D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[Maxperson]

This is not true at all in an RPG. It is expected that you be able to use the rules in a fashion that falls outside what is contained in the books because there will always be situations not covered by the rules.

Right, and if you make a rule that is not covered by the existing rules, it's...........a rule for your house. What's another way to say a rule for your house? House rule!

There is zero reason given these checks to believe that you can't also write a check to provide different results based on being proficient or having a particular ability score.

Other than what the rules say of course.

 

[Hussar]

Another Strawman. I never said the roll was irrelevant. I said the roll was irrelevant to the narration.

Player A rolls a 15 and player B rolls a 25. The DM narrates that player A achieved a lesser success than player B. That's you are indicating you do that. For me both player A and player B roll the same number, but player A is untrained and player B is trained. My narration is the same as yours word for word. A third DM has the players flip coins to determine who got the greater success. A fourth uses the day of the week the players were born on.

The method used is utterly irrelevant to the narration. The only thing of relevance to the narration is lesser result or greater result.

I also note you ignored the rest of my post about my method being consistent and how utterly simple and easy it is to run skills the way I do.

Dude, I have no idea what I did to piddle in your cornflakes, but, this is getting far too excited for something so largely meaningless. I explained my point, you're welcome to agree or disagree. I disagree, obviously, with your points. That you feel the need to go on and on about straw men, and various other logical fallacies, when all I've actually done is simply disagree with your points, means that I've somehow struck a nerve and further conversation serves no purpose. Apologies for apparently being too slow on the uptake to understand your points.

 

[Maxperson]

Dude, I have no idea what I did to piddle in your cornflakes, but, this is getting far too excited for something so largely meaningless. I explained my point, you're welcome to agree or disagree. I disagree, obviously, with your points. That you feel the need to go on and on about straw men, and various other logical fallacies, when all I've actually done is simply disagree with your points, means that I've somehow struck a nerve and further conversation serves no purpose. Apologies for apparently being too slow on the uptake to understand your points.

Don't read too much into things. I have no cornflakes for you to piddle in. I just correct people when they change my arguments into something else and then argue their own creations. When engaging in a conversation, I would be doing both you and I a disservice were I to allow an inaccurate response like that to just stand.

Since narration only cares about the results and not the method, rolls are irrelevant to the narration. It's really that simple. There are thousands and thousands of methods that can result in the narrations. Rolls are just one of them.

 

[dave2008]

Yes, the rulings that come up during game play become rules for that house. The difference between house rule and home brew as I use it and have seen many other use it, is that house rules deal with mechanics. Home brew does not. For example. Saying elves in my game are burly and all get +2 to strength is a house rule. Saying that orcs are the noble protectors of humankind and that only orcs have the necessary purity to be Paladins is home brew.

I agree that the game can't be played without house rules. It can be played without home brew, though.

I don't see it that way (though I often use them interchangeably). I see it almost the opposite. A house rule is a particular rule interpretation of change to an existing rule. Homebrew could include house rules, but also includes new rules, different settings, fundamental changes to the structure of the game, etc. House rule to me is more specific and homebrew is broader and sometimes deeper in scope.

I play a homebrew version of 5e using 3 defenses; AC as DR; HP & BHP, etc. These are mechanical changes, but go way beyond house rules in my opinion - so I would call it homebrew.

I don't see where that only deals with trained people, though. Proficiency isn't added to the character's ability score. It's added to the roll. That rule would result in success or failure for trained and untrained equally, assuming identical ability scores.

Okay. That's all dealing with the rule that says that you only roll when the outcome is in doubt, though. What we have been discussing is whether setting two different DCs for the same task, or narrating two different results for an identical end roll depending on trained or untrained, are house rules. Those optional rules just let the DM decide when success is automatic and you don't need to roll.

The question I was responding to was with regarding whether or not a DM could, by RAW, adjudicate that two different characters who have the same roll (in total) get a different result for the check. With the rules I quoted you can do that as follows:

Option #1: DC 16
Character A has ability score 22, rolls a 15, but auto succeeds because the DC is more than 5 below his/her ability score
Character B has an ability score of 18, rolls a 15, but fails the check

Option #2: DC 15
Character C, rolls a 14, fails the check
Character D, rolls a 14, passes the check because they have proficiency and are 11th level

These both give examples of how two characters can have the same roll, but get different results. They are not as flexible as what you want, but as guidelines they point in a direction that allows you to adjudicate similar cases more along the lines you are looking for.

