I dont know about you guys, but i have been thinking and want to try to even out the DC checks for skills.
Because it is difficult to make up a new number every time a player wish to use a skill or if i ask for them to roll for one. 

So i had the idea to use 5+ PC level to apply to the checks needed. it makes it pretty easy at lower levels but as you advance in the game things get more difficult.

I may not be the only one to have had this thought, but i am not going to scroll through the whole forum to find that thread.

So, now i wonder:
What do you think about this idea? Is it fair?

It's tough to say if a flat model like that would really be viable and to me, it's not a blanket solution.  A DC should ideally reflect the challenge of the check, in that situation, at that time.  A level 3 Barbarian, with a -1 to Charisma, would only need to roll, on the die, say an 8 to Persuade the guards to let him in under that arrangement.  This doesn't seem realistic or rational to me, so I would be against such a flat setting for a DC.  On a physical check, having a DC of 8 for the 3rd level Barbarian to climb a 10 foot wall might make sense, but when they return to the spot later and he tries to do it again, the DC is now 12, simply because the player has leveled to 7.

DC can be a bit of a hassle if you are throwing a bunch of checks at the party, but honestly, it shouldn't be something you're wasting a lot of time sorting through.  They want to open a lockbox they stole from a caravan?  Well, the merchant was likely trying to protect his goods, so he would have bought at least a decent lock, so the DC might be a 15 to pick the lock, or break the box.  A strongbox stolen from a home might be less secure and sturdy, so maybe a 10 makes more sense.

To me, challenges don't become greater or less depending on what level the characters are, but instead, with WHAT they are doing.  Convincing a couple of thugs guarding a hideout would have a lower DC than swindling your way past trained, professional guards of the crown.  Stealing the coin purse form a merchant, half drunk in a pub is easier than lifting a coin purse from a wealthy noble on the street.  IMO, there are WAY too many variables involved for a DC to simply assign a fixed value.

Finally, you need to employ what works best for YOUR table.  What works on mine may be vastly different, so whatever you run with, just ensure it's the best solution for YOUR group, and nothing else really matters.

I just assign the DC based on how difficult the task should be. Having one singular DC for all skill checks is kind of boring and predictable and this scaling you're proposing feels really off. Unless you get into tier 3/4 play the DCs are never going to really get that difficult and they start off comically easy. If you have a DC of 6 at level 1, anyone with proficiency and 16 in the stat won't be able to fail that even on a nat 1 unless you house rule nat 1 failures on ability checks. 

There should be difficult DCs at low levels and there should be harder DCs at higher levels. Picking a lock on some random person's backdoor should be easier than picking a lock on the door of the royal treasury, even if you try both at the same level. Spotting some random bandit with a perception check should be easier than a master assassin or a well camouflaged monster. 

I think the scaling should come more naturally. Because as the party levels up they should be taking on greater challenges. Contending with more competent and dangerous foes, going into more dangerous places, taking on bigger stakes. 

I would stick to something akin to this table, and then just not throw as many hard/very hard/nearly impossible things at players in the earlier levels. 

i guess you are right, i have seen that difficulty scale and even though i think it is pretty neat, i don't really agree to it. It gets really tough between easy and medium. all after that is pretty damn hard to manage if you bought your ability points in the start.

I just wanted to make it a little easy for myself to determine what is easy and what is not, because it has come to my understanding that the difficulty seen from DM's perspective might not be the same as the players.
If there would be something players could try to grasp or understand according to the difficulty scale, maybe they wouldn't feel in need to discuss every failed attempt.
Like trying to persuade a merchant to sell something cheaper and rolls 18 for it in total, and then fails because DM just decided the roll should be 20 the least, just because NPC is a merchant and don't want to swing it that characters way at that time. (This is just an example, not experience)
If i was the player i would try to call bullshit, because a few merchants would have that kind of difficulty and then the argument is ongoing.
Result in the end will be DM is right because DM's words are absolute and player will feel like he/she lost.

Except the mentioned scale, is there something else one could try as DM to prevent arguments, because it would save alot of time and the game would move on faster and get somewhere. Any ideas?

You make slot of sense, I did not think of it that way, that same task will have different DC depending of level.

So my idea has a lot of flaws already pointed out and I am grateful, because that way I know that even though i like the idea i had it will probably not work practically in-game.

Thank you for your help =)

Also I posted that chart more as a general guideline, the labels next to each DC milestone don't need to be taken literally. You could say make 10 the medium instead of 15 if you want. And you can also hit any number between these milestones. 

I think the main thing to consider with the labels is, do you want this check to be easy/medium/hard for the average person, who does not have proficiency/high aiblity scores relevant to it, or do you want to scale that assuming the person doing it IS good at it? 

