Deciding DC for Skills Help

[blackjack50]

So I am wondering what methods I should use for deciding DC for skill challenges. I have used the 5E method to see the difficulty, but I am wondering what methods are effective for picking a SPECIFIC number (so why pick a 15 vs a 16 or a 24 vs 25).

[Sigreid]

I set my DC's by how hard I think it should be for an average person with no specialized training to do it. Very easy is they'll almost always be able to pull it off. Very hard they can pull it off, but rarely will.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If you use nothing but 10, 15, and 20, your game will go fine. And basically no one will notice.

10: 50/50 shot for "average joe" (-1 modifier), 75% chance for "skilled joe". Trivial for "expert joe".
15: 50/50 shot for "skilled joe" (+4 modifier, so either early-game proficiency and a secondary score, a primary score, or later-game proficiency), 75% chance for "expert joe". Trivial for "world-class joe".
20: 50/50 shot for "expert joe" (+9 modifier, so mid-game proficiency AND primary stat or expertise and a tertiary stat). 75% chance for "world-class joe".
25: 50/50 shot for "world-class joe" (+14 modifier, so mid-game expertise AND primary stat).
30: 25% chance for world-class joe, only "expert joe+" (ie +10 modifier) or better has a chance (without magic/bardic inspiration/etc), and that's even 5%.

Examples of each DC (from core books):

DC 10:
* Spot a simple trap mechanism: Wisdom (Perception)
* Free self or other from a net, escape a Portable Hole from within (while it's closed): Strength (no proficiency)
* Convince a friendly person to take small risks for you, an indifferent person to help if it's no risk at all, or convince a hostile person to not directly oppose, as long as that has no risks: CHA (Persuasion/Deception/Intimidation)

DC 15:
* Disable a magical trap mechanism: Intelligence (Arcana)
* Mimic handwriting: Dexterity[1] (Forgery Kit)
* Escape a bag of devouring from the inside: Strength (no proficiency)

DC 20
* Identify a poison needle trap from alterations in the lock: Intelligence (Investigation)
* Ignore the effects of alcohol: Constitution[1] (Brewer's Kit)
* Slow a 10' sphere trap by 15' per round, break manacles: Strength (no proficiency)
* Convince a friendly person to take large risks for you, an indifferent person to take small risks, or a hostile person to help if that has no risk to them.

DC 25
* Control a Sphere of Annihilation without the appropriate item. Intelligence (Arcana)

DC 30
* Move an immovable rod 10' after activation (which requires > 8000 lbs of force): Strength (no proficiency)[2]

[1] Assumed, no ability score listed.
[2] Note that this isn't possible without magic/bardic inspiration for a PC, as the best you can get without such aid is +8 (bard's Jack of All Trades with 20 STR). It's possible with bardic inspiration relatively easier--you can do it with +5 STR (rolling a 20 and 5 or better on the BI die) or a level 20 barbarian at +7 STR (rolling a 20 and a 3 or better on the BI dice). Magic items that boost STR are also nice.

[Dienekes]

What’s the level they’re at?

Level 1-3 the characters that focus on the skill have a +5 bonus
Level 4 they have a +6
Level 5 they have a +7
Level 8 they have a +8
Level 9 they have a +9
Level 13 they have a +10
Level 17 they have a +11

Take that number, are the players supposed to just succeed? Add +0.
Is it supposed to be easy for them? Add +4.
Are they supposed to stop and think about it for a second? Add +8.
Literal 50/50? Add +10.
This is a potential option, but the sub-optimal solution. The players have a hard chance of success. Add +15.
Is this supposed to be pretty much impossible? +19.

The rest is just the DM describing the situation to make sense for the level of the players. At level one they climb a difficult cliff. At level 20 they better be climbing a fully smooth magically extending castle guarded by illusory changing footholds.

[Tanarii]

DC 19 thru 25 are special case DCs to choose to use. They're cases where someone can make a non-proficient check on an outside chance if they roll a 20, if they have an -1 thru +5 ability mod respectively.

Similarly you can think about other common total break points when adjusting target DCs: -1 dump Str, +2 starting ability 14 or level 1 proficiency, +4 14 & proficiency (usually changing to +6 total in Tier 2). Tweak your DC for that from your base 50% (DC 10) default go-to DC choice.

