D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[Maxperson]

I agree for the most part. I'm speaking about this specific instance of skills and ability checks. I've read the skill and ability check section in PHB and DMG. I see nothing indicating that skills are objectively meaningful. I've read nothing to indicate that they are subjective either. All I see is a skill and ability check system that the DM uses to create challenges other than combat. That's why I don't think Hussar's view or my view or anyone else's are correct. 5E skill system is very much a "use skill and ability checks to checks to make the game more fun system in whatever way seems best for your group. Here's some very basic rules to use and some advice on how to use them".

This is very different from 3E/Pathfinder hard-coded skills and ability checks that were objectively meaningful or simulationist if you prefer that word. 5E skill and ability checks are very open-ended. You can do a lot of things with them in 5E to enhance the game. That very much means they are not objectively meaningful and can be used to represent a variety of narrative or mechanical concepts.

Reading the 5e skill section, it says that meeting or exceeding the DC = success and not meeting or exceeding = failure. The rule is pass/fail for skill checks. There are no grades, so the rules don't include the trained person getting better results. It's right beneath the DC chart.

 

[Celtavian]

Reading the 5e skill section, it says that meeting or exceeding the DC = success and not meeting or exceeding = failure. The rule is pass/fail for skill checks. There are no grades, so the rules don't include the trained person getting better results. It's right beneath the DC chart.

Did you miss the section of the DMG I quoted? It says the DM determines how the check works. It is a pass/fail system, but the DC is not hard-coded. So if the DM determines that the check requires skill in Knowledge Arcana as a prererquisite for the skill check, then it requires Knowledge Arcana. If the DM says it is a knowledge arcana check with no limitations, then he can allow anyone to roll. The DM has lots of room to play with the specifics of how a skill or ability check works. If the DM says it is DC 20 hard check for a standard knowledge roll and a DC 15 check for someone from a particular area, the DM is allowed to write the check in that fashion. Just as he can use Advantage and Disadvantage circumstantially as well.

This whole objectively meaningful and hard-coded stance some of you are pushing is not in the 5E rules. That's why you don't have long lists of objectively meaningful DCs like you did in past systems. Some folks need to get this idea of a concrete rule for everything out of their head because that isn't how 5E works. Even monster creation is open-ended. If the DM decides an ability requires a DC 35 saving throw, then it requires a DC 35 saving throw. It's not like 3E/Pathfinder where this DC is based on Con and it is equal to half-hit die plus Con modifier. You can do it that way if you want, but it isn't required. You can make it whatever DC you believe will provide a sufficient challenge to your party.

The skill and ability check system is no different. Not sure why anyone is trying to put limitations on the skill and ability check system that are not present.

I'm still waiting for Hussar or others that support his "objectively meaningful" system idea to provide me with a long list of hard-coded DCs. Or a rule that states I'm not allowed to write an ability or skill check in a fashion that favors someone with the knowledge skill. Or a rule that says I have to let everyone roll regardless of things like my determination that a 3 foot gnome can't do all the things a 7 foot goliath can do or vice versa. I'm waiting for those rules and DC lists. All I'm reading in the book is if you make the check the DM decides is necessary for success, you succeed. How the DM writes that check is wide open.

 

[Maxperson]

Did you miss the section of the DMG I quoted? It says the DM determines how the check works. It is a pass/fail system, but the DC is not hard-coded. So if the DM determines that the check requires skill in Knowledge Arcana as a prererquisite for the skill check, then it requires Knowledge Arcana. If the DM says it is a knowledge arcana check with no limitations, then he can allow anyone to roll. The DM has lots of room to play with the specifics of how a skill or ability check works. If the DM says it is DC 20 hard check for a standard knowledge roll and a DC 15 check for someone from a particular area, the DM is allowed to write the check in that fashion. Just as he can use Advantage and Disadvantage circumstantially as well.

This whole objectively meaningful and hard-coded stance some of you are pushing is not in the 5E rules. That's why you don't have long lists of objectively meaningful DCs like you did in past systems. Some folks need to get this idea of a concrete rule for everything out of their head because that isn't how 5E works. Even monster creation is open-ended. If the DM decides an ability requires a DC 35 saving throw, then it requires a DC 35 saving throw. It's not like 3E/Pathfinder where this DC is based on Con and it is equal to half-hit die plus Con modifier. You can do it that way if you want, but it isn't required. You can make it whatever DC you believe will provide a sufficient challenge to your party.

