D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[Maxperson]

Right, so it's impossible to play just by the rules, because the rules require "houserules." That term is now so overbroad that it emcompasses the necessary actions to play the game at any and all tables. You've defined the discussion in a way that everyone's playing by the rules. Make a call at the table on hiding, houserule. Allow everyone +3000 hammers of all the loot dropping!1!, houserules. Play a completely different game and insist it's D&D, houserules.

If you are reduced to making such absurd arguments, you've lost.

The simple fact is that when you make a ruling, you have changed the rules. That rule now has different language that includes your ruling for all future similar instances at your house, making it a different rule than the one used at my house. Engage in fallacies all you like. You still won't change that fact.

 

[Orlax]

If you are reduced to making such absurd arguments, you've lost.

The simple fact is that when you make a ruling, you have changed the rules. That rule now has different language that includes your ruling for all future similar instances at your house, making it a different rule than the one used at my house. Engage in fallacies all you like. You still won't change that fact.

No it doesn't, adjudicating is saying how it will work for this instance. In not making a hard and fast house ruling on all further functions of a similar type within the game. I've made a house ruling in my game that I will use the roll for proficiency bonus instead of the flat bonus. Permanent ruling that house rules the base function of my game. An adjudication is me deciding that overcoming this obstacle or performing this trick will require this combination of checks & or saves. I'm making an adjudication of this specific instance. Not making a forever ruling on how something will function. This time it works this way maybe next time it will function that way as well but it might not because the adjudication I've made this time was not a good one.

 

[Maxperson]

No it doesn't, adjudicating is saying how it will work for this instance.

So are you advocating inconsistent rulings? Where one time the DM rules one way, and another time in the exact same circumstance he rules a different way? Because that's the only way that the rule doesn't change. If the DM is going to be consistent and rule the same way under the same circumstances, the rule has changed. If a DM pulled inconsistent rulings on me, I'd walk out of his game. I don't play with DMs who make rulings by coin toss.

In not making a hard and fast house ruling on all further functions of a similar type within the game. I've made a house ruling in my game that I will use the roll for proficiency bonus instead of the flat bonus. Permanent ruling that house rules the base function of my game. An adjudication is me deciding that overcoming this obstacle or performing this trick will require this combination of checks & or saves. I'm making an adjudication of this specific instance. Not making a forever ruling on how something will function. This time it works this way maybe next time it will function that way as well but it might not because the adjudication I've made this time was not a good one.

Changing a ruling because it was a wrong call is simply altering your house rule from one thing to another. It's no different from me creating a house rule from scratch for my game and then altering it later because I made an error with it.

 

[Hussar]

How is it a house rule when the rules specifically leave something up to the DM. I haven't changed the rules in the slightest. The rule can say that the results are the purview of the DM. Stealth rules in 5e are a perfect example of this. It is entirely up to me to allow or disallow a stealth check. The results of a persuasion check are also left to the DM. Adjudication does not equal house rules. House rules are when you specifically change the rules. When rules are flexible enough to allow adjudication by some sort of referee, that's not changing the rules.

A ref placing the ball after play is not house ruling. He's using the rules and his judgement to determine the end of forward movement. And his placing will always vary somewhat from call to call for any number of reasons. Again totally not changing the rules.

Granting different results from the same check depending on training or not is a house rule. Granting a greater result to one character for achieving a higher check is simply adjudication.

 

[bmcdaniel]

I can't believe that this thread is still going on. Isn't it obvious that the DM can determine different results based on the individual characteristics of the PCs? Consider two examples:

1. The PCs are trying to remember the name and other facts about a drow queen 500 years ago who founded an enormous temple to Lolth in an underdark city. PC A is a human wizard that is proficient in History, but has lived his entire life on the surface and (ala Greyhawk) had never heard of drow before this adventure. PC B is a drow cleric that is proficient in Religion, but not History, and was actually alive and living in the city at the time the temple was founded! The adventure calls for an Intelligence (History) check. PC B actually rolls higher than PC A, but because PC A has a higher Intelligence and is proficient in History, PC A's adjusted result is higher than PC B's adjusted result. What reasonable DM is going to say that PC A knows more about the drow queen than PC B?

2. The PCs are trying to rapidly wade a swift mountain stream that is four feet deep without being swept away. The DM decides to call for a Strength(Athletics) roll. PC A is a halfling is small for his race, merely 2 feet, 8 inches tall and weighing only 35 pounds. PC B is a larger-than-average dragonborn, at 8 feet tall and 350 pounds. PC C is average size, but is an sea elf who specializes in water element spells. Is the DM really going to say that for purposes of determining success, the only relevant factors are the PC's strength and proficiency bonus?


