D&D 5E Dealing with stupidly high rolls.

[Ancalagon]

I do have to say that I find the +10 bonus of pass without trace to be rather startling in a bounded accuracy system...

 

[iserith]

I do have to say that I find the +10 bonus of pass without trace to be rather startling in a bounded accuracy system...

Pfft, with how badly I roll, pass without trace is never overpowered when I'm playing.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Excellent points! Let's take it a step further though. If a DC 40 is an "impossible" check in the system, then characters capable of rolling that 40 can achieve more dramatic results than their less-skilled peers. This ought to feel exceptional. When you push the system to the extremes though (examples over here), your master pick-pocket should be capable of feats that a DC 40 couldn't achieve either. Shouldn't they? Or are you arguing that pushing checks past DC 40 should not continue to yield better results?

I'm not saying that incredible check results can't allow for incredible feats to be done. I'm just saying that, by doing very well at Task A, you are unlikely to end up performing Task B instead.

If your goal is to pick someone's pocket, then rolling well on the check shouldn't have you steal their clothes as well, because you were just trying to pick their pocket and you were never trying to steal their clothes in the first place. Of course, a master pick-pocket with an extraordinarily high skill bonus may choose to steal the clothes that someone is wearing without them noticing, but likewise in that case, they either will or will not do so; rolling better-than-expected on their check will not result in also stealing their concept of self or other metaphysical items which should be even harder to steal. (And a yet-more-skilled thief may choose to steal the luck or vision of their victim, but in doing so, they can't possibly end up stealing their clothes or wallet.)

 

[Sunseeker]

With MAD. (Mutually Assured Destruction)

Personally, I'm starting to lean towards the d20 being the problem, and not the solution. Your chance of absurd success is just as high as your chance of abysmal failure. (5%). Low modifiers make the game unrealistically(IMO) swingy. Players don't really even have skill in anything, their entire existence is decided by complete RNG. That's not really a game. And it's definitely not a game where characters are supposed to be the ones who actually have the skills to pay the bills.You're never really going to have bounded accuracy until you have bounded dice, which probably means getting rid of the d20.

I'm thinking of running my upcoming game with 2d10 instead of 1d20. Snake-eyes is the new fail number.

 

[Gadget]

I think the system tries to put focus on increasing "tiers" of importance with bounded accuracy: Attacks, Saves and Skills. Not say that the top tiers can't get out of wack in regard to bounced accuracy, especially if you add things like generous magic items, feats, etc. But 5e seems to try to get BA more in Attacks vs AC, followed by Saves vs DC with skills coming in a distant third. I personally don't have much of a problem with Pass Without a Trace as that is a limited use class ability (spells) that must be used to achieve, though maybe I just have not seen it overused or abused. Expertise, not so much.

 

[Jester David]

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.

The spell pass without trace is handy as the "party needs to sneak" spell. The point of that isn't just to allow the rogue to sneak with a crazy bonus (that's just a perk), but allow the paladin with a Dex of 8 in heavy armour to also be able to sneak. It's what you cast when the rogue doesn't want to be spotted and fail and sneaking because they're saddled with the rest of the party.

The bard and rogue's Expertise does bend the system a little. It's probably a little much. Adding 1 1/2 of your bonus would probably have been fine.

 

[Shiroiken]

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

While I do have the reputation of a killer DM, I'm curious why you consider this rat-bastard DMing. I've done this for years with many different rpgs, ever since a player tried to screw with the system. The rogue rolled low as he went to sneak ahead, so he came back to talk with the party before heading out again (planning on making another check). After a lengthy argument, I decided to never call for a roll (or accept an early roll) until it was too late to change anything.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Switch to a different game system with smaller numbers, or just a better system for the kind of game you want to play. They do exist.

 

[Ancalagon]

The spell pass without trace is handy as the "party needs to sneak" spell.

Or group checks...

 

[Hjorimir]

While I do have the reputation of a killer DM, I'm curious why you consider this rat-bastard DMing. I've done this for years with many different rpgs, ever since a player tried to screw with the system. The rogue rolled low as he went to sneak ahead, so he came back to talk with the party before heading out again (planning on making another check). After a lengthy argument, I decided to never call for a roll (or accept an early roll) until it was too late to change anything.

Most DMs I've seen have the player roll the Stealth check immediately...as they approach. I put them in the heart of the area where a failed roll would be of the highest impact.