D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[Hussar]

Right. I'm talking about a more realistic model of skills and training. A trained climber can attempt and succeed at things that would guarantee me maiming or death, and do it faster than I could on an easy rock. Training is more important than a stat when attempting to model things that way.



Yeah. It's just more disappointing, because he knew we weren't talking about what the rules say when he asked.

See [MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION]'s responses which is more what I was responding to. He's arguing that the rules DO say what you're saying they do.

Now, you could start changing rules to say that training makes you climb faster. The "attempt and succeed" simply talks about having a higher bonus - that could be through training, or natural talent or a combination of both. But, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a situation where two characters achieve the exact same success - ie. roll the same result on a check.

So, ok, let's unpack your example a bit though. It's a DC 15 wall to climb. We both score a 16, so, we both succeed. You have a +6 bonus to climb through talent and training and I have no bonus at all, simply rolled high. Fair enough, we both do climb the wall. You're saying, I think, that you should climb that wall faster than me. How much faster? Do you gain bonuses to movement? The rules say that climbing is half speed. If we're both human, we climb 15 feet per round, by RAW. Are you saying you should have a climb speed of 45? (That's using the 3x damage model you used earlier with weapons) because you are trained in climbing? Should you move your full speed? But that is a different DC, and a much harder one, that your 16 would not have achieved.

So, just how much faster are you climbing? Is it enough to actually make a difference? If I climb at 15 feet and you climb at 19, it's not going to make any difference on a 15 foot wall. Or, at least, not any difference mechanically. And, you can't climb faster than half your speed without raising the DC. So, how exactly do you express, "A trained PC climbs faster than an untrained one"? Oh, and does level matter here? I can be trained at level 1 and have a +2 bonus or I can be trained at level 20 and have a +6. Does my 20th level PC climb three times faster?

On and on and on. It's inconsistent. That's why I'm arguing against changing the rules. The system is not finely grained enough to express small increments of change - and if the changes are larger, then the DC changes.

I'm just not seeing how you would implement this in any meaningful way without adding all sorts of problems.

 

[Maxperson]

That is what the athlete feat is for... Specialized training.

No it isn't. That does nothing to model what I'm talking about. It is a help in one area for sure, but it fails on its own. I can't expect that WotC will create a feat for every skill and then expect that the players will spend all of their feats to achieve what I can achieve by simply engaging in my model.

 

[Maxperson]

See [MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION]'s responses which is more what I was responding to. He's arguing that the rules DO say what you're saying they do.

You were responding to me, though. If you've noticed, I've been telling him that the rules don't say what he claims. I'll take you at your word that you were responding to him and not me with that post. However, next time you should quote him or at least @ mention him.

Now, you could start changing rules to say that training makes you climb faster. The "attempt and succeed" simply talks about having a higher bonus - that could be through training, or natural talent or a combination of both. But, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a situation where two characters achieve the exact same success - ie. roll the same result on a check.

In such a situation, the trained individual should do better. Untrained + random + raw ability bonus < training. As has been mentioned, the smartest person in the world is going to be a lot worse at physics than a 10 int person who has taken the courses. Training matters.

So, ok, let's unpack your example a bit though. It's a DC 15 wall to climb. We both score a 16, so, we both succeed. You have a +6 bonus to climb through talent and training and I have no bonus at all, simply rolled high. Fair enough, we both do climb the wall. You're saying, I think, that you should climb that wall faster than me. How much faster? Do you gain bonuses to movement? The rules say that climbing is half speed. If we're both human, we climb 15 feet per round, by RAW. Are you saying you should have a climb speed of 45? (That's using the 3x damage model you used earlier with weapons) because you are trained in climbing? Should you move your full speed? But that is a different DC, and a much harder one, that your 16 would not have achieved.

