D&D 5E What if Expertise were a simple +2?

[Ovinomancer]

Does 5E have a "taking 10" rule? Because if so, then that would solve it. If not, then it depends entirely on how the DM interprets the concepts of "uncertainty" and "consequences for failure".

Yes, in that it recommends not asking for checks for tasks that can be retried and have no cost for failure. I mean, you could just keep rolling until a success occurs, if you want. I'd be bored by that, though.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Yes, in that it recommends not asking for checks for tasks that can be retried and have no cost for failure. I mean, you could just keep rolling until a success occurs, if you want. I'd be bored by that, though.

Whether or not the passage of time counts as a meaningful consequence is something that would vary wildly depending on the circumstances. If the minotaur will get to you within three rounds, then needing to spend an extra round would be a major inconvenience that's worth rolling for. If nobody is chasing you, then the DM can handwave it as you eventually succeeding. At least, that's my interpretation.

If you can just keep trying over and over again, then a standard lock should be DC 25, and a professional locksmith is just someone with a +5 bonus who will eventually succeed on that check.

 

[5ekyu]

Whether or not the passage of time counts as a meaningful consequence is something that would vary wildly depending on the circumstances. If the minotaur will get to you within three rounds, then needing to spend an extra round would be a major inconvenience that's worth rolling for. If nobody is chasing you, then the DM can handwave it as you eventually succeeding. At least, that's my interpretation.

If you can just keep trying over and over again, then a standard lock should be DC 25, and a professional locksmith is just someone with a +5 bonus who will eventually succeed on that check.

Note in 5e every ability check failure to meet the DC can have that failure to meet the DC be ruled making progress but with a setback determining by the GM. That's the basic PHB definition of what the failure of a skill check is - no progress or progress with setback.

Imx if a GM makes that clear, the "frequency" of "just keep trying" and "me too" or "everybody rolls" etc etc etc goes way way down.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Actually, a system that rewards those with better communication skills as opposed to the characters abilities does sound terrible to me. But then, I am used to dealing with a diverse set of players who each bring their own chalkenges.

A but that's the beauty of it. It's not purely based on better communication skills as opposed to the characters abilities. It is an amalgamation of the two.

 

[5ekyu]

A but that's the beauty of it. It's not purely based on better communication skills as opposed to the characters abilities. It is an amalgamation of the two.

This is where we see the problem of communication being so very clear in theory but not practice.

You made in a single post a sarcastic reference to a system that rewarded better communication with the gm *and* a system which removes that need by allowing the player to decide on their own what proficiency - to handle the expressed issue of describing in a way to make it clear enough which proficiency was used.

I respond to the former part about communication keyed systems and now you ho back to the non-communication players-choice proficiency system, it seems.

All of which to me reinforces my point - if as was noted earlier- the dependence on player skill at communications can have so strong an impact as to keep proficiencies from being used due to the word-fu of the player - that's not a system I find worthwhile.

 

[BookBarbarian]

This is where we see the problem of communication being so very clear in theory but not practice.

You made in a single post a sarcastic reference to a system that rewarded better communication with the gm *and* a system which removes that need by allowing the player to decide on their own what proficiency - to handle the expressed issue of describing in a way to make it clear enough which proficiency was used.

I respond to the former part about communication keyed systems and now you ho back to the non-communication players-choice proficiency system, it seems.

All of which to me reinforces my point - if as was noted earlier- the dependence on player skill at communications can have so strong an impact as to keep proficiencies from being used due to the word-fu of the player - that's not a system I find worthwhile.

Ah I didn't realize your post was specific the first point, since my post was about taking it altogether as a whole.

So in my mind it was no ho back merely a reiteration.

Apologies for the miscommunication.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Whether or not the passage of time counts as a meaningful consequence is something that would vary wildly depending on the circumstances. If the minotaur will get to you within three rounds, then needing to spend an extra round would be a major inconvenience that's worth rolling for. If nobody is chasing you, then the DM can handwave it as you eventually succeeding. At least, that's my interpretation.

If you can just keep trying over and over again, then a standard lock should be DC 25, and a professional locksmith is just someone with a +5 bonus who will eventually succeed on that check.

You asked if there was an analogue to take 10 and then provide situations where take 10 wouldn't apply. I'm confused as to what your requirements are.

 

[5ekyu]

Ah I didn't realize your post was specific the first point, since my post was about taking it altogether as a whole.

So in my mind it was no ho back merely a reiteration.

Apologies for the miscommunication.

No problem - since, of course, no important result was depending on our successful communication this time..

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You asked if there was an analogue to take 10 and then provide situations where take 10 wouldn't apply. I'm confused as to what your requirements are.

In 3.5, the rule about Taking 10 is that you couldn't be threatened or distracted. It wasn't a matter of time spent, so much as whether you're actively dodging arrows right now.

If 5E had the same rule, then you could reasonably have a professional locksmith with +5 to the check, and they would be able to pick easy (DC 15) locks 100% of the time, even though they would only be able to pick a master (DC 25) lock 5% of the time. The Take 10 rule lets you bypass the inherent issue with Bounded Accuracy, where being able to perform easy tasks reliably means you have an unreasonably good chance at performing incredibly difficult tasks. With Take 10, a professional locksmith could definitely get you back into your car, but wouldn't be particularly likely to break into Fort Knox.

To contrast, simply letting someone re-try forever only exacerbates the problem with Bounded Accuracy. Anyone who stands a reasonable chance at getting you back into your car (+5 on the check, vs DC 15) would definitely be able to break into Fort Knox (DC 25) eventually. In order for that world to make sense, you essentially have to assume that everyone will roll a 20 eventually, and base the DCs on that. If the break DC for a set of manacles is less than 23, then anyone with moderately-decent Strength will be out within two minutes. But then, if you design around that, then it means any average person will have zero chance whatsoever.

In summary, Bounded Accuracy works well in conjunction with Take 10, but it does not work well with unlimited re-tries.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is my ignorance here, where do you find the prodigy feat?

Xanathar's Guide pg 75

I've never liked that Prodigy was only available to Human and Half-Human races.

You've changed my mind.

I'm glad

In 3.5, the rule about Taking 10 is that you couldn't be threatened or distracted. It wasn't a matter of time spent, so much as whether you're actively dodging arrows right now.

If 5E had the same rule, then you could reasonably have a professional locksmith with +5 to the check, and they would be able to pick easy (DC 15) locks 100% of the time, even though they would only be able to pick a master (DC 25) lock 5% of the time. The Take 10 rule lets you bypass the inherent issue with Bounded Accuracy, where being able to perform easy tasks reliably means you have an unreasonably good chance at performing incredibly difficult tasks. With Take 10, a professional locksmith could definitely get you back into your car, but wouldn't be particularly likely to break into Fort Knox.

To contrast, simply letting someone re-try forever only exacerbates the problem with Bounded Accuracy. Anyone who stands a reasonable chance at getting you back into your car (+5 on the check, vs DC 15) would definitely be able to break into Fort Knox (DC 25) eventually. In order for that world to make sense, you essentially have to assume that everyone will roll a 20 eventually, and base the DCs on that. If the break DC for a set of manacles is less than 23, then anyone with moderately-decent Strength will be out within two minutes. But then, if you design around that, then it means any average person will have zero chance whatsoever.

In summary, Bounded Accuracy works well in conjunction with Take 10, but it does not work well with unlimited re-tries.

I went looking for the "Taking 10" rules so we could consider the RAW first... and despite knowing I read rules about taking 10 and taking 20 I can't find them.

Anybody better at looking than I am able to tell me which page and book that is in?