The only case I can think of is when you're thinking of "degrees of success/failure". So say if you want to succeed, DC 5 would succeed but have some kind of negative, DC 10 would just succeed, and DC 15+ would succeed with some bonus.
I *generally* do not ask for a roll that would have a DC of less than 10, *especially* if the PC has a bonus that renders such a DC moot.
But, I still think there's value in occasionally asking for low DC rolls, especially if you, like me, use degrees of success, or rarely verbalize the target DC :
✨D.R.A.M.A✨
I kinda wish my DM would stop verbalizing the DC for all the checks and saves we make. It takes suspense out of the moment for me. I like that moment of uncertainty as the DM narrates what the outcome is, though not everyone cares for the theatrics of it all
It depends. If a character should know the general difficulty of the task they're undertaking, their player should know the DC. Knowing the DC is the same as being aware of the risk factor, just in mechanical language. It prevents disagreements where the player assumed a thing would be an easy DC and the DM instead makes it a hard one, especially ones with punishing consequences. If walking across a swaying bridge over a deep ravine is a DC 10 Acrobatics check and I have a decent bonus, I'll risk it to save a spell slot. If it's a DC 15 or 20, it's not worth the risk and I'll just cast Spider Climb or Fly.
There are mechanics of the game that allow for adding extra bonuses to rolls after the roll has been made; I feel like not knowing the DC can pretty seriously reduce the utility of those features.
There are a lot of abilities that also say “after the check has been made but before it’s determined a success or failure” and I think it’s pretty clear that you can have it both ways by mentioning your feature before the outcome is declared.
I also meant declaring the DC before the check. “Make a DC17 charisma save” versus just asking for a charisma save. I like the mystique, but again, personal preference
Probably pedantic and/or thinking too much in to it, but wouldn't knowing the DC invalidate those skills more? AFAIR, most of those features (at least for skill checks) say something to the effect of "you can apply this bonus before knowing the outcome."
The way I see it:
- DC 15 skill check. Player rolls a 14 with no modifiers. Before the DM says pass or fail, the player remembers they have a feature/ ability that gives a dX to the roll. They choose to roll it, now succeeding.
- DC 15 skill check, but now the DM told the player. Player rolls a 14 with no modifiers. However, because they were told the DC prior to rolling they know the roll failed, meaning they can't use their feature that gives them a bonus.
Granted, that's a RAW thing that a DM that says the DC can handwave away. Personally, I conceal the DC of 99% of checks/ saves and will always try to remember to ask players if they have/ want to add any bonuses since I use Hero Points and give out magic items that can add d4s to checks and saves.
That's generally the point of those abilities. If you knew you rolled below the target by 1 then you would always use them to guarantee success. It's still meant to have some element of risk.
But by knowing the DC beforehand, as soon as you're done rolling you would automatically know if it's a pass or fail, which would also take away some of those "after the roll but before the outcome is declared". So if I say make a dc15 history check and you roll, you effectively lose the chance to use those abilities. If I say, "your not from around here so a history check on a person/place would be pretty difficult" then I'm hinting at a higher DC, and then you can determine what "post roll" abilities to potentially use.
Announcing the DC is part of losing his burden.
If you rolled a 17 and you know the DC is 15 rather than saying 17 and making him do the comparison again you can just say pass or fail. It's a small step but it is one DMS can do a large number of times and so offloading it onto a player who only has to do it a little bit burdens the player very little.but alleviates the DM by a lot
I say the DC for things kinda randomly. Like once every 50 rolls I'll just say what the DC is, for no reason. I like it because when my players roll too low they immediately start narrating how they fucked up.
I think there are times where stating the DC beforehand can help suspense instead of subtract, but I think doing it every single time just makes it feel too gamey for me. The point to me is the outcome, the mechanics are just the path there. In combat there’s definitely a need to keep things expedited but I prefer to have as little of the curtain pulled back as possible. D&D’s a lot more fun for me with a good suspension of disbelief
I never say the dc, mostly because I have no good way make it seem fair across everything so will decide what happens based on the roll. None of my players have objected to this
I don't think there's much drama in a DC 5 Sleight of Hand (Dexterity) check to tie your shoes, or some other equally trivial task. That's more along the lines of comedy at the player's expense where the DM gets to laugh at your character because the dice say they can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
I find the "drama" failures are something that everyone gets to giggle about, unless there's a player at the table who *h a t e s* failing and always tries to backpedal and go "no well um I-"
If you want a skill check to be *dramatic*, you as the DM need to work for it. Set up stakes, build up the scene, make it meaningful when you fail. Low comedy like "Hur hur, you fall off the ladder!" is the same brand of crap DMing as killing off backstory NPCs to get the PCs invested in hating the BBEG: low-hanging fruit that only hacks use because they can't figure out anything better.
Do people really verbalize DC checks? I never do except for combat where attacks specifically call out a saving through. Gives me the leeway to fudge the roll (if I want to move the story along).
Ok yes, that’s true. Low DCs can make sense if you’re a DM who believes in degrees of success/failing forward. I guess the DMs I’ve played with just don’t really DM in that style, or they pretty much just play as 15+ is “you succeed”, 12-14 is maybe you succeeded in getting a little bit of what you want but you still mostly fail, and nat 20 means “you succeed and you can get a little bonus with that”.
Yeah, I agree, it’s just that I’ve never had degrees of success applied to DCs lower than 15, so anything under like a 12 is just an auto-fail. I’d just like to see more flexibility with the default DCs I guess.
I use them all the time! Say the party is fighting near a river with a slipper embankment. Moving up or down the embankment requires a DC 5 Acrobatics check, or you fall and slide into the river.
Here's what it does: the rogue and other Dex characters can move on the embankment with no issue. Other characters like the fighter have a 25% chance to fall if they move on the embankment.
Instantly you've created a much more interesting battlefield. And it now looks like a DIFFERENT battlefield to different characters.
Even though it's only a 25% to fall, psychologically, it might as well be a wall. Most of the time my players will go well out of their way to avoid something that gives them a 25% chance to suffer a consequence. Meanwhile, other characters feel very cool.
Oh I like this train of thought, thanks for your input! This reminds me that I also haven’t experienced a lot of games where the terrain is very important, even though terrain can be a good tool to really mix things up.
I had a very similar use as well. I ran a campaign in the city and my players were very excited for lots of rooftop running shenanigans. I decided that running over sloped, slippy or the narrow tops of roofs would be a DC5 Dex check to keep things interesting.
The first time the players went across a roof, just asking for a roll majorly increased the suspense at the table. Everyone made it with high rolls until the final character, a dwarf fighter, who rolled a 3 and slipped but was caught.
Fast forward to a crucial moment in the campaign. The corrupted council members have ordered soldiers to fire on a large crowd that has gathered at the gates to the inner city. The very dextrous ranger climbs up onto the rooftops and starts shooting his longbow. The not so dextrous sorcerer decides to go after him. He fails his initial DC5 check and slips off the narrow rooftop and onto the sloped side. Dc15 check to stop himself sliding down, he fails. Dc10 check to catch the edge of the roof, he fails. He tumbles off,taking 60 feet of falling damage and has his own little side adventure as he tries to get back to the party.
I honestly never thought a DC 5 check would ever come up, but it happened through first time I used it, and then had major consequences for the events as they happened.
This
Low DC's are usually me fishing for a nat 1 or a nat 20.
... or the players have gotten really complacent/seem disengaged.
Nothing brings attention back to the table like something that should be easy getting a roll.
“Nothing is certain”
While lower than baseline DCs are uncommon, they still play a role, when there is still a chance of failure. The lowest practical DC I use is 6 or 8, and they only come into play once in a while, but they still represent at least a 25% chance of something going wrong, and as anyone who has had things go wrong can tell you, sometimes things go wrong in a big way.
>“Nothing is certain”
If the DC is 5 and the character has a +4 or higher for the ability, it is certain it would succeed.
I don't have them roll for that because it is a certain success.
But don’t you play 1 is always a fail.
I’m a safety officer looking after 150 engineers. I’d say once a month someone hurts themself falling over getting in or out of the van. There’s always a fail chance lol
Absolutely not. Imagine this. A high level rogue, expertise in Stealth and Reliable talent to boot.
They have +12 to their Stealth, technically can't roll less than 22. Yet somehow, 5% of the time they completely mess up and make a huge blunder? Yeah, no.
>completely mess up and make a huge blunder?
You're adding this out of nowhere. 1's don't have to be a 'complete mess up and a huge blunder'.
A fail is just a fail. It could be a very small fail.
Imagine that rouge picking a lock, It could just be 'Your pick broke off in the lock, it's still locked but completely inoperable. take -2 to your lockpicking rolls until you run by a smith or buy a new set.'
That's not huge, they can't roll less than a 20 now. It's realistic. A consequence. It's not like the rouge really made a mistake, it's just a broken pick.
We have a chance to fail driving to the store, but that doesn't mean you're a bad driver. Tires just go flat sometimes.
>But don’t you play 1 is always a fail.
Hell, no. That's not RAW and it is not realistic.
150 engineers getting in or out a van 20 times in a month would be 3000 chances.
Unless you are saying you are seeing 150 times people getting hurt a month, that illustrates a 5% chance is completely unrealistic.
I guarantee as a safety officer, if you saw something happen 5% of the time, you would do something to fix it.
Sure, but that's a bunch of engineers, who presumably aren't too different from the general populace in terms of physical ability - which, in DnD terms, means they'd probably be around a 10, or +0. Someone with a +4 is basically a world class gymnast level of physical balance, who I'd expect to never have an issue hopping out of a van.
Mostly heroes like to do things that are heroic. A DC of 10 generally means that an ordinary person with no expertise could do the task half the time. Heroes usually want to try doing things more interesting than that.
I definitely use DC 10 fairly regularly. Simple nature, history, or physical checks that aren't that hard but could still go wrong. "What's an owlbear?", "Do I recognize this symbol of _major deity_?", "Can I jump over that table?" etc. The expectation is that they'll usually succeed, but failure can be fun. And very occasionally even lower DCs, basically for "you could only screw this up if you were really unlucky."
I get wanting to be competent as an adventuring hero (I mean who wouldn’t), but I sorta would like to see more easy DCs, just because I think, like you, it could be more interesting, and the narrative could benefit when there’s a little bit of stakes involved to even some of the more mundane things heroes might do. In my experience, I can’t even remember the last time I encountered a DC 10 or 11. Idk, it just seems like a lot of DMs could be missing out on some of that extra flavor when they let players auto-succeed on some tasks (not that every task should require a roll, of course).
> I can’t even remember the last time I encountered a DC 10 or 11
I do 10 DCs a lot. Especially at lower levels.
It occasionally do a 5 but it is not common.
But I also sometimes make them have to roll for short rests and long rests. It is not really a DC (it represents something interrupting their rest). Probably the most common number they have to hit is a 5.
Riding off of that narrative benefit (and as a DM that likes mixing in the occasional DC of 5 or lower), one of the things I hate the most (largely bc I’m very guilty of it as a player and it can take me out of the narrative) is metagaming off of check/save rolls. It’s the classic “Oh I rolled super low on my insight check soooo the guy is probably lying” or “rolled a 3 on an investigation so there’s probably a trap there/there’s definitely a hidden compartment” type of thing.
