D&D 5E Bounded accurancy and skills

[pepticburrito]

"Yeah well, you actually don't know anything about monsters because it's not in the RAW, so sorry about that."

You should try playing/running a game in which PCs don't know about monsters. It's a lot of fun when there's still mystery when you go into a dungeon. There were a lot of things I never liked about 3.5/Pathfinder, one of them was the fact that PCs just knew things by default. The meta-game of the nature of the roll also meant the player could rely on the information from the roll without having an issue. That process removes a ton of potential for role playing. Instead of assuming that they have accurate knowledge, it's more fun to have a bunch of lore spread through the local NPCs. Some of the lore is correct, some is incorrect. Let the players work it out at the table.

Giving players prepacked answers to problems is doing no one any favors. It takes part of the game away from the player and says "that's too hard for your puny heads to work out by yourself, so I'm just going to give it to you for free".

 

[SilverfireSage]

You should try playing/running a game in which PCs don't know about monsters. It's a lot of fun when there's still mystery when you go into a dungeon. There were a lot of things I never liked about 3.5/Pathfinder, one of them was the fact that PCs just knew things by default. The meta-game of the nature of the roll also meant the player could rely on the information from the roll without having an issue. That process removes a ton of potential for role playing. Instead of assuming that they have accurate knowledge, it's more fun to have a bunch of lore spread through the local NPCs. Some of the lore is correct, some is incorrect. Let the players work it out at the table.

Giving players prepacked answers to problems is doing no one any favors. It takes part of the game away from the player and says "that's too hard for your puny heads to work out by yourself, so I'm just going to give it to you for free".

Nowhere have I said that there's a ton of prepacked answers and everyone knows everything. I give them a chance to know something. With a rarer creature, it's a lower chance, if they're very intelligent, there's a higher chance. There is a distinct difference between having the players know about a creature and having the PCs know about a creature. I've been playing for about ten years, and the best thing I ever did was make up my own monsters so that the players don't know what they're up against and therefore can't metagame. But because it's the characters that live in a world and not the players, I give them a chance to see if they know about the creature. This is getting off topic from the thread though, so I'll just say, to each their own.

 

[pepticburrito]

I give them a chance to know something.

As do I, I expect players to want to role play in an RPG. I'm not a fan of skipping the role play aspect of a role playing game by using "roll playing" in it's place. It makes the game less interesting for everyone.

 

[Quartz]

You should try playing/running a game in which PCs don't know about monsters.

I cannot speak for 5E, but in a system (e.g. HERO) where a PC has invested in a monster-knowledge skill then that deserves to be rewarded.

PC: Hey GM, do I know anything about this beastie? I've got KS: Monsters at 18-
GM: It's like nothing you've seen before so gimme a roll at -10
PC: -10? You've got to be kidding! Woot! A 6!
GM: You've never seen anything like this, but you recall reading a reference in some dusty tome to the Scrolls of Skelos which ...

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I use three different rulings to make them more meaningful.

First is use passive scores (as designed).

Second, nonproficient skills can be attempted only if the DC is 20 (Hard) or lower, and something that is Hard is made with disadvantage. So if the DC is less than 20, anybody can make the check, proficient or not. If the DC is 20 and you're nonproficient, then you're at a disadvantage. If it's more difficult than that, then you must be proficient to attempt it at all.

Third, for something that can be attempted multiple times, then the difference between the DC and the die roll is how long it will take to succeed, not success or failure as long as its within your capabilities (based on the limitations in rule 2). For example, something with a DC of 25 (Very Hard) is within the capabilities of a character with a +5 modifier. If they roll an 11, for a total of 16, then it takes 9 rounds of work before they succeed.

I've been considering using disadvantage on all skill checks (passive or rolled) if you're non-proficient. I've also considered using this only if it's a contested check of non-proficient vs. proficient skill.

In both cases this will affect Passive Perception noticeably, although not in ways that I'm opposed to. Basically, somebody who isn't proficient would have a -5 to their passive score, which means that they would have to actively pay attention more frequently. Probably not a huge deal since others in the party will presumably be more observant.

To reduce the penalty, I might base a non-proficient passive score off of 8 + modifiers, so a -2 penalty.

