D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[Celtavian]

But, if my untrained check result is identical in number to your trained check, why are you getting better results?

You want narrative justification? Because a trained guy is more likely to know more than an untrained guy. An untrained guy might remember a few facts, while a trained guy might have studied the subject extensively. In 5E you can use the skill system in that fine a manner. Past editions one number meant very specific information. In 5E you can make something less effective for an untrained guy or not allow him to roll at all and give a trained guy far more information or ability. The 5E skill system allows for a lot more control narratively and mechanically than previous editions as the default.

That's how I see it and how I play it. That's one of the reasons I like the 5E skill system. It allows me to use it to enhance the narrative and add some cinematic flair with skill rolls.

 

[Hussar]

Because trained > untrained. Think of it like this. You both rolled the same number to hit, but you're using a dagger with no extra bonuses and he's using a +3 greatsword.

Yes, but there's no bonuses to damage related to my attack roll is there? In fact, given the situation you are talking about, it's possible for the two of us to do the same damage.

But, that's my point. It doesn't matter what our respective levels are, what are respective attack bonuses are or whether I'm trained in that dagger and you're a grand master with that great sword. We both hit and we both do damage. The damage we do has zero to do with our attack roll, and also zero to do with our respective skill with our weapons. If the target has an AC of 16 and we both score 16, then we both hit and we both deal damage. There's no difference.

OTOH, for skill checks, I would certainly give more information for the higher roll. Presumably, eventually anyway, my proficiency bonus will be higher than your ability bonus. Thus, I can do things you can't. But, varying results for the same DC means that the DC has no actual meaning. And that's very much not how 5e works. A DC 15 lock is a DC 15 lock, regardless of who's picking it. Remembering that trolls are affected by fire is a DC X check, again, regardless of who is doing the checking. The DC's in the game are meant to reflect the reality of that game world. When you start varying results based on who is doing the check, the system is very much not designed for that.

And, where does it stop. Is my untrained 15 Jump check different than your trained 15 jump check? Do we climb walls at different speeds? If the trained guy opens the lock faster, why can't my trained guy climb faster? Two characters are searching for tracks and one has Survival trained, but both have the same final bonus. What does that mean?

5e skill DC's have an objective meaning in the game world. Doing X is DC Y. When you start varying the result, as [MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION] suggests, then what does that actually mean? I don't do less damage when I roll the same to hit as you do regardless of bonus. I don't take more damage when I roll the same saving throw as you do even if I'm making an untrained save. Does my character become less stealthy with the same roll as your character, despite having identical Stealth rolls?

I see this as a very, very deep rabbit hole to jump down, if you want to keep the meaning of skill rolls consistent. If consistency is not a concern, then, by all means, go ahead. But, no edition of D&D ever did this. I'm not sure why I should start now.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

But, if my untrained check result is identical in number to your trained check, why are you getting better results?

Actually you are right. I really had liked if for skill checks, you use Attribute minus 10, instead of attribute minus ten divided by 2. Would also give better results when grappling with big creatures. I would the also give expertise in knowledge skills. So your 18 in Int will really give you an edge on your skill check, while proficiency withe expertise would also.

In the end, your Int 18 Character has the advantage to know a bit about everything, while a cleric with religion and only int 8 only knows about religion and often can´t remember exactly. Often even misremembers things, when outside his speciality. He may also know it only parrotlike, while you with INT 18 can make sense of what the other character knows.

Imagine this:
You with Int 18 may ask specific things about what you see. And the one with knowledge religion may be able to answer your question even when he himself would not have thought of it on his own.

 

[AtomicPope]

Bounded Accuracy is the best thing to happen to DnD since Advantage/Disadvantage. It lets DMs and Players face a threatening theme of monsters from level 1 to level 20. My group has faced Hobgoblins and Carrion Crawlers at level 1 and level 15. We're decked out in magic items. There's literally no way to do this with stock monsters in 3e. We're now level 17 and we've faced Imps, Bearded Devils, and Bone Devils in a recent encounter. Again, there's no way to do this in 3e and make them a viable threat. They simply couldn't hit a 3e or 4e character who is 12+ levels higher than their CR.

Bounded Accuracy makes it possible to face a dozen Zombies at high levels and they're still a threat. Sure they'll die quickly but you don't want to be surrounded by them. In a recent game our plate wearing Fighter/Paladin was surrounded by Devils. Even though they needed 17's to hit him the Imps would use the Help Action as a Readied Action lowering the number to about 12+ equivalent to hit. They started landing some shots and stinging our Pally. The Help Action in 3e is just about useless. They'd still need a nat '20' to hit a character in magic full plate with a magic shield. Not to mention, characters had juiced up stats so their hit points were so high it didn't matter anyway. That's another big difference. My 17th level Warlock has 136 hit points. The number of low level monsters to pad out an encounter is around 3 or 4. With Bounded Accuracy making it possible to land hits the damage will add up rather quickly. As a result, I still use my Misty Escape to avoid being surrounded because I can't afford to find out what the dice are going to say.

