D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[Jaelommiss]

I only started DMing 5th edition recently, but I've also been finding that some skills don't work well at low levels, most obviously with stuff like knowledge checks where the whole party can roll but only one of them needs to succeed at. Since the variance on the d20 is so much larger than the +2 for proficiency in a skill, if 4-5 people all roll a history check the scholar with the history proficiency will still only rarely get the best result.

My solution to this was to give my party two options:

1. Someone proficient rolls to see what they know, or at advantage if more than one person is proficient. They will get a number of facts depending on their success. The minimum number of facts will be three, with one being false on <10, and two being false on <5.

2. Everyone rolls. One fact is given for each player who rolls. Everyone who passes the DC gets a correct piece of information. Everyone who fails gets a false one.

In both cases I do not tell then which ones are false until after the encounter, instead letting them figure it out for themselves. Generally the false information is still useful, but worded in a way to misguide them. For example, when someone failed a Nature check about Ankhegs, I told them that they had heard that Ankhegs spit poison that can blind someone for days. In truth, their spit hits a chunk of acid damage with no blinding effect, but not knowing that they were relieved when everyone made their Dex saves and 'only' took damage.

 

[Maxperson]

I only started DMing 5th edition recently, but I've also been finding that some skills don't work well at low levels, most obviously with stuff like knowledge checks where the whole party can roll but only one of them needs to succeed at. Since the variance on the d20 is so much larger than the +2 for proficiency in a skill, if 4-5 people all roll a history check the scholar with the history proficiency will still only rarely get the best result.

The other thing this does is invalidate player choice. The player choosing to be the historian wants to be the historian. When he will rarely end up with the top roll, he really isn't the historian and his choice is virtually meaningless. The same goes for the other skills chosen by the various PCs.

By increasing the DC for non-trained people, or just plain not letting non-trained individuals roll, you are validating the players' choices and desires.

 

[D_E]

That's been a perennial issue with skill checks throughout RPG history. 5e offers a solution: DM rulings!
If it's a foregone conclusion that /someone/ at the table will make the skill check, don't even call for a roll. Just tell the group 'expert' the information you want them to have. Simple.

This is for stuff that I consider somewhat obscure (and have set a DC of 15 for), so there is no guarantee that anyone knows it. I don't have them role for basic stuff.

The other thing this does is invalidate player choice. The player choosing to be the historian wants to be the historian. When he will rarely end up with the top roll, he really isn't the historian and his choice is virtually meaningless. The same goes for the other skills chosen by the various PCs.

By increasing the DC for non-trained people, or just plain not letting non-trained individuals roll, you are validating the players' choices and desires.

Yep, that's what led me to consider it in the first place. The player didn't mind missing a few roles, but after 2 nights of this sort of thing he was starting to look disappointed. At the same time, the rest of the group likes to roll for things, so letting them continue to do so against an adjusted the DC makes sense to me.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Difficult. One of my players told me that yesterday.
I think the expertise system should have been used more. Every background should have had some kind of expertise tacked on.
Actually, at a certain point in the playtest, knowledge was represented by a +10 bonus. I think that actually is the kind of bonus you need to make a knowlwdge skill worthwhile.
And now I just adjust the DC depending on the person's background or proficiencies.

 

[SkidAce]

Hmmmmmmm. House rule....?

"If your background gives you a knowledge skill, you are considered to have expertise."


I kinda like it, but immediately think every wizard in my campaign will have arcana, cleric religion, etc.

Maybe limit it to background skills only, not the one granted by the background. Like a sailor would have ...knowledge: sailing.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Sailors have proficiency in Vehicles (Water) which is a tool proficiency you can learn in 250 days of downtime. The tool'skill split can be very useful.

Each version of the rules had different skill rules. If you really want to get a previous skill system back - then really just get out your old books and use that system. Agreement is needed at the table, but beyond that no need to convince everyone on the intarwebs.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Difficult. One of my players told me that yesterday.
I think the expertise system should have been used more. Every background should have had some kind of expertise tacked on.
Actually, at a certain point in the playtest, knowledge was represented by a +10 bonus. I think that actually is the kind of bonus you need to make a knowlwdge skill worthwhile.
And now I just adjust the DC depending on the person's background or proficiencies.

Yup... there are a lot of ways to do it. I've been considering several different options for my next campaign for many of the same reasons that have been brought up.

Right now the biggest thing players and DMs have to wrap their minds around is that in 5E skills are not masterful knowledge. They are merely wide swathes of ability that they were born with or have worked on over time. Nothing major or having to do with long-term study.

Some people are just better at hearing music and being able to carry a tune. They are the ones who are Proficient in Performance. They aren't Masters... they are just proficient, Some people have read more books about magic. They're the ones who are proficient in Arcana. They don't know everything, but odds are slightly better that they will know something that another doesn't. Some people aren't very strong, but they have at least learned the techniques of proper strokes for swimming and proper hand and foot placement for climbing. Thus they are proficient in Athletics. They aren't world-class athletes, they're just competent. And so on and so forth.

However, if you actually want to get across masterful knowledge, study, and ability... those don't come from the Skill system... they come from all the other methods the game uses to exemplify it. The "double proficiency bonus" method is one way-- given to all dwarves via Stonecunning and given to rogues and bards via Expertise. There's also the Feature ability for each Background, which gives a person one thing that they just know or can do-- and for which they never have to roll for anything, the game just gives it to them. There's the specialty feats like Actor, Athlete, Linguist, and Observant, where they specifically call a person out as being a master at something specific, giving the person some specific special abilities while also leaving it up to the DM to adjudicate what else "story-wise" the character might get. Then of course there are all the Inspiration characteristics (BIFTs) where a PC gets to specifically call out things about themselves that they are, do or know and for which they get Inspiration (advantage) for.

