D&D 5E Bounded accurancy and skills

[Joe Liker]

And you obviously missed mine, as well: Those are the top ≤1% They're the peak performance, the "Rolled two 19's on the jump and only got 12'..." crowd.

You've looked at the data and drawn exactly the wrong set of conclusions, because you refuse to accept that they're exceptional.

If you insist on looking at exceptional people who are actually the peers of the adventuring heroes in D&D, that's fine. But in order to have that discussion, you need to pull up some running long jumps performed by adult Olympic athletes. Those would be the high-end jumps with proficiency and high strength scores and good rolls. NOT these jumps made by not-fully-grown children at local track meets.

I chose children because it was the closest thing i could think of to average adult humans with strength scores well below 16. No one really keeps records of average people performing averagely in track and field.

 

[aramis erak]

If you insist on looking at exceptional people who are actually the peers of the adventuring heroes in D&D, that's fine. But in order to have that discussion, you need to pull up some running long jumps performed by adult Olympic athletes. Those would be the high-end jumps with proficiency and high strength scores and good rolls. NOT these jumps made by not-fully-grown children at local track meets.

I chose children because it was the closest thing i could think of to average adult humans with strength scores well below 16. No one really keeps records of average people performing averagely in track and field.

the problem is, Joe, the "kids" are already +3σ from norm, typically, to make the level where they are being tracked. (The pun wasn't intended, but I find it amusing, so it stays.)

And what I've seen of normal adults is not close to +3σ of kids; it's more like the ±1σ level - typically about one's own height, running.

I've seen people trying to make running leaps not in track and field in two circumstances: SCA events doing "Quests" (essentially a Larp-style quest during an SCA event), and combat fishing on the Kenai River. The latter, some dufus or another tries to leap in his reboks out to a sandbar some 6-8 feet from shore, and I've NEVER seen someone successfully make that leap (having been to the kenai and seen 2-3 people try every time, about 30 times) without pole vaulting it. The most spectacular fail was the guy who, failing the leap, wound up face down across the sandbar, in mud up to his ears. One guy used a walking stick, and misjudged his own strength... he wound up 3 feet past the sandbar, in ice cold (33°F) crotch-deep water.

At SCA questing activities... one year, there was a 10' "Pit" (marked off with rope). Nobody made it across without using a walking stick to vault it. Not even the Track letterman.... (She was a hurdler, not a running jumper. But she put up a 10' long when doing it at a track meet)... but she was in armor, so lightly encumbered. When it was done again a couple years later, it was reduced to 6' across, and about 2/3 made it without vaulting, and the rest would have had a chance to grab the side. Not a statistically significant sample, but interesting, because some of the people trying it were physically fit. (The rest tended to "Plus Sizes" or bigger...)

Now, I've seen a LOT of attempts at standing jumps... Spring in Alaska results in a LOT of puddles... it gets comical at times. Most of the time, it fails to clear past about half the height of the person - a long step, really. But, that's got a serious observer bias, as you only really notice when someone misses and ends up cold and wet, or worse, on their arse in the water.

Now, I routinely see teens hop up 1/2 their height standing. (Orchestra and theater kids hopping up to stages or risers).

But thats why I think the idea that even middle school track records are above normal adult performance levels... because in the real world, I've never seen people succeed at it.



Then again, we get used to seeing people on TV do improbable things, so...
I think it shouldn't be automatic past one's own height; an acrobatics roll to get past it.

 

[DaveDash]

Expertise checks in combat is the main thing that bothers me. It breaks bounded accuracy bad. When you have an enlarged Bard running around head locking (adult) Dragons easily, you know something in the maths has gone wrong.

Basically they should have kept Grapple/Shove as pure strength checks (opposed by Strength or Dex to get out) and kept skills out of it.

 

[Celebrim]

Strength has always been a problem this way because strength usually involves something that is not doubtful, or at least, the range of reasonable results are more heavily constrained than typical fortune tests allow for.

I realize that is a disappointing answer, but its a standard design issue with many systems that strength tests don't fit in nicely with a unified system.

For me, jump checks in 3e were a real headache, and I'm still not happy with the situation. While there is some reasonable variation in how far you can jump, realistically it is much smaller than the variation implied by the d20 roll. The variation of 1-20 is much higher than the variation of ranks in the jump skill (a person with 8 ranks in jump can't reliably jump further than a person with no ranks), leading to the problem of not being able to rely on your jump distance which is neither realistic nor conducive to game centric play.

