D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[dave2008]

What we are saying is that the rules don't allow for us to set the DC at 15 for a trained individual and 20 for a non-trained individual for the same task. Nor do the rules allow for both the trained and non-trained individual to roll 15 on the die and get different results. When I do that I am engaging in a house rule.

How do the rules not allow you to do this? I just did a quick review of the PHB and DMG and I didn't see anything that says you can't do that. It doesn't fall into the guidelines they provide, but they are pretty clear that it is DM judgement and you are free to use different values. And it is not provided as an example on how to do things, but it is not labeled as something you can't do either. There are even examples of auto-success for trained (proficient) individuals and suggestions for modifying DC based on character level. So again, how do the rules "prevent" you from playing this way?

Also, the rules do allow a trained and untrained to get different results on a roll of 15. That is basically how the system works, the trained character adds the proficiency bonus which can provide different results based on the DC.

 

[Maxperson]

How do the rules not allow you to do this?

By not explicitly allowing it.

I just did a quick review of the PHB and DMG and I didn't see anything that says you can't do that.

Rules don't work that way. If something is not explicitly allowed by the rules, it is disallowed. Otherwise every rule must allow 99.999 of the multiverse, since 99.999 of the multiverse isn't disallowed. You end up with a fireball that paints everyone within 10,000 miles pink, blows up the 7 nearest planets, delivers presents to all needy children in the world, and changes the sex of all those children at the same time. After all, there are no rules that say it doesn't do those things.

It doesn't fall into the guidelines they provide, but they are pretty clear that it is DM judgement and you are free to use different values. And it is not provided as an example on how to do things, but it is not labeled as something you can't do either.

You can house rule those things, sure. The lack of rules preventing it doesn't mean that it is allowed, though. Only things explicitly allowed by the rules are allowed. I am allowed to choose elf as my race. I am not allowed to have that elf have a super punch that automatically hits for 100,000,000,000 damage, even though there isn't a rule that says that I am not allowed to do that.

Also, the rules do allow a trained and untrained to get different results on a roll of 15. That is basically how the system works, the trained character adds the proficiency bonus which can provide different results based on the DC.

This is a Strawman. We have been discussing end rolls. The scenario is where the trained and untrained individual both end up with a total of 15.

 

[dave2008]

By not explicitly allowing it.



Rules don't work that way. If something is not explicitly allowed by the rules, it is disallowed. Otherwise every rule must allow 99.999 of the multiverse, since 99.999 of the multiverse isn't disallowed. You end up with a fireball that paints everyone within 10,000 miles pink, blows up the 7 nearest planets, delivers presents to all needy children in the world, and changes the sex of all those children at the same time. After all, there are no rules that say it doesn't do those things.



You can house rule those things, sure. The lack of rules preventing it doesn't mean that it is allowed, though. Only things explicitly allowed by the rules are allowed. I am allowed to choose elf as my race. I am not allowed to have that elf have a super punch that automatically hits for 100,000,000,000 damage, even though there isn't a rule that says that I am not allowed to do that.

You are correct that rules do work that way for computers and thing that cannot intuit. Things that want a binary solutuon. But thinking, breathing, creative humans can use the rules as guidelines to do what you want. It is not explicitly against the rules and a reasoning DM might use your method without fear. After all..."the rules aren't in charge. Your the DM you are in charge of the game." In addition, there is the section on "Ignoring the Dice." So you may consider it homebrew, which I have no issue with at all, but it is fairly mild version that really doesn't change much, if anything, in the game. Not sure why the fuss over whether or not how you play is RAW or homebrew.

This is a Strawman. We have been discussing end rolls. The scenario is where the trained and untrained individual both end up with a total of 15.

That is more clear, could have said that the first time However, the variant rules in the DMG allow that to be a success for a trained character and a failure for an untrained one. So there is precedent in the rules for what you want.

 

[Maxperson]

You are correct that rules do work that way for computers and thing that cannot intuit. Things that want a binary solutuon. But thinking, breathing, creative humans can use the rules as guidelines to do what you want.

Yes, and if the rules do not explicitly allow them, they are house rules. I have agreed that humans can change things. I house rule the heck out of every RPG I get my hands on.

