Finally DMed A 5E Game

[Pex]

With all my gripes of 5E as a player, I finally had an opportunity to experience it on the other side of the screen. I haven't had to deal with spell concentration thoroughly yet, but truth be told I am getting used to it as a player such that while it's still an annoyance to me it's not as annoying as it was. However now as DM, the 5E Skill System, or lack there of, is still a major sticking point. I was getting quite annoyed having to make up so many DCs on the spot whenever a player wanted to use a skill. For comparison purposes, if this was a Pathfinder game I still couldn't possibly have prerecorded DCs for every possible thing a player might do, but there would still be tables and formulas with listed DCs I could use as a reference. Instead, I had to think on the spot is it Easy, is it Hard, is there no need to roll, etc. A few times just because the player rolled high I said to myself that's good enough, and if was in the middle I just gave a partial success. I even said "Forget it, let's just use Take 10 and Take 20.", though I still had to make up DCs.

I'm not meaning to drag up another flame war on 5E skills. Just stating for the record, given my take it on it here as a player and to be fair, I've now experienced it as a DM and am still not happy with the Skill System. The lack of defined DCs has made running a game harder for me.

[Fizban]

That second part where you just go "eh, roll is high good enough," is one of the results that really bugs me. If there's no established DCs, you have to make it up; if you have to make it up, you might as well just have them roll while you're thinking; if they roll too high or too low it probably doesn't matter what DC you were going to make up anyway; if they roll in the middle you don't want to penalize them for not having a DC ready. If there are no established DCs then there's really no point in having an exact skill bonus. Might as well just roll percent with a notch up or down depending on proficiency.

Best I can think of to recommend is take the 3.5/pathfinder DCs, knock off about 5 points or so to account for the difference in skill points vs proficiency bonus, and ignore all the high DC stuff. 5e doesn't reach the same heights so epic skill checks for balancing on clouds aren't really necessary and the bounded rolls mean skills should just stop at some point.

[Specter]

Yes, the skill system is pretty messy. Not only when it comes to DC, but also on how to use them. The way I see it, for instance, Persuasion requires a roll for a fixed DC, while Intimidation would require the players beating 10 + target's Wisdom mod + the other character's Hit Dice. But this is a system I invented, because they didn't give us one. Next UA should be about that.

[TheProfessor85]

Easy 5, medium 10, hard 15, impossible 20.

If it's too broad, add small modifiers with a +/-2.

[Specter]

Easy 5, medium 10, hard 15, impossible 20.

If it's too broad, add small modifiers with a +/-2.

My level 5 Bard can crack impossible persuasion tasks 50% of the time. Raise those DCs.

[Pex]

Easy 5, medium 10, hard 15, impossible 20.

If it's too broad, add small modifiers with a +/-2.

The problem is in determining what is easy and what is hard in the first place.

[Cespenar]

Easy 5, medium 10, hard 15, impossible 20.

If it's too broad, add small modifiers with a +/-2.

What is this? The DCs are in the PHB itself. Very easy 5, easy 10, medium 15, etc.

The system is not that hard to DM (that'd be around DC 10 :smalltongue:), in my opinion.

If it's something you can see an average person encountering (and succeeding) commonly in their lives, it's DC 10. You might even remove these completely, in my opinion, unless it's during combat or a threatened situation and you need to add extra tension but still want the player to succeed.

If it's something you can see a skilled person pulling off, it's DC 15.

If it's something that begins to sound like a stunt or "shenanigan", it's DC 20.

DC 25 is for almost superhuman feats. Captain America level, possibly.

[Gwendol]

In general, don't roll for easy tasks if the PC is proficient. Even medium tasks don't need a roll unless failure carries consequences. This means you only roll for hard tasks, or possibly medium tasks in the middle of a battle. As for the difficulty setting, look for DC's 15-20 in 3e skill tables for medium guidelines.

[MrFahrenheit]

I actually find the skill rules great. This is namely because I operate with a one-and-done attitude toward making them per player, with varying degrees of success or failure. I also view expertise as a "get out of jail card": Cheesy, but worthwhile.