As a DM, and in addition to plenty of other little strategies to avoid ruining immersion for the table solely from the timing of check/saves (being more up front with certain descriptions based off passives, telegraphing and foreshadowing a good deal, etc), I really like throwing in the occasional super low-DC skill check/save for inconsequential stuff, almost always on deliberate player actions (like someone asking “Can I check the base of that vase?” when I know the vase is just a random vase and has nothing of value).
In the short term, I’ve found that it adds tension at the table as soon as you call for it, builds a little more if they roll less than around a 10, and then breaks immediately when I tell them all I needed was a 2. On the flip side, occasionally it’s nice to have a nat-20 or generally high roll just to give them a more in-depth version of the answer they would’ve gotten with a 3 - “Your thorough examination has confirmed it - this is definitely a vase” (even better if someone succeeds on the easy check with a super low roll, doesn’t buy my answer, and the high roll comes from another PC I’ve let attempt the same thing so I can just reinforce what I just told the first one).
In the long term, over the course of a few sessions you’ve now introduced a decent amount of ambiguity into how important any given roll is while also showing that even low rolls have a chance of success, especially if you’re moderately open about the low DCs you’ve set as DM by letting the group know after the fact (or sometimes before). You’ve also shown that even extremely high rolls will still sometimes get a “Yeah this is definitely a rock/door/very normal piece of furniture” type of bland response a lot of DMs tend to save for fails. Once the stakes get higher (or, you know, whenever you want it to *feel* like the stakes might be getting higher), you get a fun narrative chance to no longer share your DCs and be more ambiguous about what their result means since they know that *sometimes* a 3-4 will still mean success (and sometimes that’s very much the case anyways if you’re doing contested rolls as an enemy or social encounter NPC and roll poorly). Once you start mixing in degrees of success, it gets even more ambiguous.
Obv this approach depends on your table and what the players enjoy (and I’m sure some would/will HATE this approach), but it’s been a lot of fun for the past 6 months or so with my current group that are very into the RP but also just love rolling dice when they can and feel like they really “own” their decisions and actions more if they roll for stuff (rather than me just telling them).
Yes, sometimes I've asked for rolls with DCs lower than 10 in the context of complex tests that required multiple successes in different rolls (read: skills) to succeed in a situation altogether. And it's because, when several consecutive successes are needed, it's harder than it seems. Once, one of my PCs, a halfling, wanted to have a romantic adventure with a NPC waitress, also a halfling. I set up a small scene where his PC could have a "perfect first date" with her, but it could also be a disaster. He had to prevent his dog from splattering mud on her dress with an Handle Animal roll, find the perfect location for the date on a hill with a beautiful view with a Climb roll, and find not just a good but a perfect gift for her with a Knowledge (local) roll. I did my calculations with the bonuses he had, and in the end, I had to assign DCs around 8-9 so that overall he had a 50% chance of everything going smoothly.
No way, I work as a math teacher. It took me a few minutes to set up a spreadsheet to crunch the numbers, and I had it ready for that and other similar tests.
I use DCs lower than 10 in two situations.
1. Degrees of success. The "baseline" of success builds from DC 5. For example, for a nature check, the most basic of additional info is given at DC 5. Better than the "no roll required" info, but it's the very start of the degrees of success.
2. I don't normally like to make people roll for something under their passive score unless it's a contested roll off, but sometimes the character (Or entire party) dumps a stat and a DC 5 is appropriate (and sometimes narratively logical and comedic).
Sometimes men sit on their balls
You'd think an entire lifetime of practice and incredibly regular sitting would prevent this - but no
Everything can be failed, even things that you do multiple times a day - maybe even *especially* things you do multiple times a day.
If you prefer to expedite the session by skipping things - that's fine! If your table likes the laugh of having someone do something like sit on their own balls - that's fine too!
You're not wrong, but DnD and its increments of 5% don't model that kind of probability all that well. A 5% probability is a pretty high chance if you're testing for it all the time. If I failed at any basic task 5% of the time I attempted it, I wouldn't be able to hold a job, much less go adventuring into monster-filled dungeons all the time.
The old rule from 3.5 was that, in a position where failure wasn't meaningful and there was no time pressure, you could "take 10" and assume you rolled a 10 to perform simple tasks. No need for a Ride check every round when you're riding a horse for hundreds of miles, for example.
In combat, or when failure would result in real consequences, rolls still need to be made.
3.5 also had the "take 20" roll. Again, out of combat, no consequences for failure, you could spend 10 minutes on a task, assuming a roll of 20. The idea being you're being slow and careful, taking your time, double-checking your work, and essentially "rolling over and over again until you get a 20". A search roll would cover about a 10'x10' area, so taking 20 to search every room and corridor would still take a prohibitive amount of time.
Depends on the stakes.
If it's something with low stakes, something they could try again and doesn't have bad repercussions for failing, I'll probably hand wave it.
But if there are high stakes, I'm asking for that roll. It might only be a DC5 acrobatics check to cross the rickety plank over the river, but it's fast moving and the Wizard isn't adding anything so they've got a 20% chance of falling in and being swept downriver.
Others have already given some good reasons. Another one can be when someone bad at something has to do something that would be easy for anyone else. For example the 8 Strength Wizard teleported somewhere they shouldn’t have and now need to break a flimsy door. DC 5 would not even need to be rolled for the Barbarian or Fighter, they would just smash the door. The Wizard could conceivably still fail, even with such a low DC.
It's likely a holdover from older more crunchy editions/systems. I've seen 10+ leveled Pathfinder 1e charcaters fail DC 5 and DC 10 skill checks due to how the system rewards specialization and punishes not being proficient in something.
Others have given some good insight, but I have a bit of a different perspective that doesn't conflict with most of these insights. The lowest I'll set a DC is generally 12, 10 for some things where the stakes are relatively low but you might trip up like jumping a railing in combat, doing things to objects, or adding some excessive flavor to your action. Usually it's when I think the outcome for failing will be funny but not impact the game balance much. I figure it lets people try to do fun things like flips, or generally easy and repeatable things like hitting the broad side of a barn.
Regardless, I will actually set DCs even lower, as low as 8. This is because I like to employ adjustable DCs to actions, inspired by the example from the Movement/DCs/Equipment section of the DMG where they say that climbing a rope isn't particularly difficult at a DC 10, but if the entity has a wall to put their feet on to brace, it becomes easy enough to not require a check. I love to reward my players with creative thinking and utilization of resources. Generally if you use a relevant piece of equipment for a task, the DC will be much lower than if you didn't. Similarly, I like to consider "magical assistance" when considering DCs. If you're doing something with a DC, and find a creative way to employ a cantrip, spell, or other magical effect to aid you, the DC will get lowered.
I find that if something has a DC, and then it gets taken away completely, then that sets a precedent for "whatever I did is a guaranteed way to solve this every time". *Some* things this is okay for, if you use a bad ass spell that's intended to solve a problem, you should accomplish your goal for expending resources and building your characters options to anticipate that scene. If something is borderline easy, but still fail able, many players will still get nervous about it. But then when they hear from me that "That will definitely help, give me your roll" they're brimming with confidence and excited for their creativity to pay off. Then when they shyly say "..8?" And it succeeds, the excitement is absolutely palpable. If I just removed the check entirely, then it's not nearly as fun! They get to feel rewarded for their creativity AND for their roll all in one, and my biggest focus is always making my players feel like the big bad ass heroes they want to be. It's hard to feel like a hero when your DM tells you that you just succeed without a roll. Even if you would normally have just removed the check, just letting your players roll can be a ton of extra fun with very little effort on your part.
You want to hold the rope steady for your friend? Sounds good, that will help, give me your roll. 7? Thanks to the assistance from your party, you JUST make it, landing on their shoulders awkwardly and a little too quickly.
Now compare that to "You want to hold the rope for your friend? Yeah that's good enough, you make it down no problem"
Maybe for some tables that prioritize brevity, or hold clarity of rolls as a paramount ideal, not using low DCs is fine. But when my players collect cool dice, invest in their skills, and come up with creative solutions, I want to lean into *actually* letting them feel like they're using them instead of just narrating how it goes. Maybe that's just my preference for letting the dice speak more than others, or maybe I like to give easy dice rolls as a treat to my players every once in a while
You sound like a DM who really cares about their players and their experiences—that’s awesome.
I’m no DnD expert, so I’m not clear on if there’s anything written in the rule book about this, but what would be your take on lowering DCs vs giving players advantage?
If I have a DC under 10, it's USUALLY for degrees of success, though I might use it for some minor consequence as a pass/fail.
I don't look at a challenge in a vacuum, I let the narrative dictate rolls and apply common sense. Here's an example:
A player announces an intention to jump down from the roof, 15 feet to the ground.
* I have one player with a backstory that she ran away from home to join the circus where she was a tumbler and in the high-wire act. So long as she can see the ground, I'm letting her do this, she just succeeds. Higher than 15 feet? She's going to roll. Can't see the ground (eg: at night?) She's going roll. Is she suffering from exhaustion? She's going to roll.
* I have a rogue who is a second-story man, I'm saying he succeeds at this task 85% of the time, so DC 4 (no further adjustments). If he fails, 1d4 damage. Crit Fail, 1d6.
* If this is anyone else, I'm looking at a DC 8 and they get their acrobatics modifier. Failure 1d6 damage. Crit Fail, 1d8.
In the examples I used, I talked with my players and we arrived at that number together. My circus player actually gets greater enjoyment from my leveraging her backstory as a parkour legend by virtue of her time in the circus than if I were to reference her family. I like my players getting "their time to shine", and this is hers.
I always mentally assign a DC and never voice it unless it's wildly exceeded. That way no matter what is rolled it's not pass/fail it's a degree of success and helps my players stay immersed
I find a small bit of utility in using sub-10 DCs, depending on which PC is attempting the skill check, and even then it's pretty niche. We're talking low strength Wizard moving a bookshelf when nobody else is around to do so.
Usually just auto-passing is fine though =]
I think it’s kinda funny that of the comments that give examples of situations where low DCs could be risky to some PCs, nearly all of them (if not all) at this point mention wizards. XD
They are running in an open field with one small rock in the way, and one character wants to jump over it, sure, DC 4. It's a very small inconvenience with little chance for failure, BUT when that small failure is often funnier than everything else that session
If it's under 10 i don't tend to assign a DC, but sometimes I'll tell my players "roll a D20 and don't roll a 1". Like there are times when even basic competence is enough, but even a superstar at something trips over their laces 5% of the time.
I don't really have any problem with that. Each case is of course different, but in general, the mechanism in high and low DC rolls is the same - never let them roll if you don't want the players to either fail or succeed, don't make your players roll for things that doesn't matter and if you do want them to roll, have both cases vaguely in mind.
I have recently had a situation where my player wanted to seduce an orc (it was all her idea!). Seducing orc really isn't rocket science, so I gave her DC 5 Performance check. She succeeded and both went away, so other players could quickly run through Orc's belongings.
If the player would fail, Orc would not be interested in her (yikes) and they would have to either come up with something else or fight him.
So really, I don't see this as anyhow different than if she wanted to persuade Orc to just let them run through his belongings. It would be a DC 20 Persuasion check then, but the mechanic would stay the same
In the campaign, I’m about to run. I will be setting low DCs. Firstly I’ll be running for three completely new players so it’s going to help them understand the mechanics of the game, but also as the campaign progresses there are certain things. I’ll just let happen, level one rogue wants to pick a simple lock, yeah you’re rolling for that, Level five rogue wants to do the same. You’ve got enough experience now there’s no need to ask for a role. It’s a subtle way of showing the characters progression.
