D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[Tony Vargas]

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?

Implicit in that is whether you ever knew it in the first place. Training would tend to indicate that you've been exposed to quite a lot of information about a subject, while high INT means that you can remember what you've been exposed to and make connections and draw inferences from that.

If D&D were being very simulationist, there might be two checks, one using the proficiency bonus, the other the INT bonus, or they might modify the check in very different ways.

But 5e keeps it simple, and it makes proficiency and level relatively small modifiers, in keeping with Bounded Accuracy.

That's never going to model an 'obscure' bit of information very well. So it falls to the DM to make it work.

Ruling that untrained characters auto-fail while trained roll, or that un-trained roll while trained auto-succeed is something that the core 5e resolution system is very up-front about giving the DM license to do. The former works OK for 'obscure' information that only a trained character might have been exposed to and thus remember.

OTOH, setting different DCs for the same task is also 'legal.' But, it's something that has gotten a lot of flack in the past, and, mathematically, it un-does some of the benefits of Bounded Accuracy.

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?

Maybe because the former is more specialized, perhaps, thus, more defining?

The obvious solution then is to not make it the same task for everyone.

That is, perhaps, one of the few things players actually get to define: by declaring their actions. Now 'examine the runes' might be a pretty blah action declaration, maybe asking for more detail would help spark ideas of how there might be different tasks involved...

Reading the writing, if it's in a familiar language, or decyphering it if it's arcane would be two obvious things that might be implied. But, a character might also determine how long the writing had been there and by what sort of person in what sort of mental state, what was used to make the ink (or what animal the blood was taken from if written in blood) and to apply it. You could fairly easily bring different proficiencies and thus characters, into it.

The wizard trained in all things magical makes a DC 10 Intelligence (Arcana) check to recognize those glyphs on the door as a magical seal designed to keep something inside. He simultaneously makes a DC 20 Intelligence (Arcana) check to recognize that it was written in human blood, and that that can be used to seal away a specific type of aberrant creature.

Identifying human blood might be a different check than arcana, letting another character get in and contribute.

Because they have no training in magic, the rogue and barbarian may not attempt the previous two checks

The DM rules the action fails, in 5e parlance, but yes, that makes sense.

but instead may attempt a DC 15 Intelligence check to remember a time when they came across similar looking magic squiggles that were protecting a valuable item.

If they had done so. But, then, what does that tell them. More than the DC 10 check but less than the 20? If all they get is 'protect something valuable,' they'll be releasing an aberration in short order - that's worse than failure.

 

[Xeviat]

I'm finding it very interesting that the issues bounded accuracy solves (the ability to use low level threats as threats in high numbers at higher levels of play) also come along with new issues. I had thought the reason people wanted bounded accuracy over things like the minion/elite/solo rules of 4E was because they wanted objective numbers: Plate armor means 18 AC, a moderate lock is DC 15, etc. So the same people who didn't like the Monsters and skill DCs being modified for the level of the party are now suggesting that DCs on skills be modified for characters ...

I was talking to a few members of my group, and the group seems split down the middle. About half of them like what bounded accuracy does (an orc is an orc is an orc, unless it has levels, and an orc is still a threat at high levels), and the other half dislike the feeling that their character is hardly improving. The solutions to being able to use a low level threat at higher levels (minion rules, mob/swarm rules, the help action) are gamist, but so are the solutions to make sure trained people feel like they can do more than untrained.

As for comparing Int 18 with no training vs. Int 10 with training (level 9 so they have a +4 proficiency bonus); you're looking at someone who has an IQ near 200 (I forget the bell curve exactly here). Since this isn't "d20 Modern: The College Years", I'd be very willing to say that an Int 18 person would be capable of figuring out the problem, even without former training.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

yeah, some new issues indeed. Expertise should have been made a little bit more availablle for every class. I still can´t get my head around the thief being better at arcana than the wizard and the cleric being very bad at religion actually.

 

[Rhenny]

The obvious solution then is to not make it the same task for everyone...

Fortunately for me, my players recognize that I am handling a lot of information that they aren't privy to and are happy to accept that I had a good reason for the wizard's 12 to trump the rogue's 19.

This is so important. It is the DMs job to make the game interesting/fun for the players. The rules (including ability checks) are there to help the DM reach that goal. 5e's whole philosophy is rulings not rules. To me, when players trust the DM to handle that and the fair dissemination of information, the game flows more smoothly and everyone can have more fun.

 

[Hussar]

The result of a hit is not a hit. The result of a hit is damage. If that damage is different, the result is different.

The result of an attack roll is a hit. Damage is a separate roll, divorced from the attack roll (barring critical hits). But, the results of a successful attack are not modified in the slightest by the skill of the attack. A success is a success, end of story.

Why would we apply a different standard to skills? The character with proficiency and a reasonably high ability score gets double bonuses now. He not only succeeds more often, but, his successes are better than the untrained character.