Example: Cleric attempts to swing across ropes over a pit of molten lava; rolls a total of 13 acrobatics on a DC 15. He's able to swing from the first to the second, whereupon his failure comes into play - clinging to the second rope, he loses all momentum and slides down, dangling twenty feet above doom. Rogue comes in with expertise in acrobatics, and accepts a harder DC (now 25) to save his ally and make it across. Thanks to expertise, he is successful.

[KorvinStarmast]

The lack of defined DCs has made running a game harder for me. It's really not that hard.
Easy 5, medium 10, hard 15, impossible 20. If it's too broad, add small modifiers with a +/-2.Good advice.

Point of reference: before there was a thing called DC's, we used to do ability checks, which then got formalized in AD&D 2e.

I don't understand how deciding on the fly is hard, based on that experience. From where I sit, it's easier than consulting a table. As a DM, you've played 5e for long enough that you are comfortable with a lot of / most of "the game engine." Trust your own judgment. (The Ability Checks are swingy enough given that they are rolled on a d20).

By the way, I hope you're having fun as the DM. Yay. :smallbiggrin:

@ Cespenar: respectfully, the +/- 2 is in line with DMG guidance on Ability Checks and your "it's in print so it is sacred" approach doesn't fit that response to the problem that Pex presents.

[Mr.Moron]

The problem is in determining what is easy and what is hard in the first place.

That's subjective, it's a judgement call. "Easy", "Hard" are terms that only have meaning relative to each other and against the concept of normalcy. In short you've got to go with your gut. There is no correct answer for you to find, anything you say is what it should be. If your gut reaction to hearing something is "Pfft, that's it?" that's an Easy check, if your gut reaction is "Oh My!" that's probably hard.

EDIT: As an exercise, let's consider this clip from an Assassins creed game:

https://youtu.be/Y2DLT5TVUc4?t=20

Particularly the 18 seconds (3 D&D Rounds) from the starting time stamp in the link 0:20 to 0:38. We can see that he's probably making two seperate checks here:

The first where he jumps over the first series rocks and the swinging pole.
The second where he jumps over the second series of rocks and tries to swing around the hanging chain.

On the second set, his jump is off on or unstable terrain and he almost slips and falls catching himself. So we have two questions you can consider:

What was the DC of the first check - and his result
What was the DC of his second check - and the result?

Was the second check a success (but only by a narrow margin) and thus given a bit of extra fluff about the near miss and catch.
Was the second check a failure, but with a dexterity save allowed to avoid getting splatted but while still making up lost ground?

Thing is any answer you give to these questions is correct, but perhaps it'll give some insight into how you want to calibrate your game and the characters therein.

[Shining Wrath]

The first thing a DM needs to decide is: do the words "easy", "medium", "nearly impossible", et cetera, mean "difficulty for a commoner" or "difficulty for a standard array PC" or "difficulty for my PCs which are using better than standard array because I let them roll and they got lucky"?

I use those words to refer to a "commoner" attempting them. Thus a normal DC 15 lock represents something that would likely take a Dex 10 not-proficient commoner who had acquired some lock picking tools three or four tries (30% chance of success per attempt) while a proficient Dex 15 L1 rogue would probably get it in a round or two (50% chance of success per attempt). An iron door in a bank is going to have multiple DC 25+ locks - the commoner will have no success, a Dex 20 L 17 Rogue with expertise is still going to be knocking those off every round or two. It's the difference between "you can muddle through given time" and "if you aren't really good you can't even try".

[obryn]

There's a lot of stuff which would annoy me about DMing 5e - looking up spells, buggy encounter balance, needing to pad out days to 8 encounters - but setting DCs to one of 4 numbers doesn't sound particularly onerous. :smallsmile:

[Kurald Galain]

Easy 5, medium 10, hard 15, impossible 20.