Personally, I would not express the differences among the PCs in the above scenarios as different DCs; instead I would express the difference as differential bonuses to the PCs (that dragonborn gets a +2 bonus on the check, while the halfling has a -8 penalty). To me, the DC is the "objective" part of the success/failure criteria, and the "subjective" part is each PCs individual bonus. But if another DM would prefer to describe the halfling as needing a DC 20 check to succeed, and the dragonborn as merely a DC 10 check, I'm perfectly happy to go along.

 

[S'mon]

So are you advocating inconsistent rulings? Where one time the DM rules one way, and another time in the exact same circumstance he rules a different way? Because that's the only way that the rule doesn't change. If the DM is going to be consistent and rule the same way under the same circumstances, the rule has changed. If a DM pulled inconsistent rulings on me, I'd walk out of his game. I don't play with DMs who make rulings by coin toss.

And what a terrible loss that would be.

 

[Eejit]

So are you advocating inconsistent rulings? Where one time the DM rules one way, and another time in the exact same circumstance he rules a different way? Because that's the only way that the rule doesn't change.

How often are you going to be looking at the exact same circumstances in any of these examples (stealth, persuasion etc)?

 

[dave2008]

If you are reduced to making such absurd arguments, you've lost.

Lost what? No one is trying to win.

 

[dave2008]

It's not. They play done properly is a pass to a player in mid jump and the ball isn't going into the basket. No goal tending.

However to make that call the referee must determine intent, doing so is an adjudication.

The improvised actions rules are explicitly for actions not covered elsewhere, which includes swinging off of a chandelier. The swinging from a chandelier is not an example of a hole in the rules requiring a ruling.

Of course it does. The DM must determine what kind of check, if any, is needed to both jump on and off the chandelier. It could be athletics, acrobatics, straight dexterity, etc. In addition, does the jump on and off included the use of some movement distance. Does attacking while swinging on the chandelier require anything more than an attack role? Maybe a strength or athletics or acrobatics check to hang on? These are all rulings.

 

[Hussar]

I can't believe that this thread is still going on. Isn't it obvious that the DM can determine different results based on the individual characteristics of the PCs? Consider two examples:

1. The PCs are trying to remember the name and other facts about a drow queen 500 years ago who founded an enormous temple to Lolth in an underdark city. PC A is a human wizard that is proficient in History, but has lived his entire life on the surface and (ala Greyhawk) had never heard of drow before this adventure. PC B is a drow cleric that is proficient in Religion, but not History, and was actually alive and living in the city at the time the temple was founded! The adventure calls for an Intelligence (History) check. PC B actually rolls higher than PC A, but because PC A has a higher Intelligence and is proficient in History, PC A's adjusted result is higher than PC B's adjusted result. What reasonable DM is going to say that PC A knows more about the drow queen than PC B?

Absolutely I would. I'm not about to invalidate a player's choices just because of background. What's the point of rolling if results are going to be filtered through whatever I happen to think is more relevant? Maybe the historian character read a book. It's pretty easy to narrate.

2. The PCs are trying to rapidly wade a swift mountain stream that is four feet deep without being swept away. The DM decides to call for a Strength(Athletics) roll. PC A is a halfling is small for his race, merely 2 feet, 8 inches tall and weighing only 35 pounds. PC B is a larger-than-average dragonborn, at 8 feet tall and 350 pounds. PC C is average size, but is an sea elf who specializes in water element spells. Is the DM really going to say that for purposes of determining success, the only relevant factors are the PC's strength and proficiency bonus?

Yup. The Dragonborn might slip. Note the sea elf would have a swim speed no? That would obviously make a difference.

Personally, I would not express the differences among the PCs in the above scenarios as different DCs; instead I would express the difference as differential bonuses to the PCs (that dragonborn gets a +2 bonus on the check, while the halfling has a -8 penalty). To me, the DC is the "objective" part of the success/failure criteria, and the "subjective" part is each PCs individual bonus. But if another DM would prefer to describe the halfling as needing a DC 20 check to succeed, and the dragonborn as merely a DC 10 check, I'm perfectly happy to go along.

I'd give both the same DC and if the halfling succeeded and the Dragonborn failed, I'd narrate that quite easily. The Dragonborn slipped while the nimble halfling pushed through.

But the question at hand is, what happens when they both succeed with the same number? Even if we do apply your modifiers, what happens when they both score the same success? Does the elf remember more information about the Drow queen? Actually, in this scenario, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is arguing that the historian would get more information and the trained halfling would move three times faster.