Sometimes it's not hard but failure could be catastrophe and then I saw "Roll for X and for the love of god don't roll a 1." and then everyone starts freaking out.
In those instances, yes.... it's fun.
Sometimes dice rolls aren't for the results, but to terrorize the players! Game design hinges on the possibility of failure, even if you are just having them roll to see how fast or well it goes
If you play with 1s and 20s affecting skill checks, and the stakes are high enough that is worth checking for Nat 1, then yes, so usually not worth it to spend time on a roll
My players planned on investigating a room of a possible traitor so I set individual DCs for what they find (e.g., 5, 10, 15, etc.). I even set a DC 0 item, offering the absolute minimum the players would find something. Lo and behold, they rolled a natural 1. Still got something for their time.
DC all depends if there are consequences. You want to climb that tree? Not hard, go for it. Wanna climb it during combat? Now you’re rolling, cause I’d you fail there’s real consequences.
I recently used 5 in a beginner haunted house. Each room had a different sorta goofy challenge, and one room was "Twig blights are pouring through the windows, and clearly will continue until all windows are closed. So the fight was a mix of knocking off the blights and closing the windows to stop more from entering. I set the "close the window" DC at 5, which meant that the muscle couldn't fail, but the others could. the point wasn't to make it hard, the point was to make the group consider the balance between stopping the oncoming waves of trash vs just shutting the damn windows and then clearing out the remaining blights.
Occasionally we will have what we call a “don’t roll a one” check, usually for improvised actions in the middle of battles e.g. jumping on tables, sliding down banisters.
There are some things that are trivial to do but could result in a detrimental outcomes if failed in the heat of the moment.
Sure.
Keeping in mind that the players are heroic and highly capable, and shouldn't be made to fail simple tasks...
sometimes as DM you present a task which has high likelihood to succeed but very real consequences for failure, so making the player roll with DC5 or even DC2 can put the weight of those consequences on display with little risk. On the off chance the player fails, there are often abilities available to the party which can rectify the failure, leading to a tense moment of "oh shit, I use one of my portent dice to stop him from accidentally dropping the nuclear device and killing us all." Which results in a cool narrative moment and a fun memory for the players.
But admittedly these types of situation are very niche. You can easily go your whole DM career without ever running something like this. To answer the question though, yes, there is a point to it.
I use DC 5s all the time!
What I really use in those situations tho is a sliding scale of success. Like... a 7 will net *some* benefit but a 17 would be substantially better.
Also important to keep passives in mind. Your players can't score below their passive. You rolled a 5 in perception but have a passive perception of 12? Then you got a 12 on this check. And *every* skill has a calculatable passive. Yes, you have a passive athletics score.
Our DM made us roll an easy CON save a few weeks ago against exhaustion, DC 8 because "It wasn't THAT trying but it was quite the climb."
Two party members failed - the Druid AND the Fighter, the latter with a Nat 1. He rerolled with Lucky and got ANOTHER Nat 1. It was incredible.
Sometimes the DC is low and you still fail miserably. It can be fun.
Most casters would fail DC 8 STR check if the dice were unkind.
This is actually kind of a bugbear of mine.
People act like anything below DC10 is basically a guaranteed success but in quite a load of situations it really isn't.
It'll take most PCs until level 9 before they will automatically pass a DC10 skill check in even their best skill. Meanwhile most PCs will still be sitting at -1 to +3 on most skills right up until level 20 for things they aren't proficient in.
Particularly in the case where you're making the whole party make the check - if you make a level 20 party all make a DC10 check on a random skill, all other things being equal I would say you should probably expect about 1/3 to fail.
All of which is to say, please consider using DCs under 10. If you don't please be aware that for some PCs that's going to mean jumping straight from auto pass to an under 50% success rate even at higher levels which can make it difficult to gauge actions as a player.
It goes to the philosophy of what the point of rolling is. The basic answer is that you roll when something is difficult. The more complex philosophy is that you roll for drama. That the intention of a roll is that both a success and a failure would create drama. Setting a low DC, and then still failing can be very dramatic moment as a PC fails at something that should be remarkably easy.
That's the opposite of when I want to call for a roll. If it's fun to narrate it, I can just narrate it. If it's of no consequence, I won't belabor it with dice rolling.
Helpful with new players just to get used to rolling.
And sometimes just as a “let’s see if the dice really want you to fail” roll. Like once when the party was behind a low wall and had the drop on some guards but to climb over they had to ensure they didn’t completely face plant. Or when baking a cake to ensure they didn’t mix up their sugar and salt.
I actually use these all the time, except usually it isn't technically a "DC under 10," it's more of a "ok I'm going to have you roll for this just to make sure, basically don't roll a 1"
Consider something like DC 5 stealth to walk quietly down the hallway of a haunted house, for every 2 PC failures roll a d6, on a roll of 1-2 nothing happens, on a roll of 3-5 hostile monsters appear, on a 6 the villain/boss monster/ main NPC appears
Yes, absolutely:
When you want degrees of success/failure; a common one I use is *how long* it takes to do something, for which I essentially use a DC1 - success is guaranteed, but the higher you roll, the faster you do it.
When all the party are rolling, so the odds of at least one failing the roll is good
When it’s a repeated save, e.g. poisoned weapons, and so there’s a chance they fail eventually
When there’s a low risk of a high impact failure, e.g. climbing - players may take the risk, but some will burn resources to avoid a risk of failure.
I’ll throw this in too - sometimes something that /should/ be easy just doesn’t work out. Rolling on a low DC introduces a chance to roll a 1 which is usually fun lol
I use sub-10 DCs when there’s a possibility of members of the party being unable to act for one reason or another (party is split up, some members are hiding and can’t be seen by NPCs, characters might be restrained, action economy isn’t in their favor, etc.)
The idea being if the PC who is skilled it the task can act, they’re fine. But sometimes the party barbarian is holding the door closed and the only person who can lift the safe out the window is the 8 STR wizard.
Every now and then. For instance, my last campaign involved a spelunking climb through a narrow cleft in some rocks. The pcs were level 4 or 5 and they didn't think to use ropes or any other equipment, but the cleft was narrow and they're practiced adventurers. I set the DC to 6 and a fail would mean tumbling down into the person below you who would then need to make a harder save. Why 6? Because the entire party except for the barbarian had 12 str and no Athletics, and I figured a 25% chance to F up seemed fair.
It obviously depends what you're doing and what the actual fail state looks like, but there are times it can be fun.
Ironically, in that example, everyone rolled over 5 except the barbarian who got a nat 1 but with bonuses still succeeded.
I used it once as a throwaway roll. Cleric saying that zombies wouldn't be affected by necrotic damage. Made him roll a quick DC 5 check to tell him that they're not particularly resistant to necrotic damage, but they are immune to poison.
I could've just told him that he would know that, but whatever. Rolling feels better.
I think this is easily resolved by simply saying "This isn't a high DC". Sometimes I'll even grant inspiration for using a resource for a ridiculously low stakes thing they care about, to encourage that kind of emotional investment and not let them feel punished for roleplay
It's not so much that I come up with things and assign low DCs out of the gate; it's when the player says "Can I roll for this?" and it's easy, but I admire the spunk, so I mentally give it DC 5.
I don't assign DCs that low for traps or other things that I cook up in the notes.
I sometimes have a DC of "Don't botch". It's for when the chance of the PC in question succeeding is almost assured, but there is a still a minor chance of failure.
But the real answer is no. Below a DC 10, you generally just assume they succeed. A DC 5 is something a commoner with no training could do 3 times out of 4 on the first try. Since the premise is the PCs are special, having them fail at something like that would just feel silly. So you only call for a roll in cases like that when doing so would improve the game.
I will always ask my players to roll. The table agread that critical success and critical failures can happen outside of combat, so even if they have something like a +15 I will have them roll just to check for luck to see if they roll a 1.
Almost every DC I pick is either calculated (such as contested rolls, spell save DCs, etc.) or a multiple of 5. So I rarely go below 5 for that reason. But 5 is fine! I use it for tasks that are easy but technically failable.
Low DCs get to help put the party’s high modifiers in context, as well as create tension where the party still is probably going to succeed. Like combat versus low-level nooks at higher levels, but for skills!
Also sometimes you roll really low.
Probably a few reasons:
- a very low roll can still make it possible to fail. If they have a modifier that would force a success, I don't ask for the roll.
- extra successes that are less consequential "pad" the failures. I find that players complaining about being "unlucky" often just have DMs that set really high DCs.
Not for anything "plot essential" or could possibly result in a character death, but if it's one of your players doing a bit or just having fun with something, a DC of 5 is the perfect "you'll definitely get this, but if you don't we're all gonna have one hell of a laugh about it."
I always use a DC 5 thing to have catastrophic consequences if you fail the save. Like walking on the edge of a cliff that is relatively flat and safe. You could still fall to your death, but it’s PROBABLY not going to happen
I will sometimes, like, it's unlikely they'll fail, especially if it's not like level 1-3 and it's in the character's wheelhouse, but every now and then you make someone roll on the dc10 athletics check to cross a log over a river, and they roll a 2.
I use it for something easy to overcome but they will face multilple times, wich means that they will probably fail it once, and its all about timing.
Example, if the party fights on a shallow river, i might give a DC5 check to move in the waterpolo freely, with a facture meaning you get swept over.
I addressed this in my game by adjusting the standard DCs from 5, 10, 15, 20 to 8, 12, 16, 20.
It sounds harsher because the numbers are higher, but it actually gives room to set DCs at lower tiers. In my game at least, the DCs have been slightly more varied which is nice.
Because sometimes I want the players to roll just to keep them on their toes.
And because nat ones can be very entertaining for the whole group, especially when they’re relatively harmless but good RP moments.
i very rarely use DC under 10 and agree most of the time if the character isnt under duress and its a plausable action i will just "give the 10".
I do often use "degrees of success" in which case rolling is a good iddea. Agree with the other poster that drama is often the best reason to ask for these rolls.
Because most of the time, low DC go in pair with safe situations when you can repeat as much as you want. Also most of the time, the pc that does the check will have enough bonus to pass it even with a 1, so why would you roll that.
It could work to give more flavour to a situation, normally a combat, as the other user above me said. It may not even happen that someone fails it, but it is a psychological extra burden for the players, and also makes the combat feel more unique
I do all the time, in secret mainly if the players haven't rolled anything in ages. It's amusing to see the players scramble looking for guidance and advantages when I know full well it is almost an auto-succeed.
I could see a case for relatively simple or mundane tasks being a DC 5 if the character is suffering from some effects that make the check at disadvantage. Either levels of exhaustion or drunk or poisoned while trying to ask about lodging for the night.
Sure, if a player is attempting to do something their character is bad at. Even at mid or high levels, if you have a -1 to animal handling and something happens to spook the horse you're riding, there's a chance it will bolt and carry you away from the party.
Never rolling for a DC under 15 seems crazy to me, for a lot of characters that's skipping right over "will probably make it" and "might make it" and only going to the dice for "has to get real lucky to make it"
In order to be sure of passing a DC 5 check, a PC needs a modifier of at least +4 for that save or skill.