Right, so "impossible" means "every PC can do this by trying for a minute". That's a rather novel definition :smallbiggrin:

[Kryx]

Best I can think of to recommend is take the 3.5/pathfinder DCs, knock off about 5 points or so to account for the difference in skill points vs proficiency bonus, and ignore all the high DC stuff.
For DCs when I was converting from pathfinder:


Skill (DC-5)×0.75+5
Save (DC-13)×0.5+13
Ability (DC-5)×0.85+5

See https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kloyX_I_8wP9WGzwzKj-tJMh-TfyGcotrIu7xuHUjF8/edit for my RotRL work from a while ago. Those numbers held up really well.


Regarding the scale of DCs use the one provided on PHB 174. Hard beign 20, very hard 25, nearly impossible 30. Though, like you, I often make up DCs that aren't in the book. Try to think them through before you look at a roll, otherwise it corrupts your thought process.

[Ninja_Prawn]

The problem is in determining what is easy and what is hard in the first place.

I guess I'll throw my own advice in on this point.

Sometimes, when the PCs are making a check in relation to an NPC or monster, you can use that monster's ability scores as a guide. Say the PCs are trying to intimidate some guy. He's just a commoner, with 10 Charisma, so I set the DC at 10. Now, if this commoner has an army at his back, I'd call that advantage and give him +5 (i.e. set the DC at 15). A noble, who you might expect to be harder to intimidate... has 16 Charisma. So my starting DC is 16. Assuming you've got the stat blocks to hand, you can set some DCs without even having to think.

One of my PCs recently tried to overawe an NPC using insane troll logic. I called for Charisma (Performance) and she rolled over the guy's Intelligence, so it worked. Easy.

Obviously this advice isn't much use for acrobatics checks... those you pretty much have to eyeball.

[Fruitbat1919]

Always remember when we played 1e and 2e how we struggled with trying to create the ultimate solution to a formula that would faithfully reproduce the skill, chance and condition factors to achieve something that has a chance of failure in our games. We were always trying loads of solutions, but we never actually found anything better in actual play than the DM just using what he / she knows and giving us a number to roll against.

The only thing that left us pondering was the best probability of dice to use😛

Bearing in mind, this works fine for a long term group that trusts each other's judgement.

[mgshamster]

While I like much of the advice given above, allow me to offer a different idea - the metagame approach.

This approach looks at your PCs from the perspective of the storyline and not the world in which they live in. When your PCs have to make some sort of check, you decide - as the GM - whether you want them to easily overcome the obsticle or if you want it to be challenging.

If you don't even want to bother with a check, such as there's no risk for failure or they have plenty of time and equipment or they're just that good at something, don't even have them roll at all. Just describe what happens based on their choices and declared actions.

If you want there to be a smal risk of failure or they're a little pressed for time, make the DC low. 5-10 range.

If you want there to be a large risk for failure or they are very pressed for time without the proper equipment, make the DC high. 20-25 range.

Somewhere between those two? 10-20 range.

If you don't want them to succeed at all, don't let them roll, just describe the failure.

This is all from the perspective of the story and how you want to tell that story.

Examples: If you don't want them to climb the cliff to the north, then they will never succeed. However, if you want them to eventually be able to climb it with large amounts of risk, then the DC for that cliff is 25-30. They may eventually be able to get there, but for now, at lower levels, it's practically impossible.

Meanwhile, the river to the west is easier, because you want them to travel that way for the story. So that DC may be 5-10, or even auto succeeding.

Another example: They meet a nobleman as a random NPC. You didn't have plans for this NPC, you just thought it would add some fun flavor to the session. A PC comes up with a decent idea to involve the noble in their plans, which would make their plans easier at some risk to the noble. If you decide you like the idea, they may auto succeed. If you decide you don't like the idea, they may auto fail. If you're uncertain, set a DC based on your uncertainty. If you kind of like it but aren't sure, give them a low DC. If you kind of don't like it, but aren't sure, give them a high DC. If you're in the middle, give them a medium DC.

You don't have to come up with a formula to figure out the details of every last DC check in the game. Make up DCs based on how you want the story to progress. Done well, this can still allow for player agency while you maintain the reigns to the game. Done poorly, it can run the risk of making your players feel railroaded.