 

[Celtavian]

OTOH, for skill checks, I would certainly give more information for the higher roll. Presumably, eventually anyway, my proficiency bonus will be higher than your ability bonus. Thus, I can do things you can't. But, varying results for the same DC means that the DC has no actual meaning. And that's very much not how 5e works. Find where the 5E rules make this true.

A DC 15 lock is a DC 15 lock, regardless of who's picking it. Remembering that trolls are affected by fire is a DC X check, again, regardless of who is doing the checking. The DC's in the game are meant to reflect the reality of that game world. When you start varying results based on who is doing the check, the system is very much not designed for that.

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.

A high attribute doesn't mean you know how to do anything associated with that attribute. I'd like you to show me in the rules where it says that is true.

And, where does it stop. Is my untrained 15 Jump check different than your trained 15 jump check? Do we climb walls at different speeds? If the trained guy opens the lock faster, why can't my trained guy climb faster? Two characters are searching for tracks and one has Survival trained, but both have the same final bonus. What does that mean?

The DM could determine that you don't even get to climb a wall because it is too difficult and you have zero skill. For narrative purposes if the DM says general Athletics skill of a certain passive score allows you to climb a particular wall faster, yes, you get to climb it faster.

Skills are meant to have impact. The system is left wide open so the DM can make the skill system have impact.

You just stated why. A book on skills cannot possibly cover every eventuality without writing page after page after page. So the 5E skill system kept it very open ended, so the DM could make the skill system more exciting and cinematic up to and including making the resident egghead who takes knowledge skills feel like he really has a knowledge of a subject over Mr. High Intelligence guy with no proficiency. So every player just didn't get to roll his die and get lucky.

5e skill DC's have an objective meaning in the game world. Doing X is DC Y.[/b/]

Show me this rule in 5E.

I see this as a very, very deep rabbit hole to jump down, if you want to keep the meaning of skill rolls consistent. If consistency is not a concern, then, by all means, go ahead. But, no edition of D&D ever did this. I'm not sure why I should start now.

I have no interest in keeping the skill rolls consistent and I do not believe skill rolls in 5E have an objective meaning. Already played the system where both those statements were true. I have an interest in making skill rolls interesting and impactful at key times in the adventure, preferably with a cinematic flair the player can picture in his mind's eye. I think that is what the 5E skill system is built to do. I don't think it is built to have an objective meaning. That is why it has been left so open-ended unlike 3E/Pathfinder or perhaps 4E where many skill checks were predetermined. I think the 5E skill and ability check system is wide open for DM interpretation to allow for "theater of the mind" play featuring cinematic action.

That's what it seems like to me. That's how I intend to run it. If you prefer an objective system that makes thing more concrete, by all means have at it. I don't think the system was designed with that intent save for a few important combat maneuvers like grappling or shoving.

It isn't a rabbit hole at all. Skills have always been rather meaningless save for combat. Even Knowledge skills in Pathfinder were mostly used to determine vulnerabilities and powers in combat. If a skill didn't have an impact on combat, players often ignore it as do DMs. I like that 5E has accepted this pragmatic view and now lets DMs determine how and when to best use skills to cinematic effect in an adventure.

5E is very well made for those of us that like to tell a story. That understand little game nuances like not allowing every player to roll a die when the DM calls for a knowledge check. For those DMs that know how to make a high Dex guy with Acrobatics stand out from High Dex guy with no acrobatics who gets a lucky roll. For those of us that know how to use a skill system for cinematic effect. That's why you don't see all the DC tables you used to see in previous editions for every single thing. 5E is a back to basics skill system that leaves a great majority of skill adjudication up to the DM. Fortunately for you, you have enough info to make DCs have "objective meaning" if that is your preferred play-style. Just as those of us that want to handwave the majority of the stuff can do that as well.

 

[Celtavian]

Actually you are right. I really had liked if for skill checks, you use Attribute minus 10, instead of attribute minus ten divided by 2. Would also give better results when grappling with big creatures. I would the also give expertise in knowledge skills. So your 18 in Int will really give you an edge on your skill check, while proficiency withe expertise would also.

In the end, your Int 18 Character has the advantage to know a bit about everything, while a cleric with religion and only int 8 only knows about religion and often can´t remember exactly. Often even misremembers things, when outside his speciality. He may also know it only parrotlike, while you with INT 18 can make sense of what the other character knows.

Imagine this:
You with Int 18 may ask specific things about what you see. And the one with knowledge religion may be able to answer your question even when he himself would not have thought of it on his own.

