D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[AaronOfBarbaria]

*ahem* The "default version" is the whole game.

That's an odd thing to say considering that Basic was released first, is a "whole game" by itself, and happens to be what the website directs me to when I go there, hover the cursor over "New to D&D", move the cursor down to "Start Playing" and then over to click on "Tabletop Games." Sure, the for-purchase products are also linked on that page, but they are contextually after the basic game (starter set to the right, rule-book trio below).

Then, there is the title: Basic Rules. Not "sampler", not "teaser", not even "quickstart".

And the splash text on the link to the basic rules even tells me that I am correct in my belief that you mistakenly suggest isn't supported by Wizards of the Coast even calls the basic rules "the core of the tabletop game."

 

[ProphetSword]

*ahem* The "default version" is the whole game. Basic is a small sampler/teaser to get people interested. I'm not sure where you got the idea that 5e is Basic, and everything else is actually a modification or extension thereof, but the marketing, descriptions, and policies coming out of Wizards definitely doesn't support your position. Not to mention the whole "we know WotC made the whole game because of the playtest, and then pared it back to just a small selection for Basic" thing.

Actually, Wizards does support this position. According to their page on "Organized Play," it's all that's required to play in Adventurers League. It's the default version and you're not required to invest money into anything else to play or run the game. People usually will, but it doesn't mean they have to.

Players these days tend to think that a game of D&D isn't complete if it doesn't have class X or feature Y, but that's not true. I came from the days where we started with an aswesome red book that had four races and four classes and very few features, but it was still a great experience. D&D Basic Rules capture that, and you can run an entire campaign with just those rules.

 

[Maxperson]

Now who's shifting the goalposts?

Still you. Until you understand that you are equating training + natural talent to natural talent, you won't be able to understand where you are going wrong.

Are you seriously claiming that the first time your character tries an untrained skill is the very first time that character has EVER attempted to do something like that?

No. Doing something, even several times =/= training.

The very first tree you roll an Athletics check on is the very first time your character has ever tried to climb a tree? Or jump across a space? Or attempted to jimmy a lock? Or tried to remember what kills trolls? Really?

Nope! Those are all a Strawman of my argument. Congrats on that.

Gretzky was 17 in his rookie year. He was playing people who had ten, fifteen years more experience playing than he did and was still completely owning them.

And he had training + natural talent when he did so. So what.

If training>natural talent, shouldn't those far more experienced players be so much better than someone with a minimum of training (ie. 1st level) and natural talent?

He was 12th level in his rookie year. Rookie =/= 1st level. Rookie = first year in the pros. He had lots of training before then.

Besides, wouldn't we use the Tool proficiencies for sports players? As you said, there are a number of skills at play here, so, wouldn't it make more sense to just be proficient in Hockey?

Yes!!! Which is why I model skill checks with either different DC numbers or different results for the trained PC. It's simpler than re-writing the game. We are now back to the beginning where trained > untrained (even with natural talent) and why I do it the way I do. You've just managed to shift the goal posts so far that they are back to where they started.

 

[Hussar]

See, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], the difference here is 1. I'm not trying to claim that I'm right. I'm simply pointing out the inconsistencies in your claims. and 2. Modelling reality is not my goal. Using D&D to model reality is like nailing jello to a tree. This is not the system for that. And, as I said, waaaay upthread, trying to do so would be far more work than it could possibly be worth it.

You started this with an analogy of using a dagger or a great sword. The problem is, you're conflating two different mechanics. When you attack, you either hit or miss. That is your attack "check". It has no other effect that hit or miss. Just like skill checks or saving throws, it's binary. It doesn't matter how you achieved that success, only that you succeeded.

Now, in combat, we have a second system for determining the effect of a hit. Now, this second system (HP and damage) is not connected to the first system except through critical hits (which don't apply to skill checks). The amount of damage you do is almost totally independent of your attack check. Conversely, your attack check is 100% independent of your damage "check". Now, damage is also given a pretty granular system with HP and the number of checks you have to make in order to kill an opponent. But, again, this is independent of the attack check.

