D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[UngeheuerLich]

I also make skill check difficulty dependent on who tries them. The dwarven cleric has a much easier time recalling lore about dwarven gods, no matter if he is proficient in religion or not. Likewise the urchin has an easier time getting along in the city.

 

[darjr]

I too find the numbers generally to be to flat to focus on. Bounded accuracy has a side effect that the fluff makes MORE of a difference and I like that.

Also another side effect is it's more forgiving to tinkering. Not because the math is tight but because it's DC's are stable.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I too find the numbers generally to be to flat to focus on. Bounded accuracy has a side effect that the fluff makes MORE of a difference and I like that.

Also another side effect is it's more forgiving to tinkering. Not because the math is tight but because it's DC's are stable.

Personally, I'm of exactly the reverse opinion. The things you aren't proficient in--especially saves, but skill DCs too--still become damn near impossible for non-Proficient characters, but Proficient ones now don't feel like it makes much of a difference. Anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but given how rarely the people in my group succeed at things they are proficient with (at level 1 and 2), I'm skeptical about success rates for non-proficient people, especially if it's not a core stat, at level 10+.

Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding what you mean by "tinkering." I feel like 5e is very punitive about making poor choices, while simultaneously failing to give players the information they need to make informed choices in the first place.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but given how rarely the people in my group succeed at things they are proficient with (at level 1 and 2), I'm skeptical about success rates for non-proficient people, especially if it's not a core stat, at level 10+.

Sounds like misapplication of DCs, mismatched expectation of what a decent success rate for a low level character is, treating the result of a die roll as if it indicates the odds even though it doesn't (i.e. treating the fact that you've failed a roll as though it means you didn't have a good chance to succeed), or some mix of those things.

The game sets up most level 1 characters with around a +5 to the things they are meant to be good at, and sets the DC of most tasks at 15 or less, for odds slightly better than a coin toss on the low end - but I've seen a fair amount of DMs still in the mindset that any check that is important to succeed at should have a hard DC, even with every example DC that can be compared directly to prior editions be clearly lower by design (i.e. a 5th edition lock has a DC of 15 to pick it, where a 3.5 "simple lock" has a DC of 20, or how 5th edition saving throw DCs in the monster manual barely reach into the 20s where 3.5 save DCs would reach into the 40s).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sounds like misapplication of DCs, mismatched expectation of what a decent success rate for a low level character is, treating the result of a die roll as if it indicates the odds even though it doesn't (i.e. treating the fact that you've failed a roll as though it means you didn't have a good chance to succeed), or some mix of those things.

When I see 15+ rolls (with all bonuses applied) fail, and realize that that means 50% or more of the possible rolls would have failed, I begin to think that yes, it is somewhat representative of what's going on. Rolling 10-or-less happens 50% of the time, after all. I understand probability and statistics at least at a basic level, having taken a year's worth of it (and done quite well, I might add).

Edit:
In fact, rereading your post, it occurs to me that that may be exactly the problem. I don't think someone "Proficient" with something should have equal odds of failure vs. success on basic tasks. I think someone who barely knows what they're doing, but has a competent natural talent (read: good ability score) should have that. Someone actually trained--especially if they also have natural talent--should be doing a hell of a lot better than 50-50 odds of success.

The game sets up most level 1 characters with around a +5 to the things they are meant to be good at, and sets the DC of most tasks at 15 or less, for odds slightly better than a coin toss on the low end - but I've seen a fair amount of DMs still in the mindset that any check that is important to succeed at should have a hard DC, even with every example DC that can be compared directly to prior editions be clearly lower by design (i.e. a 5th edition lock has a DC of 15 to pick it, where a 3.5 "simple lock" has a DC of 20, or how 5th edition saving throw DCs in the monster manual barely reach into the 20s where 3.5 save DCs would reach into the 40s).

While that is possible, I find it unlikely to apply to my case, as the guy DMing for my 5e group has never DMed before. (Technically that's not completely accurate; he had begun DMing a different 5e game a few weeks before he started ours. But he's never, to my knowledge, DMed any other edition or even any other game before 5e.)