Btw I highly recommend discarding the 10/15/20 DCs the PHB/DMG recommend for Easy/Medium/Hard, and instead use 5/10/15. Either that, or only ever call for ability checks from the best modifier in the party, One Check To Rule Them All checks. If you regularly set you "middle" value as 15, it becomes exceedingly hard for characters to pass checks that aren't their best score + modifier, and they will quickly become averse to taking actions that require checks.

[Contrast]

If you use nothing but 10, 15, and 20, your game will go fine. And basically no one will notice.

10: 50/50 shot for "average joe" (-1 modifier), 75% chance for "skilled joe". Trivial for "expert joe".

This is a personal bugbear of mine but I strongly advocate for making use of DC5.

Many times when I've been playing the DM has seemed almost shocked that someone failed a check they described as being easy but its because DC10 is actually a struggle for a lot of PCs to hit throughout their entire adventuring career. Even at level 20, a lot of PCs will still be rocking a +1 to -1 to most skills. A half chance of suceeding seems a very odd point to choose as the starting point for rolling and if you default to DC10 as the easiest possible check its very easy to accidentally turn the PCs into bumbling idiots.

My experience is that a lot of DMs go from autopass to DC10 which makes things very difficult to gauge as a player. If I say I'm going to vault over this wall, am I going to succeed 100% of the time or are you going to give me a DC10 Acrobatics check which I have a half chance of failing? DC5 helps smooth the transition between autopass suddenly leaping to 50% failure rate.

At the very least, be conscious of the failure chance when describing the difficulty of the task. It shouldn't seem like a player is an idiot for being incapable of doing something 50% of people wouldn't have been able to do.

[quindraco]

Yeah, that's worth pointing out: Monster Manual p355 has the stats for a commoner. They have +0 to everything. That means they'll succeed on a DC10 check 55% of the time and a DC 5 check 80% of the time. Setting DCs based on them will help ensure consistency, since most people on the planet are, on average, a commoner - that's why they're called that, cos they're so common.

[DwarfFighter]

What’s the level they’re at?

Level 1-3 the characters that focus on the skill have a +5 bonus
Level 4 they have a +6
Level 5 they have a +7
Level 8 they have a +8
Level 9 they have a +9
Level 13 they have a +10
Level 17 they have a +11

Take that number, are the players supposed to just succeed? Add +0.
Is it supposed to be easy for them? Add +4.
Are they supposed to stop and think about it for a second? Add +8.
Literal 50/50? Add +10.
This is a potential option, but the sub-optimal solution. The players have a hard chance of success. Add +15.
Is this supposed to be pretty much impossible? +19.

The rest is just the DM describing the situation to make sense for the level of the players. At level one they climb a difficult cliff. At level 20 they better be climbing a fully smooth magically extending castle guarded by illusory changing footholds.

This is bad advice! Don't adjust the DC based on the PCs level!

Doing this makes DCs moving goal posts and completely negates the value of advancing your skills with both commonly available ability score increases and proficiency improvements. Other modifiers not-with-standing, this breaks the game down to only caring about the dice roll and subverts the value of character advancement: A level one character attempting a task that requires a d20 roll of 11 to succeed will find that the same task requires just about the same roll at level 20!

And that's actually the just bad news. This is terrible news for non-proficient characters! As they advance in levels, their chance to perform an action actually degrades!

Push open a stuck door is a "just succeed" Strength (Athletics) check with DC 5 at level 1 or a DC 6 at level 4. The Strength 8 Wizard needs to roll a 6 to succeed at level 1, or roll a 7 to succeed at level 4. Same task, worse chance.

Seriously: Don't do this!

-DF

[Unoriginal]

Yeah, that's worth pointing out: Monster Manual p355 has the stats for a commoner. They have +0 to everything. That means they'll succeed on a DC10 check 55% of the time and a DC 5 check 80% of the time. Setting DCs based on them will help ensure consistency, since most people on the planet are, on average, a commoner - that's why they're called that, cos they're so common.

Worth noting that not all Commoners have +0 to everything.

For example, one of the minor character in Waterdeep: Dragon Heist is represented by a Commoner statblock with +2 to WIS (Insight) checks and +6 to CHA (Performance) ones.


This is bad advice! Don't adjust the DC based on the PCs level!

Indeed. Punishing people for getting better at a task is just frustrating at best.