As this relates to skills, it doesn't really track. Skills lack a secondary "effect" mechanic. You roll the check, the lock opens. You roll the check, you climb half your speed. You roll your check, you are X stealthy. There is no effect mechanics. You don't wear down the HP of a difficult lock until it opens. There are lots of systems out there that do have secondary checks for the effectiveness of your skill check, but, D&D isn't one of them.

Now, you want to add, not only a secondary effect to a system that doesn't have them at all, but a secondary effect based on proficiency, which only applies to success checks in all other systems. Proficiency doesn't add damage nor does it make your saving throw better, other than allowing you to pass/fail the check. Having proficiency in Dex saves doesn't mean I take less damage on a successful Dex save vs fireball. I simply take half damage regardless of proficiency.

This is why I keep calling your system inconsistent. It's inconsistent with how proficiency applies in the rest of the game. Remember, we are proficient in both attacks and saving throws. Yet, you're not applying proficiency bonuses in those two systems. Why not? Why only skills?

And there is a second level of inconsistency. Trying to apply proficiency equally to all skills. After all, we don't differentiate the proficiency bonus for different skills, so why is the secondary effect being differentiated? Why do I climb at 1/3 the speed of a proficient climber? And, if I do climb that slow, what exactly does 1/3 of a successful Arcana check actually mean? How much less of a success on a persuasion check can you measure for a trained/untrained check? A trained character makes a perception check to find a secret door. An untrained character makes the same check. They both get the same results - a success. How do you get 1/3 of a secret door?

You are adding a huge amount of complexity to the system, for what benefit? How much better does this actually make the game? You're putting the onus on the DM to be able to consistently come up with ad hoc results on a pretty regular basis, with zero guidance and no real way equivalency. It's just not going to work. You're either going to err on the side of training, thus making it so that untrained characters might as well not even bother making checks (yay, back to 3e skills) or you err on the other side, and now there's no difference at all (yay, 4e skills).

Never minding how you narrate the trained person succeeding with a lower roll than the untrained person, but, still getting a better result. The trained character just succeeds, while the untrained character beats the DC by 5 or so, yet the trained character still climbs at full speed and the untrained character is 1/3 slower? The untrained character still gets less information from an Arcana check? Are we insisting that training means that the character's "minimum damage" for a skill roll is greater than any roll an untrained character can make? Is skill training just that good? How is that believable?

 

[Maxperson]

See, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], the difference here is 1. I'm not trying to claim that I'm right. I'm simply pointing out the inconsistencies in your claims.

There haven't been any that you haven't created through a Strawman of my position or you mislabeling training + natural talent as purely natural talent.

and 2. Modelling reality is not my goal. Using D&D to model reality is like nailing jello to a tree. This is not the system for that. And, as I said, waaaay upthread, trying to do so would be far more work than it could possibly be worth it.

First, you asked why we would model it that way and I'm answering, so your goals are irrelevant to this discussion. Second, it's almost no extra work at all.

You started this with an analogy of using a dagger or a great sword. The problem is, you're conflating two different mechanics. When you attack, you either hit or miss. That is your attack "check". It has no other effect that hit or miss. Just like skill checks or saving throws, it's binary. It doesn't matter how you achieved that success, only that you succeeded.

This is false. You simply didn't understand the analogy.

This is why I keep calling your system inconsistent. It's inconsistent with how proficiency applies in the rest of the game. Remember, we are proficient in both attacks and saving throws. Yet, you're not applying proficiency bonuses in those two systems. Why not? Why only skills?

There is no inconsistency. My way applies to all skills. It never applies to the other two. It's consistent. It's consistent the same way that a magic item that works for everyone, but works better for elves is consistent. The game is full of exceptions to the rules. It's an exception based rule set. That doesn't make the rules inconsistent. It just means that many things will work differently in different areas.

And there is a second level of inconsistency. Trying to apply proficiency equally to all skills. After all, we don't differentiate the proficiency bonus for different skills, so why is the secondary effect being differentiated?

First, it's not an inconsistency. If it was, then failure to add proficiency bonus to hit points would also be "inconsistent." Why only saves, skills and attacks? Inconsistent!!!! Second, the answer to why is that it better models reality, but then you knew that before you asked the question for the umpteenth time in this thread. I have a hard time believing that your memory is that faulty.