In my games I'd make untrained climb at a rate of 5 + an extra 5 feet for each 5 rolled above the DC to a max of 15 feet. I'd simply grant the trained individual 15 feet with any success. I don't need to model reality exactly. Reality is that the untrained person wouldn't be able to climb half the things that the trained person can and would have a speed of 0.

On and on and on. It's inconsistent. That's why I'm arguing against changing the rules. The system is not finely grained enough to express small increments of change - and if the changes are larger, then the DC changes.

It's impossible for it to be inconsistent if I'm applying it consistently. Once the rule is made, it applies equally. Trained is one way and untrained is the other way.

 

[Hussar]

It's inconsistent because you cannot apply it equally to all skills. But we've gone a fair ways down this rabbit hole already. At first it was the trained person getting a slightly better result than the untrained person. Now, the untrained person is being severely penalized (1/3 speed for climbing) even though the two characters achieved identical rolls.

No thanks. Not for me. Far too much work for far too little benefit.

 

[Maxperson]

It's inconsistent because you cannot apply it equally to all skills.

It doesn't have to. As has already been pointed out to you, all skills are already not equal. If you are going to say that the way I do things is not consistent, then you also have to say that the game is not consistent. The reality is that so long as my method for each individual skill is consistent and applied fairly, I am being consistent.

At first it was the trained person getting a slightly better result than the untrained person. Now, the untrained person is being severely penalized (1/3 speed for climbing) even though the two characters achieved identical rolls.

Identical rolls are irrelevant.

No thanks. Not for me. Far too much work for far too little benefit.

Whereas for me, it's very little work for lots of benefit.

 

[Celtavian]

See [MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION]'s responses which is more what I was responding to. He's arguing that the rules DO say what you're saying they do.

That is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if I write a skill or ability check in a fashion that favors someone with a skill, then I'm not breaking the rules. The skills and ability checks are not objectively meaningful as you claim they are. Nowhere in the rules does it even come close to indicating this.

I'm saying the skill system is wide-open. If a DM wishes to write a check so that someone with the skill can shine, he can do so. It is not breaking the rules as some of you are indicating.

If I write a climb a check that allows someone with at least a +3 proficiency bonus to climb faster than someone without the Athletics skill, I'm not somehow writing a house rule since I, the DM, have a lot of latitude in how I write the check.

I'm saying that the skill system is more cinematic in nature. It is not hard-coded or the word you prefer, objectively meaningful. It is meant to be used to have the players make meaningful rolls up to and including highlighting characters with particular skills or abilities. That is not to say that you can't make it so anyone can roll if that is your preference. But do not pretend that is a requirement of the skill and ability check system. It is not. They kept the skill and ability check system very open-ended so that DMs could use it to enhance the game in whatever fashion seemed appropriate.

Lastly, I am not recommending you do this all time because as you indicated too much work for too little benefit. I certainly don't do it all the time or run climbing or swimming at different speeds as a standard rule. I hand wave most skill rolls in 5E and narrate the differences in capability. I only use skills or ability checks when they would have some impact whether that impact is making a particular player feel useful for taking a particular skill or to increase tension during some important narrative or combat moment.

What I definitely don't do is use the skill system as 3E/Pathfinder did in an attempt to codify every aspect of the world and give everyone a chance at the same thing because of hard-coded DCs. That approach was damaging to verisimilitude in my opinion. I'm glad it's gone. Everyone does not have an even 5% chance of accomplishing the same thing as that edition seemed to indicate. Hated that concept in the game, especially the roll as many times as you want unless the ability said you couldn't. Glad that garbage is gone.

 

[Celtavian]

Right, and I agree. What that isn't, though, is engaging in 1) multiple different DCs for the same challenge, 2) engaging in different levels of success based on trained/untrained. The rules specifically say you only roll if the outcome is uncertain. What Out of the Abyss did is an example of saying that the outcome is only uncertain if you are trained.

What I'm saying is you have a lot of latitude in how you write skill and ability checks. If you want to multiple DCs for the same challenge due to different levels of training, you are able to do that within the rules.