[DwarfFighter]

So I am wondering what methods I should use for deciding DC for skill challenges. I have used the 5E method to see the difficulty, but I am wondering what methods are effective for picking a SPECIFIC number (so why pick a 15 vs a 16 or a 24 vs 25).

Good advice I picked up is to purposefully select lower DCs for your tasks. Skill advancement for proficient characters in 5e is fairly narrow, the benefit being that low-level characters have a chance at difficult tasks and high-level characters can still be challenged by easy tasks.

For setting DCs, I generally use higher DCs for planned tasks. This is because I can spend some time considering pros and cons and are better prepared for how to deal with success/fail outcomes and can make these elaborate and fit the scenario. Here I also have time to consider the skills and ability scores of characters setting traps or building locks or concealing things and so on. This is really the only time I will end up with fine-tuned DCs like 15 vs. 16.

For ad hoc challenge DCs I usually pick 5, 10 or 15.

Then I will maybe add 2 if the challenge is "hardened" ("The door is reinforced with iron bands!", or "The guard is fearful of reprisals from his commander!") or subtract 2 if the challenge is "weakened" ("The door and the frame are rotted wood!", or "The guard is eager to end his shift!").

I then consider if there are any conditions that should grant advantage ("Visitors often come calling after dark.") or disadvantage ("There is a general alert due to recent break-ins."). The PCs then bring their equipment and abilities into the mix for advantage/disadvantage stuff.

Two things I try to remember but often forget is

a) decide if the check should auto-succeed ("The guard barely glances at you as you pass.") or auto-fail ("You need a special key to open this door!")
b) decide before the roll what happens if the check is failed!

Deciding what happens if the characters fail the test is easily forgotten since success only requires continuing on autopilot: The players already said what they wanted to achieve before you asked them to roll. Failure often comes as a surprise to me as the GM - my players are usually so good at what they do!

I try to stick with the habit of stating the consequence when asking for a roll: "Make a Dexterity (Thieves Tools) check to pick the lock. If you fail, you can try again once more only." If it doesn't give away the plot, stating the consequence for failure lets the players know what's at stake and preps you for dealing with it too.

-DF

[LtPowers]

Push open a stuck door is a "just succeed" Strength (Athletics) check with DC 5 at level 1 or a DC 6 at level 4. The Strength 8 Wizard needs to roll a 6 to succeed at level 1, or roll a 7 to succeed at level 4. Same task, worse chance.

Seriously: Don't do this!

Isn't the assumption here that the challenges a Tier 2 party faces are generally tougher than the challenges faced by a Tier 1 party?

What would be the point of tossing in a bunch of DC 10 obstacles in a Tier 3 dungeon?


Powers &8^]

[stoutstien]

Isn't the assumption here that the challenges a Tier 2 party faces are generally tougher than the challenges faced by a Tier 1 party?

What would be the point of tossing in a bunch of DC 10 obstacles in a Tier 3 dungeon?


Powers &8^]

Not really. This didn't work well in pathfinder either. The point is that ability checks scale very slowly in 5e with only one guaranteed modifier that applies to it which is the relevant ability score. You don't even assume proficiency bonus because it's a bonus that isn't always applicable. You can love or hate this part of the design but that's just the way it is. There's no real rhyme of reason which checks are flat ability checks versus ability checks that you're allowed to add a proficiency bonus because a skill can apply to it.

So when you talk about DC-10 checks you need to realize that even with a 20(+5) in the ability score governing that check they will have a 80% chance to pass one but only a 64% chance to pass two and It's practically a coin flip if they can pass three. When you start tossing higher DC's at parties in any quantity you're guaranteeing failure or making hyper specialization mandatory to overcome obstacles that shouldn't have been there in the first place. So not only does it feels extremely bad for the players because they start running into heart of the climb walls just because they leveled up or entered a high level play area the math is set up to be nearly impossible for them to rely on checks so they will avoid them at all cost and rightfully so.

I understand why they settled on nice even increments with the DC chart but they are actually about +2 to high based on their description. I have my theories that the people who set the DC chart didn't actually have the full picture of the values of players would be using when they made it.

[Sigreid]

Isn't the assumption here that the challenges a Tier 2 party faces are generally tougher than the challenges faced by a Tier 1 party?

What would be the point of tossing in a bunch of DC 10 obstacles in a Tier 3 dungeon?


