D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[Maxperson]

Heh. [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], when multiple people are demonstrating a distinct lack of understanding what you are saying, that means you are not explaining yourself clearly enough, or you aren't actually saying what you think are saying. It's very, very unlikely that multiple people will fail to get your point when your point is clear.

Heh. It's entirely possible that I haven't been clear enough.

 

[Hussar]

Actually, not quite right. RAW, long jump distance is a purely a function of Strength score, and Athletics proficiency has nothing to do with it.



While they would both clear the stream (because it is fairly narrow), it isn't "exactly the same." The 16 Strength PC can make a 16 foot long jump, while the 6 Strength PC can only make a 6 foot long jump. (Again, RAW.)

In any event, whether or not it is good design, there is ample precedent in the Player's Handbook for there to be different results for different PCs even hitting the same DC. To continue my example above, even if PCs make the same DCs, I would give different amounts or types of information resulting from an Intelligence (History) check based on their PC's raw intelligence score, race, age, background or general backstory. While I don't think the rules compel the DM to do so, it seems to me to be natural, sensible and well within the DM's discretion.

Oh sure. Not something I'd do, and thus the point of this rather lengthy discussion. As a player, I'd be decidedly unhappy if my results were being filtered through what the DM perceives as relevant to the check based on the character making the check, simply because what's on the character sheet and even in the background, is such a tiny slice of what that person actually is. Sure, Bob may be better educated than my character, but, it's not difficult to come up with narratives where I might know some fact that he does not. That he would automatically gain a better result, despite having the same actually die result (modified by all the goodies of course) simply because of the character sheet is too narrow for my tastes.

AFAIC, a 16 is a 16 (or whatever number you care to choose) regardless of how I arrived at that 16.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, Bob may be better educated than my character, but, it's not difficult to come up with narratives where I might know some fact that he does not. That he would automatically gain a better result, despite having the same actually die result (modified by all the goodies of course) simply because of the character sheet is too narrow for my tastes.

Once in a while, sure. As often as you will roll equal to or higher than Bob? Not a chance. I also treat natural 20's as a critical success and natural 1's as auto failure or fumbles. If you're untrained and you roll a 20 and I'll give you the same as an untrained person's success. You'll never be able to match the trained person's natural 20, though.

AFAIC, a 16 is a 16 (or whatever number you care to choose) regardless of how I arrived at that 16.

By RAW, but not by realism.

 

[bmcdaniel]

Oh sure. Not something I'd do, and thus the point of this rather lengthy discussion. As a player, I'd be decidedly unhappy if my results were being filtered through what the DM perceives as relevant to the check based on the character making the check, simply because what's on the character sheet and even in the background, is such a tiny slice of what that person actually is. Sure, Bob may be better educated than my character, but, it's not difficult to come up with narratives where I might know some fact that he does not. That he would automatically gain a better result, despite having the same actually die result (modified by all the goodies of course) simply because of the character sheet is too narrow for my tastes.

AFAIC, a 16 is a 16 (or whatever number you care to choose) regardless of how I arrived at that 16.

While, I can't disagree that this is probably the best way to approach things most of the time, I think sometimes, it is appropriate for the DM to take into consideration things that are "on the character sheet" and "in the background." And I can't imagine that, at some point, you wouldn't break down and agree.

Let me pose another example. Suppose the PCs are trying to jump high and pressing a small button on the ceiling of a room that is 15 feet high. You call for an Athletics check to simulate the combined difficulty of jumping high and touching the small button in mid-jump (from the Player's Handbook: "In some circumstances, your DM might allow you to make a Strength (Athletics) check to jump higher than you normally can.")

Would you really say that the DC (or alternatively the bonus) is the same for all of the following PCs:

* A 3 foot tall halfling.

* A 12 foot tall ogre.

* A bullywug (Note that the bullywug has the special ability: "Standing Leap. The bullywug's long jump is up to 20 feet and its high jump is up to 10 feet, with or without a running start").


* A PC wearing boots of striding and springing (Note that the description of the boots says: "you can jump three times the normal distance, though you can't jump
farther than your remaining movement would allow").

* A PC who is using a 10 foot pole (written as equipment on his character sheet) to try to press the button with a relatively short jump.

* A PC using the gust cantrip to give himself an extra boost at the same time he makes his Athletics check (this actually happened in the last adventure I ran)

* A PC using a levitate spell to lift himself 8 feet in the air (but no more than 8 feet because he doesn't want to make it too easy)


* A PC whose character background includes the statement: "As a young child, Jack's legs were severely mangled in a crocodile attack. Although he is quite strong, all his strength is in his upper body and his legs are very weak."

* A PC whose background includes the following statement: "Mary is a champion basket ball player, particularly well-known for being able to jump high and dunk the ball."

 

[bmcdaniel]

By RAW, but not by realism.

As I noted above, there are instances where even by RAW, hitting the same number results in different outcomes based on the PC's characteristics.

 

[Maxperson]

As I noted above, there are instances where even by RAW, hitting the same number results in different outcomes based on the PC's characteristics.

Sure, but we're discussing trained vs. untrained and how that is represented.

 

[Azurewraith]

Cant we just make love not war?

 

[Maxperson]

Cant we just make love not war?

That depends. Are you trained in love?

 

[Azurewraith]

That depends. Are you trained in love?

Not formally know im self taught but i get no complains

 

[NotZenon]

I love bounded accuracy. My favorite version of the game for years and years was E6, and 5th has essentially "supplanted" that. I wish i got to play more E6 but my players couldn't get over the smaller numbers.

as for 5th edition, it isn't perfect, but i feel they got more right than wrong.