I also allow players to pick the same skill a second time if they want expertise. Although it encroaches on the rogue a bit, it also costs them proficiency in 2 other skills so it works for us.

Ilbranteloth

 

[GMMichael]

Excellent idea.

Thank you.

It basically makes an extra step before rolling dice: Evaluating whether the skill system is vaguely useful, and if not, then not rolling dice. And you should only roll if the result is close to 50-50.

So, why bother with rolling for skills ever? Why not just go with "make a judgement as a GM as to who will win. If you are unsure, flip a coin; with advantage flip two coins and look for any head. For disadvantage flip two coins and require two heads".

It's a nice system, indeed, but it seems that if a very vanilla skill check cannot actually use the rules as written, there is a problem.

"You should only roll if the result is close to 50-50."
Sounds horrible, but this is actually a really good idea. If a PC has a good chance of success, say 75-25, making him roll just slows the game down. He's good at something; let him be good.
Now flip those odds. A PC does NOT want to see a goblin auto-hitting him. Better to use a roll (or fudge one) here. If your system allows rolls on both sides of a conflict, then yes, both sides should only roll if the result is close to 50-50.

This changes your above plan to, ". . . if you are unsure, make the roll."

As Numenera emphasizes - the goal is to not make the roll.

 

[Piratecat]

I love the GUMSHOE approach, which means that player characters automatically know something if they're trained in a skill and the clue is necessary or useful for the adventure. Never make them roll for information they need. I do this a lot. Trained in Arcana? Here's all this information! Trained in history? Look, important context!

 

[Celtavian]

Does your DM have you start your characters the moment they're born? Because that's incredibly harsh and goes against what the knowledge skills are really about, i.e. something your character might know but not the player.

Yeah. It is assumed the characters are green recruits that know very little. It is also assumed that books are extremely rare. They may have an occasional myth or something of the nature concerning a creature, but very little is documented. Unless they know a very seasoned adventurer that can share first hand tales, it is assumed they don't know much. Just like it would be in a real world that didn't have easy access to information.

In the analogue times D&D is set in, books were a rarity. Information was difficult to come by. If you grew up in a village, you would know very little about other places that weren't very near your home. One of the worst things 3E ever did was assume that a point in a skill gave you such a comprehensive knowledge base that you could roll to know anything. That is not how education works at all.

If someone writes into their background something that might give them knowledge of a particular creature like his father fought goblins on the frontier, then I give him some knowledge based on his background. I expect backgrounds to provide a knowledge base for things like monsters, not skills.

I much prefer players building their knowledge of monsters through play rather than a roll. Its far more fun if they recall something from a battle they fought than some skill roll they try to attempt every time they run into something. That was an incredibly annoying aspect of 3E.

 

[Joe Liker]

Sidestepping the knowledge argument for the moment, I think there are a lot of ideas and house rules here that go against the whole point of the 5e skill system.

In 5e, DCs are fixed; they do not scale up. That's the whole point of bounded accuracy. The DM should absolutely never consider the character level, attribute score, or proficiency of the character when setting the DC. The only question the DM should ask himself is, "Is this task easy, medium, hard, or even harder?"

You are not asking if it's easy or hard for a person of a certain level of expertise. Just easy or hard in general, for the average person.

Giving advantage/disadvantage for environmental considerations is fine, but simply having proficiency or a certain ability score should never grant advantage.

Attributes and proficiency take care of themselves. They do exactly what they are intended to do -- they make tasks easier for people with greater natural ability and/or training. In other words, they are already figured into the equation, and proficiency already scales up with level.

In a contested check, it's true that the results can be a little close. At level 1, the trained Str 16 character beats the untrained Str 8 character exactly 66 percent of the time. The Str 8 person wins 30 percent of the time, and they tie 4 percent of the time.

Those odds don't actually seem that bad to me. The stronger person still wins more than twice as often. I think it would be boring if the weaker person had no chance at all, or a chance that so small it's not worth rolling. You may not think it's entirely realistic, but this is a game, not a simulation.

 

[Derren]

The Skill System is intentionally vague so that the GM can do whatever the hell he wants.

That also a way to interpret doing a bad job and delivering bad rules...

You're only supposed to roll when the outcome is uncertain.

So a 25% chance of failure (halfling athletics example) is not uncertain enough?