Powers &8^]

I believe part of what the design goals were was to reduce/eliminate the skill investment race that was prevalent in 3e that quickly made nearly anything impossible unless you were specialized in that skill. I think in 3e they originally thought people would spread their points around, but that's not the way players work. Players look for an edge and that usually means over specializing.

[Cybren]

In GURPS Action, a supplement for using that very expansive game to run blockbuster action movie style campaigns, there's a mechanic called B.A.D.: "Basic Abstract Difficulty". The premise is that it abstracts out all the otherwise situational modifiers and contexts that might apply skill penalties on your rolls, since the normal meticulous nature of GURPS modifiers isn't really appropriate to a fast paced seat of your pants style action movie game. As the threats get more dire and the BAD increases and all your skills get a higher penalty.

I've had in my head for years now some way of adapting that to 5e for creating on the fly DCs for skills. The DCs for "Easy/medium/hard" are the baseline, but, say, every level you descend in the the dungeon the Dungeon Heat modifier increases so all the DCs go up by one. Or, as the Emperor of Darkness' forces begin to see you as a bigger threat, your Party Heat increases, etc. I just haven't had the willpower or dopamine to push through executive dysfunction in figuring it all out.

[Dienekes]

This is bad advice! Don't adjust the DC based on the PCs level!

Doing this makes DCs moving goal posts and completely negates the value of advancing your skills with both commonly available ability score increases and proficiency improvements. Other modifiers not-with-standing, this breaks the game down to only caring about the dice roll and subverts the value of character advancement: A level one character attempting a task that requires a d20 roll of 11 to succeed will find that the same task requires just about the same roll at level 20!

Read last paragraph again.

D&D’s skill checks are already pretty much an illusion requiring a lot of DM fiat to make it work. Bending a metal bar, is that Hard? Very Hard? Impossible? Hell if I know. Pick what difficulty you guess it would be.

The trick is actually having the situation escalate. If you needed a roll of 11 to succeed at something level 1, why are you throwing that same thing at them at level 20? It should become just about an auto-succeed at that level. Advance the threat at higher levels. And keep it lower at early levels.

Why would you throw Impossible threats at level 1s? And why would you throw Easy threats at level 20s?

[Cybren]

Read last paragraph again.

D&D’s skill checks are already pretty much an illusion requiring a lot of DM fiat to make it work. Bending a metal bar, is that Hard? Very Hard? Impossible? Hell if I know. Pick what difficulty you guess it would be.

The trick is actually having the situation escalate. If you needed a roll of 11 to succeed at something level 1, why are you throwing that same thing at them at level 20? It should become just about an auto-succeed at that level. Advance the threat at higher levels.

I have some bad news for you. The entire game is an illusion requiring a lot of DM fiat to make it work.

Well what are the dimensions of the bar? Which metal is it made of? Are there any structural flaws or fatigue in it? I feel like this example illustrates exactly why the designers were so abstract in the ability check system since most game worlds probably do not have tightly regulated international standards for determining the composition and design of metal bars.

[Unoriginal]

Isn't the assumption here that the challenges a Tier 2 party faces are generally tougher than the challenges faced by a Tier 1 party?

What would be the point of tossing in a bunch of DC 10 obstacles in a Tier 3 dungeon?


Powers &8^]

A challenge/dungeon should not suddenly becomr harder just because the PCs are of higher level. PCs can handle tougher challenges, yes, but that means they're doing more difficult stuff, not that the difficulty of the same tasks increase.

If the PCs go to the Fortress of Bejeweled Anguish at lvl 3 and struggle with the DC 15 STR check to lift the door, it should not become a DC 20 if they come back at lvl 10 just because the PCs have become more powerful. There could be in-universe reasons for the change, sure, but if it's the same door it's the same door.

Same things with monsters. A hobgoblin can train to become tougher if they survive their first encounter with the PCs, but the generic hobgoblin mook shouldn't be stronger if fighting lvl 10 PCs than if fighting lvl 3 ones just because the DM think the challenge must remain the same.

The reasons why there would be DC 10 challenges in a tier 3 dungeons are:

1) Watsonian reason: challenges didn't exist just for the PCs, there are plenty of people whom such a challenge would slow down, like other wannabe-heroes earlier in their career biting more than they can chew.