You may or may not like this idea, but it is an alternate approach to all the advice given above. Use or discard as you will. :)

[obryn]

Right, so "impossible" means "every PC can do this by trying for a minute". That's a rather novel definition :smallbiggrin:
That's a tangential topic - how bounded accuracy makes the 5e skill system funny. Even if you fixed it to your satisfaction, you'd still need to improvise skill check DCs.

[huttj509]

Right, so "impossible" means "every PC can do this by trying for a minute". That's a rather novel definition :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, the numbers given by the guy you quoted don't match the DMG (page 238).

Can't fail: don't roll
Very Easy 5 (commoner will succeed, under pressure, 80% of the time)
Easy 10 (commoner will succeed, under pressure, 55% of the time)
Moderate 15 (commoner will succeed, under pressure, 30% of the time)
Hard 20 (commoner will succeed, under pressure, 5% of the time)
Very Hard 25
Nearly Impossible 30
Impossible: don't roll

[Mr.Moron]

Yeah, the numbers given by the guy you quoted don't match the DMG (page 238).

Can't fail: don't roll
Very Easy 5 (commoner will succeed, under pressure, 80% of the time)
Easy 10 (commoner will succeed, under pressure, 55% of the time)
Moderate 15 (commoner will succeed, under pressure, 30% of the time)
Hard 20 (commoner will succeed, under pressure, 5% of the time)
Very Hard 25
Nearly Impossible 30
Impossible: don't roll

This also assumes that each attempt takes only a round and has no consequences for failure. To go to the ever popular lock example, if the lock is extremely complex or part of large mechanism a single skill roll may represent an hour of work, manipulating the many many mechanisms of the device. The failure may also release a horde of angry guard constructs as it trips an alarm mechanism.

Working with security devices can time consuming work even when you do everything perfectly and as quickly as physically possible. A "20" on a check to unlock a door doesn't meant you pound your fist on it all fonzie-like and it just swings open.

[huttj509]

This also assumes that each attempt takes only a round and has no consequences for failure. To go to the ever popular lock example, if the lock is extremely complex or part of large mechanism a single skill roll may represent an hour of work, manipulating the many many mechanisms of the device. The failure may also release a horde of angry guard constructs as it trips an alarm mechanism.

Working with security devices can time consuming work even when you do everything perfectly and as quickly as physically possible. A "20" on a check to unlock a door doesn't meant you pound your fist on it all fonzie-like and it just swings open.

? If there's no consequences for failure, and the action is possible, why roll?

[Pex]

What I'll probably do is do what the game designers should have done and just make up my own formulas so I don't have to stop and think every 5 minutes to evaluate how easy or hard a skill use is. My first task is figuring out monster lore. 5 + CR was too easy as the levels progressed and 10 + CR was too hard. I'll probably go with 8 + CR using Spell DC as a precedence for using 8. PCs have not had caused yet to ask what spell an NPC cast, but they probably will eventually. I need to determine for myself if I want to care about proficiency or spell list to determine DC, advantage/disadvantage, do you even get a roll, etc. as options discussed in previous threads. These won't cover everything, but it's a start.

No matter what sometimes I will have to just wing it. I'm ok with winging it just not every 5 minutes, figuratively speaking.

[Cybren]

I don't think scaling DCs to CR is a good idea. Hit dice when you're using opposed checks that aren't covered under something already could make sense, but CR isn't really a representation of anything other than a rough estimate of combat ability, and if your approach is that metagame I don't think 5E is the system for you

[Mr.Moron]

? If there's no consequences for failure, and the action is possible, why roll?

There are a few different reasons you may want to do this:

Consider:

The players are in the ancient temple of Cluckadoro - the chicken god. Still held there today are his coffers filled with his rainbow-colored feathers, each a priceless treasure. After fighting several of Dire Roosters that patrol the temple, the players make to the coffers locked shut. The Dire Rooster fights have been tough and the creatures have proved quite stealthy, and have already ambushed the players twice - dealing massive damage with their sonic crows once combat began. They are a bit battered and understandably want to avoid too much more confrontation with the creatures.