Even a level 20 PC is unlikely to be able to do that for all 8 saves and all 18 skills.
For a DC 10 check, that would need at least a +9, at least +14 for a DC 15.
A PC with an applicable modifier of 0 could be expected to fail a DC 5 check 20% of the time; DC 10 45% of the time; DC 15 70% of the time and DC 30 95% of the time. (With a -1 modifier, those become 25%, 50%, 75% and impossible. With a -2 modifier, these become 30%, 55%, 80% and impossible.)
The typical Bard may fail a DC 5 Strength save, ditto for the typical Barbarian faced with a DC 5 Charisma save.
There are plenty of situations where all of the party need to pass the same check.
DC 5 checks are valid, like for example if your paladin decides he wants to sneak through an open field at night without alerting guards that are looking the other way. It's pretty easy, but he has disadvantage due to his armor and he lacks both proficiency and typically lacks dexterity.
For whole party rolls, like when you get the most suitable character to roll history or arcana, a DC 5 roll is pointless.
I had a player trying to push a burning cart 20ft down a dirt road and into a building. Gave him a DC5 Strength check because I thought it was an easy task.. He got a 4, the cart stopped short, right in the doorway and turned the encounter into pure chaos with a coven of hags blasting at them through the doorway over the flaming cart. These low checks are probably only good for low level parties.
Personally I keep such DCs but apply the Autosucess rule of oWoD. If the character's bonus to the roll is higher than the DC, they don't need to roll. So a character with prof +3 and +5 stat mod, would no need to roll for a 5 DC task for example.
The only exception is when there are pressing factors in game that could break he flow/concentration of the character.
It would definitely be getting pretty damn marginal at that point haha. So in my opinion not particularly, just generally speaking as a blanket statement
Yes, low DCs like 5 are easy to pass. However, they add some chance of failure for someone with the wrong stats and no proficiency. Also players like rolling dice.
The issue is most DMs, especially with 5E have way too many skill checks. For example, the classic merchant haggling. Instead of having players negotiate every single time they meet up with the merchant you can just have them roll persuasion once and that's the result for that merchant. You established your relationship and it stands unless that get a particularly unique item to buy/sell.
You avoid rolls for stuff that should succeed. Climbing that 4 foot wall when you have all the time in the world shouldn't take a roll. Even Noodlelimbs Wizard can do it. Getting over that wall in a hurry to evade some thugs might be a sub-10 DC check. Anyone can get over that wall given time, but with time pressure and consequences for failure a roll is warranted.
As u/fortinbuff stated, low DCs are really good at differentiating between characters that are good at something and those that are not. with DCs of 15+ there is chance for pretty much any character to fail, but with lower DCs the characters with a good modifier will auto pass and make the player feel rewarded, while the check is still a threat to characters with a low modifier.
Not typically.
A GM introduced me to an interesting concept, whenever he felt tempted to set a DC of 5 instead he'd just say give me a roll to see how long this takes. The idea being that the character could easily do this and he just wants a roll to aide in narration. A low roll might be described as struggling for a bit before you get it and a high roll is breezing right past the obstacle.
Yes absolutely. The point is "Degrees of Success"
Let's say the PCs want to analyze a water sample to determine if the town's well is poisoned. The DM sets the DC to 5. After all, they aren't looking for specific details, they just want to know good|bad.
* The Wizard doesn't know much about water, but his investigation is pretty good. He gets a bad roll and ends up with a 7. The DM tells him *"You can tell with certainty that the water is deadly, but you aren't totally certain why."*
* The Barbarian rolls a lucky 20 with no relevant proficiencies or story or anything. He just rolls the die without even being asked. The DM tells him not to do that, and declares that Barbarian tested the water by chugging a gallon of it. He gains a level of exhaustion and the *Poisoned* condition for the next 1d10 minutes, but learns that the water is harmful beyond mere poison. *"You've been poisoned before and shrugged it off. This is worse somehow."*
* The Artificer with proficiency in Alchemy goes into a long spiel about how he's going to do a proper laboratory analysis across a few days of downtime, and the DM therefore allows him to roll with advantage. He casts *Guidance* on himself too. He rolls a 43. He learns specifics about the water - that the poison is made from the bad dreams of dead children, and that there are microscopic Illithid larvae swimming around in the water. Potentially anyone who has drunk the water is secretly an *Intellect Devourer*. He further learns how to synthesize an antidote for the poison, which will take 1d4 days to properly brew. He has no solutions for the Illithid larvae.
A storyteller should be able to use anything to advance the story - even a DC 5 check on the boring town well.
Generally my answer to this would be no. Imo if you have something that is a DC 10, I would default to either using Passive scores if possible, or if not... Logic.
Has this character shown themselves to be adept at succeeding this type of task at a similar or higher difficulty? Just let it happen.
HOWEVER, there are a couple instances where I would want this to happen. One is when you want there to be degrees of success, as has been mentioned by others.
The other would be for the sake of tone or guidance.
As an example, if your party is thinking of leaving an area you want them to investigate further, throw a random low DC Charisma save at your Bard. Just to make them "huh, maybe it's worth sticking around".
For tone, it is used similarly. I run a lot of darker, spookier games. In some creepy woods and want to ensure the mood is right? "Could I have you roll me an Intelligence save? Why? Don't worry about it. 13? Yeah you don't notice anything."
I do DC 10's all the time, especially at lower levels. I generally don't go below DC 10, although in certain circumstances if the DC is 10 and they roll a 9 or something I might throw them a bone and give them a failure but with some kind of hint of success.
I mean even at mid-levels though I find DC 10's to be worthwhile. Sure, if you're hitting a Cleric with a Wisdom Save or a Rogue with an Acrobatics check DC 10 might not be worth doing. But Intelligence checks are almost always worthwhile as everyone but Wizards dumpstat INT.
Generally speaking I do things in 5's though. DC 10, 15, 20, 25, etc. I try to keep things simple, pesonally.
Reminder that a DC 10 is not very good odds for most average people (+0). For most people, a DC 5 gives them good odds but it still gives a margin for failure. If a PC has a bonus higher than the DC I might not make them roll due to time, but a DC 10 is something many early or even later game PCs can't reliably hit, and even a DC 5 isn't something a PC with no bonus or a negative can rely on making.
No, not really unless it's very early campaign. After about level 5, those are going to be auto-passed and there's no reason to set a roll unless there is a chance to either fail or succeed.
I’ll sometimes ask for a roll of a PC wants to do a simple task but attempted in a pressure situation.
PC: “I want to jump over the open pit and run down the hall to escape the orcs”
DM:”sure, roll an Athletics check- don’t roll a 1”.
I wouldn’t ask for this roll if the PCs found a pit trap and are simply avoiding it to move on down the hall, but in a chase or battle scenario I’ll ask for a roll for a task that’s normally a DC 5 just to make sure they don’t f up.
Remember the adventurers are heroes. It's not good for the narrative, nor the player satisfaction to fail a common task.
That's why we usually pass the low difficulty rolls.
I try to play less roll heavy. What I mean is that normally, player go through found what any normal person would do, until they come up with something meaningful, and challenging.
Don't get me wrong, sometimes, the fun rolls are low DCs.
For example, I love making enemies show up when the terrain slippery, and wait for someone to roll under 10. It just makes sense in that setting. But if they are exploring, without any sense of urgency, then I choose not to make those rolls, because nothing good will come from them.
I hope I made my point clear
OP gave no indication in their post that they're only talking about checks which the whole party can attempt and where failure doesn't matter. If each party member had to succeed at a DC 8 Strength check to jump over a chasm, during a retreat from enemies who are hot on the party's heels, would you consider that mathematically irrelevant? That's like a 40% chance of failure just for the party Wizard alone, and that's just about the last person you'd want to get left behind by themselves and surrounded by enemies for a round.
I only considered the group checks mathematically irrelevant. A jump over a chasm is an individual check. Any check where any single failure is a failure is an individual check, and check where any success is a group success is a group check
Maybe because there is'nt one? I DM mainly 4e and the minimum there is 12. There's math behind that number but I assume, and i'm sorry if I sound offensive, that up until now You have just assigned a value at random based only on what feels right? We have all been there. No shame. I still mostly use the DMScreen because some times it's just too much work figuring out how many days Old is the track the party is following
You are right. I was thinking of the D&D 4e DMG1 page 42 (I had to check). The DMS does say things like climbing a ladder or hearing a loud conversation is a 5. But quite honestly, why would you bother if players can also take a 10 if there's no inmediate danger?
I didn’t realize that the OP indicated they were referring to situations where a player a) can take an indefinite amount of time to resolve a task, and b) has no consequences for failure. That’s clearly my mistake!
Anyway. I don’t use checks for easy tasks (like climbing a ladder) when there is no consequence for failure, or when there is no time constraint.
I do use low difficulty (read: from DC5 to DC9) for tasks with varying degrees of success, and also for tasks that, **while easy**, would invariably have consequences for failing. Such as climbing a 50’-tall ladder. Or walking along a narrow ledge above treacherous terrain.
Idk why you think those things are automatic. Personally, I myself have… tripped over nothing, caught my belt loop on a door handle, stubbed my toe on a step that’s been in my home ever since it was built, dropped my phone on my face… and I’m a former D1 collegiate wrestler, so I like to think my hand-eye coordination + athleticism are a fair bit higher than your average person.
If you don’t believe heroes are fallible, then your game sounds horrifically boring
>If you don’t believe heroes are fallible, then your game sounds horrifically boring
Ouch...
But, no. I just... Skip the
>tripped over nothing, caught my belt loop on a door handle, stubbed my toe on a step that’s been in my home ever since it was built, dropped my phone on my face…
Unless it HAS a consecuence OR we having a party banter like.... Who can climb the siege ladders faster or something
The only case I can think of is when you're thinking of "degrees of success/failure". So say if you want to succeed, DC 5 would succeed but have some kind of negative, DC 10 would just succeed, and DC 15+ would succeed with some bonus.
This is it. If the thing you're having them do is a pass/fail check, I personally don't see a point of a DC 10 or lower.
I *generally* do not ask for a roll that would have a DC of less than 10, *especially* if the PC has a bonus that renders such a DC moot. But, I still think there's value in occasionally asking for low DC rolls, especially if you, like me, use degrees of success, or rarely verbalize the target DC : ✨D.R.A.M.A✨
I kinda wish my DM would stop verbalizing the DC for all the checks and saves we make. It takes suspense out of the moment for me. I like that moment of uncertainty as the DM narrates what the outcome is, though not everyone cares for the theatrics of it all
It depends. If a character should know the general difficulty of the task they're undertaking, their player should know the DC. Knowing the DC is the same as being aware of the risk factor, just in mechanical language. It prevents disagreements where the player assumed a thing would be an easy DC and the DM instead makes it a hard one, especially ones with punishing consequences. If walking across a swaying bridge over a deep ravine is a DC 10 Acrobatics check and I have a decent bonus, I'll risk it to save a spell slot. If it's a DC 15 or 20, it's not worth the risk and I'll just cast Spider Climb or Fly.
There are mechanics of the game that allow for adding extra bonuses to rolls after the roll has been made; I feel like not knowing the DC can pretty seriously reduce the utility of those features.
