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

[GreyLord]

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.

If you know how (aka...trained)...why not...anyone might be able to get out of them...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY1cI6shatc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P4QNIt5WfI

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Riiight... I pointed out that 5e recommends not calling for checks when there's no comsequence for failure, which maps nicely to the take 10 preconditions. Is it take 10? No, but it's similar. Both are subject to the same DM fiat.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

"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."

Unless the GM trests done of those failed checks as "progress with setback" as per the PHB.

First failure - just fails.
Second failure - loosened but you sprain/strain so now treat as exhaustion until long rest.
Immediate third try with strain/exhaustion- unless you are really lucky, likely bigger setback.
Long rest yo recover before third try...

Now that two minutes starts to take time.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If you know how (aka...trained)...why not...anyone might be able to get out of them...

I'm less concerned with people who know how, and more concerned with any random chump walking down the street. If 40% of the population can break free from standard manacles within two minutes, just based on random talent without accounting needing to know any specific tricks, then those manacles are not worth the cost to produce. Nobody would buy them.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Riiight... I pointed out that 5e recommends not calling for checks when there's no comsequence for failure, which maps nicely to the take 10 preconditions. Is it take 10? No, but it's similar. Both are subject to the same DM fiat.

Not really.

Take 10 is about modeling an in-game reality. It tells us how the world works. If nobody is shooting you, then you can perform certain feats reliably. The in-game reality is that a moderately-trained individual can perform with a moderate degree of competence.

No consequences is just about managing game time. The in-game reality is that your performance is all over the place. Only an absolute master can possibly perform routine tasks reliably. It's just that, since you can keep trying until you eventually succeed, we get to skip over talking about all of the many failures leading up to that point. The in-game reality is that anyone other than an absolute master is a giant doofus.

The only thing they have in common is that they circumvent rolling the dice repeatedly until you get a high enough result. The important thing - what they tell us about how the world works - is vastly different.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

"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."

Unless the GM treats some of those failed checks as "progress with setback" as per the PHB.

First failure - just fails.
Second failure - loosened but you sprain/strain so now treat as exhaustion until long rest.
Immediate third try with strain/exhaustion- unless you are really lucky, likely bigger setback.
Long rest yo recover before third try...

Now that two minutes starts to take time.

If manacles don't work unless the DM has a particularly clever idea about how to adjudicate failure in such a way that they would work, then manacles don't work. The same goes for every other check in the game. The ability of the DM to change the outcome does not excuse rules that give a nonsensical outcome to begin with.

Besides, you aren't describing a progress with setback. A progress with setback would be if you escape, but bruise your arm such that you have Disadvantage on Dexterity checks for a while. You're describing a failure with extra consequences, which isn't a rule in the book. You're saying that they obviously failed, and didn't make any progress, so you make them take damage for having the audacity to keep trying since there's no rule telling them to stop.

 

[5ekyu]

If manacles don't work unless the DM has a particularly clever idea about how to adjudicate failure in such a way that they would work, then manacles don't work. The same goes for every other check in the game. The ability of the DM to change the outcome does not excuse rules that give a nonsensical outcome to begin with.

Besides, you aren't describing a progress with setback. A progress with setback would be if you escape, but bruise your arm such that you have Disadvantage on Dexterity checks for a while. You're describing a failure with extra consequences, which isn't a rule in the book. You're saying that they obviously failed, and didn't make any progress, so you make them take damage for having the audacity to keep trying since there's no rule telling them to stop.

"loosened but you sprain/strain... "

PHB
" If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success — the creature overcomes the challenge at hand. Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM."

Now just in case you missed it... making the role "overcomes the challenge at hand"

Not making the role means "makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM."

So that is *not* saying the setback comes with overcoming the challenge at hand like a successful roll would (your free but bruised)... but that it makes progress towards that objective and a setback and so... once again since it was apparently missed...

""loosened but you sprain/strain... "

is that clearer? A little?

How many more "progress toward" and setback failures before we get to the equivalent as a successful roll? that would clearly depend on the manacles and the Gm buit i tend to default to three unless I have a compelling reason to deviate from my norm.

As for your position that if one uses the second of two options from the straight up standard definition of failed skill check from the primary book and sections on skill check means a failure of the system in some way... well, IDK why is the first otion "makes no progress" not a failure in the system if the second option in the same sentence is?


Nevermind, you can have your own definition for "does not work" which includes using the second half of a sentence instead of the first and that is just fine.

Me, i would expect to definitely see some problems in tasks if a Gm chose to throw out some of the most basic rules for them - but thats just me.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

""loosened but you sprain/strain... "

is that clearer? A little?

Not exactly. What did you loosen? Your goal is to bust out of the manacles, and I'm not sure that you've described making progress toward that goal. If you've "loosened" the manacles to the tune of reducing the DC by 1 on subsequent checks, but injured yourself to the point of Disadvantage on that check, then you're definitely not making progress.

Besides, being bound in manacles is normally a binary state. Breaking out is not something that the system typically measures in degrees.

 

[5ekyu]

Not exactly. What did you loosen? Your goal is to bust out of the manacles, and I'm not sure that you've described making progress toward that goal. If you've "loosened" the manacles to the tune of reducing the DC by 1 on subsequent checks, but injured yourself to the point of Disadvantage on that check, then you're definitely not making progress.

Besides, being bound in manacles is normally a binary state. Breaking out is not something that the system typically measures in degrees.

If your realm of dragons and magic is mostly binary states, I suggest a game where the result are treated as such.

In mine, trying to break free, failing to do so but seeing them loosened noticeably at one of the joints, but needing to recover from the strain before trying again, shows a path that might take a few days to work them enough that that weakened joint will break or perhaps less if the character then focuses on anything that might help focus on that joint.

Thec5evsystem is not defined so that ability checks are binary pass fail but obviously allows any GM to choose to limit their world to that if they choose.

But, I think if one looks at some of the "d20 problems" folks often seem to cite with an eye to the fact that the core, base and foundation of the ability check is that a failed roll can be not just a binary failure but can be progress (not completion) with setbacks the that changes many of those dynamics to the good.

"Me too rolls" as in "we all search for loot" ... first time the GM says "great, everybody till tell me who failed" and then proceeds to describe minor find and problems for them followed by bigger finds but no problems for the others... that dynamic changes."As you looked thru that pile of crumpled debris, some of it shifted revealing some coins but crushing what looks to have been an artistically carved bell, now mostly flattened."

"We all look and listen for signs to see if the guy is lying" as they meet in a bar with questionable type... first time those who failed the roll find out later they are missing a pouch (cutpurse got close when they were especially focused on that guy's twitching during the part sbout... ) or that they did figure out he was lying but were wrong about what part he seemed lying about... dynamic changes.

Foraging... you did find some game and a little water... but what found you or what was that bush you brushed up agsinst that now seems to have caused that leg to swell by morning?

Sure, a GM is allowed to make all of these binaries, boring and then gripe about how repeated rolls and bounded accuracy blah blah blah on the jnternet... but the actual PHB system put at its core for ability checks that setback option right there up front and so the binary is not from the system.

Fail an attack roll or fail a save... obvious consequences due to the nature of the beast. There was no reason for there to need to be the third option (though optional success at cost rules in the DMG extends the setback into those of the GM chooses.)

But for ability checks the setback is part of its core and foundation.

But, hey, as everything the GM can choose to not use it and will see the impacts of that choice most clearly.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If your realm of dragons and magic is mostly binary states, I suggest a game where the result are treated as such.

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.