D&D 5E What is your "Sweet Spot" of Success? (poll)

[Minigiant]

What, no Jake and Elwood as Bards?

They are in the all bard party with Wayne, Opera Man, and Diondre Cole.

In the real world difficult tasks aren't ones that are failed by the general population - these are tasks they never even attempt. If they did attempt them they would likely fail but they don't. However, difficult tasks are also tasks the expert is just going to succeed at unless externally pressured.

Perhaps the take away is that in 5e it is too difficult to become an expert at something.

I'd argue that an expert would have Reliable Talent and can't roll less that a 10.
A NPC could have 2 HD but Expertise and Reliable Talent in their main occupation. The town baker wont ever burn their bread under normal circumstances. Even the harder breads. Because the town baker's minimum roll is 15 (10+4+1)

A PC is not only the same track as a NPC.They need 3 or 4 times as many levels for the same skill.

 

[Staffan]

For me, it's a matter of feeling competent. If I'm doing the things I'm supposed to be good at, even if they're supposed to be difficult, I should succeed most of the time. A good benchmark for competency is the Leverage TV show. Get Hardison to a computer, and he will be able to hack it. The challenge is getting him there.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think I need more information. What does failing the task entail? What does succeeding the task entail?

It is immaterial to the discussion. The task is "difficult" (whatever that means to you) and the PC is "good" at it (again, whatever "good" means to you).

That's a very different situation, so don't give me that nonsense just because I'm a nerd and you think I don't know about sports lol!

Opposed checks don't matter. Armor Class is really an opposed check, but assumed the defended always rolls 10 (near average).

If hitting off of a pitcher is "difficult", then that is the task. Hitting a pitch is difficult IMO, even professional players strike out. (Now, I mean actually hitting, not actually getting on base).

If making a pass at a certain distance is "difficult", then that is the task. If you look at passer success rates, the chances go down with the longer the pass attempt. This would be a change in the DC. Each 10 yards might be DC 5 more. (0-10 DC 5; 11-20 DC 10; etc.)

For me, it's a matter of feeling competent. If I'm doing the things I'm supposed to be good at, even if they're supposed to be difficult, I should succeed most of the time. A good benchmark for competency is the Leverage TV show. Get Hardison to a computer, and he will be able to hack it. The challenge is getting him there.

He isn't just "good" at the task--he is excellent, probably one of the best. In 5E terms, I would imagine he is probably around +13 or even higher. If you consider THAT being just "good", then no wonder you might think 65% or higher.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Opposed checks don't matter. Armor Class is really an opposed check, but assumed the defended always rolls 10 (near average).

If hitting off of a pitcher is "difficult", then that is the task. Hitting a pitch is difficult IMO, even professional players strike out. (Now, I mean actually hitting, not actually getting on base).

If making a pass at a certain distance is "difficult", then that is the task. If you look at passer success rates, the chances go down with the longer the pass attempt. This would be a change in the DC. Each 10 yards might be DC 5 more. (0-10 DC 5; 11-20 DC 10; etc.)

Sorry, your argument doesn't track at all. These are not difficult tasks. Your whole conceit is fundamentally broken. These are fairly easy task that a second party, or multiple second parties, is attempting to make difficult.

This is the equivalent of someone imposing Disadvantage on you on a normal difficulty task, not a "difficult task".

 

[Staffan]

He isn't just "good" at the task--he is excellent, probably one of the best. In 5E terms, I would imagine he is probably around +13 or even higher. If you consider THAT being just "good", then no wonder you might think 65% or higher.

Right. And that's the kind of character I want to play. I don't want to play a bumbling fool who doesn't know what he's doing, I want to be competent.

 

[FrogReaver]

It is immaterial to the discussion. The task is "difficult" (whatever that means to you) and the PC is "good" at it (again, whatever "good" means to you).

It really is material though.

 

[FrogReaver]

They are in the all bard party with Wayne, Opera Man, and Diondre Cole.


I'd argue that an expert would have Reliable Talent and can't roll less that a 10.
A NPC could have 2 HD but Expertise and Reliable Talent in their main occupation. The town baker wont ever burn their bread under normal circumstances. Even the harder breads. Because the town baker's minimum roll is 15 (10+4+1)

A PC is not only the same track as a NPC.They need 3 or 4 times as many levels for the same skill.

So only rogues can become experts? That seems off, no?

 

[Minigiant]

So only rogues can become experts? That seems off, no?

It is a bit.

But feats are soon to be core and Expertise is available as a feat. Now that feats will have levels, maybe Reliable talent too?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Sorry, your argument doesn't track at all. These are not difficult tasks. Your whole conceit is fundamentally broken. These are fairly easy task that a second party, or multiple second parties, is attempting to make difficult.

This is the equivalent of someone imposing Disadvantage on you on a normal difficulty task, not a "difficult task".

Sure it tracks--perfectly fine. Obviously yours didn't, which is why I had to reply to set the record straight.

My point on armor class is extremely appropriate and shows how a "contested" roll can be "difficult".

Anyway, no point in discussing it further since we don't agree on this AT ALL (big surprise...).

Right. And that's the kind of character I want to play. I don't want to play a bumbling fool who doesn't know what he's doing, I want to be competent.

Fine, that is who you want to play, but that isn't competent, that is extraordinarily skilled, including expertise. Like I said, fine if you want to play that but that isn't "good". If that is good to you, I can't even imagine someone who is actually an EXPERT.

It really is material though.

Nope. Obviously it isn't since dozens of people have been able to vote without requiring additional information about the PC and/or task.

So only rogues can become experts? That seems off, no?

Yes, it is very off. Fortunately with Prodigy and then Skilled Expert, it is no longer an issue for most groups.

Personally, I always liked our house-rule: You can give up one of your background skills to gain expertise in your other background skill.

Since background skills are completely customizable, this allows any PC to gain expertise in any skill.

 

[FrogReaver]

Nope. Obviously it isn't since dozens of people have been able to vote without requiring additional information about the PC and/or task.

Dozens people over a week isn't exactly an impressive number for a poll here. Most polls hit well over dozens of people in the first day.

Perhaps the ones not voting feel as i do.