Or the guy with the 18 intelligence knows nothing because he has zero reason to know anything. Same as in the real world if I ask a guy with a high IQ about physics and he knows nothing about physics, he won't be able to answer questions even a guy with 10 intelligence would know that has studied physics. An attribute should not allow you to have a wide knowledge of everything and not more knowledge than a guy educated on a subject. The 5E skill system allows a DM to determine if a character would know something and disallow a roll if there is no reason they would know anything about the matter.

 

[Celtavian]

But, that's not exactly how things work. Even though there's no technical tier's of success, they are still there. Remembering that trolls are hurt by fire is likely an easier check than remembering some specific bit of lore about this particular troll. The DC already takes that into account - how hard is it to remember what you're trying to remember?

I have proficiency which means I have slightly better chances of success than you do. At low level, we're only talking a +2 difference. That's easily absorbed by natural talent. Remember, there was player choice in choosing stats and which skills to be proficient in. Why is my choice to have an 18 Int less important than your choice to have proficiency in Arcana and a 14 Int?

Because an 18 intelligence does nothing for skills. It shouldn't. You could be as dextrous as Jordan or as intelligent as Einstein, but if you haven't played basketball or studied physics you won't be able to compete with even high school basketball players or physic students of average intelligence. A DM if he so chooses can model this concept in the 5E skill system. There is nothing objectively meaningful about skills. I'd like you to show me where you find any rule in the game stating that for other than combat.

 

[Uchawi]

5e skill DC's have an objective meaning in the game world. Doing X is DC Y. When you start varying the result, as @Celtavian suggests, then what does that actually mean? I don't do less damage when I roll the same to hit as you do regardless of bonus. I don't take more damage when I roll the same saving throw as you do even if I'm making an untrained save. Does my character become less stealthy with the same roll as your character, despite having identical Stealth rolls?

I see this as a very, very deep rabbit hole to jump down, if you want to keep the meaning of skill rolls consistent. If consistency is not a concern, then, by all means, go ahead. But, no edition of D&D ever did this. I'm not sure why I should start now.

I agree.

A bonus is a bonus regardless of the source. If you want to add more meaning into each bonus and DC, then you have to start changing the entire system. So a save DC must always check the attribute or class to obtain more meaning and the attack roll must always account for the level of the attacker with martial classes having a greater impact.

What makes more sense is increase the bounds to add more distinction, except you must account for all the sub-systems that rely on the bounds, which is probably just as difficult to manage.

 

[Celtavian]

The 5E skill system is not set in stone. It is not objective. It does not have to have objective meaning or subjective meaning. The 5E skill system provides a loose set of rules for a DM to use to create interesting and impactful challenges that don't necessarily fall under combat or use combat rules involving attacking. You can use the skill system in whatever manner you as a DM feel will add the most to your game.

For example, DM determines a particular ancient Netherese artifact requires different levels of knowledge to understand. He might write the skill check as follows: An easy DC 10 knowledge arcana check or medium DC 15 intelligence check if you lack the skill to determine artifact is Netherese. If you have at least a +3 proficiency bonus in Knowledge Arcana, you may make a DC 25 Knowledge Arcana very hard check to determine the Netherese artifact was created for the expressed purpose of defending against evocation magic.

There is nothing in the rules that says I as a DM cannot write up the challenge in this fashion to highlight a person that has taken Knowledge Arcane.

Just as there is nothing in the rules to say Hussar as the DM cannot say DC 25 Knowledge Arcane check, anyone can roll.

That is how open-ended the 5E skill system is. It can accommodate different DM viewpoints on how to handle skills. The 5E skill system is not hard-coded for other than combat. Even then a DM can add some difficulty or ease to a roll if they fill there is a justifiable reason for doing so. For creative types like myself, I much prefer an open-ended skill system that allows me to add some cinematic flair or highlight a player's skill in some area than a hard-coded system that makes it so anyone can roll allowing a high attribute and a lucky roll to do more than a guy that spent some resources to be good at something. At the same time, I'm not going to tell someone like Hussar he can't let everyone roll if he feels like playing in that fashion.

This is the DM empowerment edition. A DM can make things as interesting and complex or as simple as he wishes. I choose to do skills in a different fashion. I don't even allow knowledge checks for monsters the vast majority of the time. If the person don't have a skill, I don't allow them to roll when they run into complex challenges. They have to learn to live with their lack of knowledge. I'm glad all those mechanics are gone. It was annoying when a person in Pathfinder/3E had a 24 to 30 intelligence and spent one point in a Knowledge Skill and suddenly they knew something about just about every monster. Nothing ruins verisimilitude more than having everyone be a Mary Sue because of a high attribute.

 

[Uchawi]

Every edition of D&D has empowered the DM, it just depends on how many house rules you want to add to the core. Just make sure your players are aware of these house rules as it may invalidate some of the choices they have made with the characters they play. Nothing is worse than the player and DM working of a different set of assumptions for the rules in a book. It gets worse if the DM modifies or adds to the rules without letting the players know.