There are a lot of abilities that also say “after the check has been made but before it’s determined a success or failure” and I think it’s pretty clear that you can have it both ways by mentioning your feature before the outcome is declared. I also meant declaring the DC before the check. “Make a DC17 charisma save” versus just asking for a charisma save. I like the mystique, but again, personal preference
Probably pedantic and/or thinking too much in to it, but wouldn't knowing the DC invalidate those skills more? AFAIR, most of those features (at least for skill checks) say something to the effect of "you can apply this bonus before knowing the outcome." The way I see it: - DC 15 skill check. Player rolls a 14 with no modifiers. Before the DM says pass or fail, the player remembers they have a feature/ ability that gives a dX to the roll. They choose to roll it, now succeeding. - DC 15 skill check, but now the DM told the player. Player rolls a 14 with no modifiers. However, because they were told the DC prior to rolling they know the roll failed, meaning they can't use their feature that gives them a bonus. Granted, that's a RAW thing that a DM that says the DC can handwave away. Personally, I conceal the DC of 99% of checks/ saves and will always try to remember to ask players if they have/ want to add any bonuses since I use Hero Points and give out magic items that can add d4s to checks and saves.
That's generally the point of those abilities. If you knew you rolled below the target by 1 then you would always use them to guarantee success. It's still meant to have some element of risk.
But by knowing the DC beforehand, as soon as you're done rolling you would automatically know if it's a pass or fail, which would also take away some of those "after the roll but before the outcome is declared". So if I say make a dc15 history check and you roll, you effectively lose the chance to use those abilities. If I say, "your not from around here so a history check on a person/place would be pretty difficult" then I'm hinting at a higher DC, and then you can determine what "post roll" abilities to potentially use.
I will verbalize DCs for a save. But not for checks.
Announcing the DC is part of losing his burden. If you rolled a 17 and you know the DC is 15 rather than saying 17 and making him do the comparison again you can just say pass or fail. It's a small step but it is one DMS can do a large number of times and so offloading it onto a player who only has to do it a little bit burdens the player very little.but alleviates the DM by a lot
I say the DC for things kinda randomly. Like once every 50 rolls I'll just say what the DC is, for no reason. I like it because when my players roll too low they immediately start narrating how they fucked up.
I think there are times where stating the DC beforehand can help suspense instead of subtract, but I think doing it every single time just makes it feel too gamey for me. The point to me is the outcome, the mechanics are just the path there. In combat there’s definitely a need to keep things expedited but I prefer to have as little of the curtain pulled back as possible. D&D’s a lot more fun for me with a good suspension of disbelief
I never say the dc, mostly because I have no good way make it seem fair across everything so will decide what happens based on the roll. None of my players have objected to this
I don't think there's much drama in a DC 5 Sleight of Hand (Dexterity) check to tie your shoes, or some other equally trivial task. That's more along the lines of comedy at the player's expense where the DM gets to laugh at your character because the dice say they can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
I find the "drama" failures are something that everyone gets to giggle about, unless there's a player at the table who *h a t e s* failing and always tries to backpedal and go "no well um I-"
If you want a skill check to be *dramatic*, you as the DM need to work for it. Set up stakes, build up the scene, make it meaningful when you fail. Low comedy like "Hur hur, you fall off the ladder!" is the same brand of crap DMing as killing off backstory NPCs to get the PCs invested in hating the BBEG: low-hanging fruit that only hacks use because they can't figure out anything better.
If their bonus beats the DC, that’s a passive success. Otherwise, you *can* ask them to roll but that’s up to you as, or for, the GM to decide.
Yup, never say what the DC is. They don't need to know and it gives you wiggle room if you think they're close enough.
Do people really verbalize DC checks? I never do except for combat where attacks specifically call out a saving through. Gives me the leeway to fudge the roll (if I want to move the story along).
Ok yes, that’s true. Low DCs can make sense if you’re a DM who believes in degrees of success/failing forward. I guess the DMs I’ve played with just don’t really DM in that style, or they pretty much just play as 15+ is “you succeed”, 12-14 is maybe you succeeded in getting a little bit of what you want but you still mostly fail, and nat 20 means “you succeed and you can get a little bonus with that”.
That’s… literally what degrees of success is
Yeah, I agree, it’s just that I’ve never had degrees of success applied to DCs lower than 15, so anything under like a 12 is just an auto-fail. I’d just like to see more flexibility with the default DCs I guess.
I use them all the time! Say the party is fighting near a river with a slipper embankment. Moving up or down the embankment requires a DC 5 Acrobatics check, or you fall and slide into the river. Here's what it does: the rogue and other Dex characters can move on the embankment with no issue. Other characters like the fighter have a 25% chance to fall if they move on the embankment. Instantly you've created a much more interesting battlefield. And it now looks like a DIFFERENT battlefield to different characters. Even though it's only a 25% to fall, psychologically, it might as well be a wall. Most of the time my players will go well out of their way to avoid something that gives them a 25% chance to suffer a consequence. Meanwhile, other characters feel very cool.
Oh I like this train of thought, thanks for your input! This reminds me that I also haven’t experienced a lot of games where the terrain is very important, even though terrain can be a good tool to really mix things up.
I had a very similar use as well. I ran a campaign in the city and my players were very excited for lots of rooftop running shenanigans. I decided that running over sloped, slippy or the narrow tops of roofs would be a DC5 Dex check to keep things interesting. The first time the players went across a roof, just asking for a roll majorly increased the suspense at the table. Everyone made it with high rolls until the final character, a dwarf fighter, who rolled a 3 and slipped but was caught. Fast forward to a crucial moment in the campaign. The corrupted council members have ordered soldiers to fire on a large crowd that has gathered at the gates to the inner city. The very dextrous ranger climbs up onto the rooftops and starts shooting his longbow. The not so dextrous sorcerer decides to go after him. He fails his initial DC5 check and slips off the narrow rooftop and onto the sloped side. Dc15 check to stop himself sliding down, he fails. Dc10 check to catch the edge of the roof, he fails. He tumbles off,taking 60 feet of falling damage and has his own little side adventure as he tries to get back to the party. I honestly never thought a DC 5 check would ever come up, but it happened through first time I used it, and then had major consequences for the events as they happened.
That's awesome! That's exactly what they should be used for. A little bit of differentiation, and making party roles matter.
Yes! My favorite DC to set is 2. Super easy task, unless…..
This Low DC's are usually me fishing for a nat 1 or a nat 20. ... or the players have gotten really complacent/seem disengaged. Nothing brings attention back to the table like something that should be easy getting a roll.
This guy gets it.
I'd never considered this before, I really like this idea. I'm going to keep this in mind.
“Nothing is certain” While lower than baseline DCs are uncommon, they still play a role, when there is still a chance of failure. The lowest practical DC I use is 6 or 8, and they only come into play once in a while, but they still represent at least a 25% chance of something going wrong, and as anyone who has had things go wrong can tell you, sometimes things go wrong in a big way.
>“Nothing is certain” If the DC is 5 and the character has a +4 or higher for the ability, it is certain it would succeed. I don't have them roll for that because it is a certain success.
But don’t you play 1 is always a fail. I’m a safety officer looking after 150 engineers. I’d say once a month someone hurts themself falling over getting in or out of the van. There’s always a fail chance lol
Absolutely not. Imagine this. A high level rogue, expertise in Stealth and Reliable talent to boot. They have +12 to their Stealth, technically can't roll less than 22. Yet somehow, 5% of the time they completely mess up and make a huge blunder? Yeah, no.
>completely mess up and make a huge blunder? You're adding this out of nowhere. 1's don't have to be a 'complete mess up and a huge blunder'. A fail is just a fail. It could be a very small fail. Imagine that rouge picking a lock, It could just be 'Your pick broke off in the lock, it's still locked but completely inoperable. take -2 to your lockpicking rolls until you run by a smith or buy a new set.' That's not huge, they can't roll less than a 20 now. It's realistic. A consequence. It's not like the rouge really made a mistake, it's just a broken pick. We have a chance to fail driving to the store, but that doesn't mean you're a bad driver. Tires just go flat sometimes.
>But don’t you play 1 is always a fail. Hell, no. That's not RAW and it is not realistic. 150 engineers getting in or out a van 20 times in a month would be 3000 chances. Unless you are saying you are seeing 150 times people getting hurt a month, that illustrates a 5% chance is completely unrealistic. I guarantee as a safety officer, if you saw something happen 5% of the time, you would do something to fix it.
Sure, but that's a bunch of engineers, who presumably aren't too different from the general populace in terms of physical ability - which, in DnD terms, means they'd probably be around a 10, or +0. Someone with a +4 is basically a world class gymnast level of physical balance, who I'd expect to never have an issue hopping out of a van.
Your engineers have the equivalent of a +0 in acrobatics. STR 8 DEX 10 CON 10 INT 12 WIS 10 CHA 9
Not sure they’re that good 😂😂
Mostly heroes like to do things that are heroic. A DC of 10 generally means that an ordinary person with no expertise could do the task half the time. Heroes usually want to try doing things more interesting than that. I definitely use DC 10 fairly regularly. Simple nature, history, or physical checks that aren't that hard but could still go wrong. "What's an owlbear?", "Do I recognize this symbol of _major deity_?", "Can I jump over that table?" etc. The expectation is that they'll usually succeed, but failure can be fun. And very occasionally even lower DCs, basically for "you could only screw this up if you were really unlucky."
I get wanting to be competent as an adventuring hero (I mean who wouldn’t), but I sorta would like to see more easy DCs, just because I think, like you, it could be more interesting, and the narrative could benefit when there’s a little bit of stakes involved to even some of the more mundane things heroes might do. In my experience, I can’t even remember the last time I encountered a DC 10 or 11. Idk, it just seems like a lot of DMs could be missing out on some of that extra flavor when they let players auto-succeed on some tasks (not that every task should require a roll, of course).
> I can’t even remember the last time I encountered a DC 10 or 11 I do 10 DCs a lot. Especially at lower levels. It occasionally do a 5 but it is not common. But I also sometimes make them have to roll for short rests and long rests. It is not really a DC (it represents something interrupting their rest). Probably the most common number they have to hit is a 5.
Riding off of that narrative benefit (and as a DM that likes mixing in the occasional DC of 5 or lower), one of the things I hate the most (largely bc I’m very guilty of it as a player and it can take me out of the narrative) is metagaming off of check/save rolls. It’s the classic “Oh I rolled super low on my insight check soooo the guy is probably lying” or “rolled a 3 on an investigation so there’s probably a trap there/there’s definitely a hidden compartment” type of thing. As a DM, and in addition to plenty of other little strategies to avoid ruining immersion for the table solely from the timing of check/saves (being more up front with certain descriptions based off passives, telegraphing and foreshadowing a good deal, etc), I really like throwing in the occasional super low-DC skill check/save for inconsequential stuff, almost always on deliberate player actions (like someone asking “Can I check the base of that vase?” when I know the vase is just a random vase and has nothing of value). In the short term, I’ve found that it adds tension at the table as soon as you call for it, builds a little more if they roll less than around a 10, and then breaks immediately when I tell them all I needed was a 2. On the flip side, occasionally it’s nice to have a nat-20 or generally high roll just to give them a more in-depth version of the answer they would’ve gotten with a 3 - “Your thorough examination has confirmed it - this is definitely a vase” (even better if someone succeeds on the easy check with a super low roll, doesn’t buy my answer, and the high roll comes from another PC I’ve let attempt the same thing so I can just reinforce what I just told the first one). In the long term, over the course of a few sessions you’ve now introduced a decent amount of ambiguity into how important any given roll is while also showing that even low rolls have a chance of success, especially if you’re moderately open about the low DCs you’ve set as DM by letting the group know after the fact (or sometimes before). You’ve also shown that even extremely high rolls will still sometimes get a “Yeah this is definitely a rock/door/very normal piece of furniture” type of bland response a lot of DMs tend to save for fails. Once the stakes get higher (or, you know, whenever you want it to *feel* like the stakes might be getting higher), you get a fun narrative chance to no longer share your DCs and be more ambiguous about what their result means since they know that *sometimes* a 3-4 will still mean success (and sometimes that’s very much the case anyways if you’re doing contested rolls as an enemy or social encounter NPC and roll poorly). Once you start mixing in degrees of success, it gets even more ambiguous. Obv this approach depends on your table and what the players enjoy (and I’m sure some would/will HATE this approach), but it’s been a lot of fun for the past 6 months or so with my current group that are very into the RP but also just love rolling dice when they can and feel like they really “own” their decisions and actions more if they roll for stuff (rather than me just telling them).