As far as the second part, you only roll if the outcome is uncertain is not the exact meaning. You only roll if the result would matter is more what they're going for. That is what I'm getting at when I say the skill and ability check system is cinematic in nature. Even if a swim is going to be a hard swim, you wouldn't bother rolling if there wasn't a compelling reason to do so as determined by the DM. You may very well narrate that Joe the strong fighter with Athletics makes it across the swift moving river quite easily and Alex the Weak wizard has quite a hard time making it across the river, but manages to do it. You would narrate the event because they have plenty of time and it isn't compelling to have someone die on the river. There is no pre-made DC and encouragement to roll as there was in 3E/Pathfinder where there were hard-coded DCs for what type of water you were trying to swim across.

If you and Hussar want to put yourself in a box that isn't there as far as how you design your DCs and let players roll, have at it. I'm not going to be in that box because my reading of the skill and ability check system says it doesn't exist. I see the skill and ability check system as a way to make my game more interesting and highlight player capabilities in a way that wasn't encouraged in previous editions of D&D like writing a check so that the Underdark Survival ranger feels extremely unique being the only one that can figure out something due to his particular high ability or a Knowledge (Arcana) guy of a certain proficiency level being smarter than all the guys in the same room with a +1 skill.

Part that doesn't seem to be coming across is that I wouldn't do this for every check. I'd do it when I wanted to make a character standout for some reason other than combat. Part the other side of the argument doesn't seem to be accepting is I'm not breaching some rule by writing a challenge in this fashion. I'm using the system as intended: to enhance the game. Making a PC feel special because he's the only guy that figure something out with a roll isn't breaking a rule or somehow screwing over other players. It making them feel like the character they tried to build be it egghead or huge strong barbarian. I very much like that the 5E skill and ability system by the rules lets me do that.

For example, I've written doors that say minimum 15 strength to break, disadvantage on that check if you are small, advantage if you are large, DC 20 to break. Writing a challenge in that fashion is not breaking the rules as you and Hussar seem to be indicating. if you're not indicating that, then we're not much understanding each other. I think the check I used in my example is very much possible using the 5E skill and ability check system. I don't need to have every door DC 20 strength check to break for everyone. That's 3E/Pathfinder thinking. This 5E system lends itself more to creative skill and ability challenges that I can use to add some verisimilitude to the game because in real life a bigger person, not just stronger, would have a much easier time breaking down a door. I like being able to add that type of verisimilitude to my skill and ability checks.

 

[Azurewraith]

It is in my opinion that the 3.5 skill system was the best it allowed characters that where supposed to be skill full Rogues and rangers) to be well skill full and the meat head combat characters (fighters and barbs) well meat heads they could handle the heavy lifting skills and the smashing. Where 3.5 went wrong was the escalating numbers that just got silly.

I propose we revert back to the 3.5 system where every skills had narrow uses and where you put your skill points was huge but we cut down the number of skill points you get. At char gen you gain double the skill points of skills you get so (away from books eek) most classes would get 6skill points. That they could place where ever they damn well please these become their class skills and every time a proficiency bonus comes along the character gains 4more skill points to place where ever except now that a non class skill costs 2. Expertise will bump up the skill by a +2.

So i have now had to walk upstairs and collect my books as well it was a bad idea doing this without. A 1st level rogue(a skill full character we all agree will have) will have 8skill points from being a rogue and gain a further 4from background for a total of 12points to spread among the 36 skills now lets remove the concentration skill as its different in 5e and speak language making it 34. Lets say our rogue distributes those points in this fashion

3 Open lock(expertise)
3Hide
3move silently(Expertise)
1diplomacy
2disable device

He can still do all his rogue like things with ease(remember 5e care bare dc 10 is base so an expertise skill succeeds on a 5 and non expertise on a 7 both over 50% chance before adding in modifiers) add on a +3 to his dex and look at that he auto succeeds on normal tasks pretty much.

