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

[5ekyu]

Outside of your interpretation of "progress with setback", that very much describes the 5E ruleset. It's all about binary states. There's not even an example, anywhere, of them using anything like what you suggest. It's more like an afterthought, attached to the basic rules, for the purpose of governing unusual situations. There might be a situation, somewhere, where the logical consequence of narrowly failing a check is different than outright failure. If it was actually part of the core foundation of how ability checks were supposed to work, then you'd see almost every example incorporating that option.

That's not to say you're doing it wrong, of course; just that it doesn't necessarily follow. There's another way that the game can be played, which is more intuitive based on the wording in the book. The straightforward reading of the rules is that anyone with average Strength can break through DC 20 manacles within 2 minutes, because there's no real consequence for failure. That's not stopping any DM from instituting such a penalty for failure, but any penalty that you apply is going to reflect the nature of the DM rather than the ruleset itself.

I get that you have a position and a conclusion you would like to support but the facts dont support you.

There are THREE fundamental checks in the game- attack rolls, saves and ability checks.

Ability checks right there in their PHB direct tule on what the not meeting DC means establishes THREE outcomes... overcome, no progress, some progress and setback.

That's one of three establishing not an optional rule for three states but the base rule.

Attack rolls also by default have three states - fail (no damage), success (normal damage) and crit (extra damage),

So that takes two of the three core check types as baseline a non-binary result.

Saving throws are the one where it's more of a solid binary however even there you have a core example where non-binary is used - again core to the PHB - and that's Death Saves where a 1 and 20 produce different results than any other pass/fail save.

So, two of the three establish trinary results as the baseline core mechanic flat-out and the other establishes mostly binary but one of the core quite significant sub-sets uses trinary too - for something as vital as death.

Again, these are not hinting down some optional buried in the bowels of the DMG nuances or sage advice rulings... these are the base core definitions of how things work in 5e..

It may have been true in other editions that ability/skill was defined as binary pas/fail only but not 5e.

If a GM **chooses** to run his game as "binary" that choice and its results (including the 2 minute manacles 23 thing) are on them, not the system. The system does not limit that GM to that outcome by its core rule.

If you choose not to wear your seatbelts... not to use the alarm timer on your oven... not to lock your door...when bad things happen that those could have prevented is it a flaw of the makers of the car, stove and door?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Ability checks right there in their PHB direct tule on what the not meeting DC means establishes THREE outcomes... overcome, no progress, some progress and setback.

No, overcoming the obstacle is not a possible result of failing to meet the DC. Overcoming the obstacle means you succeeded on the check. Progress with setback is one of the two possibilities for adjudicating a failed check.

If a GM **chooses** to run his game as "binary" that choice and its results (including the 2 minute manacles 23 thing) are on them, not the system. The system does not limit that GM to that outcome by its core rule.

The thing is, simply taking the third option doesn't actually solve the problem. It's not the case that a DM who chooses to resolve the check as progress-with-setback has solved the problem, because there are no rules anywhere for what "progress" and "setback" are. The DM first has to choose to resolve the check as progress-with-setback (instead of choosing simple failure), and then they have to take the additional steps of figuring out what "progress" and "setback" mean in this situation; and they must define both of them in such a way as to prevent the character from trying again, or else you haven't actually solved anything, because they're still going to escape in two minutes.

The thing is, if your setback prevents you from proceeding, then you haven't actually made progress. I don't know that it's logically possible for progress-with-setback to prevent someone from eventually succeeding, unless you maliciously twist the definition of "progress" against their intended spirit. (The spirit of progress-with-setback is that you break the manacles, but you sprain something, or alert a guard or something. It was a rule that they pulled over from narrative type games, but then never did anything with; much like Inspiration.)

Progress-with-setback may be a core rule, but it's the most poorly-defined guideline in the book. It's basically just the designers admitting defeat, and acknowledging that their numbers don't make any sense, and then putting it on the DM to try and invent their own explanations as to why.

 

[5ekyu]

No, overcoming the obstacle is not a possible result of failing to meet the DC. Overcoming the obstacle means you succeeded on the check. Progress with setback is one of the two possibilities for adjudicating a failed check.

The thing is, simply taking the third option doesn't actually solve the problem. It's not the case that a DM who chooses to resolve the check as progress-with-setback has solved the problem, because there are no rules anywhere for what "progress" and "setback" are. The DM first has to choose to resolve the check as progress-with-setback (instead of choosing simple failure), and then they have to take the additional steps of figuring out what "progress" and "setback" mean in this situation; and they must define both of them in such a way as to prevent the character from trying again, or else you haven't actually solved anything, because they're still going to escape in two minutes.

The thing is, if your setback prevents you from proceeding, then you haven't actually made progress. I don't know that it's logically possible for progress-with-setback to prevent someone from eventually succeeding, unless you maliciously twist the definition of "progress" against their intended spirit. (The spirit of progress-with-setback is that you break the manacles, but you sprain something, or alert a guard or something. It was a rule that they pulled over from narrative type games, but then never did anything with; much like Inspiration.)

Progress-with-setback may be a core rule, but it's the most poorly-defined guideline in the book. It's basically just the designers admitting defeat, and acknowledging that their numbers don't make any sense, and then putting it on the DM to try and invent their own explanations as to why.

You are correct, I misspoke in the first bit when I meant yto list the three possibilities.

About the rest, your position seems more like self-fulfilling prophesy type failures. If you dont want the setback option to help, then you can choose options that make it not work.

As for 5e handling the gm tools to use but leaving rulings on the specifics up to them well, that is pretty common in 5e.

As for manacles "some progress" needing to be breaking the manacles plus something bad, sorry but no. That would be "overcome the challenge with setback."

And again, there was no mention of my loosen joint plus sprain setback preventing you from eventually succeeding. Like I said rest yo recover and come back at it in the morning... only now one joint looser. A little further towards freedom. It literally slows the process of escape and certainly does not prevent you from eventually.

A gm can imagine all sorts of things... and should... but by the time the gm has imagined all the ways setback has to mean breaking free and what the designers were secretly confessing to as they wrote the tules... my bet is that gm is up to the challenge of "some progress with setback"... really, I think they do.

 

[FrogReaver]

Unlimited rolls is a terrible model for anything (Other than a drunk trying to carry another drunk up the stairs. Then it's pretty durn hilarious.)

Sometimes the goal isn't always about whether you get them up the stairs or not, but how many times you try before you give up...