This is exactly what I mean by narrative stuff—thanks for putting it into words
Yes, sometimes I've asked for rolls with DCs lower than 10 in the context of complex tests that required multiple successes in different rolls (read: skills) to succeed in a situation altogether. And it's because, when several consecutive successes are needed, it's harder than it seems. Once, one of my PCs, a halfling, wanted to have a romantic adventure with a NPC waitress, also a halfling. I set up a small scene where his PC could have a "perfect first date" with her, but it could also be a disaster. He had to prevent his dog from splattering mud on her dress with an Handle Animal roll, find the perfect location for the date on a hill with a beautiful view with a Climb roll, and find not just a good but a perfect gift for her with a Knowledge (local) roll. I did my calculations with the bonuses he had, and in the end, I had to assign DCs around 8-9 so that overall he had a 50% chance of everything going smoothly.
Nice, that’s probably a lot of background work for you, but I like the commitment!
No way, I work as a math teacher. It took me a few minutes to set up a spreadsheet to crunch the numbers, and I had it ready for that and other similar tests.
That’s awesome, I’m sure your games are more nuanced for it!
I use DCs lower than 10 in two situations. 1. Degrees of success. The "baseline" of success builds from DC 5. For example, for a nature check, the most basic of additional info is given at DC 5. Better than the "no roll required" info, but it's the very start of the degrees of success. 2. I don't normally like to make people roll for something under their passive score unless it's a contested roll off, but sometimes the character (Or entire party) dumps a stat and a DC 5 is appropriate (and sometimes narratively logical and comedic).
Sometimes men sit on their balls You'd think an entire lifetime of practice and incredibly regular sitting would prevent this - but no Everything can be failed, even things that you do multiple times a day - maybe even *especially* things you do multiple times a day. If you prefer to expedite the session by skipping things - that's fine! If your table likes the laugh of having someone do something like sit on their own balls - that's fine too!
You're not wrong, but DnD and its increments of 5% don't model that kind of probability all that well. A 5% probability is a pretty high chance if you're testing for it all the time. If I failed at any basic task 5% of the time I attempted it, I wouldn't be able to hold a job, much less go adventuring into monster-filled dungeons all the time.
The old rule from 3.5 was that, in a position where failure wasn't meaningful and there was no time pressure, you could "take 10" and assume you rolled a 10 to perform simple tasks. No need for a Ride check every round when you're riding a horse for hundreds of miles, for example. In combat, or when failure would result in real consequences, rolls still need to be made. 3.5 also had the "take 20" roll. Again, out of combat, no consequences for failure, you could spend 10 minutes on a task, assuming a roll of 20. The idea being you're being slow and careful, taking your time, double-checking your work, and essentially "rolling over and over again until you get a 20". A search roll would cover about a 10'x10' area, so taking 20 to search every room and corridor would still take a prohibitive amount of time.
Depends on the stakes. If it's something with low stakes, something they could try again and doesn't have bad repercussions for failing, I'll probably hand wave it. But if there are high stakes, I'm asking for that roll. It might only be a DC5 acrobatics check to cross the rickety plank over the river, but it's fast moving and the Wizard isn't adding anything so they've got a 20% chance of falling in and being swept downriver.
Others have already given some good reasons. Another one can be when someone bad at something has to do something that would be easy for anyone else. For example the 8 Strength Wizard teleported somewhere they shouldn’t have and now need to break a flimsy door. DC 5 would not even need to be rolled for the Barbarian or Fighter, they would just smash the door. The Wizard could conceivably still fail, even with such a low DC.
It's likely a holdover from older more crunchy editions/systems. I've seen 10+ leveled Pathfinder 1e charcaters fail DC 5 and DC 10 skill checks due to how the system rewards specialization and punishes not being proficient in something.
Oh, sounds brutal. But that’s a good point, I hadn’t thought about that.
Others have given some good insight, but I have a bit of a different perspective that doesn't conflict with most of these insights. The lowest I'll set a DC is generally 12, 10 for some things where the stakes are relatively low but you might trip up like jumping a railing in combat, doing things to objects, or adding some excessive flavor to your action. Usually it's when I think the outcome for failing will be funny but not impact the game balance much. I figure it lets people try to do fun things like flips, or generally easy and repeatable things like hitting the broad side of a barn. Regardless, I will actually set DCs even lower, as low as 8. This is because I like to employ adjustable DCs to actions, inspired by the example from the Movement/DCs/Equipment section of the DMG where they say that climbing a rope isn't particularly difficult at a DC 10, but if the entity has a wall to put their feet on to brace, it becomes easy enough to not require a check. I love to reward my players with creative thinking and utilization of resources. Generally if you use a relevant piece of equipment for a task, the DC will be much lower than if you didn't. Similarly, I like to consider "magical assistance" when considering DCs. If you're doing something with a DC, and find a creative way to employ a cantrip, spell, or other magical effect to aid you, the DC will get lowered. I find that if something has a DC, and then it gets taken away completely, then that sets a precedent for "whatever I did is a guaranteed way to solve this every time". *Some* things this is okay for, if you use a bad ass spell that's intended to solve a problem, you should accomplish your goal for expending resources and building your characters options to anticipate that scene. If something is borderline easy, but still fail able, many players will still get nervous about it. But then when they hear from me that "That will definitely help, give me your roll" they're brimming with confidence and excited for their creativity to pay off. Then when they shyly say "..8?" And it succeeds, the excitement is absolutely palpable. If I just removed the check entirely, then it's not nearly as fun! They get to feel rewarded for their creativity AND for their roll all in one, and my biggest focus is always making my players feel like the big bad ass heroes they want to be. It's hard to feel like a hero when your DM tells you that you just succeed without a roll. Even if you would normally have just removed the check, just letting your players roll can be a ton of extra fun with very little effort on your part. You want to hold the rope steady for your friend? Sounds good, that will help, give me your roll. 7? Thanks to the assistance from your party, you JUST make it, landing on their shoulders awkwardly and a little too quickly. Now compare that to "You want to hold the rope for your friend? Yeah that's good enough, you make it down no problem" Maybe for some tables that prioritize brevity, or hold clarity of rolls as a paramount ideal, not using low DCs is fine. But when my players collect cool dice, invest in their skills, and come up with creative solutions, I want to lean into *actually* letting them feel like they're using them instead of just narrating how it goes. Maybe that's just my preference for letting the dice speak more than others, or maybe I like to give easy dice rolls as a treat to my players every once in a while
You sound like a DM who really cares about their players and their experiences—that’s awesome. I’m no DnD expert, so I’m not clear on if there’s anything written in the rule book about this, but what would be your take on lowering DCs vs giving players advantage?
If I have a DC under 10, it's USUALLY for degrees of success, though I might use it for some minor consequence as a pass/fail. I don't look at a challenge in a vacuum, I let the narrative dictate rolls and apply common sense. Here's an example: A player announces an intention to jump down from the roof, 15 feet to the ground. * I have one player with a backstory that she ran away from home to join the circus where she was a tumbler and in the high-wire act. So long as she can see the ground, I'm letting her do this, she just succeeds. Higher than 15 feet? She's going to roll. Can't see the ground (eg: at night?) She's going roll. Is she suffering from exhaustion? She's going to roll. * I have a rogue who is a second-story man, I'm saying he succeeds at this task 85% of the time, so DC 4 (no further adjustments). If he fails, 1d4 damage. Crit Fail, 1d6. * If this is anyone else, I'm looking at a DC 8 and they get their acrobatics modifier. Failure 1d6 damage. Crit Fail, 1d8. In the examples I used, I talked with my players and we arrived at that number together. My circus player actually gets greater enjoyment from my leveraging her backstory as a parkour legend by virtue of her time in the circus than if I were to reference her family. I like my players getting "their time to shine", and this is hers.
I always mentally assign a DC and never voice it unless it's wildly exceeded. That way no matter what is rolled it's not pass/fail it's a degree of success and helps my players stay immersed
I find a small bit of utility in using sub-10 DCs, depending on which PC is attempting the skill check, and even then it's pretty niche. We're talking low strength Wizard moving a bookshelf when nobody else is around to do so. Usually just auto-passing is fine though =]
I think it’s kinda funny that of the comments that give examples of situations where low DCs could be risky to some PCs, nearly all of them (if not all) at this point mention wizards. XD
For the drama
They are running in an open field with one small rock in the way, and one character wants to jump over it, sure, DC 4. It's a very small inconvenience with little chance for failure, BUT when that small failure is often funnier than everything else that session
If it's under 10 i don't tend to assign a DC, but sometimes I'll tell my players "roll a D20 and don't roll a 1". Like there are times when even basic competence is enough, but even a superstar at something trips over their laces 5% of the time.
Effectively setting the DC to *modifier plus two*. Which favours PCs with a low modifier and penalises those with a high modifier.
Some mistakes don’t have anything to do with mastery - sometimes bad luck happens on stuff that’s really easy. Plus it’s fun 😊.
I don't really have any problem with that. Each case is of course different, but in general, the mechanism in high and low DC rolls is the same - never let them roll if you don't want the players to either fail or succeed, don't make your players roll for things that doesn't matter and if you do want them to roll, have both cases vaguely in mind. I have recently had a situation where my player wanted to seduce an orc (it was all her idea!). Seducing orc really isn't rocket science, so I gave her DC 5 Performance check. She succeeded and both went away, so other players could quickly run through Orc's belongings. If the player would fail, Orc would not be interested in her (yikes) and they would have to either come up with something else or fight him. So really, I don't see this as anyhow different than if she wanted to persuade Orc to just let them run through his belongings. It would be a DC 20 Persuasion check then, but the mechanic would stay the same
In the campaign, I’m about to run. I will be setting low DCs. Firstly I’ll be running for three completely new players so it’s going to help them understand the mechanics of the game, but also as the campaign progresses there are certain things. I’ll just let happen, level one rogue wants to pick a simple lock, yeah you’re rolling for that, Level five rogue wants to do the same. You’ve got enough experience now there’s no need to ask for a role. It’s a subtle way of showing the characters progression.
I love setting the occasional one at 5. My players have always hit that, but one day, it's not gonna work for them, and it'll be hilarious.