You are adding a huge amount of complexity to the system, for what benefit? How much better does this actually make the game? You're putting the onus on the DM to be able to consistently come up with ad hoc results on a pretty regular basis, with zero guidance and no real way equivalency. It's just not going to work. You're either going to err on the side of training, thus making it so that untrained characters might as well not even bother making checks (yay, back to 3e skills) or you err on the other side, and now there's no difference at all (yay, 4e skills).

It not that complex, involves very little work, and adds a ton of fun and enjoyment to the game.

Never minding how you narrate the trained person succeeding with a lower roll than the untrained person, but, still getting a better result.

The roll is irrelevant to the narration. The PCs are unaware of who rolled what. The players know the rule. The narration will never reference a roll.

 

[Hussar]

And thus the fundamental disagreement. To me the roll is not irrelevant. A higher roll is what lets a character achieve better results. That's the point of a DC system. If you score higher than me then your result should be better. You are harder to perceive. Your knowledge is greater than mine. You are more persuasive.

Ignoring the roll defeats the purpose of the system which is wholly based on the roll.

 

[Maxperson]

And thus the fundamental disagreement. To me the roll is not irrelevant. A higher roll is what lets a character achieve better results. That's the point of a DC system. If you score higher than me then your result should be better. You are harder to perceive. Your knowledge is greater than mine. You are more persuasive.

Ignoring the roll defeats the purpose of the system which is wholly based on the roll.

Another Strawman. I never said the roll was irrelevant. I said the roll was irrelevant to the narration.

Player A rolls a 15 and player B rolls a 25. The DM narrates that player A achieved a lesser success than player B. That's you are indicating you do that. For me both player A and player B roll the same number, but player A is untrained and player B is trained. My narration is the same as yours word for word. A third DM has the players flip coins to determine who got the greater success. A fourth uses the day of the week the players were born on.

The method used is utterly irrelevant to the narration. The only thing of relevance to the narration is lesser result or greater result.

I also note you ignored the rest of my post about my method being consistent and how utterly simple and easy it is to run skills the way I do.

 

[Celtavian]

Found another Ability Check in Out of the Abyss that reads minimum 20 strength to make a DC 25 strength check to break open the door. You don't even get to try if you're strength is below 20. Different strength required to get different results.

 

[GMMichael]

Against my better judgment, I'll weigh in here...

Like it or not, Bounded Accuracy is a requirement for D&D 5's bigger innovation: the Advantage roll. Bonuses were out of control in 3e (not at lower levels, which I enjoyed), so 5e rolls them all up into a little ball, shaped like a d20, and calls it Advantage. Now, if character stats are still scrolling off the chart, ala 3e, then Advantage loses value at higher levels. Enter BA: to save the Advantage mechanic.

To OP: go back to 3.5. I'll sell you my Rules Compendium at a very reasonable price. Otherwise, (tell your player to) start enjoying some non-numerical benefits of leveling. There are plenty.

A higher roll is what lets a character achieve better results. That's the point of a DC system. If you score higher than me then your result should be better. You are harder to perceive. Your knowledge is greater than mine. You are more persuasive. Ignoring the roll defeats the purpose of the system which is wholly based on the roll.

If true, isn't this a significant problem with BA? BA narrows the field of results, but it doesn't touch the d20. The trained professional can still roll a 1 while the handicapped village idiot can roll a 20 and make the pro look pathetic. Take away all of the pro's bonuses, and the two contestants should probably be rolling something smaller against each other. Say, d10?

 

[Maxperson]

Found another Ability Check in Out of the Abyss that reads minimum 20 strength to make a DC 25 strength check to break open the door. You don't even get to try if you're strength is below 20. Different strength required to get different results.

Yet again, you have found an example of the rule, "When the outcome is uncertain the dice determine the results." That check was not uncertain for strength below 20. For all other with that check, it's pass/fail like the rules say.

You have yet to provide even a single rule or example that supports your claim that the rules say you engage in different DCs for the same check or narrate different results for the same roll for a check. The one DMG passage you quoted says that the DM can change the DC for a check using the PHB rules (pass/fail).