2) Watsonian reason: while the defenders of a tier 3 dungeons will generally try to make the security measures as hard to cross as possible, there is plenty of reasons for them to not be successful. Reasons such as: intentional sabotage by an enemy, the challenge-maker making subpar work this time or just not being skilled enough in general (ex: a trap made by an apprentice), an accident or unforseen even making the challenge easier, someone else having already beaten it/attempted to best it and having left clues to help the next person, or simply the challenge not being something made with intent (ex: an explosion having destroyed the ladder, the PCs now have to climb).

3) Doylist reason: Tier 3 PCs are exceptional adventurers, and it's nice to make them feel this way by having some challenges at least one of them can do effortlessly. Same reason why people shoot at Superman with regular guns or why Hawkgirl gets to fight magic-based mooks.

[Dienekes]

I have some bad news for you. The entire game is an illusion requiring a lot of DM fiat to make it work.

Well what are the dimensions of the bar? Which metal is it made of? Are there any structural flaws or fatigue in it? I feel like this example illustrates exactly why the designers were so abstract in the ability check system since most game worlds probably do not have tightly regulated international standards for determining the composition and design of metal bars.

I am very much aware. But we're talking about skill checks.

Which is why I find it much easier to base the DC of tasks on what the players can actually do based on their dice rolls rather than trying to match what I think could maybe be in whatever category Easy, Hard, or Impossible, or whatever.

[Unoriginal]

I am very much aware. But we're talking about skill checks.

Which is why I find it much easier to base the DC of tasks on what the players can actually do based on their dice rolls rather than trying to match what I think could maybe be in whatever category Easy, Hard, or Impossible, or whatever.

If the PCs try to just walk into Mordor at lvl 1, should the DM only give them ability checks they can accomplish?

My answer to that is a big "no". Tasks shouldn't be easier when attempted by the less competent people.

[stoutstien]

I am very much aware. But we're talking about skill checks.

Which is why I find it much easier to base the DC of tasks on what the players can actually do based on their dice rolls rather than trying to match what I think could maybe be in whatever category Easy, Hard, or Impossible, or whatever.

Because skill checks don't actually exist in 5e. They are only ability checks that you might be able to apply proficiency based on a related skill. Thinking in terms of skills is the reason why a lot of DMs set DC to high like your OP. The values you are talking about are setting up 80% of the players for failure even with the DC 10.

[Unoriginal]

Because skill checks don't actually exist in 5e. They are only ability checks that you might be able to apply proficiency based on a related skill. Thinking in terms of skills is the reason why a lot of DMs set DC to high like your OP. The values you are talking about are setting up 80% of the players for failure even with the DC 10.

Also true. Even when there's several ways to get the proficiency mod on the roll.

[Composer99]

If I have to come up with a DC on the fly, I usually just do DC 10. If I think it could be a little tougher or easier, I'll roll 1d6-3 and add/subtract the result to/from DC 10.

Actually, if you want random DCs hovering around a given difficulty metric (easy, moderate, etc.), that's a good way to get them.

Apropos of scaling DCs, the general idea of 5th edition is that DCs do not scale natively. If it's DC 15 to pick a normal lock at 1st level, it's DC 15 to pick the same lock at 20th. However, player characters are likely seeking out greater challenges as they gain levels, which indirectly results in DC scaling.

[Dienekes]

If the PCs try to just walk into Mordor at lvl 1, should the DM only give them ability checks they can accomplish?

My answer to that is a big "no". Tasks shouldn't be easier when attempted by the less competent people.

If the DM sent the players into Mordor at level 1 they are drastically missing the whole scale of threat I brought up.

[Unoriginal]

If the DM sent the players into Mordor at level 1 they are drastically missing the whole scale of threat I brought up.

A DM does not "send" PCs anywhere. It's up to the players to decide.

Sometime the two spunky Rogues will just decide to try and rob the magical academy. And sometime the BBEG does show up at the first town's festival to attack.

[Dienekes]

A DM does not "send" PCs anywhere. It's up to the players to decide.

Sometime the two spunky Rogues will just decide to try and rob the magical academy.

Be honest here. How many times have your players done the truly impossible assault? Usually people I actually play with get them memo pretty quick when they’re running straight toward the suicide situation.

Now I’m not saying the players don’t take a completely reasonable situation or even a slightly difficult one and make it far more dangerous and complex than it had any right to be. They do that all the time. But when they hear “hey this is Castle Greyscole-Death Star-Mount Doom they usually get the picture this is not for level 1.