I think the answer is either kludge things as some have already suggested or else break strength checks out into their own system. For example for 'jump' or 'lift' you could compute a standard jump or lift, and use the fortune test to calculate a percentage around the standard (90-110% of the standard, for example). Of course, either way you have problems in that your system becomes inelegant.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

For me, jump checks in 3e were a real headache, and I'm still not happy with the situation. While there is some reasonable variation in how far you can jump, realistically it is much smaller than the variation implied by the d20 roll. The variation of 1-20 is much higher than the variation of ranks in the jump skill (a person with 8 ranks in jump can't reliably jump further than a person with no ranks), leading to the problem of not being able to rely on your jump distance which is neither realistic nor conducive to game centric play.

Every skill system ever created has small or large (or huge) "corner cases" where this can be a problem (.e.g. In BRP, the greatest horseman in the realm might have a 98% Riding skill. Does s/he really fall when jumping a small barrier 2% of the time?)

IMO the best general answer is the GM/DM should know when to Not Pick Up The Dice.

The practical answer in d20 is to let the PC "Take 5" (or Take 10 or even Take 15) even where the letter of the law does not grant it -- handwave and say "Your PC is a skilled Jumper, and since it is not rainy/slick, s/he can Take 5 instead of rolling".

 

[Tormyr]

Every skill system ever created has small or large (or huge) "corner cases" where this can be a problem (.e.g. In BRP, the greatest horseman in the realm might have a 98% Riding skill. Does s/he really fall when jumping a small barrier 2% of the time?)

IMO the best general answer is the GM/DM should know when to Not Pick Up The Dice.

The practical answer in d20 is to let the PC "Take 5" (or Take 10 or even Take 15) even where the letter of the law does not grant it -- handwave and say "Your PC is a skilled Jumper, and since it is not rainy/slick, s/he can Take 5 instead of rolling".

Take 10 is in the rules, so that works pretty well, but I was interested in the horseman example.

Looking at the Olympics (just about the only time most people might actually watch equestrian events), they have to ride a difficult course. Most of these people and horses are very good, but even the top contenders will knock a bar off on a jump when you least expect it. 98% (or 95%) success rate might be good numbers for an easy jump. It may be worth keeping the d20 roll just for the fumble, which is the only time (the bad 5%) that things go wrong.

It also fits back into the skill check not just being about the creature doing the ability check. The horseman should pretty much always be able to make the jump. The thief should pretty much always be able to pick a lock. But the low roll isn't just about the horse and rider or the thief. The low roll can be explained by hitting a slick patch of mud or stone before the jump or the inside of the lock being rusted shut (or breaking). Even the arm wrestlers can fit into this. The big strong guy pumped too much iron and has a ligament pop or a spasm at just the wrong time.

Sure there are times the DM should not pick up the dice, but I have found that some of the best story comes through dealing with failure.

My 2cp.

 

[wedgeski]

Every rule-set compromises reality to build a decent game. I have never once seen attempts at building a demographic sense of the the world from D&D's underlying mathematical model result in a better game. I think you need to be careful extrapolating a rule to some wider notion of the world when in-game a situation might actually happen once in a blue moon.

And speaking of, in game, I think I'd *want* the weakling to occasionally get the upper hand. Whether through wit, distraction, or simply because of tortoise-and-hare over-confidence, but going from there to "I don't think I'm comfortable with 25% of weaklings getting the upper hand" is really unwise, IMO.

We're talking about rules that apply to Mr. Universe-strength heroes tackling ancient dragons to the ground and snapping their necks, *not* about rules which dictate who wins an arm wrestle at your local pub on a Tuesday night, even though as gamers we're often tempted to apply them as such.

 

[GMMichael]

Then again, we get used to seeing people on TV do improbable things, so...
I think it shouldn't be automatic past one's own height; an acrobatics roll to get past it.

Wipeout. Not improbable, just funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqGh1sTpZPg

And speaking of, in game, I think I'd *want* the weakling to occasionally get the upper hand. Whether through wit, distraction, or simply because of tortoise-and-hare over-confidence, but going from there to "I don't think I'm comfortable with 25% of weaklings getting the upper hand" is really unwise, IMO.

We're talking . . . *not* about rules which dictate who wins an arm wrestle at your local pub on a Tuesday night, even though as gamers we're often tempted to apply them as such.

The arm-wrestling STR vs. STR seems pretty clear-cut. But what if the stronger guy had ten matches prior to the weakling showing up? If he just had three shots of spirits that are kicking in? If he ate some gluten ten minutes ago? If...

And what happened to Rulings Not Rules?