You as the GM are aware that they've actually cleared out all the Dire Roosters in the area, and they've more or less got all the time in the world. The players are not aware of this and their perception checks have turned up no signs of the roosters, but then again they didn't the previous times the roosters attack.

Looking over the coffer the party rogue decides to try and pick the lock. As the GM you know the following:
-There is no chance of rooster ambush
-The lock is DC 15 against his +7, so possible.

There are no real consequences for failure as with no roosters about, so you could just automatically give it to them and have this exchange:


GM: "After about a half hour of effort you're able to get it open. Nothing attacks during that time".
Rogue: Cool. Lets record this and head out.
Fighter: K
Cleric: Guess there aren't any more killer roosters


What if instead it went down like this:


GM: "The lock looks pretty tough, you think it'll take you 5 minutes to attempt to get it open."
Rogue: "OK. 13"
GM: "You wrestle with it for the better part of 5 minutes, but don't quite get it. Want to attempt again?"
Rogue: "OK. 14"
GM: "You feel like you're making some progress, you were very close that time."
Fighter: "Hey. Those roosters have been attacking like every 20 minutes, do we really want to stick around here? I don't have enough HP for another fight"
Rogue: "Come on man give me a chance - these things are worth like 40,000 gold or whatever"
Fighter: "Fine"
Rogue: "ugh 12..."
GM: "Another 5 minutes pass, you're just having real trouble with 3rd step. The one latch keeps slipping and resetting the whole thing."
Cleric: "I don't have any spells, let's just bail not worth it"
Barbarian: "Dude, if we stop now we're not going to get another chance. If we wait another day that Ogre Demon is going to reach the town before us"
Rogue: "Just one more, come on!"
Fighter: "Last try"
Rogue: "16.....?"
GM: "You get in there with the tools and that latch slips again.... but you're able to catch this time and with a few more wiggles the lock pops open"
Rogue: Really?
Fighter: Awesome
Barbarian: omg really, so much money now!
Cleric: We still do got to hurry guys, these aren't going to do us any good if those roosters eat us or the demon blows up the town
Rogue: Yeah, yeah party pooper. Not like you've never hung us up before, remember when you were playing the monk?
Cleric: Fair enough.

I've had this exact scenario* play out in both of these ways with the respective approaches. Which of these two outcomes was the more engaging & rewarding outcome? What if that last check was 9 instead of 16 and the players ditched without the treasure?

For another example, imagine players are going to a high-tension political situation. They're not sure who to trust or not. You as the GM are well ware that NPC X is their steadfast ally and firmly has their back. He'd gladly do almost anything they ask. They come to him with a non-trivial request. You know he'd do so without a second thought. However if you demand roll for him like you would anyone else (even though it cannot fail), he's indistinguishable from the other NPCs. If he simply agrees with no roll needed it's obvious that he's substantively different than the others.


The mechanics and how we use them to play a meaningful role in how the game world is framed and processed, the "G" is the context for the "RP" in RPG. Blanket rules like "Never ask for a roll if you they can't fail" discard valuable bits of the possibility space. It's a decent rule of thumb and works more than it doesn't but you should always keep in mind what the rolls you're asking for say about the world.


*well not with chicken temples and dire roosters exactly, but you get the idea.


What I'll probably do is do what the game designers should have done and just make up my own formulas so I don't have to stop and think every 5 minutes to evaluate how easy or hard a skill use is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZn9ghG9nRw

[Temperjoke]

Another thing to consider, a lot of times it's not pass or fail, it's degree of success. Let's say you're chasing an enemy, who jumps a gap and continues running. If you barely make the minimum DC roll needed for a jump across a gap, then you might be off balance, needing to waste a moment steadying yourself before continuing the chase, while someone who rolls well not only made the jump, but was able to continue the chase without a single pause. Rough example, but lots of things can have varying degrees of success, especially social situations.