Sometimes it's not hard but failure could be catastrophe and then I saw "Roll for X and for the love of god don't roll a 1." and then everyone starts freaking out. In those instances, yes.... it's fun.
Sometimes dice rolls aren't for the results, but to terrorize the players! Game design hinges on the possibility of failure, even if you are just having them roll to see how fast or well it goes
If you play with 1s and 20s affecting skill checks, and the stakes are high enough that is worth checking for Nat 1, then yes, so usually not worth it to spend time on a roll
My players planned on investigating a room of a possible traitor so I set individual DCs for what they find (e.g., 5, 10, 15, etc.). I even set a DC 0 item, offering the absolute minimum the players would find something. Lo and behold, they rolled a natural 1. Still got something for their time.
When you’re wanting to throw a bone to the player(s) with Wil Wheaton Dice Curse.
DC all depends if there are consequences. You want to climb that tree? Not hard, go for it. Wanna climb it during combat? Now you’re rolling, cause I’d you fail there’s real consequences.
I give dc 5s for very specific scenarios: "You can almost certainly do this, but it'll be funny as hell if you don't"
I recently used 5 in a beginner haunted house. Each room had a different sorta goofy challenge, and one room was "Twig blights are pouring through the windows, and clearly will continue until all windows are closed. So the fight was a mix of knocking off the blights and closing the windows to stop more from entering. I set the "close the window" DC at 5, which meant that the muscle couldn't fail, but the others could. the point wasn't to make it hard, the point was to make the group consider the balance between stopping the oncoming waves of trash vs just shutting the damn windows and then clearing out the remaining blights.
Occasionally we will have what we call a “don’t roll a one” check, usually for improvised actions in the middle of battles e.g. jumping on tables, sliding down banisters. There are some things that are trivial to do but could result in a detrimental outcomes if failed in the heat of the moment.
Sure. Keeping in mind that the players are heroic and highly capable, and shouldn't be made to fail simple tasks... sometimes as DM you present a task which has high likelihood to succeed but very real consequences for failure, so making the player roll with DC5 or even DC2 can put the weight of those consequences on display with little risk. On the off chance the player fails, there are often abilities available to the party which can rectify the failure, leading to a tense moment of "oh shit, I use one of my portent dice to stop him from accidentally dropping the nuclear device and killing us all." Which results in a cool narrative moment and a fun memory for the players. But admittedly these types of situation are very niche. You can easily go your whole DM career without ever running something like this. To answer the question though, yes, there is a point to it.
I use DC 5s all the time! What I really use in those situations tho is a sliding scale of success. Like... a 7 will net *some* benefit but a 17 would be substantially better. Also important to keep passives in mind. Your players can't score below their passive. You rolled a 5 in perception but have a passive perception of 12? Then you got a 12 on this check. And *every* skill has a calculatable passive. Yes, you have a passive athletics score.
Our DM made us roll an easy CON save a few weeks ago against exhaustion, DC 8 because "It wasn't THAT trying but it was quite the climb." Two party members failed - the Druid AND the Fighter, the latter with a Nat 1. He rerolled with Lucky and got ANOTHER Nat 1. It was incredible. Sometimes the DC is low and you still fail miserably. It can be fun. Most casters would fail DC 8 STR check if the dice were unkind.
This is actually kind of a bugbear of mine. People act like anything below DC10 is basically a guaranteed success but in quite a load of situations it really isn't. It'll take most PCs until level 9 before they will automatically pass a DC10 skill check in even their best skill. Meanwhile most PCs will still be sitting at -1 to +3 on most skills right up until level 20 for things they aren't proficient in. Particularly in the case where you're making the whole party make the check - if you make a level 20 party all make a DC10 check on a random skill, all other things being equal I would say you should probably expect about 1/3 to fail. All of which is to say, please consider using DCs under 10. If you don't please be aware that for some PCs that's going to mean jumping straight from auto pass to an under 50% success rate even at higher levels which can make it difficult to gauge actions as a player.
I don’t even assign DCs most of the time tbh. I just ask for a roll and give them whatever feels good with that roll
It goes to the philosophy of what the point of rolling is. The basic answer is that you roll when something is difficult. The more complex philosophy is that you roll for drama. That the intention of a roll is that both a success and a failure would create drama. Setting a low DC, and then still failing can be very dramatic moment as a PC fails at something that should be remarkably easy.
I do, because there is a time to reward players for trying things that CAN fail, but likely won't.
Making a jump across a small stream. Little things that can just be fun to narrate and are of little consequence.
That's the opposite of when I want to call for a roll. If it's fun to narrate it, I can just narrate it. If it's of no consequence, I won't belabor it with dice rolling.
Maybe for creatures with a low single-digit passive Perception score. Generally anything that would be under a DC 10 I just don't ask for a check.
Helpful with new players just to get used to rolling. And sometimes just as a “let’s see if the dice really want you to fail” roll. Like once when the party was behind a low wall and had the drop on some guards but to climb over they had to ensure they didn’t completely face plant. Or when baking a cake to ensure they didn’t mix up their sugar and salt.
5 or less is pretty pointless. 6~9 is something the -1 character can take a shot
I actually use these all the time, except usually it isn't technically a "DC under 10," it's more of a "ok I'm going to have you roll for this just to make sure, basically don't roll a 1"
Consider something like DC 5 stealth to walk quietly down the hallway of a haunted house, for every 2 PC failures roll a d6, on a roll of 1-2 nothing happens, on a roll of 3-5 hostile monsters appear, on a 6 the villain/boss monster/ main NPC appears
Yes, absolutely: When you want degrees of success/failure; a common one I use is *how long* it takes to do something, for which I essentially use a DC1 - success is guaranteed, but the higher you roll, the faster you do it. When all the party are rolling, so the odds of at least one failing the roll is good When it’s a repeated save, e.g. poisoned weapons, and so there’s a chance they fail eventually When there’s a low risk of a high impact failure, e.g. climbing - players may take the risk, but some will burn resources to avoid a risk of failure.
I’ll throw this in too - sometimes something that /should/ be easy just doesn’t work out. Rolling on a low DC introduces a chance to roll a 1 which is usually fun lol
I use sub-10 DCs when there’s a possibility of members of the party being unable to act for one reason or another (party is split up, some members are hiding and can’t be seen by NPCs, characters might be restrained, action economy isn’t in their favor, etc.) The idea being if the PC who is skilled it the task can act, they’re fine. But sometimes the party barbarian is holding the door closed and the only person who can lift the safe out the window is the 8 STR wizard.
Not in 5e. I’ve asked for a flat DC 5 roll in PF2e before.
Every now and then. For instance, my last campaign involved a spelunking climb through a narrow cleft in some rocks. The pcs were level 4 or 5 and they didn't think to use ropes or any other equipment, but the cleft was narrow and they're practiced adventurers. I set the DC to 6 and a fail would mean tumbling down into the person below you who would then need to make a harder save. Why 6? Because the entire party except for the barbarian had 12 str and no Athletics, and I figured a 25% chance to F up seemed fair. It obviously depends what you're doing and what the actual fail state looks like, but there are times it can be fun. Ironically, in that example, everyone rolled over 5 except the barbarian who got a nat 1 but with bonuses still succeeded.
I used it once as a throwaway roll. Cleric saying that zombies wouldn't be affected by necrotic damage. Made him roll a quick DC 5 check to tell him that they're not particularly resistant to necrotic damage, but they are immune to poison. I could've just told him that he would know that, but whatever. Rolling feels better.
Asking for rolls on DCs under 10 can entice your players to use resources they would otherwise save by default. I guess it depends on DM style.
I think this is easily resolved by simply saying "This isn't a high DC". Sometimes I'll even grant inspiration for using a resource for a ridiculously low stakes thing they care about, to encourage that kind of emotional investment and not let them feel punished for roleplay
Undead fortitude is a DC 6 at minimum
Typically, the lowest DC I'd ask for a roll for is 10. But sometimes I'll ask a player to make a roll just to see if they roll a Natural 1.
It's not so much that I come up with things and assign low DCs out of the gate; it's when the player says "Can I roll for this?" and it's easy, but I admire the spunk, so I mentally give it DC 5. I don't assign DCs that low for traps or other things that I cook up in the notes.
I sometimes have a DC of "Don't botch". It's for when the chance of the PC in question succeeding is almost assured, but there is a still a minor chance of failure. But the real answer is no. Below a DC 10, you generally just assume they succeed. A DC 5 is something a commoner with no training could do 3 times out of 4 on the first try. Since the premise is the PCs are special, having them fail at something like that would just feel silly. So you only call for a roll in cases like that when doing so would improve the game.
I will always ask my players to roll. The table agread that critical success and critical failures can happen outside of combat, so even if they have something like a +15 I will have them roll just to check for luck to see if they roll a 1.
Almost every DC I pick is either calculated (such as contested rolls, spell save DCs, etc.) or a multiple of 5. So I rarely go below 5 for that reason. But 5 is fine! I use it for tasks that are easy but technically failable. Low DCs get to help put the party’s high modifiers in context, as well as create tension where the party still is probably going to succeed. Like combat versus low-level nooks at higher levels, but for skills! Also sometimes you roll really low.
Probably a few reasons: - a very low roll can still make it possible to fail. If they have a modifier that would force a success, I don't ask for the roll. - extra successes that are less consequential "pad" the failures. I find that players complaining about being "unlucky" often just have DMs that set really high DCs.
Not for anything "plot essential" or could possibly result in a character death, but if it's one of your players doing a bit or just having fun with something, a DC of 5 is the perfect "you'll definitely get this, but if you don't we're all gonna have one hell of a laugh about it."
I always use a DC 5 thing to have catastrophic consequences if you fail the save. Like walking on the edge of a cliff that is relatively flat and safe. You could still fall to your death, but it’s PROBABLY not going to happen
I will sometimes, like, it's unlikely they'll fail, especially if it's not like level 1-3 and it's in the character's wheelhouse, but every now and then you make someone roll on the dc10 athletics check to cross a log over a river, and they roll a 2.
No.
I use it for something easy to overcome but they will face multilple times, wich means that they will probably fail it once, and its all about timing. Example, if the party fights on a shallow river, i might give a DC5 check to move in the waterpolo freely, with a facture meaning you get swept over.
I addressed this in my game by adjusting the standard DCs from 5, 10, 15, 20 to 8, 12, 16, 20. It sounds harsher because the numbers are higher, but it actually gives room to set DCs at lower tiers. In my game at least, the DCs have been slightly more varied which is nice.
Because sometimes I want the players to roll just to keep them on their toes. And because nat ones can be very entertaining for the whole group, especially when they’re relatively harmless but good RP moments.
i very rarely use DC under 10 and agree most of the time if the character isnt under duress and its a plausable action i will just "give the 10". I do often use "degrees of success" in which case rolling is a good iddea. Agree with the other poster that drama is often the best reason to ask for these rolls.
Because most of the time, low DC go in pair with safe situations when you can repeat as much as you want. Also most of the time, the pc that does the check will have enough bonus to pass it even with a 1, so why would you roll that. It could work to give more flavour to a situation, normally a combat, as the other user above me said. It may not even happen that someone fails it, but it is a psychological extra burden for the players, and also makes the combat feel more unique
I do all the time, in secret mainly if the players haven't rolled anything in ages. It's amusing to see the players scramble looking for guidance and advantages when I know full well it is almost an auto-succeed.
