D&D 5E Dealing with stupidly high rolls.

Fauchard1520 · Mar 29, 2018

I thought that "bounded accuracy" would help us to eliminate stupidly high numbers. Things like pass without trace and the rogue's expertise seems to undermine that idea. How do you deal with the difference between "you do the thing" and "you do the thing spectacularly well" when spectacular is suddenly commonplace?

Relevant bonus comic.

niklinna · Mar 29, 2018

There's bounded accuracy, and then there's sensible limits to what's possible. Just because some things can be assigned numbers, doesn't mean that all things need to be assigned numbers. That comic (or rather, the source cited) is stupid for even assigning a DC to pass through a wall of force, whose whole point is that it cannot be passed through. If you don't want a certain thing to be doable, then make it not doable, no matter the number rolled.

mellored · Mar 29, 2018

IMO, we need to first eliminate the "you automatically win" (spider climb) before we worry about "you almost always win" (athletics expertise).

iserith · Mar 29, 2018

Unless I'm for some reason using graduated results where the character gains more benefits from completing the task the higher the ability check is, then "stupidly high numbers" are not really a concern - either the character succeeds or fails (or succeeds at a cost or with a setback). I don't narrate the results of the adventurers' actions any differently based on how high or low the player rolls.

Hjorimir · Mar 29, 2018

Personally, I'm fine with things like Pass Without Trace and Expertise. So, the group manages to sneak through the orc-lands using the spell and the thief is like a ninja, scouting ahead nearly invisible. Sounds like a cool character to me! These are things that allows players to overcome obstacles, but they really don't give them an automatic victory. I say let the characters be cool, but maybe I'm missing the problem you're trying to solve.

iserith · Mar 29, 2018

Hjorimir said:
Personally, I'm fine with things like Pass Without Trace and Expertise. So, the group manages to sneak through the orc-lands using the spell and the thief is like a ninja, scouting ahead nearly invisible. Sounds like a cool character to me! These are things that allows players to overcome obstacles, but they really don't give them an automatic victory. I say let the characters be cool, but maybe I'm missing the problem you're trying to solve.

I think what the blog posts misses is the step, at least in D&D 5e, where the DM decides if there will be a roll or not based on his or her determination as to the uncertainty of the outcome of the proposed task. The assumption appears to be that the player is pushing the roll and the DM is obligated to accept whatever unlikely or inappropriate result may come up, which may be true in some systems, but isn't in D&D 5e.

Hjorimir · Mar 29, 2018

iserith said:
I think what the blog posts misses is the step, at least in D&D 5e, where the DM decides if there will be a roll or not based on his or her determination as to the uncertainty of the outcome of the proposed task. The assumption appears to be that the player is pushing the roll and the DM is obligated to accept whatever unlikely or inappropriate result may come up, which may be true in some systems, but isn't in D&D 5e.

One of the things I do as a DM is wait on the roll until (or if) it matters. Example, the rogue wants to sneak up and try and untie the hostage being held by the orcs. I don't have them roll the stealth roll immediately. I wait until they're up close to the hostage and then roll. I know that's rat-bastard-DMing, but it keeps players on their toes. /evilDMlaugh

5ekyu · Mar 29, 2018

To me things like expertise and pass without just take a smightly different approach to **limit** their impact, not empower godlike cloyd dancing.

Instead of defining their gains like many spell effect do they simply slide bonuses into the skill check system.

That limits them

Expertise athletics isnt spider climb and pwt is not invisibility and so on. They are just modified skill checks and fully subject to the limitations therein.

Its limiting to do that, not breaking.

Ralif Redhammer · Mar 29, 2018

I think it’s perfectly fair to put something absolutely incredible down to luck. If the rogue wants to sneak past The All-Seeing Eye of I See Everything, I can say to myself “okay, they only will make this if they roll a 19 or 20 on the die.” It’s equally acceptable to say that a thing is impossible.

At the same time, we remember those strange gonzo successes. And things like expertise serve a purpose, and under normal circumstances I see no problem with allowing a character that’s designed to shine in certain situations, shine and succeed at things that others would likely fail at.

I’m also not a big fan of a player rolling a d20 before they even declare an action, and then telling me “With a 27 persuasion check, I tell the king that I am the rightful heir.”

5ekyu · Mar 29, 2018

Ralif Redhammer said:
I think it’s perfectly fair to put something absolutely incredible down to luck. If the rogue wants to sneak past The All-Seeing Eye of I See Everything, I can say to myself “okay, they only will make this if they roll a 19 or 20 on the die.” It’s equally acceptable to say that a thing is impossible.

At the same time, we remember those strange gonzo successes. And things like expertise serve a purpose, and under normal circumstances I see no problem with allowing a character that’s designed to shine in certain situations, shine and succeed at things that others would likely fail at.

I’m also not a big fan of a player rolling a d20 before they even declare an action, and then telling me “With a 27 persuasion check, I tell the king that I am the rightful heir.”

"19 or 20 on the die" is 10% and seems to ignore the character... Just turn it to luck.

Was this your intent?