D&D 5E Static DCs

[FitzTheRuke]

I guess my point being, skills are about accomplishing things (obvi) but they can also help address unexpected things in the game and create new opportunities for fun/suspense.

In an RPG I wrote in the 90's, that we played for a decade before returning to D&D, I had a d10 that I called the "yes/no" die. Rolling low in that game was good, so it was basically this:

1) So much more than this
2) Absolutely
3) Yes.
4) Pretty much.
5) Sure, but a little different
6) Not quite, but almost
7) Not really
8) No.
9) Really, really no.
10) Not even in the ballpark

After awhile, I started using it any time any player ever asked any question during the game to which I had not thought of an answer. I just asked the die, starting with a leading question: "Does (it) have (x quality/feature)"?

The more I used it, the more use I found for it: Weather; what's available at shops; layout of the wilderness; rooms at inns; the list went on. Once I got good at 'reading' the die, I could run whole sessions with no story prep.

Aside: I once built an entire city using the die (it was just a name on a map that I knew nothing about) - it became a living place with the largest non-magical college in town, a thriving thieves guild, and a coffeehouse culture that required major imports from the south.

Now that I think of it, I really miss the "yes/no" die.

 

[iserith]

I am not sure if this is exactly relevant to this discussion (and if it isn't, I am sure a mod can split it off into its own thread), but this discussion of skill checks and DCs and what is achievable (with difficulty or not) and has an actual consequence got me to thinking about when I don't know exactly what success looks like as the DM - and I thought of a situation that happened just yesterday (and not for the first time) and how I use the skills to shape what happens in both in regard to the action itself and the setting/narrative.

In yesterday's session, the party was investigating the the hulk of a wrecked ship set adrift, and as the majority of the party approached on a rowboat to climb aboard, the druid transformed into an octopus, first to scope out the area, and secondly if he could find a hole that he use to squeeze his octopus form through (since they can squeeze through very tiny holes, it made sense that there could be tiny breaches in the ship hull that were not immediately visible and were leading to the ship very slowly sinking). And yet, despite my copious notes, it was not as if I had the hull of ship detailed in terms of every possible hole and its size - but I also didn't want to shut down the player's ingenuity by simply saying "there are no holes."

So I started an (easy DC 10) perception check to notice the patterns of small bubbles on the hull, an investigation check to pick out and follow a particular trail of bubbles to a possible hole. This took a couple of rolls because I ruled the low rolls led to holes that were too small because he misjudged. (the consequence for failure being the continued time spent searching while the party was split and at this point could mean separated and deadly encounters (as it was the rest the party did have a combat encounter while the search was happening). For squeezing through the hole, I decided he finally found I required an Athletics check (DC 15), with a failure meaning while he could squeeze through, it'd leave him vulnerable on the other side as he was partially through.

Eventually (after avoiding some ghouls in the bilge), he was able to rejoin the party mid-battle on an upper deck of the ship.

I guess my point being, skills are about accomplishing things (obvi) but they can also help address unexpected things in the game and create new opportunities for fun/suspense.

Three rolls to do a thing increases the chances of failure significantly for no great reason in my view. "I change into the form of an octopus, then swim around the shipwreck to find a hole I can squeeze through." That's a goal and approach and, in context, seems perfectly reasonable to me. I would have just said they succeeded given time, no roll. An ability check is only called for when the DM believes there is an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure.

 

[el-remmen]

Three rolls to do a thing increases the chances of failure significantly for no great reason in my view. "I change into the form of an octopus, then swim around the shipwreck to find a hole I can squeeze through." That's a goal and approach and, in context, seems perfectly reasonable to me. I would have just said they succeeded given time, no roll. An ability check is only called for when the DM believes there is an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure.

But there was an uncertain outcome: Is there a hole big enough for him to slip through? I let the skill rolls work out how if he could find one. Meanwhile, it allowed for for me to move back and forth between a split party asking for actions and describing results. I could have just said "yes you find a hole but it takes X minutes" and then let him sit there where I deal with the rest of the party. This way he was rolling dice, having to judge if it was worth continuing to search, etc. . .

 

[iserith]

But there was an uncertain outcome: Is there a hole big enough for him to slip through? I let the skill rolls work out how if he could find one. Meanwhile, it allowed for for me to move back and forth between a split party asking for actions and describing results. I could have just said "yes you find a hole but it takes X minutes" and then let him sit there where I deal with the rest of the party. This way he was rolling dice, having to judge if it was worth continuing to search, etc. . .