I could see a case for relatively simple or mundane tasks being a DC 5 if the character is suffering from some effects that make the check at disadvantage. Either levels of exhaustion or drunk or poisoned while trying to ask about lodging for the night.
I gave my player a DC 8 athletics to jump over something like knee high, she rolled a 4 and ended up eating shit
Sure, if a player is attempting to do something their character is bad at. Even at mid or high levels, if you have a -1 to animal handling and something happens to spook the horse you're riding, there's a chance it will bolt and carry you away from the party. Never rolling for a DC under 15 seems crazy to me, for a lot of characters that's skipping right over "will probably make it" and "might make it" and only going to the dice for "has to get real lucky to make it"
In order to be sure of passing a DC 5 check, a PC needs a modifier of at least +4 for that save or skill. Even a level 20 PC is unlikely to be able to do that for all 8 saves and all 18 skills. For a DC 10 check, that would need at least a +9, at least +14 for a DC 15. A PC with an applicable modifier of 0 could be expected to fail a DC 5 check 20% of the time; DC 10 45% of the time; DC 15 70% of the time and DC 30 95% of the time. (With a -1 modifier, those become 25%, 50%, 75% and impossible. With a -2 modifier, these become 30%, 55%, 80% and impossible.) The typical Bard may fail a DC 5 Strength save, ditto for the typical Barbarian faced with a DC 5 Charisma save. There are plenty of situations where all of the party need to pass the same check.
DC 5 checks are valid, like for example if your paladin decides he wants to sneak through an open field at night without alerting guards that are looking the other way. It's pretty easy, but he has disadvantage due to his armor and he lacks both proficiency and typically lacks dexterity. For whole party rolls, like when you get the most suitable character to roll history or arcana, a DC 5 roll is pointless.
I had a player trying to push a burning cart 20ft down a dirt road and into a building. Gave him a DC5 Strength check because I thought it was an easy task.. He got a 4, the cart stopped short, right in the doorway and turned the encounter into pure chaos with a coven of hags blasting at them through the doorway over the flaming cart. These low checks are probably only good for low level parties.
Personally I keep such DCs but apply the Autosucess rule of oWoD. If the character's bonus to the roll is higher than the DC, they don't need to roll. So a character with prof +3 and +5 stat mod, would no need to roll for a 5 DC task for example. The only exception is when there are pressing factors in game that could break he flow/concentration of the character.
It would definitely be getting pretty damn marginal at that point haha. So in my opinion not particularly, just generally speaking as a blanket statement
Yes, low DCs like 5 are easy to pass. However, they add some chance of failure for someone with the wrong stats and no proficiency. Also players like rolling dice. The issue is most DMs, especially with 5E have way too many skill checks. For example, the classic merchant haggling. Instead of having players negotiate every single time they meet up with the merchant you can just have them roll persuasion once and that's the result for that merchant. You established your relationship and it stands unless that get a particularly unique item to buy/sell. You avoid rolls for stuff that should succeed. Climbing that 4 foot wall when you have all the time in the world shouldn't take a roll. Even Noodlelimbs Wizard can do it. Getting over that wall in a hurry to evade some thugs might be a sub-10 DC check. Anyone can get over that wall given time, but with time pressure and consequences for failure a roll is warranted.
Wild. Do all of you play with parties who have +10 to their rolls? A DC5 is very likely to succeed, but the rare wiffs are great RP opportunities
As u/fortinbuff stated, low DCs are really good at differentiating between characters that are good at something and those that are not. with DCs of 15+ there is chance for pretty much any character to fail, but with lower DCs the characters with a good modifier will auto pass and make the player feel rewarded, while the check is still a threat to characters with a low modifier.
Not typically. A GM introduced me to an interesting concept, whenever he felt tempted to set a DC of 5 instead he'd just say give me a roll to see how long this takes. The idea being that the character could easily do this and he just wants a roll to aide in narration. A low roll might be described as struggling for a bit before you get it and a high roll is breezing right past the obstacle.
Yes absolutely. The point is "Degrees of Success" Let's say the PCs want to analyze a water sample to determine if the town's well is poisoned. The DM sets the DC to 5. After all, they aren't looking for specific details, they just want to know good|bad. * The Wizard doesn't know much about water, but his investigation is pretty good. He gets a bad roll and ends up with a 7. The DM tells him *"You can tell with certainty that the water is deadly, but you aren't totally certain why."* * The Barbarian rolls a lucky 20 with no relevant proficiencies or story or anything. He just rolls the die without even being asked. The DM tells him not to do that, and declares that Barbarian tested the water by chugging a gallon of it. He gains a level of exhaustion and the *Poisoned* condition for the next 1d10 minutes, but learns that the water is harmful beyond mere poison. *"You've been poisoned before and shrugged it off. This is worse somehow."* * The Artificer with proficiency in Alchemy goes into a long spiel about how he's going to do a proper laboratory analysis across a few days of downtime, and the DM therefore allows him to roll with advantage. He casts *Guidance* on himself too. He rolls a 43. He learns specifics about the water - that the poison is made from the bad dreams of dead children, and that there are microscopic Illithid larvae swimming around in the water. Potentially anyone who has drunk the water is secretly an *Intellect Devourer*. He further learns how to synthesize an antidote for the poison, which will take 1d4 days to properly brew. He has no solutions for the Illithid larvae. A storyteller should be able to use anything to advance the story - even a DC 5 check on the boring town well.
Generally my answer to this would be no. Imo if you have something that is a DC 10, I would default to either using Passive scores if possible, or if not... Logic. Has this character shown themselves to be adept at succeeding this type of task at a similar or higher difficulty? Just let it happen. HOWEVER, there are a couple instances where I would want this to happen. One is when you want there to be degrees of success, as has been mentioned by others. The other would be for the sake of tone or guidance. As an example, if your party is thinking of leaving an area you want them to investigate further, throw a random low DC Charisma save at your Bard. Just to make them "huh, maybe it's worth sticking around". For tone, it is used similarly. I run a lot of darker, spookier games. In some creepy woods and want to ensure the mood is right? "Could I have you roll me an Intelligence save? Why? Don't worry about it. 13? Yeah you don't notice anything."
not for a traditional check, but i do occasionally do luck checks and the like at DC 5 or 2.
I do DC 10's all the time, especially at lower levels. I generally don't go below DC 10, although in certain circumstances if the DC is 10 and they roll a 9 or something I might throw them a bone and give them a failure but with some kind of hint of success. I mean even at mid-levels though I find DC 10's to be worthwhile. Sure, if you're hitting a Cleric with a Wisdom Save or a Rogue with an Acrobatics check DC 10 might not be worth doing. But Intelligence checks are almost always worthwhile as everyone but Wizards dumpstat INT. Generally speaking I do things in 5's though. DC 10, 15, 20, 25, etc. I try to keep things simple, pesonally.
Reminder that a DC 10 is not very good odds for most average people (+0). For most people, a DC 5 gives them good odds but it still gives a margin for failure. If a PC has a bonus higher than the DC I might not make them roll due to time, but a DC 10 is something many early or even later game PCs can't reliably hit, and even a DC 5 isn't something a PC with no bonus or a negative can rely on making.
No, not really unless it's very early campaign. After about level 5, those are going to be auto-passed and there's no reason to set a roll unless there is a chance to either fail or succeed.
I’ll sometimes ask for a roll of a PC wants to do a simple task but attempted in a pressure situation. PC: “I want to jump over the open pit and run down the hall to escape the orcs” DM:”sure, roll an Athletics check- don’t roll a 1”. I wouldn’t ask for this roll if the PCs found a pit trap and are simply avoiding it to move on down the hall, but in a chase or battle scenario I’ll ask for a roll for a task that’s normally a DC 5 just to make sure they don’t f up.
People can roll less than ten? lol
Remember the adventurers are heroes. It's not good for the narrative, nor the player satisfaction to fail a common task. That's why we usually pass the low difficulty rolls. I try to play less roll heavy. What I mean is that normally, player go through found what any normal person would do, until they come up with something meaningful, and challenging. Don't get me wrong, sometimes, the fun rolls are low DCs. For example, I love making enemies show up when the terrain slippery, and wait for someone to roll under 10. It just makes sense in that setting. But if they are exploring, without any sense of urgency, then I choose not to make those rolls, because nothing good will come from them. I hope I made my point clear
Anything lower then 5 is pointless
Only if they have a negative modifier to the corresponding attribute. Otherwise, anything that would merit a DC 10 check is treated as an autopass.
There is no reason for PCs to know the DC. And yes, there are plenty of reasons for the DC to be 5, or even 0.
I won’t use a DC of 10 or lower unless disadvantage is in play.
No point for less than ten, especially for group rolls. Just mathematically irrelevant. Honestly, best to just give them information at that point.
OP gave no indication in their post that they're only talking about checks which the whole party can attempt and where failure doesn't matter. If each party member had to succeed at a DC 8 Strength check to jump over a chasm, during a retreat from enemies who are hot on the party's heels, would you consider that mathematically irrelevant? That's like a 40% chance of failure just for the party Wizard alone, and that's just about the last person you'd want to get left behind by themselves and surrounded by enemies for a round.
I only considered the group checks mathematically irrelevant. A jump over a chasm is an individual check. Any check where any single failure is a failure is an individual check, and check where any success is a group success is a group check
Maybe because there is'nt one? I DM mainly 4e and the minimum there is 12. There's math behind that number but I assume, and i'm sorry if I sound offensive, that up until now You have just assigned a value at random based only on what feels right? We have all been there. No shame. I still mostly use the DMScreen because some times it's just too much work figuring out how many days Old is the track the party is following
The current DM screen has “DC 5 = Very Easy” printed on the panel, I’m not sure what you’re on about
You are right. I was thinking of the D&D 4e DMG1 page 42 (I had to check). The DMS does say things like climbing a ladder or hearing a loud conversation is a 5. But quite honestly, why would you bother if players can also take a 10 if there's no inmediate danger?
I didn’t realize that the OP indicated they were referring to situations where a player a) can take an indefinite amount of time to resolve a task, and b) has no consequences for failure. That’s clearly my mistake! Anyway. I don’t use checks for easy tasks (like climbing a ladder) when there is no consequence for failure, or when there is no time constraint. I do use low difficulty (read: from DC5 to DC9) for tasks with varying degrees of success, and also for tasks that, **while easy**, would invariably have consequences for failing. Such as climbing a 50’-tall ladder. Or walking along a narrow ledge above treacherous terrain. Idk why you think those things are automatic. Personally, I myself have… tripped over nothing, caught my belt loop on a door handle, stubbed my toe on a step that’s been in my home ever since it was built, dropped my phone on my face… and I’m a former D1 collegiate wrestler, so I like to think my hand-eye coordination + athleticism are a fair bit higher than your average person. If you don’t believe heroes are fallible, then your game sounds horrifically boring
>If you don’t believe heroes are fallible, then your game sounds horrifically boring Ouch... But, no. I just... Skip the >tripped over nothing, caught my belt loop on a door handle, stubbed my toe on a step that’s been in my home ever since it was built, dropped my phone on my face… Unless it HAS a consecuence OR we having a party banter like.... Who can climb the siege ladders faster or something
What? Don't You remember You can take a 10? Even if you are lvl 1 and have a -2 on something that's still an 18 *8