[Theodoxus]

I guess I'll ask what no one else has - what exactly are you having trouble with when assigning DCs? Are they knowledge checks or actions? Most checks I've found are contested, so those are easy. ASo I was curious what actual issues you were encountering.

[Pex]

I guess I'll ask what no one else has - what exactly are you having trouble with when assigning DCs? Are they knowledge checks or actions? Most checks I've found are contested, so those are easy. ASo I was curious what actual issues you were encountering.

More that I continually have to take the time to determine the DC numbers. With tables and formulas the numbers are done for me. By the time I reached the point of "Eh, he rolled high" I was sick and tired having to come up with yet another DC number. It wouldn't bother me to have a PHB opened to the skills section then turn a page or two when needed to look up a table and formulas used a lot I would eventually memorize it becomes rote to get the number.

Instead of players having to deal with the "fiddly bits" like in Pathfinder, now it's all on the DM. :smallyuk:

[Mr.Moron]

More that I continually have to take the time to determine the DC numbers. With tables and formulas the numbers are done for me. By the time I reached the point of "Eh, he rolled high" I was sick and tired having to come up with yet another DC number. It wouldn't bother me to have a PHB opened to the skills section then turn a page or two when needed to look up a table and formulas used a lot I would eventually memorize it becomes rote to get the number.

Instead of players having to deal with the "fiddly bits" like in Pathfinder, now it's all on the DM. :smallyuk:

This should take really no time. If you're taking more than 2 seconds, you're overthinking it. If the player's dice have hit the table before you know the DC that's a sign your processing could use some speeding up. Heck in my game I announce DCs before players even roll.

[obryn]

More that I continually have to take the time to determine the DC numbers. With tables and formulas the numbers are done for me. By the time I reached the point of "Eh, he rolled high" I was sick and tired having to come up with yet another DC number. It wouldn't bother me to have a PHB opened to the skills section then turn a page or two when needed to look up a table and formulas used a lot I would eventually memorize it becomes rote to get the number.

Instead of players having to deal with the "fiddly bits" like in Pathfinder, now it's all on the DM. :smallyuk:
How is looking up a table faster than a judgment call?

I am no 5e fan, but this seems like the easiest DC system possible.

[Pex]

How is looking up a table faster than a judgment call?

I am no 5e fan, but this seems like the easiest DC system possible.

Speed is irrelevant. It's about the mental fatigue.

[Cespenar]

If you're in hesitation, use DC 15.

DC 10 would be easy enough to assign, these are for your everyday challenges.

As I said before, reserve DC 20 for stunts.

For monster lore checks, same thing. DC 15 for a fair reading and physical abilities, DC 20 to presume its quirks/supernatural abilities/weaknesses, DC 25 for basically the whole Monster Manual entry. Depending on how rare the creature is, you can slide it one grade to the side, maybe. Stuff like Mind Flayers and Aboleths for example.

[obryn]

Speed is irrelevant. It's about the mental fatigue.
To each their own. With how flawed 5e's skill system is, though, fatigue probably means you're over thinking it. It's not going to magically be better with different DCs. :)

I myself get lookup fatigue the first time I crack open a rulebook mid-session for any reason, though. (I've been spoiled.) So yeah, just different strokes.

[quinron]

I ask for a roll first if I don't have a DC set ahead of time. Then I round down to the nearest multiple of 5, and I decide whether (by the book's standard) that was enough "effort" to accomplish the task. Sometimes I'll even throw in a bit of a bonus if they do well enough; for example, if someone rolls a 20+ on an Investigation check while searching a room that I didn't plan to have any treasure, I may throw them a few shekels for the effort and the good roll.

To address the big issue here, though, I don't think this edition was meant to facilitate a granular approach to monster lore. I'd recommend tying each multiple of 5 to a certain factor: maybe 5 is their general environment, 10 is their type, 15 is their methods of attack, 20 is their special traits, 25 is their damage resistances/vulnerabilities. Most of these they'll end up learning after the first fight, though, so the best way to deal with monster lore problems is to just use the same monsters multiple times rather than making every fight a new enemy.