A thing I see a lot of DMs do is breaking down a broader description of a goal and approach into discrete actions, say that all of those actions have an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure (since those are the prerequisites for the DM to call for an ability check), and call for multiple ability checks. This increases the chance of failure for no good upside in my view.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

A thing I see a lot of DMs do is breaking down a broader description of a goal and approach into discrete actions, say that all of those actions have an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure (since those are the prerequisites for the DM to call for an ability check), and call for multiple ability checks. This increases the chance of failure for no good upside in my view.

Only if one failure on any of the dice = absolute failure in the story, otherwise the addition of extra rolls also allows for extra chances of success. IE: You didn't find a hole here, but you found a crack there; or solved the same problem using a different skill (and therefore different approach) instead. In addition, when you add a "success but with complications" level to the dc (either explicitly, or just in your head) it allows another way to add things like "sure you found a hole, but now you gotta roll athletics to squeeze in."

Obviously, these chains can go too far, but done well it can be an interesting take.

 

[iserith]

Only if one failure on any of the dice = absolute failure in the story, otherwise the addition of extra rolls also allows for extra chances of success. IE: You didn't find a hole here, but you found a crack there; or solved the same problem using a different skill (and therefore different approach) instead. In addition, when you add a "success but with complications" level to the dc (either explicitly, or just in your head) it allows another way to add things like "sure you found a hole, but now you gotta roll athletics to squeeze in."

Obviously, these chains can go too far, but done well it can be an interesting take.

Failure as opposed to progress combined with a setback is how most DMs rule in my experience so when they use an approach that increases the number of ability checks they are calling for, they often turn the PCs into the fantasy equivalent of the Keystone Cops. As well, as a player, I'm going to want to make fewer rolls, not more rolls, as I aim for automatic success by removing uncertainty as to the outcome and/or the meaningful consequence for failure. The d20 can't be trusted after all. As a DM knowing this, even if I did call for an ability check here for some reason, it would likely be success or progress combined with a setback on a failed check. But it would only be the one roll.

 

[Charlaquin]

An octopus can fit through any opening as wide as their beak, so the only real uncertainty in my mind would be how long it takes the wild shaped character to find one.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Failure as opposed to progress combined with a setback is how most DMs rule in my experience so when they use an approach that increases the number of ability checks they are calling for, they often turn the PCs into the fantasy equivalent of the Keystone Cops. As well, as a player, I'm going to want to make fewer rolls, not more rolls, as I aim for automatic success by removing uncertainty as to the outcome and/or the meaningful consequence for failure. The d20 can't be trusted after all. As a DM knowing this, even if I did call for an ability check here for some reason, it would likely be success or progress combined with a setback on a failed check. But it would only be the one roll.

Oh, I agree. I would only ask for one roll myself (at least most of the time). I'm just suggesting that it's not necessarily going to result in less success, depending on how it's done.

Most DMs in my experience use partial successes or success-plus-complication for failed rolls, but then, I've taught most of them how to play, and it's one of my main advice for DMs. On the other hand, failure can be fun, too, if used sparingly (in particular where failing doesn't matter to an overall goal). For that reason, I'm not a big fan of auto-successes. I'm sure we're on the same page, it's just a matter of degree.

 

[el-remmen]

While it is the kind of feel-good aphorism that would make me want to smack someone if I were told it in real life, in D&D failure is just another opportunity to try something else. Failure has its own rewards. The way I see it, the PC felt accomplished by trying and it led to a dramatic reunion during a combat. Seems like a win/win to me regardless of the number of die rolls, successes, or failures.

 

[Islayre d'Argolh]

For example, I could just use e.g., DC 16 as the universal DC. If the PCs wanted to sneak past something or scale a cliff or open a lock, they would just make an appropriate check against DC 16. 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.

Hi !
I'm a french player and game designer, my OSR/DIY minimalist D&D game Coureurs d'Orages ("Storm Runners") use DC 16 as the universal DC (that's why we choosed the esoteric tarot's major arcana number 16, the tower, for the cover of the core rulebook).

If the test must be more difficult, on way or another, it's done with disadvantage.
If the player's skill (good roleplay, clever thinking) gives an edge to the character, then the test is done with advantage.

The game is quite successfull (for a french-only, POD-only, indy TRPG) and if it was on DrivethruRPG it would be halfway between Gold and Platinum sales.
There is an active player's community and the static DC 16 seems quite a success.

But i must admit some players asked me for a more traditionnal DC scale, so we're now playtesting a 13/16/19 variant as an optionnal rule for a futur "revised edition" of the core rules.

Cheers