What constitutes 'hard' to a 20 dex rogue with thieves tool expertise versus someone without proficiency in the tool is a wide gap, especially when your proficiency bonus is higher in later game levels. Scaling can be a tricky balance because you want players to feel rewarded for investing in being good at things. If you make every lock a DC 30 because the rogue has a crazy modifier, your'e sort of undercutting their investment by just making it harder. On the other hand you do want to make sure they are challenged now and then. 

If there's a skill that NOBODY is good at in the group another thing to consider is whether to show mercy. Say that you have a group of all low strength characters and no athletics proficiency. And they all have to do something like swim up a river or climb a steep cliff to get somewhere. You could lower the DC to account for that, or you could keep it where it is and consider it a consequence and natural flaw of their group as a whole. 

You've touched upon a real issue. If I start out with a +3 mod and you set a DC15 check, then I have to roll a 12 to pass. If I then get, through ASIs, magic items, etc, a +8 mod, but you then decide that, In order to keep things challenging, to make everything DC20, I still have to roll a 7 to pass. I haven't really gone anywhere - especially if it's the exact same challenge. I've not been rewarded for working to get my additional +5.

Try to have the challenge be increased with your characters. For example, the DC5 lock that your characters come across at the beginning might be a knotted rope, at the end it might be an incredibly intricate lock made by master of the art that has never been beaten before set at a DC30.

It's hard though. You want to show progression, but also retain the challenge - two goals that are at odds with each other, particularly when the engine consists of rolling a d20 and maybe another die. I've yet to come across a game that does it convincingly.

Quote from Arthur_Pewtey >>

You are entering into a world of hurt that every DM eventually experiences, especially if there are chars with Expertise in the party.

Just remember, many skill checks are not only "nearly impossible", but "impossible". DC 30 is entirely within reach for many chars, starting at level 8 or 9.

But consider this case. It is a summit meeting of the G7. Your 9th level Bard with Expertise in Persuasion walks up to a security guard on the perimeter, and says "I would like to let you me into to see the world leaders, I have some positive ideas for them", rolls a 19, proclaims "That works out to 32 modified". The security guard will still call for backup and take down the Bard.

edit: Oh, and I almost forgot. Nat 20 is meaningless in Ability checks, just as meaningless as a 1. Nat 20 is not an automatic pass.

This is true, but if someone is going to succeed even on a nat 1, or if they'll fail on a nat 20, I don't see the point in even calling for the roll. I'd just say 'yeah for you this is trivial' or 'no this is not within the realm of plausibility.'  

But yeah it's generally good form to have the player say what they want to do, and then the DM chooses to have them roll or not, if it's in that gray area where it's not trivial and also not flat out impossible for them to do. 

Expertise, and reliable talent on my rogue I think were a big balancing issue when I had that lol. Not only did my rogue have +13 modifiers but they couldn't effectively roll below a 10 on any ability check they had proficiency in. Any lock with a DC of 20, or any stealth check etc. It effectively made all but the highest of DCs meaningless. Though a lot of games don't get to level 11 anyway. 

Quote from Necromutant >>

i guess you are right, i have seen that difficulty scale and even though i think it is pretty neat, i don't really agree to it. It gets really tough between easy and medium. all after that is pretty damn hard to manage if you bought your ability points in the start.

 I mean it's literally called hard difficulty, so it should be hard to succeed. If you don't want a task to be hard, you set it to easy or medium.

I am also a big proponent of resolving very easy or impossible tasks without rolling. I will give easy info out if you have proficiency in a skill, and if a bard wants to seduce a dragon I don't set a DC, I just say no.

Keep in mind that really easy checks as well as actually impossible checks shouldn't be checks to begin with. If it's something you think the character should be able to do, don't call for a check - just tell the player they succeed. A lock for instance can be fairly difficult, but if the rogue is proficient, has the right tools and isn't rushed it's still perfectly reasonable to let them succeed without needing to roll (and equally reasonable to not extend the same privilege to another character that isn't proficient, lacks tools or is under pressure because the guard's about to return from the loo and resume his patrol). In my experience a lot of DMs asks for checks that aren't necessary. This slows the game and creates a chance of failure where there shouldn't be any. At most you might ask for a roll to see how long it takes to complete the task successfully, if that's pertinent to the situation.

