D&D 5E Bounded accurancy and skills

[Dausuul]

Sidestepping the knowledge argument for the moment, I think there are a lot of ideas and house rules here that go against the whole point of the 5e skill system.

In 5e, DCs are fixed; they do not scale up. That's the whole point of bounded accuracy. The DM should absolutely never consider the character level, attribute score, or proficiency of the character when setting the DC. The only question the DM should ask himself is, "Is this task easy, medium, hard, or even harder?"

Agreed. I don't want to be making judgement calls on whether a PC's skill is "good enough" to skip making a check. The whole point of a skill system is to take care of that for me so I can concentrate on running the rest of the game. If a PC is so good that they can't fail, then the skill system should reflect that by making the mod high enough that they can't fail. If it doesn't do so, that's a problem with the skill system.

The way to understand 5E skills is that the rogue (and to a lesser extent the bard) is the party skill-monkey. The fighter is a specialist in fighting; the wizard is a specialist in spellcasting; that's their thing. Rogues are specialists in skill usage, and they are given the tools to shine at it. That's why they get Expertise and eventually Reliable Talent. Everyone else is a dabbler. If you start giving other PCs a pass on "easy" skill checks (whatever that means), you're basically handing out a version of Reliable Talent to everybody.

The number of scenarios where this leads to wonky results is very small. Who here has seen a single in-game arm-wrestling match within the last year? In the rare event that it does happen, I'd just rule that it isn't a check at all and use a straight-up comparison of Strength mods. If your Strength mods are equal, flip a coin. You can add your proficiency bonus if you can justify being proficient in arm-wrestling.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So a 25% chance of failure (halfling athletics example) is not uncertain enough?

It is, certainly! But is there a 25% chance of failure?

Remember, the die roll represents uncertainty, and a lot of things where you might think the resolution should be resolved with a check, don't actually involve uncertainty. In arm-wrestling, for example, there is no uncertainty - it's a pure measure of strength, so the stronger side wins and you wouldn't roll for it. If you're trying to break down a door (DC 15), then the uncertainty lies in how stuck the door is or how much of it is blocked, or any number of other factors. If the halfling wizard breaks down the door after the half-orc barbarian fails, then it's because one of those variables must have changed between the attempts - the half-orc loosened some debris on the other side, or such - and not because the wizard suddenly demonstrated greater actual strength than the barbarian. (It's also within the purview of the DM to say that the random factor hasn't changed between attempts, so the wizard can't possibly succeed once those variables have been determined.)

 

[Tormyr]

One thing that I have noticed about the later part of this discussion (at the risk of over generalizing) is that everyone seems to be handling success or failure as solely the result of the PCs talent. The die roll, in my opinion, reflects more than that. It incorporates not just the ability (the +X bonus) versus the difficulty (the DC) but also the random bits of fate that happen. I have a rogue with a +10 to Dexterity (Thieves Tools) checks. She biffed a DC20 lock. Generally she gets these. In this case, the area was old and abandoned so I narrated that part of the mechanism was rusted and snapped while she was picking the lock. A Strength (Athletics) check that is failed by the strong fighter just means that some oil got on the rope, or they hit a wet mossy spot on the wall. I guess what I am saying is that even if the adventurers should be walking through tasks, feces occur.

Now, some of the best moments at our gaming table are when somebody fails at something.

 

[pepticburrito]

That also a way to interpret doing a bad job and delivering bad rules...

Well, in their years of testing DnD Next they found that the majority of GMs and Players disagree with your assessment. Also, there's really no point in even writing the rules if the majority ignore them at the table.

I know of nobody, outside of organized play, that ran the 3.5 or Pathfinder skill system as written in the book.

 

[Derren]

Also, there's really no point in even writing the rules if the majority ignore them at the table.

Which is exactly the case of what happens with the current ones. They didn't even try to produce something workable according to the "Its intentionally vague" and "The rules are supposed to be houseruled" posts here.

