D&D 5E Static DCs

[Crimson Longinus]

I despise systems with static DCs (or equivalent.) I think that such a system simply fails at representing the reality even with rudimentary plausibility. Everything is not equally difficult.

 

[Charlaquin]

I despise systems with static DCs (or equivalent.) I think that such a system simply fails at representing the reality even with rudimentary plausibility. Everything is not equally difficult.

I don’t think representing reality is generally a goal of static DC systems.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

I think that even from in-character perspective telling the DCs is often justified. If the character knows what they're attempting to do they should have a rough idea how difficult it might be, probably better than what the player could gauge merely from the verbal description given by the GM. Now in some situations withholding the DC might be justified, if the character was not aware of the full scope of the task.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don’t think representing reality is generally a goal of static DC systems.

And that's why I have no use for them.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think that even from in-character perspective telling the DCs is often justified. If the character knows what they're attempting to do they should have a rough idea how difficult it might be, probably better than what the player could gauge merely from the verbal description given by the GM. Now in some situations withholding the DC might be justified, if the character was not aware of the full scope of the task.

Agreed! Although, personally I am less concerned with whether the player knowing the DC is “justified” and more with what the gameplay benefits of withholding or revealing that information is. There are probably some situations where withholding that information would have the greater benefit, but in my experience such occasions are very rare.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I do, for like a decade now. Static DCs are just straight up better than floating ones.

I use a following table:
18+ or nat 20: you do it
11-17: you do it, but there's a complication
10- or nat 1.: you fail and there's a complication

I wouldn't say they are straight up better by any means. Some things should be more difficult than others, some things should be more probable to succeed than others, and some things lend themselves to very binary success or failure. That said I'd say about 80% of the time my DCs map roughly onto your system. Closer to 100% of the time for knowledge checks.

 

[loverdrive]

I despise systems with static DCs (or equivalent.) I think that such a system simply fails at representing the reality even with rudimentary plausibility. Everything is not equally difficult.

Well, no.

You can always break down the task at hand into smaller task, tweak the risk and tweak the effectiveness.

So, if you have a lock on a door that you want to be more difficult, you may:

1. Require several different checks, first to figure out the mechanism, then to remove magical inscribings, then to actually pick the thing.
2. Pump up the risk -- "okay, you may try, but if you fail, the whole manor would be on alert".
3. Reduce the effectiveness -- "so, you are fleeing from the guards, and you run into a locked door. You may pick the lock, but you'll not lose them, success or fail"

And each of these options is more interesting and leads to more intense action than just a roll with higher DC.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I do, for like a decade now. Static DCs are just straight up better than floating ones.

I use a following table:
18+ or nat 20: you do it
11-17: you do it, but there's a complication
10- or nat 1.: you fail and there's a complication

I was going to say something similar (with just the exact numbers being a little different, though I like yours.) We turn it around so it's not so much about the difficulty of the task, it's about the deftness of the character's achievement.

 

[loverdrive]

I was going to say something similar (with just the exact numbers being a little different, though I like yours.) We turn it around so it's not so much about the difficulty of the task, it's about the deftness of the character's achievement.

These numbers are based on PbtA distribution (2d6, 6- is fail, 7-9 is partial success, 10+ is full success). Here's an anydice link.

It's not 1 to 1, of course, but is reasonably close:

D20+0: ✴ Fail: 50%, ✴ Partial success: 35%, ✴ Full success: 15%

2d6+0: ✴ Fail: 41.67%, ✴ Partial success: 41.67%, ✴ Full success: 16.67%


D20+5: ✴ Fail: 25%, ✴ Partial success: 35%, ✴ Full success: 40%

2d6+2: ✴ Fail: 16.67%, ✴ Partial success: 41.67%, ✴ Full success: 41.67%


D20+8: ✴ Fail: 10%, ✴ Partial success: 35%, ✴ Full success: 55%

2d6+3: ✴ Fail: 8.33%, ✴ Partial success: 33.33%, ✴ Full success: 58.33%


It starts to generate way more full successes than partial ones or fails at numbers like +10 and more, but that's a pretty expected behaviour.

 

[Dragonsbane]

Not a fan of static DCs, takes away from the PC's choices I think.

Currently we use the system for DCs taken from Cypher when we play 5e. DCs range from 3 to 30 in increments of 3, you just say on a scale of 1 to 10, how hard is it? Multiply by 3 and you have a DC. Really has helped me set DCs on the fly. You never jut make them higher for the PCs as they gain levels, you look at how hard objectively. Some things you might hand wave like if the DC is 6 or less or something, as you like.