[Keltest]

Personally, i use 10, 15, 18, 20, 25, 30, and Impossible as my general go-to DCs.

10 is anybody physically capable has at least a chance. Like jumping across a creek without falling in. Maybe the wizard wont quite make it, but it will take some bad luck for failure.

15 is generally the same, but requiring actual skill to be able to reliably do it. The wizard will go "i dont think i can do this without help" on jumping that gap, but the fighter who is proficient will still do it more often than not.

18 is "i want this to be uncertain to people with training, and require extreme luck otherwise." Pretty self explanatory.

20 is like that, but without the chance for luck. If you arent trained, you basically arent ever doing this.

25 and 30 are both some flavor of "you need help to be able to pull off reliably", such as magic or an inspiration, and anything that i would put higher than 30 i dont even roll for, because its just not possible no matter how good you are. Something like lifting a wooden bar from behind a door would be an Impossible because lockpicking just wont ever deal with that.

[DwarfFighter]

Read last paragraph again.

I'd rather not, since that implies that the entire world morphs as the characters advance in level, which only works while the PCs are moving ever forward into unexplored areas.



D&D’s skill checks are already pretty much an illusion requiring a lot of DM fiat to make it work. Bending a metal bar, is that Hard? Very Hard? Impossible? Hell if I know. Pick what difficulty you guess it would be.


That's hardly a defense for your system. Your flaw that you don't have consistency. If you set DC 20 for bending a metal bar at level 1, then bending an identical metal bar at level 20 should have the same DC, not 26.



The trick is actually having the situation escalate. If you needed a roll of 11 to succeed at something level 1, why are you throwing that same thing at them at level 20? It should become just about an auto-succeed at that level. Advance the threat at higher levels. And keep it lower at early levels.

Why would you throw Impossible threats at level 1s? And why would you throw Easy threats at level 20s?

While I would certainly scale threats against the PCs against their level, I wouldn't scale all manner of tasks that deserve a DC. Climbing a 10 ft. garden wall? Same DC at level 1 and 20. Jumping across a wide ditch? Same DC at level 1 and 20. Convincing a guard to let you pass? Same DC at level 1 and 20. Recognizing a substance as Owlbear poop? Same DC at level 1 and 20.

Why bother with easy stuff at higher levels? Well, some players find it gratifying that they can auto-succeed on a task that others need to roll for. And with the narrow skill and ability advancement scheme of 5e, a simple DC 10 task represent an actual, albeit improbable, risk for even proficient characters for quite a few levels, and will remain an actual risk for non-proficient characters through-out their careers.

Why bother with impossible stuff at level 1? If a player wants for his character to do something that is impossible, like eating an Iron Golem, or recalling the contents of a book he's never read, I don't allow a roll.

-DF

[DwarfFighter]

In GURPS Action, a supplement for using that very expansive game to run blockbuster action movie style campaigns, there's a mechanic called B.A.D.: "Basic Abstract Difficulty".

There are indeed a number of systems out there that don't care about difficulty degrees beyond Auto-success, Roll to succeed, or No chance. Here's one great example:

http://www.onesevendesign.com/laserfeelings/

-DF

[Justin Sane]

Two things I try to remember but often forget is

a) decide if the check should auto-succeed ("The guard barely glances at you as you pass.") or auto-fail ("You need a special key to open this door!")
b) decide before the roll what happens if the check is failed!

Deciding what happens if the characters fail the test is easily forgotten since success only requires continuing on autopilot: The players already said what they wanted to achieve before you asked them to roll. Failure often comes as a surprise to me as the GM - my players are usually so good at what they do!

I try to stick with the habit of stating the consequence when asking for a roll: "Make a Dexterity (Thieves Tools) check to pick the lock. If you fail, you can try again once more only." If it doesn't give away the plot, stating the consequence for failure lets the players know what's at stake and preps you for dealing with it too.

-DFTo expand a bit on b) here: if you cannot think up an interesting consequence if the roll fails, it's better to just allow the roll to succeed automatically anyway. "You've failed to climb that tree, so you're going to have to keep rolling until the dice feel pity on you" is not fun.

