D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[Ovinomancer]

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?

I suppose you could do some kind of tiered check, where a higher roll gets you more, but no, that's not how I do things. If the DC is 10, a success is the same if you roll a 10 or a 20.

As for why he's getting better results, he invested character resources into being good at that skill, you luckily rolled higher. The reverse question of 'why should you get more because the RNG favored you this time over the guy that spent one of his very limited choices on being good at that skill?' I don't think luck at the RNG should dictate the level of reward; that downplays player choices.

To be clear, success gets you useful information. Proficiency gets you more useful information.

 

[D_E]

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

Because if you stick 4 or 5 people in a dungeon together and ask them, it's quite possible that none of them know? I did say "somewhat"

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...

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.

Well, my point is that the character's AREN'T doing the same thing. The guy who actually studied history has probably read at least a few books on the subject, while the other guys are basically going off of "some bloke in the pub told me..."

 

[77IM]

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?

Because, to me, that's the whole point of bounded accuracy -- bound the chance of success but vary the CONSEQUENCES.

This is clearest with attack rolls, where the GWF paladin and the Dex-based battlemaster fighter both have the same attack bonus, but getting hit by them feels very different.

For your other examples -- jumping, climbing, sneaking, opening locks -- yeah, I'd give some improved consequence to the proficient character on those checks. Opening locks, for example; I'd let a proficient character make a check each round, while a non-proficient character might take several rounds to pick the same lock. For climbing, I might reverse it and say that consequences for failure differ; if you lack proficiency, failing by 5 or more makes you fall, but if you are proficient you need to fail by 10 or more to fall.

The point is to keep the basic success/fail chance constrained so that die rolls remain interesting and all characters have a chance to succeed and fail. But then vary the outcome so that characters are still differentiated.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, my point is that the character's AREN'T doing the same thing.

Using the same skill to perform the same task is doing the same thing. You could get very exacting and technical about it and say that two different people trying to do the exact same things are actually doing two different things two different ways, solely because they are different people, occupying different points in space or time. But that's a meaningless distinction that denies the possibility of ever calling two tasks 'the same.'

The guy who actually studied history has probably read at least a few books on the subject, while the other guys are basically going off of "some bloke in the pub told me..."

Thus the latter gets a lower bonus. It might also make sense that the former former is more confident of the veracity of his answer...

But, when you think 'this task is harder for the guy with less training,' that's already taken into account by the lower bonus - he needs to roll higher on the d20 to hit the same DC, that's 'harder.'

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Tiers of success was one idea they ditched before wven bringing it to the playtest rules. I really had liked that. Now we have no such rule, but nowhere any DC is given.

 

[Rhenny]

Tiers of success was one idea they ditched before wven bringing it to the playtest rules. I really had liked that. Now we have no such rule, but nowhere any DC is given.

Yeah...but interestingly, they kept degrees of failure in some of the saving throws vs. monster effects (i.e., The Medusa - if you fail save by 5 or more...petrified; otherwise you get a chance at another save next round).

I kind of like the idea of a loose narrative that takes into consideration the PCs class, background and the die roll. Unless it is something that seems completely likely that the PC should be able to do given class and background...then it is automatic, no roll necessary.

 

[Hussar]

I suppose you could do some kind of tiered check, where a higher roll gets you more, but no, that's not how I do things. If the DC is 10, a success is the same if you roll a 10 or a 20.

As for why he's getting better results, he invested character resources into being good at that skill, you luckily rolled higher. The reverse question of 'why should you get more because the RNG favored you this time over the guy that spent one of his very limited choices on being good at that skill?' I don't think luck at the RNG should dictate the level of reward; that downplays player choices.

To be clear, success gets you useful information. Proficiency gets you more useful information.

But, that's not exactly how things work. Even though there's no technical tier's of success, they are still there. Remembering that trolls are hurt by fire is likely an easier check than remembering some specific bit of lore about this particular troll. The DC already takes that into account - how hard is it to remember what you're trying to remember?

I have proficiency which means I have slightly better chances of success than you do. At low level, we're only talking a +2 difference. That's easily absorbed by natural talent. Remember, there was player choice in choosing stats and which skills to be proficient in. Why is my choice to have an 18 Int less important than your choice to have proficiency in Arcana and a 14 Int?

 

[Ovinomancer]

But, that's not exactly how things work. Even though there's no technical tier's of success, they are still there. Remembering that trolls are hurt by fire is likely an easier check than remembering some specific bit of lore about this particular troll. The DC already takes that into account - how hard is it to remember what you're trying to remember?

I have proficiency which means I have slightly better chances of success than you do. At low level, we're only talking a +2 difference. That's easily absorbed by natural talent. Remember, there was player choice in choosing stats and which skills to be proficient in. Why is my choice to have an 18 Int less important than your choice to have proficiency in Arcana and a 14 Int?

It's not. Early on, you'll likely be recalling your Aunt's funny stories about adventuring more often than the bookworm remembers the treatise on the ecology of the troll. Yay, you!

 

[Hussar]

But, if my untrained check result is identical in number to your trained check, why are you getting better results?

 

[Maxperson]

But, if my untrained check result is identical in number to your trained check, why are you getting better results?

Because trained > untrained. Think of it like this. You both rolled the same number to hit, but you're using a dagger with no extra bonuses and he's using a +3 greatsword.