The skill and ability check system is no different. Not sure why anyone is trying to put limitations on the skill and ability check system that are not present.

If you are referring to this quote, then it doesn't say what you are indicating it says.

DM Page 238: It's your job to establish the Difficulty Class for an ability check or a saving throw when a rule or an adventure doesn't give one. Sometimes you'll even want to change such established DCs. When you do so, think of how difficult the task is and then then pick an associated DC from the Typical DCs table.

That paragraph just tells you to establish new DCs or changing existing DCs as put forth in the section that says pass/fail. It doesn't say that the DC can be different for various PCs or that success can have grades. Even including that paragraph, DCs are still binary. Pass or fail.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah, having different DCs for the same outcome for success isn't a core rule. Same with different outcomes for beating the same DC.

Knowing a magma mephit is made of both elemental fire and earth is could be a DC 10 Intelligence (Arcana) check for anyone.

If the trained person rolls a 22, the DM could say that trained person beats another DC of 20 with the Intelligence (Arcana) checks and also knows that the magma mephit relies on Feindon's Theory of Volcanic Stabilization to maintain form and thus must be vulnerable to cold.

That's how I do it.
A lower DC for everyone and a bonus harder check for the trained.

 

[jodyjohnson]

The DMG reference most applicable is actually on page 236-37 under "The Role of the Dice".

The sections are "Rolling with it" which some favor heavily, "Ignoring the dice", and the most likely: "The Middle Path". The middle path being: the DM gets to mess with the system to generate the desired probabilities.

Players (strictly speaking) don't call for rolls, the DM does. The players announce their intended actions or goals. The DM then calls for a roll or doesn't, setting the DC by whatever the situation warrants.

 

[Hussar]

Not true. If a DM determines you have no reason to know how to pick a lock, he can say, "You don't get to roll. Sorry." The variance is that you don't have any knowledge whatsoever to be able to do the task. The DM can also determine you have no reason whatsoever to know anything about trolls if there is no reason you should compared to a guy with a skill that means he might know. In this edition, the DM has more fine control over the skill system and can very much decide to make having an actual skill more valuable than a basic attribute roll.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?473295-Not-liking-Bounded-Accuracy/page16#ixzz3taMdchl8

You've moved the goalposts here though. Now it's a question of whether or not the character can make a check at all. Fair enough. And certainly an interpretation I can get behind. But that's not the issue. We've allowed both players to make a check and both players have achieved identical scores. But, because of proficiency, you have determined that one player gets a better result than the other player, despite the fact that they have both achieved exactly the same score.

That's the issue that I have.

And, please stop trying to quote chapter and verse on this. We're already into interpretation land, so, unless you can quote chapter and verse that says that proficiency grants better results, you have no more leg to stand on than I do, and considerably less since several skills DO have objective standards. Climbing and jumping and stealth come to mind immediately.

 

[Hussar]

DM Page 238: It's your job to establish the Difficulty Class for an ability check or a saving throw when a rule or an adventure doesn't give one. Sometimes you'll even want to change such established DCs. When you do so, think of how difficult the task is and then then pick an associated DC from the Typical DCs table.

Nowhere does it say DCs are objectively meaningful. If I establish that a check is easier for one person than another for some reason, that is my option.

If the players felt I were doing this to be a jerk DM, they will let me know. If I'm doing it to highlight someone's character or give them a chance to do something extraordinary, they don't have much of a problem with it. I believe that is exactly what the 5E skill system is intended for.

It also does not say to establish multiple DC's for the same check. A lock is a lock is a lock. Note, you are the only one who is talking about this being a problem at the table. You are perfectly free to do what you want. But, you are not free to pretend that the rules support your interpretation in any real way. They don't. So, when I call you on this, it's not that I think you're being a jerk or doing anything wrong. Just that the rules don't actually allow for this. It's a perfectly fine house rule and it apparently works for you. Great.

If your eyeballed estimate for the volume of a paraboloid object happens to be within 1% of the value determined by my application of calculus, why am I able to derive extra information that you couldn't?

Because training matters.

But, we made the same check and got the same information - the volume of a paraboloid object. Any additional information would require a separate check. Or for the two of us to have gotten different numerical results from the same check. I've got no problem with one character getting better results from a better check. That makes sense. OTOH, if I, untrained, score higher than you, I should also get more information. Training simply doesn't mean that much, particularly when we're talking about the skill checks being made in D&D.