If the unnecessary checks don't happen, DC 15 for a medium check is a pretty good baseline if you think about it - for a low level character with decent natural aptitude (+2 from the relevant ability mod) and the necessary training (+2/+3 proficiency) that's around 50% chance of success. Easy will be better than 50%; hard will be worse. Seems about right to me. That's my quick and easy rule of thumb anyway: is the task something that should neither be particularly difficult nor particularly easy, go with DC 15. Adjust from there in increments of 5 for every reason the task should be easier or harder. You won't go far wrong that way in practice.

The tricky part about skill checks shouldn't be the DC in my opinion: the tricky part is setting things up so failure is a setback but not a dead end and success gives a benefit but doesn't just solve the entire situation. Managing failed checks in particular is something to pay attention to; always make sure the PCs have alternate avenues to move forward if they fail at something, even if those will be less convenient or desirable.

Don’t forget that the numbers in the chart that Nyr_Ventus included in post 3(post #3) are a general guideline and not a wholly comprehensive "be-all and end-all." Those are examples presented as a guideline for DM convenience. It’s a tool for your DM’s toolbox, but it isn’t some “universal constant”that can only vary due to proximity to a black hole or something like the speed of light. If, for example, you think something is harder than “easy,” but not as hard as “medium,” you can pick a number in between 10 and 15 if you feel it more appropriate. The range average between DC 10 and DC 15 is 12.5, so if you feel a DC of 12 or 13 would be more fitting for a certain situation, use 12 or 13 instead, or 11 or 14 for that matter.

Quote from pangurjan >>

The tricky part about skill checks shouldn't be the DC in my opinion: the tricky part is setting things up so failure is a setback but not a dead end and success gives a benefit but doesn't just solve the entire situation. Managing failed checks in particular is something to pay attention to; always make sure the PCs have alternate avenues to move forward if they fail at something, even if those will be less convenient or desirable.

 
That👆. And to help with that task, I offer this👇:

So here's something I've been toying with.

Premise 1: You should only ask for a roll if there's a reason to. Typically, the PC is under some degree of duress or challenge. If the PC can retry without consequence, just declare that the PC eventually succeeds, and/or ask for a roll to determine how long it takes.

Premise 2: The PC is usually under duress because of a threat of some kind. The rogue needs to pick the lock before the room fills up with water in 3 rounds, or the troll is bearing down on you and you need to climb up a wall or make a long leap over a pit. Something along those lines.

Premise 3: The threat that's prompting the check has a CR in most cases. And in those cases where it doesn't, you can usually derive a CR or assume it'd match the CR of a combat encounter of some sort.

Conclusion: You can set the DCs based on the CR of the threat that's prompting the check in the first place, using the save DC for a given CR. If there's no CR, you can assume one based on what would be typical for the PC at that level to be dealing with. Or you can derive one based on the nature of the task. For example, if the PC is trying to decipher some arcane script and you ask for an Intelligence (Arcana) check, figure out the Intelligence of the person that created the script and derive a DC from that using the passive score system (10 + ability mod + prof bonus, which in turn can be determined via CR). It's pretty easy to imagine some ancient brilliant mage had an Intelligence of 18 and +4 prof bonus, so that's a DC of 18 (10 + 4 +4).

True, but fail states are a different question than DCs.

There are ways to let the game keep going despite failures, especially in modern 5e. Using the flooding room example, even after the third round, the PCs can still hold their breath for a long time, giving the rogue more chances to unlock the door. And even if some PCs run out of air, they only make death saves, which are additional attempts. The chances of a reasonably-skilled lockpicker failing before the entire party goes under gets smaller and smaller.

As a DM, I certainly try not to put my players into save-or-die situations. But if they repeatedly fail, it's really no different from a combat that went bad. Not the outcome anyone hopes for but the threat of death has to be there somewhere for the game to have stakes.

Quote from EggKookoo >>

 

Premise 3: The threat that's prompting the check has a CR in most cases. And in those cases where it doesn't, you can usually derive a CR or assume it'd match the CR of a combat encounter of some sort.

Conclusion: You can set the DCs based on the CR of the threat that's prompting the check in the first place, using the save DC for a given CR. If there's no CR, you can assume one based on what would be typical for the PC at that level to be dealing with. Or you can derive one based on the nature of the task. For example, if the PC is trying to decipher some arcane script and you ask for an Intelligence (Arcana) check, figure out the Intelligence of the person that created the script and derive a DC from that using the passive score system (10 + ability mod + prof bonus, which in turn can be determined via CR). It's pretty easy to imagine some ancient brilliant mage had an Intelligence of 18 and +4 prof bonus, so that's a DC of 18 (10 + 4 +4).

This is essentially a contest, and you go with a roll of 10 for the contesting opponent. It's a pretty good way of doing things in cases where you want to minimize the need for rolls (AC is another variant of this principle).