So, fair enough, how do you apply that to Athletics, Acrobatics, Deception, Persuasion, Insight, and Medicine checks? Oh, and Thievery. Or are we only going to apply this to "knowledge" style checks?

 

[Maxperson]

The result of an attack roll is a hit. Damage is a separate roll, divorced from the attack roll (barring critical hits). But, the results of a successful attack are not modified in the slightest by the skill of the attack. A success is a success, end of story.

Eh, no. Wrong. You still aren't getting it. The DC of the skill is 15. You roll a 15 (hit) and what happens? Nothing! Not without the result (damage) of that roll. Now the rules say that the result (damage) is pass/fail. However, we're not discussing the rules. You asked why we would change the rules to make it so that there were grades of success. I showed you how and why. You can accept it or not, but at this point you're arguing nothing.

Why would we apply a different standard to skills? The character with proficiency and a reasonably high ability score gets double bonuses now. He not only succeeds more often, but, his successes are better than the untrained character.

Why? To better model reality. That's why. And no, his successes by RAW are not better than the untrained character. They are only higher.....sometimes. They are equal in quality, and that's the problem.

So, fair enough, how do you apply that to Athletics, Acrobatics, Deception, Persuasion, Insight, and Medicine checks? Oh, and Thievery. Or are we only going to apply this to "knowledge" style checks?

I've already shown how to apply it to athletics and such. You can go back and look.

 

[Hussar]

Eh, no. Wrong. You still aren't getting it. The DC of the skill is 15. You roll a 15 (hit) and what happens? Nothing! Not without the result (damage) of that roll. Now the rules say that the result (damage) is pass/fail. However, we're not discussing the rules. You asked why we would change the rules to make it so that there were grades of success. I showed you how and why. You can accept it or not, but at this point you're arguing nothing.



Why? To better model reality. That's why. And no, his successes by RAW are not better than the untrained character. They are only higher.....sometimes. They are equal in quality, and that's the problem.



I've already shown how to apply it to athletics and such. You can go back and look.

In other words, you're okay with it being inconsistent. The result of a hit in combat is damage, but, the damage you deal is irrespective of training. A peasant with a great sword does the same damage as a 20th level fighter. There is no difference. An untrained character gets lucky and equals the trained character in a check. But, unlike combat, suddenly the trained character gains bonuses to damage (a better result) because of training. No, it does not model reality. It might satisfy your reality, but, it certainly doesn't mine. Like I said, you're basically doubling the advantage of a character with training and high stat. You're pretty much saying that natural talent doesn't matter. Or at least matters less than training. My point is, a 1st level character with no stat bonus and training is identical to a +2 stat character and no training. Eventually, that trained character will be better. But, playing Schroedinger's result based on whoever is doing the check strongly disadvantages non-trained characters.

ANd, no, you did not show how to apply it to all skills equally.

 

[Maxperson]

In other words, you're okay with it being inconsistent. The result of a hit in combat is damage, but, the damage you deal is irrespective of training. A peasant with a great sword does the same damage as a 20th level fighter.

Really? I was under the impression that the 20th level fighter got multiple attacks, +2 to damage from dueling, re-rolls low rolls, has action surges, possible much better crit ranges, lunging attack, etc.

Besides, it was just to show you as an analogy how training works with skills. The one with the greatsword is trained and the one with the dagger is not. You just moved the goal posts and trained them both.

 

[Hussar]

Really? I was under the impression that the 20th level fighter got multiple attacks, +2 to damage from dueling, re-rolls low rolls, has action surges, possible much better crit ranges, lunging attack, etc.

Besides, it was just to show you as an analogy how training works with skills. The one with the greatsword is trained and the one with the dagger is not. You just moved the goal posts and trained them both.

So, my 20th level fighter rolls what dice when he rolls damage with his greatsword? What damage dice does the peasant roll?

Why is training effectively using a weapon that does triple the damage? We're both making the same check, we both got the same final result on that check. But, for some bizarre reason, you're claiming that because you have training and I don't, you should potentially do triple my damage?

Nothing in D&D works that way.

 

[Li Shenron]

The obvious solution then is to not make it the same task for everyone.

That's one way, but personally I prefer to leave the DC equal for everyone, and then rather decide who is entitled to roll a skill check and who isn't, and that may depend on your proficiencies.

ANd, no, you did not show how to apply it to all skills equally.

I wouldn't worry about all skills working equally, because skills are not equal in the first place. Fundamentally, you cannot fully compare climbing with persuading someone with knowing who won the battle of evermore with noticing a faint noise with disabling a lock... You can try and have a unifying system, and D&D overall doesn't do a bad job at that in my opinion, but if you forget that the system is only meant to simplify or streamline the game and you pretend it's meant to "replace reality", then you're digging your own grave, because there will always be plenty of situations where it will fall short. It's a very common human mistake, that of creating a model for reality, stumble upon a mismatch, and blame reality instead of the model

Personally I just think the only way out is to realize that the rules system is just a tool, and the gamemaster is in fact the master over the rules system and not viceversa, otherwise they would have called it the gameslave