D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[Maxperson]

You can also be the rogue/thief who also gets a bonus on climbing speed. And remarkable athlete makes you a better jumper.
You may deny it, but the athlete feat exactly does what you want: climbing fast while others without training climb at half speed. And the rogue who took athlete was very happy about the results.

Did you even read my response?

 

[jodyjohnson]

It is in my opinion that the 3.5 skill system was the best it allowed characters that where supposed to be skill full Rogues and rangers) to be well skill full and the meat head combat characters (fighters and barbs) well meat heads they could handle the heavy lifting skills and the smashing. Where 3.5 went wrong was the escalating numbers that just got silly.

I propose we revert back to the 3.5 system where every skills had narrow uses and where you put your skill points was huge but we cut down the number of skill points you get.

I propose you do what you want at your table and everyone else does what they want at their table. That's the essense of 5e.

What you are proposing is 5.5e or 6e and you can take that out back and shoot it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

How would I apply proficient vs non-proficient for a climb check? Easy, the proficient climber has the opportunity to assay the climb and choose an easier route (if one exists). The non-proficient climber does not. So the proficient can find an easier DC, and they can even take some time to share the details of that route with the non-proficient. The actual check might be the same DC, but the proficient has a chance of changing that DC. And, depending on the resultant DC, I might choose to not even require a roll from the proficient.

Which brings me to a question: for those arguing that it must be the same DC for everyone with the same results on a strictly pass/fail basis, would you ever allow a proficient person to auto-succeed while requiring the non-proficient to roll? If so, how is that different from setting different DCs, or varying the results of success?

 

[Azurewraith]

How would I apply proficient vs non-proficient for a climb check? Easy, the proficient climber has the opportunity to assay the climb and choose an easier route (if one exists). The non-proficient climber does not. So the proficient can find an easier DC, and they can even take some time to share the details of that route with the non-proficient. The actual check might be the same DC, but the proficient has a chance of changing that DC. And, depending on the resultant DC, I might choose to not even require a roll from the proficient.

Which brings me to a question: for those arguing that it must be the same DC for everyone with the same results on a strictly pass/fail basis, would you ever allow a proficient person to auto-succeed while requiring the non-proficient to roll? If so, how is that different from setting different DCs, or varying the results of success?

That depends I require a roll if the result is uncertain so lets say there where plenty of hand holds and not carrying plate armour a greatsword and a pack full of junk I may allow auto success. I would also allow auto success if they could just fall and try again or of it was going to move the story forward. I would be less lenient on a non proficient people

 

[ExploderWizard]

How would I apply proficient vs non-proficient for a climb check? Easy, the proficient climber has the opportunity to assay the climb and choose an easier route (if one exists). The non-proficient climber does not. So the proficient can find an easier DC, and they can even take some time to share the details of that route with the non-proficient. The actual check might be the same DC, but the proficient has a chance of changing that DC. And, depending on the resultant DC, I might choose to not even require a roll from the proficient.

Which brings me to a question: for those arguing that it must be the same DC for everyone with the same results on a strictly pass/fail basis, would you ever allow a proficient person to auto-succeed while requiring the non-proficient to roll? If so, how is that different from setting different DCs, or varying the results of success?

Yup. This is a great way for training to matter in a way that is far greater than merely the proficiency bonus it provides. I like the idea of someone who actually knows what they are doing not having to roll, while someone just trying to "use the force" has to take chances with the dice.

 

[Sacrosanct]

One house rule I've been mulling over using is that proficient users have a floor. Take 10, if you will, if the die roll isn't higher.

 

[Azurewraith]

One house rule I've been mulling over using is that proficient users have a floor. Take 10, if you will, if the die roll isn't higher.

That sounds ok untilled you get half elf lore barded.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That sounds ok untilled you get half elf lore barded.

I guess lucky for me no one has played a half elf lore bard in any of our games. We did have a lore bard once, but never really experienced any issues there either.

 

[Azurewraith]

I guess lucky for me no one has played a half elf lore bard in any of our games. We did have a lore bard once, but never really experienced any issues there either.

Can't imagine it would be extreme but when they get a flat 10 on 11skills add on Prof n state they probably end up with 15+

 

[Ovinomancer]

One house rule I've been mulling over using is that proficient users have a floor. Take 10, if you will, if the die roll isn't higher.

I often use passive totals as a floor value. If your passive hits the DC, no roll needed, unless there's pressure on the check.

That sounds ok untilled you get half elf lore barded.

Yeah, so, they get hella high numbers for things their proficient in. They represent walking encyclopedias of lore. They should be exceptional.