It is not explicitly against the rules and a reasoning DM might use your method without fear. After all..."the rules aren't in charge. Your the DM you are in charge of the game." In addition, there is the section on "Ignoring the Dice." So you may consider it homebrew, which I have no issue with at all, but it is fairly mild version that really doesn't change much, if anything, in the game. Not sure why the fuss over whether or not how you play is RAW or homebrew.

It's not a home brew if it is mechanical in nature. It's a house rule.

That is more clear, could have said that the first time However, the variant rules in the DMG allow that to be a success for a trained character and a failure for an untrained one. So there is precedent in the rules for what you want.

Sorry. We've been going on for pages with it being an equal result. After a while, it just sort of becomes assumed by those involved and is not so obvious to those coming into the conversation late.

Would you quote that rule for me? I don't have access to the DMG right now to look at it.

 

[dave2008]

Yes, and if the rules do not explicitly allow them, they are house rules. I have agreed that humans can change things. I house rule the heck out of every RPG I get my hands on.

It's not a home brew if it is mechanical in nature. It's a house rule.

To me house rule = homebrew, what is the difference to you.

Wait, I think I see where your coming from; however, house rules are required for the game. Every ruling a DM makes on a situation that is not explicitly covered by the rules is a house rule. What is even the purpose of pointing out house rules? I don't think you can play the game without house rules, they even give examples in the DMG of the requirements for house rules to cover these cases (pg 5 DMG).

Sorry. We've been going on for pages with it being an equal result. After a while, it just sort of becomes assumed by those involved and is not so obvious to those coming into the conversation late.

Would you quote that rule for me? I don't have access to the DMG right now to look at it.

No problem - it is what I get for jumping in late to the conversation! Here is the text i am referring to:

"...a character automatically succeeds on any ability check with a DC less than or equal to the character's ability score minus 5."

and

"If the character's proficiency bonus applies to his or her ability check, the character automatically succeeds if the DC is 10 or less. If that character is 11th level or higher, the check succeeds if the DC is 15 or less."

page 239 of the DMG if you want to look it up.

Sorry I got to get some work done so I will not be able to reply for a bit.

 

[Maxperson]

To me house rule = homebrew, what is the difference to you.

Wait, I think I see where your coming from; however, house rules are required for the game. Every ruling a DM makes on a situation that is not explicitly covered by the rules is a house rule. What is even the purpose of pointing out house rules? I don't think you can play the game without house rules, they even give examples in the DMG of the requirements for house rules to cover these cases (pg 5 DMG).

Yes, the rulings that come up during game play become rules for that house. The difference between house rule and home brew as I use it and have seen many other use it, is that house rules deal with mechanics. Home brew does not. For example. Saying elves in my game are burly and all get +2 to strength is a house rule. Saying that orcs are the noble protectors of humankind and that only orcs have the necessary purity to be Paladins is home brew.

I agree that the game can't be played without house rules. It can be played without home brew, though.

No problem - it is what I get for jumping in late to the conversation! Here is the text i am referring to:

"...a character automatically succeeds on any ability check with a DC less than or equal to the character's ability score minus 5."

I don't see where that only deals with trained people, though. Proficiency isn't added to the character's ability score. It's added to the roll. That rule would result in success or failure for trained and untrained equally, assuming identical ability scores.

"If the character's proficiency bonus applies to his or her ability check, the character automatically succeeds if the DC is 10 or less. If that character is 11th level or higher, the check succeeds if the DC is 15 or less."

Okay. That's all dealing with the rule that says that you only roll when the outcome is in doubt, though. What we have been discussing is whether setting two different DCs for the same task, or narrating two different results for an identical end roll depending on trained or untrained, are house rules. Those optional rules just let the DM decide when success is automatic and you don't need to roll.

page 239 of the DMG if you want to look it up.

Nah. I believe you.

Sorry I got to get some work done so I will not be able to reply for a bit.

LOL I completely understand. I've been guilty of being here during work a bit more than I should be.

 

[Celtavian]

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).

You don't even know what you're talking about. No one is arguing pass/fail. You're too obtuse to understand the discussion. You got attached to this idiotic "Pass/fail" BS you're spouting and completely missed the point that that the DM can make the check in whatever fashion he wishes. I've pointed out multiple examples in a WotC module.