 

[Dausuul]

As I see it, there are four possible ways to resolve a "skillish" question:

1. This is trivial. Anyone can do it. You succeed.
2. This is impossible. No one can do it. You fail.
3. This is neither trivial nor impossible, and chance and circumstance are important factors. Make a skill or ability check.
4. This is neither trivial nor impossible, but chance and circumstance are minor factors. Use your flat skill or ability mod, without rolling.

I do think the rules should suggest something like option #4 as a possibility, which they currently do not except in the case of Perception. (Maybe in the DMG?) However, it's highly unusual for #4 to come into play, and I don't really regard it as a major lack in the rules.

 

[Tormyr]

As I see it, there are four possible ways to resolve a "skillish" question:

1. This is trivial. Anyone can do it. You succeed.
2. This is impossible. No one can do it. You fail.
3. This is neither trivial nor impossible, and chance and circumstance are important factors. Make a skill or ability check.
4. This is neither trivial nor impossible, but chance and circumstance are minor factors. Use your flat skill or ability mod, without rolling.

I do think the rules should suggest something like option #4 as a possibility, which they currently do not except in the case of Perception. (Maybe in the DMG?) However, it's highly unusual for #4 to come into play, and I don't really regard it as a major lack in the rules.

Passive checks are already in there. They are in "Passive Checks" on page 59 of the Basic PHB.

 

[Dausuul]

Passive checks are already in there. They are in "Passive Checks" on page 59 of the Basic PHB.

Ha! My mistake, you are correct.

Well, then, I'd say no house-ruling is needed. The system is complete as is. Pick whichever option you feel is most applicable, and go with that.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

One thing that I have noticed about the later part of this discussion (at the risk of over generalizing) is that everyone seems to be handling success or failure as solely the result of the PCs talent. The die roll, in my opinion, reflects more than that. It incorporates not just the ability (the +X bonus) versus the difficulty (the DC) but also the random bits of fate that happen. I have a rogue with a +10 to Dexterity (Thieves Tools) checks. She biffed a DC20 lock. Generally she gets these. In this case, the area was old and abandoned so I narrated that part of the mechanism was rusted and snapped while she was picking the lock. A Strength (Athletics) check that is failed by the strong fighter just means that some oil got on the rope, or they hit a wet mossy spot on the wall. I guess what I am saying is that even if the adventurers should be walking through tasks, feces occur.

Now, some of the best moments at our gaming table are when somebody fails at something.

I think this actually happened to Tasslehoff (the kender thief) in one of the Dragonlance books. Climactic battle, high stakes, and he blows the pick locks check. I remember thinking, "Come on, kender, you have ONE JOB!" But it did feel dramatic and appropriate.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

As I see it, there are four possible ways to resolve a "skillish" question:

1. This is trivial. Anyone can do it. You succeed.
2. This is impossible. No one can do it. You fail.
3. This is neither trivial nor impossible, and chance and circumstance are important factors. Make a skill or ability check.
4. This is neither trivial nor impossible, but chance and circumstance are minor factors. Use your flat skill or ability mod, without rolling.

I do think the rules should suggest something like option #4 as a possibility, which they currently do not except in the case of Perception. (Maybe in the DMG?) However, it's highly unusual for #4 to come into play, and I don't really regard it as a major lack in the rules.

I tend to think of it in narrative terms:

1. The outcome is obvious, and an unexpected success or failure will just be annoying and detrimental to the flow of the game.

2. The outcome is in question.

You roll only in the second case. An arm-wrestling contest between unequal opponents would usually be #1, but as DM I might make players roll when it would be funny or interesting for the halfling to beat the Orc (by showing off his wrist-twisting technique or whatever).

Jumping is a good example in the PHB, I'd say - you can always jump your strength in feet because it would be lame to risk falling down a 3-foot-wide chasm because you flubbed a roll, but if you want to try a risky jump you roll on it.