Again, if your ultra trained ninja scores a modified 20 stealth check, and my character gets lucky and untrained with a 10 Dex scores a 20 as well, then you aren't harder to detect than I am. We are both, in this case, identical. Now, most of the time, you're going to score far higher than me, so fair enough. But, why give individual results for one kind of skill check and not another? It's not consistent. When does training matter? How often does training matter? Is it only Int based skills? Does my training in Persuasion mean that I get better results than your high Cha character? What does that actually mean in play? Does training in Deception mean that my lies are harder to detect even though the untrained character got the same result?

Like I said, this is a very deep dark rabbit hole to climb into.

No, no it isn't possible. 2d6+3 for the magical greatsword has a minimum damage of 5. 1d4+0 for your dagger gives a maximum of 4. You could never under my example do equal damage with an equal roll.

Ahh, my bad. I was thinking Greatsword was D10. I'd point out though, that training still has nothing to do with damage. A trained dagger expert does the same damage as an untrained dagger user. A 20th level fighter does the same damage with that great sword as a peasant. Training has zero impact on damage. Your example falls apart because you are not comparing like to like. The great sword does more damage than a dagger, sure, but that's a result of the nature of the weapon, and has exactly zero to do with the user.

[/quote]
/snip



Yes to all of those. People trained in climbing and jumping will kick my rear at those things.[/QUOTE]

In game? No, they won't. Training means nothing in those examples. Your distance jumped depends solely on the end result, not how you got there. So long as the character beats the DC, there is zero difference in how that character gets up that wall.

 

[Maxperson]

Ahh, my bad. I was thinking Greatsword was D10. I'd point out though, that training still has nothing to do with damage. A trained dagger expert does the same damage as an untrained dagger user. A 20th level fighter does the same damage with that great sword as a peasant. Training has zero impact on damage. Your example falls apart because you are not comparing like to like. The great sword does more damage than a dagger, sure, but that's a result of the nature of the weapon, and has exactly zero to do with the user.

Which is why I said training was like the damage. I wasn't comparing weapon training vs. skill training. I was demonstrating a time where identical rolls result in different amounts.

In game? No, they won't. Training means nothing in those examples. Your distance jumped depends solely on the end result, not how you got there. So long as the character beats the DC, there is zero difference in how that character gets up that wall.

Yes they will. Why? Because I'm modeling it that way. That's the point of this. To explain to you why it would be that two identical rolls would end with different results. In reality, someone trained in climbing will not only be able to climb faster than me, but will be able climb things that I can't climb at all. That reality is why we are modeling it the way we are in 5e. You asked for why it would be, so I explained it to you. Saying that the rules don't do it that way is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Hussar]

But identical rolls don't have different results. Both attacks hit. That is the result of an attack roll. Damage is a separate roll completely unrelated to the attack roll save in cases of a critical hit.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You've moved the goalposts here though. Now it's a question of whether or not the character can make a check at all. Fair enough. And certainly an interpretation I can get behind. But that's not the issue. We've allowed both players to make a check and both players have achieved identical scores. But, because of proficiency, you have determined that one player gets a better result than the other player, despite the fact that they have both achieved exactly the same score.

That's the issue that I have.

And, please stop trying to quote chapter and verse on this. We're already into interpretation land, so, unless you can quote chapter and verse that says that proficiency grants better results, you have no more leg to stand on than I do, and considerably less since several skills DO have objective standards. Climbing and jumping and stealth come to mind immediately.

Well, then, the way I would do it is tell the player without proficiency that they may roll an INT ability check DC 10 to see if they can recall a useful bit of folklore about the troll (to stick with my prior example). They roll a 15 and recall the ditty, 'Gather a troll's ire, defend thyself with fire!'.

To the player with proficiency, and tell them they can make a INT(arcana or nature) ability check DC 10 to recall their studies on trolls. They roll a 15 and recall that trolls are types of giants with fiercely powerful regeneration abilities and that fire will overload those abilities momentarily and is the only known way to kill a troll.

There, two completely separate checks, not the same check, with exactly the outcome I had previously but without stepping on your sensibilities. Of course, you'll have to forgive me if I push some of that into the background and just ask for ability checks (arcana or nature) from the table and provide results accordingly.