As far as narration goes, I can narrate whatever I feel like narrating. You won't find a single rule in the DMG or PHB making any requirements of narrating a roll equally for each character. Narration is completely the purview of the DM. You would be a rotten DM if you didn't narrate according to the capabilities of the character.

Talk about someone that completely missed the boat on the discussion. See that boat in the distance....that little speck...that's where we are having this discussion. You're in this little side boat shouting "pass/fail" at no one because no one disagreed with that.

 

[Celtavian]

How do the rules not allow you to do this? I just did a quick review of the PHB and DMG and I didn't see anything that says you can't do that. It doesn't fall into the guidelines they provide, but they are pretty clear that it is DM judgement and you are free to use different values. And it is not provided as an example on how to do things, but it is not labeled as something you can't do either. There are even examples of auto-success for trained (proficient) individuals and suggestions for modifying DC based on character level. So again, how do the rules "prevent" you from playing this way?

Also, the rules do allow a trained and untrained to get different results on a roll of 15. That is basically how the system works, the trained character adds the proficiency bonus which can provide different results based on the DC.

Maxperson doesn't understand the discussion. The skill system very much does allow you to create skill checks and narrate them in whatever fashion you feel suits the situation including different results for different DCs based on stats, proficiency, or whatever you deem appropriate.

Yes, it's a pass/fail system once the skill challenge is written. You can write it any way you want including saying this door is DC 20 to open for someone with a strength 20 or more or a DC 25 for someone with less than a 20 strength. Once you set it, it is pass/fail. Skill system is wide open and there's a few posters wanting to impose limitations on the system that are not required. You very much can have different results for the same DC. You can pretty much as a DM write the skill challenge to do what you want it to do. Never put yourself in a box on skills or ability checks. It doesn't exist explicitly or implicitly.

So far I've proved the following with a WotC product:
1. Having a high ability check can allow you to roll while others cannot.
2. I've proven that proficiency in a skill provides different results than non-proficiency.

Two of the major points of my discussion. Now some of these folks are hanging onto the last vestige of their argument: that I can't write a skill or ability check to have different DCs based on different stats or proficiency. They're trying to put everyone in this little box where we all must follow the same model for creating our skill and ability checks like older editions. I see nothing to indicate that I must follow any sort of hard-coded adherence to a particular way of writing a skill or ability check...and now maxperson is telling me I have to narrate it the same for everyone, which is utterly laughable given the book doesn't say jack squat about forcing a DM to narrate something in a particular way.

 

[Celtavian]

Yes, and if the rules do not explicitly allow them, they are house rules. I have agreed that humans can change things. I house rule the heck out of every RPG I get my hands on.

This is not true at all in an RPG. It is expected that you be able to use the rules in a fashion that falls outside what is contained in the books because there will always be situations not covered by the rules.

It's not a home brew if it is mechanical in nature. It's a house rule.

No. It's DM ruling on a situation not covered in the book. Any DM anywhere at any time can do it and it's not a house rule. If your players decide to do something not covered by the rules, you as a DM are expected to figure out how to allow them to do it using the rules as a guideline.

It's been this way for years. I have clearly explained and shown examples of ability checks written specifically to benefit players with proficiency or a certain ability score. There is zero reason given these checks to believe that you can't also write a check to provide different results based on being proficient or having a particular ability score. If you feel like limiting yourself in that manner, that's your prerogative. It is not some required rule as you want to claim. It is not explicit or implicit in the rules.

DMG and PHB provide examples of how to use the skill system, but not the hard system you're attempting to shove down my throat as some kind of absolute. That doesn't exist in those rules.

 

[Maxperson]

and completely missed the point that that the DM can make the check in whatever fashion he wishes. I've pointed out multiple examples in a WotC module.

I cut out a bunch of stuff because you still don't understand, so it doesn't apply.

You haven't pointed out a single example of that. You have pointed out several examples of using the rule that says the DM only has people roll when the outcome is uncertain. That's it. Every last example you have given is of that rule, and that rule does not say what you want it to say. There are no example or rules that say that the DM can make the check in whatever fashion he wishes. That's your bias clouding your perceptions and causing you to believe something that doesn't exist within the rules.