This is all much different than 3E, which pretty much used the skill system as their way of making experts expert and the untrained virtually useless by comparison. So for 5E, you really need to take all of these different methods the game offers up and decide which ones you like the best and then really play it up. Raising DCs for the non-proficient is one way to do it. Making Backgrounds more concrete knowledge wherein if something falls within the background's purview the PC doesn't even have to roll, is another. Making the Inspiration characteristics (BIFTs) less like the ones in the book and more like FATE Aspects... wherein you can specifically call yourself an "Expert Negotiator" or "Silent As The Wind" and thus gain Advantage on rolls that pertain to them, is another.

I myself have considered the idea of "Mastery" wherein a PC that has already proficiency in a particular skill can obtain the "double proficiency bonus" of a small slice of that skill (a la the Stonecunning dwarf feature which gives double proficiency to Intelligence (History) checks specifically with regards to the small slice of stonework and structures). I'm thinking for myself perhaps that PCs have one Mastery per character level, and whenever they roll a 20 on a skill for which they are already proficient, whatever that very subject matter was about can become one of the character's Mastery subjects if they so choose (showing off the very specific section of ability or information for which they are much more advanced than other people.) So for instance, if a PC who has proficiency in Religion rolls a 20 on a monster knowledge check about the undead, the player could decide that "Anatomy of the Undead" is their Mastery subject. And from then on, whenever I was to call for an Intelligence (Religion) check having to do with the undead, they would get to use double their proficiency bonus. Or perhaps a PC is making a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to cross the peak of a roof and rolls a Natural 20... that player could decide to make "The Balance of a Cat" a Mastery ability, and will get to roll with double proficiency bonus for any future Dexterity (Acrobatics) checks to do with balancing.

Does this slightly step on the toes of the Rogue and Bard's "Expertise"? Eh, maybe a little. But then again, Expertise is double prof bonus for the entirety of a skill, not just the small sub-section of knowledge Mastery would give. Thus, Expertise is more universally useful. Plus, of course, Rogues and Bards could also pick up Mastery on top of what they already have Expertise in, so they'd know even more.

This idea solves a lot of things for me. One, it makes rolling a 20 on a particular skill check occasionally have even greater import, as it can become the indicator of a PC's super-knowledge of a particular subject. Two, it makes more use of a mechanic that I think is used to great effect in the Dwarf, and which I think should be used more often across the game. And three, it leaves the Advantage mechanic available for other times where its use would make a lot of sense (on top of the other skills/features/bonuses a PC already has.)

I'm looking forward to seeing how it works in play.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is for stuff that I consider somewhat obscure (and have set a DC of 15 for), so there is no guarantee that anyone knows it. I don't have them role for basic stuff.

How 'obscure' is something that a 10 INT everyman has a slightly better than a 1:4 chance of knowing?

Yep, that's what led me to consider it in the first place. The player didn't mind missing a few roles, but after 2 nights of this sort of thing he was starting to look disappointed.

The point of Bounded Accuracy is to avoid having the party rolling for things that only one character has a chance at succeeding at. That a specialist might require a much higher DC to being challenged than the non-specialist was seen as a major 'problem' with 3e, one that 4e softened quite a bit, and one that 5e Bounded Accuracy has further tried to avoid.

The flip side of it is that the Specialist can end up feeling not that special.

Another thing that was viewed as an intolerable problem was assigning different DCs for the exact same task. That such a thing never actually happened notwithstanding...

At the same time, the rest of the group likes to roll for things, so letting them continue to do so against an adjusted the DC makes sense to me.

Mathematically it's the same as un-doing Bounded Accuracy by giving a much larger bonus for proficiency. Conceptually, though, it's the different-DC-for-the-same-task issue.

Technically, though, the DM can go ahead and do just that. When one PC declares an action, he calls for a roll with one DC, when the next PC tries to do the exact same thing the exact same way (or when the same PC comes back later with a higher bonus), he can call for a completely different DC.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I also like the 'same DC, different results' options, where everyone rolls against the same DC, but the non-proficient get answers like 'your great-aunt says that the best way to ward off a troll attack is to make the biggest bonfire you can -- trolls hate parties,' while the proficient character gets, 'you've read in a few books that trolls have an unnaturally rapid metabolism that allows them to shrug off what should be mortal wounds in seconds, but they have an inability to recuperate from burns.'

Both get useful information for their check -- the first that trolls don't like fires, the second that fire stops troll regeneration -- but the quality and immediate applicability of the knowledge depends on proficiency.

 

[Hussar]

I also like the 'same DC, different results' options, where everyone rolls against the same DC, but the non-proficient get answers like 'your great-aunt says that the best way to ward off a troll attack is to make the biggest bonfire you can -- trolls hate parties,' while the proficient character gets, 'you've read in a few books that trolls have an unnaturally rapid metabolism that allows them to shrug off what should be mortal wounds in seconds, but they have an inability to recuperate from burns.'

Both get useful information for their check -- the first that trolls don't like fires, the second that fire stops troll regeneration -- but the quality and immediate applicability of the knowledge depends on proficiency.

But, isn't the additional information the result of a higher check? Isn't that what higher DC's are for? If I get a final score of 20 on my check, why am I getting different information than you who also scored a 20 on a check. it's not like we'd jump different distances. Or climb that wall faster. Or be more sneaky. Or open different locks. So, why are you getting better results than I am for exactly the same check?