I have not tried this in play but i will at some point to me it allows characters to focus on a few key areas gives them freedom to make no standard chars(eloquent barbarian) by being able to choose class skills at first and allows the 5e dcs to stay in effect as if some one invested all their points into 1 or 2 areas they should be unlocking that door in 20seconds flat or hearing the butterfly on the other side of the world flap its wings.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No it isn't. That does nothing to model what I'm talking about. It is a help in one area for sure, but it fails on its own. I can't expect that WotC will create a feat for every skill and then expect that the players will spend all of their feats to achieve what I can achieve by simply engaging in my model.

You can also be the rogue/thief who also gets a bonus on climbing speed. And remarkable athlete makes you a better jumper.
You may deny it, but the athlete feat exactly does what you want: climbing fast while others without training climb at half speed. And the rogue who took athlete was very happy about the results.

 

[Maxperson]

What I'm saying is you have a lot of latitude in how you write skill and ability checks. If you want to multiple DCs for the same challenge due to different levels of training, you are able to do that within the rules.

No you aren't, and you have failed to show even a single rule that supports you. The one passage from the DMG that you did show only says you can change the DC number, but that you do so by following the PHB rule on DCs. The PHB rule on DCs is pass/fail. Nowhere in the rules does it say that you can set a DC as anything other than pass/fail, or that you can make different DCs for the same task. That's a house rule that you are putting forth as being in the rules.

As far as the second part, you only roll if the outcome is uncertain is not the exact meaning. You only roll if the result would matter is more what they're going for.

You only roll when the outcome is uncertain means that you only roll when you don't know that success or failure is automatic.

That is what I'm getting at when I say the skill and ability check system is cinematic in nature. Even if a swim is going to be a hard swim, you wouldn't bother rolling if there wasn't a compelling reason to do so as determined by the DM.

That's not what that rule says or means. That's another one of your inventions.

If you and Hussar want to put yourself in a box that isn't there as far as how you design your DCs and let players roll, have at it. I'm not going to be in that box because my reading of the skill and ability check system says it doesn't exist. I see the skill and ability check system as a way to make my game more interesting and highlight player capabilities in a way that wasn't encouraged in previous editions of D&D like writing a check so that the Underdark Survival ranger feels extremely unique being the only one that can figure out something due to his particular high ability or a Knowledge (Arcana) guy of a certain proficiency level being smarter than all the guys in the same room with a +1 skill.

That box is the rules and I house rule myself out of it just like you do. I'm at least able to admit that what I do is a house rule, though.

Part that doesn't seem to be coming across is that I wouldn't do this for every check. I'd do it when I wanted to make a character standout for some reason other than combat. Part the other side of the argument doesn't seem to be accepting is I'm not breaching some rule by writing a challenge in this fashion. I'm using the system as intended: to enhance the game. Making a PC feel special because he's the only guy that figure something out with a roll isn't breaking a rule or somehow screwing over other players. It making them feel like the character they tried to build be it egghead or huge strong barbarian. I very much like that the 5E skill and ability system by the rules lets me do that.

You aren't using the system as written. You are engaging in a house rule, which is fine. Having a character stand out is a good thing.

For example, I've written doors that say minimum 15 strength to break, disadvantage on that check if you are small, advantage if you are large, DC 20 to break. Writing a challenge in that fashion is not breaking the rules as you and Hussar seem to be indicating. if you're not indicating that, then we're not much understanding each other.

There's a good chance that we are not, because again you are giving an example of a DC that applies equally to everyone. Modifiers are different than setting different DCs or having different results for the same roll number. Advantage/disadvantage is a modifier.

What we are saying is that the rules don't allow for us to set the DC at 15 for a trained individual and 20 for a non-trained individual for the same task. Nor do the rules allow for both the trained and non-trained individual to roll 15 on the die and get different results. When I do that I am engaging in a house rule.