Not that you need RAW support to do what you want - so I'm not sure what your arguing for or about. Are you just trying to prove that you have a better understanding of the rules?

 

[Maxperson]

I don't see it that way (though I often use them interchangeably). I see it almost the opposite. A house rule is a particular rule interpretation of change to an existing rule. Homebrew could include house rules, but also includes new rules, different settings, fundamental changes to the structure of the game, etc. House rule to me is more specific and homebrew is broader and sometimes deeper in scope.

I play a homebrew version of 5e using 3 defenses; AC as DR; HP & BHP, etc. These are mechanical changes, but go way beyond house rules in my opinion - so I would call it homebrew.

Fair enough. I've seen most people use it the way I use it, but it really doesn't matter much

The question I was responding to was with regarding whether or not a DM could, by RAW, adjudicate that two different characters who have the same roll (in total) get a different result for the check. With the rules I quoted you can do that as follows:

Option #1: DC 16
Character A has ability score 22, rolls a 15, but auto succeeds because the DC is more than 5 below his/her ability score
Character B has an ability score of 18, rolls a 15, but fails the check

Option #2: DC 15
Character C, rolls a 14, fails the check
Character D, rolls a 14, passes the check because they have proficiency and are 11th level

These both give examples of how two characters can have the same roll, but get different results. They are not as flexible as what you want, but as guidelines they point in a direction that allows you to adjudicate similar cases more along the lines you are looking for.

Ah, but characters A and D by rule do not roll at all, so there won't be identical rolls resulting in two different results. The rule is that "When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results." When there is an auto success happening, there will be no roll. There is no uncertainty.

Not that you need RAW support to do what you want - so I'm not sure what your arguing for or about. Are you just trying to prove that you have a better understanding of the rules?

Just trying to clarify what RAW does and does not allow. I change the rules to fit my needs, but I also admit freely when I am creating house rules. Some people it seems, will fight tooth and nail to not be house ruling and try to force RAW to say what they want it to say.

 

[dave2008]

Fair enough. I've seen most people use it the way I use it, but it really doesn't matter much

I've never seen people use the terms at all other than when I get on forums. In groups a work with, we just play the game.

Ah, but characters A and D by rule do not roll at all, so there won't be identical rolls resulting in two different results. The rule is that "When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results." When there is an auto success happening, there will be no roll. There is no uncertainty.

I don't think that is 100% true. I may very well ask for roll, then determine the DC, then determine character A or D succeeds regardless of the roll. That is, as far as I can tell, completely RAW.

Regardless RAW is less important then RAI IMHO. As a designer myself (architect), I believe design intent is more important than implementation (RAW). If you understand the design intent and can adjudicate a lot more than you can cover with RAW. Now you would like RAW to always express RAI, but RAW cannot realistically cover all the options and 5e explicitly favors rulings based on RAI. Just like a set of drawings cannot possibly cover every possible detail needed to make a building. You have to make the design intent clear so that a good contractor can extrapolate the information provided and use it as a guide to complete the project.

Just trying to clarify what RAW does and does not allow. I change the rules to fit my needs, but I also admit freely when I am creating house rules. Some people it seems, will fight tooth and nail to not be house ruling and try to force RAW to say what they want it to say.

Ok

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think that is 100% true. I may very well ask for roll, then determine the DC, then determine character A or D succeeds regardless of the roll. That is, as far as I can tell, completely RAW.

Regardless RAW is less important then RAI IMHO. As a designer myself (architect), I believe design intent is more important than implementation (RAW). If you understand the design intent and can adjudicate a lot more than you can cover with RAW. Now you would like RAW to always express RAI, but RAW cannot realistically cover all the options and 5e explicitly favors rulings based on RAI. Just like a set of drawings cannot possibly cover every possible detail needed to make a building. You have to make the design intent clear so that a good contractor can extrapolate the information provided and use it as a guide to complete the project.

