number), but I can’t find it on lumpley.com. I probably wouldn’t go quite that far, but thanks for sharing!

 

[loverdrive]

This is where I differ. Tasks in D&D 5e are generally pass or fail, with a few exceptions such as certain saves having worse consequences if the character fails the save by a certain threshold (usually by 5 or by 10). The complete success > success at a cost > failure > dramatic failure breakdown is great for some games, but I don’t think it’s appropriate for D&D 5e.

It's just something that I often see, both in printed adventures (at least some one-shots in Adventurer's League had things like that) and when I play.

By the rules, yes, it's a binary yes or no thing, but because the players aren't supposed to know DCs, it leads to the GMs to just pull'em out of their arses after the roll had been done, and then they're like "ok, so it's 20, so I guess something cool should happen".

 

[jgsugden]

It can result in some silly situations, as a relatively moderate challenge can be as difficult as a nearly impossible one, but it can be done.

I find that by paying attention to the guidance in the DMG and PHB about DCs, the system works really well as I run it. For me, I never ask for a Perception check or Persuasion check. I ask the player what they're doing and then ask them what ability score they want to use. Then I tell them whether they're going to add their proficiency modifier based upon their skills, their background, their tool proficiencies, or their PC's other experiences. Instead of saying, "You see a door. Roll a perception check." ... The exchange usually goes something like:

DM: "There is a large stone door at the end of the hall. It is lit by a clearly magical torch on the wall, and is covered in dirt and dust, indicating it has not been opened in some time."
Player: "I take a look at it from 20 feet away."
DM: (Inner dialogue - Man, you're handsome. Spotting something uses wisdom. So it'll be a wisdom roll. They do not have a high enough wisdom to see it was a proficient passive check. Checking the skill lists for the PCs, they are not proficient in perception, but they are a dwarf and this is a dwarven trap. I'll allow him to be proficient, but I'm going to say it is at disadvantage.) "Roll a proficient wisdom check with disadvantage. The door looks dwarven make, but you're pretty far away."
Player: "Man, you're handsome. I rolled a ... 13 with disadvantage and proficiency."
DM: "Yeah, I was just thinking about how handsome I am. You don't spot anything that stands out with a 13."
Player: "I toss the halfling at the door."
Player 2: "What the f...."

 

[Charlaquin]

It's just something that I often see, both in printed adventures (at least some one-shots in Adventurer's League had things like that) and when I play.

By the rules, yes, it's a binary yes or no thing, but because the players aren't supposed to know DCs, it leads to the GMs to just pull'em out of their arses after the roll had been done, and then they're like "ok, so it's 20, so I guess something cool should happen".

Oh, yeah, that’s definitely a thing I see a lot of DMs doing, and I don’t think it serves the game well. I would push back against the idea that players aren’t supposed to know DCs though. I don’t see any support for that notion in the rules text, and in fact I think the game runs much better if you tell the players the DC before they roll.

 

[iserith]

To some extent, a static DC may devalue the player's approach to a goal which could lead to the player caring less about what they describe. In a game where the expectation is the DM is setting a DC based on what the player describes the character as doing (when there's a roll at all), some variation in the DC based on the DM's assessment of the efficacy of the approach relative to the goal incentivizes the players to really think about the game world and engage with the environment in effective ways. The smart play is to try to remove the uncertainty of the outcome of the task and/or the meaningful consequence for failure since leaving your fate to a d20 is not very wise. If pretty much anything I say is going to result in a DC 16 (again, when there's a roll at all), then I'm not incentivized to really give it a lot of thought. The DM using advantage and disadvantage would help with this, but being flexible on DCs plus using advantage and disadvantage is probably better.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It's just something that I often see, both in printed adventures (at least some one-shots in Adventurer's League had things like that) and when I play.

By the rules, yes, it's a binary yes or no thing, but because the players aren't supposed to know DCs, it leads to the GMs to just pull'em out of their arses after the roll had been done, and then they're like "ok, so it's 20, so I guess something cool should happen".

I like the partial successes. But usually in DnD there should seldom be complete failures. At some points in adventures I have seen, that you make it but it takes longer, you receive some damage or you just lose the moment of surprise.

 

[kenada]

To some extent, a static DC may devalue the player's approach to a goal which could lead to the player caring less about what they describe. In a game where the expectation is the DM is setting a DC based on what the player describes the character as doing (when there's a roll at all), some variation in the DC based on the DM's assessment of the efficacy of the approach relative to the goal incentivizes the players to really think about the game world and engage with the environment in effective ways. The smart play is to try to remove the uncertainty of the outcome of the task and/or the meaningful consequence for failure since leaving your fate to a d20 is not very wise. If pretty much anything I say is going to result in a DC 16 (again, when there's a roll at all), then I'm not incentivized to really give it a lot of thought. The DM using advantage and disadvantage would help with this, but being flexible on DCs plus using advantage and disadvantage is probably better.

The player would still need to describe what they are doing to establish narrative permission to attempt the check. They couldn’t just say “I want to search the room”, succeed at a DC 16 check, and automatically find the documents hidden in the false bottom of the drawer in the desk. Generally, when their descriptions are vague or insufficient, I work with my players to figure out what they are trying to do and how, and we flesh it out accordingly.