[Cybren]

There are indeed a number of systems out there that don't care about difficulty degrees beyond Auto-success, Roll to succeed, or No chance. Here's one great example:

http://www.onesevendesign.com/laserfeelings/

-DF
I don't know how this is at all relevant to what I wrote but I am familiar with lasers and feelings in specific and that kind of task resolution in general

[Man_Over_Game]

So I am wondering what methods I should use for deciding DC for skill challenges. I have used the 5E method to see the difficulty, but I am wondering what methods are effective for picking a SPECIFIC number (so why pick a 15 vs a 16 or a 24 vs 25).

To answer your question directly, there's no reason to. It adds more load onto the DM than is necessary.

The thing is, you already have a fluctuating number coming from the PC that represents their circumstantial prowess in performing that ability check. Moving the extra load for calculating circumstance onto the DM (even if we're talking environmental circumstance instead of background/experiences of the player) isn't beneficial when you're already adding a broad decision based on the environment (using a 15 instead of a 20), and RNG is already included into the final result.

The Player doesn't care, the game doesn't care, and the added work might not even matter if players don't check against it, if a spell is used on it, or if RNG is just weird. Choosing the perfectly-optimal 23 instead of a generic 25 just adds more work that benefits nothing.

So the method is don't.

[DwarfFighter]

To expand a bit on b) here: if you cannot think up an interesting consequence if the roll fails, it's better to just allow the roll to succeed automatically anyway. "You've failed to climb that tree, so you're going to have to keep rolling until the dice feel pity on you" is not fun.

Another option I like is "succeeding at a cost", which allows you to progress even if the roll fails but comes with a setback:

You climb the wall, but your rope is stuck so you will need to abandon it.
The guard lets you pass after you slip him 5 silver.
You find the book detailing the story of the big bad, but it takes you three days at the library instead of one.

-DF

[Kurt Kurageous]

Isn't the assumption here that the challenges a Tier 2 party faces are generally tougher than the challenges faced by a Tier 1 party?

What would be the point of tossing in a bunch of DC 10 obstacles in a Tier 3 dungeon?
Powers &8^]

It's in the game, that's why. You throw enough of them at a tier 3, fails gonna happen. Not often, not reliably, but gonna happen.

The point of DC10 at 3rd tier is not good, however. Players rolling nuisance checks even just once each round detracts from the flow of narrative and slows down play immensely. I've tried it. It sucks.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's in the game, that's why. You throw enough of them at a tier 3, fails gonna happen. Not often, not reliably, but gonna happen.

The point of DC10 at 3rd tier is not good, however. Players rolling nuisance checks even just once each round detracts from the flow of narrative and slows down play immensely. I've tried it. It sucks.

I'll note that DC 10 is only a nuisance check if it's something they've put effort into. If the STR 8, no Athletics proficiency wizard has to make a DC 10 Strength (Athletics) check, that's not a nuisance, no matter what the level is. If the STR 20, proficiency +4 barbarian has to make a DC 10 Strength (Athletics) check, that's a nuisance.

I dislike when DMs allow a single success by a single person to overcome the challenge entirely, especially when they can just point the specialist at it. That kind of thing often shouldn't be rolled as a check at all. Just narrate how the barbarian lifts the gate. Yes, that means making people do things they're not good at. Have the NPCs try to talk to the non-face. Make the not-strong person have to cling to some ropes. Make the not-dextrous person have to try to sneak and the not-smart person have to recall information. Etc.

[XmonkTad]

*snip*
Examples of each DC (from core books):
*snip*

Thank you so much for compiling these. These examples makes the guidance the DMG gives much clearer.


To expand a bit on b) here: if you cannot think up an interesting consequence if the roll fails, it's better to just allow the roll to succeed automatically anyway. "You've failed to climb that tree, so you're going to have to keep rolling until the dice feel pity on you" is not fun.

Agreed. I think it's crucial to reiterate that skill checks should serve a purpose and have an interesting consequence for failure. "Nothing Happens, roll again" had better be increasing the tension rather than just waiting for an arbitrary number.

[Sorinth]

To expand a bit on b) here: if you cannot think up an interesting consequence if the roll fails, it's better to just allow the roll to succeed automatically anyway. "You've failed to climb that tree, so you're going to have to keep rolling until the dice feel pity on you" is not fun.