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

When I see 15+ rolls (with all bonuses applied) fail, and realize that that means 50% or more of the possible rolls would have failed, I begin to think that yes, it is somewhat representative of what's going on. Rolling 10-or-less happens 50% of the time, after all. I understand probability and statistics at least at a basic level, having taken a year's worth of it (and done quite well, I might add).

I can't quite tell whether you are meaning to argue or agree. It seems phrased like an argument, but the content is all agreement.

While that is possible, I find it unlikely to apply to my case, as the guy DMing for my 5e group has never DMed before. (Technically that's not completely accurate; he had begun DMing a different 5e game a few weeks before he started ours. But he's never, to my knowledge, DMed any other edition or even any other game before 5e.)

It is true that prior edition experience is not the only thing which can lead a DM to set DCs higher than actually intended by the design of the game - but that is still solidly a problem being caused by the DM, not a problem inherent to the game rules.

 

[ExploderWizard]

When I see 15+ rolls (with all bonuses applied) fail, and realize that that means 50% or more of the possible rolls would have failed, I begin to think that yes, it is somewhat representative of what's going on. Rolling 10-or-less happens 50% of the time, after all. I understand probability and statistics at least at a basic level, having taken a year's worth of it (and done quite well, I might add).

Edit:
In fact, rereading your post, it occurs to me that that may be exactly the problem. I don't think someone "Proficient" with something should have equal odds of failure vs. success on basic tasks. I think someone who barely knows what they're doing, but has a competent natural talent (read: good ability score) should have that. Someone actually trained--especially if they also have natural talent--should be doing a hell of a lot better than 50-50 odds of success.



While that is possible, I find it unlikely to apply to my case, as the guy DMing for my 5e group has never DMed before. (Technically that's not completely accurate; he had begun DMing a different 5e game a few weeks before he started ours. But he's never, to my knowledge, DMed any other edition or even any other game before 5e.)

Before passing judgment on the system, lets look at the actual DCs being used. DC 10 is the new DC 15. If the DM is assigning DC 20 or more to almost everything for 1st level characters then yes, there will be a whole lot of failure going on. Is this DM using published material written for 5E, using older stuff, or home brewing? I could see an inexperienced DM grabbing a 3.X module and running it for 5E not realizing that the listed DCs are way too high.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Before passing judgment on the system, lets look at the actual DCs being used. DC 10 is the new DC 15. If the DM is assigning DC 20 or more to almost everything for 1st level characters then yes, there will be a whole lot of failure going on. Is this DM using published material written for 5E, using older stuff, or home brewing? I could see an inexperienced DM grabbing a 3.X module and running it for 5E not realizing that the listed DCs are way too high.

Given what he's presented to us, this world is pure homebrew, based on no prewritten material whatsoever.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Also don't forget advantage and passive checks. With advantage (help action) and a +5 bonus, you are automatically succeeding at DC 20 challenges. And coin tosses are 75% now.
This is what I like most about BA. The circumstances, help or inspiration is as important as skill alone. A master smith with appropriate tools and an apprentice will forge your plate armor easily.

Just a reminder: when DCs in 3.x are applied correctly, the system worked fine and everyone, wven the fighter had enough skillpoints:
Cross class skills were the baseline. 5 Ranks were expertise. Using DCs of 10, 15 and 20 and 25 and heavy use of take 10 and take 20 made your life better. If you then disallowed everyone to raise more than one or two skills beyond the cross class limit when it made sense (bards needed perform, mages concentration and spellcraft) suddenly everyone was contributing. The fighter with his few skillpoints could even spread them around a bit or could take sense motiv or perception. A +2 to 2 skills feat helped a lot too.

 

[Minigiant]

Bounded Accuracy mostly got rid of gatekeeper skills checks and those "don't ever try in combat/Take 10 only" checks.

You don't need a high number to make the check. Anyone can open that door or hit that hydra.

What BA does is put the reliability onto classes.

Anyone can open that door but the Rogue can usually do it in one try which helps when the dungeon guards are coming this way.

Anyone can hit the hydra. But the Fighter has 2-3 attacks and has 100% better chance to seal the hydra's neck stump.