If we're looking at design intent, I seriously doubt that they designed DCs to be chosen after the players roll. From a DM perspective, I think it doesn't make any sense to do it that way. Why would I have the players roll if I have no idea how hard the check is going to be. As soon as the players say what they are trying, I know within a few seconds how hard it will be and who will auto succeed or fail. I would never have the players roll without already knowing the DC. Doing it that way also opens up the DM to subconscious bias. If a player rolls a 16, I might decide that a 16 sounds high enough, where before I heard that roll I would have chosen 18 as the DC.

No, I don't think intent or RAW really back up rolling before the DC is chosen. In the ability check section, the order listed is the DM sets the difficulty class, and in the following paragraph is when it talks about how to roll for an ability check.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

I still haven't played a 5E game yet (we're waiting until our current 3.5E campaign wraps up before starting a 5E campaign). However, I am looking forward to bounded accuracy as a DM.

At the moment I am playing, rather than running. My Wizard PC has saves of Fort +11/Ref +13/Will +11. On top of that, the Cleric casts Mass Conviction on the party at the first sign of combat, giving us all an additional +4 Morale bonus to all saves.

So, unless I auto-fail on a 1, my lowest saves are Fort 17/19/17 and I haven't even tried to min/max my character to optimise his saves. He is a fairly basic Wiz 8/Loremaster 4 (because no-one is a straight Wiz 20 in 3.5E! ).

Last session the only save I failed was when I rolled a 3 and copped 6 Con damage from a poison. The other saves I made included rolls of 5 and a 7. There have been previous sessions where I've needed to roll 14+ to make a save, but they are the exception more than the rule. My fellow PCs are largely the same, with failed saves being the exception, more so than the rule.

So I'm definitely looking forward to playing 5E and having mid-level characters actually feel threatened when they need to make a saving throw.

 

[dave2008]

If we're looking at design intent, I seriously doubt that they designed DCs to be chosen after the players roll. From a DM perspective, I think it doesn't make any sense to do it that way. Why would I have the players roll if I have no idea how hard the check is going to be. As soon as the players say what they are trying, I know within a few seconds how hard it will be and who will auto succeed or fail. I would never have the players roll without already knowing the DC. Doing it that way also opens up the DM to subconscious bias. If a player rolls a 16, I might decide that a 16 sounds high enough, where before I heard that roll I would have chosen 18 as the DC.

No, I don't think intent or RAW really back up rolling before the DC is chosen. In the ability check section, the order listed is the DM sets the difficulty class, and in the following paragraph is when it talks about how to roll for an ability check.

I apologize, I muddied the issue. These were two different ideas.

1) I am likely to ask for a roll before deciding on the DC. If I don't know the DC of a task before hand I may ask for a roll (I like to keep things moving) and determine the DC as the roll is happening or after it is happened.

2) My RAI comment was not intended to be about how I might adjudicate the events (as described above), it was that the intent is to provide flexibility to cover the multitude of possibilities, not just the limited examples they place in the book. The whole reason there is a "variant rule" is to show there are other ways to adjudicate things, not to say this is the only other way you can adjudicate.

I hope that clarifies things.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

I love it for one reason: I hated the stratospheric rise of math that encompassed 3e and 4e. I mean, around 8th level a fighter was dealing with a staggered base attack bonus, strength mod, bonuses from items, spells, powers, feats, racial traits, and situational modifiers. A lot of times, those silly numbers were forgotten (did you add bless?) or miscalculated or you got the long stare of "which bonus do I use for this attack?" All so that the fighter would say "AC 33? I rolled a 7".

I'm gladly done with that. Viva la reasonable numbers.

A lot of the time the fighter could still hit AC33 on a 7 by level 10-12.

A BAB on +12, +4 or so for Str, another +2 for a stat-buff item, +2 for a magic weapon, +2 for flanking, +2 for charging, +1 for Bless, +1 for Haste.

That's +26 already and we haven't really gone beyond the basic stuff. The crazy amount of modifiers in 3.xE really starts to get tiresome to figure out when you start to get into levels 12+ (and even before then sometimes).