D&D 5E Bounded accurancy and skills

[brehobit]

I rather like bounded accuracy when it comes to combat. But I'm finding I don't like it with skills.

At 1st level a fighter with a 16 strength and training in athletics will only "out muscle" a halfling with an 8 strength and no training about 75% of the time. Same thing with any other skill check (the random guy on the street makes a DC 15 check a 25% of the time, while a trained priest with an int of 12 is only 40% of the time).

This just rubs me the wrong way.

Does it bother anyone else?

Any suggestions on how to solve it? I'm thinking of just giving those trained another +3 bonus or some such. But that doesn't seem great either.

 

[Joddy37]

Whenever the physical prowess of characters are put to test, I tend to use prerequisites for relevant skill checks. For instance in order to move that big statue over there a character with at least 10 strength is needed. Only characters with or above 10 Str can roll for that skill check. So that random halfling won't succeed ever where the trained fighter failed. If it is too strict to your liking, you can also rule that having proficiency in the skill can help the character bypass that prerequisite.

 

[pepticburrito]

I rather like bounded accuracy when it comes to combat. But I'm finding I don't like it with skills.

The Skill System is intentionally vague so that the GM can do whatever the hell he wants. If you're the GM, it is your job to fill in the blanks to make it work the way you want. In the previous two editions, the skill system took something like 30 pages. That's as big as the total rules for 5e.

Don't consider the ability check system to be in a final state, it's not. It's written the way it is so that the GM has the flexibility to do what he needs to do for his game.

I run knowledge checks as trained only. Passive Insight is the DC for Deception. A creature with proficiency in Athletics is the only one that's even allowed to initiate an athletics contest.

You can run it your own way too.

 

[Celtavian]

I agree with Peptic.

The mechanics are there for use when you want to make something difficult. I was reading Climb for example, there is no chance for failure for Climb or Swim unless you make a chance for failure. You should only choose to require skill checks if you feel they are needed. If a Halfling tries to outmuscle a bigger guy, you can simply say it can't be done or apply disadvantage on his roll due to size differences or whatever you feel is appropriate. Failure and success are only important if you make them important. Otherwise it is assumed that things happen as you envision they can happen. Thus guys walking down the street aren't going to be better at something than your wizard unless you want to make your own Good Will Hunting fantasy story and plan to have Street Joe play a prominent role in your story.

Just as an example, our players are coming from Pathfinder. They are used to making knowledge checks concerning creatures. One of the players wanted to make a check. The DM said, "You know nothing about this creature. There is no check to be made." That was the end of it. You gain knowledge about creatures as you fight them. If the DM wants to work in rumors or possible myths about a creature the party heard, he can do so. If the party wants to know what a creature can do, they ask around and record the information. Skills in 5E are there to serve the story, not as set in stone ways to define expertise in a particular area. That is better handled by background.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You're only supposed to roll when the outcome is uncertain. In a direct contest of Strength (like an arm-wrestling match), the outcome is certain and no roll is necessary. If time isn't a factor, then you can do the equivalent of taking 20, and the stronger character will succeed first.

The only time you roll is when the outcome is uncertain, which means there's some sort of random element that could muck it up.

 

[Korgul79]

A possible solution to get less swingier results is to use 2d10 or 3d6 (the latter's average is exactly the same of a d20, the former's is just half point higher). The only downside I see is that those solutions will limit the influence of advantage, disadvanage and the rogue's reliable skill (wich is in my opinion one of their most defining feature).

 

[EroGaki]

Just as an example, our players are coming from Pathfinder. They are used to making knowledge checks concerning creatures. One of the players wanted to make a check. The DM said, "You know nothing about this creature. There is no check to be made." That was the end of it.

That would rub me the wrong way, were I the player who asked. I get that 5e is all about "putting the power back in the DM's hands," but flat out telling me I have no reasonable chance of even hearing about a creature (unless it is an entirely unique creature) strikes me as a little unbelievable; adventurers by their very nature hear about monsters from other adventurers, creepy old sages, strange books, etc. I'd be annoyed if the only way I ever learn about anything that runs around is if it almost eats my face.

 

[Minigiant]

I tend to use multiple checks for anything that isn't a "quick action".

I have knocked over many bigger folk in street fights and outsmarted smarter adult back when I was a child.
But longer struggles and conflicts are harder.

Maybe the DMG has multiple checks.

 

[Ravenheart87]

At 1st level a fighter with a 16 strength and training in athletics will only "out muscle" a halfling with an 8 strength and no training about 75% of the time. Same thing with any other skill check (the random guy on the street makes a DC 15 check a 25% of the time, while a trained priest with an int of 12 is only 40% of the time).

I wouldn't roll in this case. As others mentioned above, you only roll checks when the outcome is uncertain. In case of a Str 16 vs Str 8 character it's obvious who will win. As far as I remember even in 3e there was a sentence about this with the arm wrestling example.

 

[GMMichael]

A possible solution to get less swingier results is to use 2d10 or 3d6 (the latter's average is exactly the same of a d20, the former's is just half point higher). The only downside I see is that those solutions will limit the influence of advantage, disadvanage and the rogue's reliable skill (wich is in my opinion one of their most defining feature).

Good answer. Your reward is a solution to your problem:

Adv/Dis to a 3d6 roll is exactly the same as with the standard roll: you roll a -d20- and take the higher/lower result.