One thing to point out is that failure can mean expending resources. Perhaps after one failure someone casts Enchance Ability so that they can be sure to get it. For the most part a bad roll should simply mean taking longer to complete the task. So a bad roll while trying to pick a lock and you tell the player they are struggling with the lock but if they spend 10min working on it they could get it unlocked. Whether time is important or not is going to vary but there's also the fact that narratively it can be fun to describe the ease at which a high skilled individual accomplishes a task. By having them roll, it gives the DM the chance to play up the difficulty of the task and how amazing the character handled it. This should make the player feel cool about rolling well and picking certain skills/abilities.

[DwarfFighter]

I dislike when DMs allow a single success by a single person to overcome the challenge entirely, especially when they can just point the specialist at it.

I agree. Sure, it's enough that one guy picks the lock, but everyone needs to roll when the party jumps across the ravine! Some tasks are door-openers for the entire party, others need to be overcome individually.

Also, I hate it when I get trapped into looking at just the dice roll and gauging the success from the number on the polyhedron. For example, the players decide to shift a Boulder to check what's underneath. Without thinking I let the roll. Sure enough the Wizard rolls a nat 20 and the Barbarian rolls a 14. Cheers all around for the Mighty Wizard that somehow bested the Barbarian!

Except the Wizard's total is 19 and the Barbarian's total is 24. Awarding the win to the Wizard because of a high roll is objectively misguided!

Too often I let myself get carried away by a seductive nat 20 :(

-DF

[blackjack50]

Good advice I picked up is to purposefully select lower DCs for your tasks. Skill advancement for proficient characters in 5e is fairly narrow, the benefit being that low-level characters have a chance at difficult tasks and high-level characters can still be challenged by easy tasks.

For setting DCs, I generally use higher DCs for planned tasks. This is because I can spend some time considering pros and cons and are better prepared for how to deal with success/fail outcomes and can make these elaborate and fit the scenario. Here I also have time to consider the skills and ability scores of characters setting traps or building locks or concealing things and so on. This is really the only time I will end up with fine-tuned DCs like 15 vs. 16.

For ad hoc challenge DCs I usually pick 5, 10 or 15.

Then I will maybe add 2 if the challenge is "hardened" ("The door is reinforced with iron bands!", or "The guard is fearful of reprisals from his commander!") or subtract 2 if the challenge is "weakened" ("The door and the frame are rotted wood!", or "The guard is eager to end his shift!").

I then consider if there are any conditions that should grant advantage ("Visitors often come calling after dark.") or disadvantage ("There is a general alert due to recent break-ins."). The PCs then bring their equipment and abilities into the mix for advantage/disadvantage stuff.

Two things I try to remember but often forget is

a) decide if the check should auto-succeed ("The guard barely glances at you as you pass.") or auto-fail ("You need a special key to open this door!")
b) decide before the roll what happens if the check is failed!

Deciding what happens if the characters fail the test is easily forgotten since success only requires continuing on autopilot: The players already said what they wanted to achieve before you asked them to roll. Failure often comes as a surprise to me as the GM - my players are usually so good at what they do!

I try to stick with the habit of stating the consequence when asking for a roll: "Make a Dexterity (Thieves Tools) check to pick the lock. If you fail, you can try again once more only." If it doesn't give away the plot, stating the consequence for failure lets the players know what's at stake and preps you for dealing with it too.

-DF

I like this. Especially about the + or minus.

[blackjack50]

So basically if I go with the 5/10/15 it works out a lot better mathematically. It also helps to consider what a +1 to +4 does (increase difficulty to a max of 20%. So kicking open a door? DC5 id say. A heavy wooden door? DC10. Locked? DC 12. Reinforced by someone trying to bar it? DC14. Metal? DC15 or more.

Does this make sense to y’all? I’m looking at it like a commoner stat block (that really helped a lot).

[x3n0n]

So basically if I go with the 5/10/15 it works out a lot better mathematically. It also helps to consider what a +1 to +4 does (increase difficulty to a max of 20%. So kicking open a door? DC5 id say. A heavy wooden door? DC10. Locked? DC 12. Reinforced by someone trying to bar it? DC14. Metal? DC15 or more.

Does this make sense to y’all? I’m looking at it like a commoner stat block (that really helped a lot).

Just be aware that your DC 15 will still get passed 25% of the time with a -1 modifier, and "only" 50% with a +4 modifier.
If those numbers sound right to you, then yes, it's right. :)

[DwarfFighter]

Does this make sense to y’all? I’m looking at it like a commoner stat block (that really helped a lot).

You should try it out and see if you like the flow of it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating :)

-DF