D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[Celtavian]

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.

You don't have to change the system. You just have to be creative with how you use the system. I've been having fun with the 5E skill system using it to highlight characters and add cinematic flair to otherwise boring skill challenges. My players don't mind it at all because the number one rule is make it fun. Everyone rolling a die for everything isn't fun. It's tedious and ruins verisimilitude, especially on ridiculous rolls like the wizard with the 8 strength rolling a natural 20 to knock a door down while the half-orc with the 20 strength fails. Not cinematic or interesting at all. That is what you get when you run things where the DC rolls have an objective meaning.

I'd rather have it so that being a big, strong guy has an objective meaning as in there are things he can do that no one else can even attempt. Why should a scrawny gnome wizard with an 8 strength even get to roll to burst an iron bound door? He wouldn't be able to do it at all compared to the huge 6'6" and 300 lb. half-orc. What about a skill or a physical feature like size having an objective meaning? A flat roll alone does not mean something has an objective meaning. In fact, it makes it seem like skills mean nothing or physical size means nothing because anyone with a lucky roll and a couple of attribute points can do the same thing as a person that has physical attributes or areas of knowledge the other person does not even possess.

 

[Celtavian]

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.

It isn't a house rule. There are not hard-coded DCs save for very few things. There are very general DCs. Nowhere does it say that I can't make something harder for one individual than another. Sorry, you do not have a rule that says I cannot do it. So don't assume I'm using a house rule unless you have a very specific rule telling me I can't do something.

The players know how I run the game. They prefer verisimilitude over hard, fast rules. I tossed out that "everyone rolls" crap very early on when I started running it. We were already tired of the roll for everything rubbish from our days playing Pathfinder/3E. They were happy with a simple, impactful skill system the DM could manipulate to enhance the narrative elements while not wasting time with overly complex rules or tons of rolling.

No. Every edition did not empower the DM other than the general, "Rule 0". Pathfinder/3E was extremely codified. If you stepped outside the box much, you had to do a lot of changes to keep things working. This edition does not have that level of codification. I find it empowers the DM to a much greater degree than 3/Pathfinder. No idea about 4E.

 

[Celtavian]

DM Page 238: It's your job to establish the Difficulty Class for an ability check or a saving throw when a rule or an adventure doesn't give one. Sometimes you'll even want to change such established DCs. When you do so, think of how difficult the task is and then then pick an associated DC from the Typical DCs table.

Nowhere does it say DCs are objectively meaningful. If I establish that a check is easier for one person than another for some reason, that is my option.

If the players felt I were doing this to be a jerk DM, they will let me know. If I'm doing it to highlight someone's character or give them a chance to do something extraordinary, they don't have much of a problem with it. I believe that is exactly what the 5E skill system is intended for.

 

[Minigiant]

Personally, I don't see the issue of bounded Accuracy and success chance. I also don't see the need to alter the info made for success.

A d20 ability check is a check to see if something remotely possible cannot happen. It uses an element of natural talent (ability score) and trained skill (proficiency).

A DM is perfectly in the clear to not allow some characters who lack a proficiency to roll a d20 ability check if the check is for something they cannot possibility success in without proficiency or outside knowledge. If your PC has never studied magic or ready about the arcane arts, a DM could deny letting them roll recalling arcane theorem useless the player can justify the PC knowing that bit of information and holding onto it.

However if the action or reaction can be muscled but pure physique, mental strength, or raw senses, there is no need to protect the skilled against the talented.

It all comes down to niche protection.

Some of the game's niche protection from the past was pretty bad because it relied on spotlight balance. The game used to lock some actions to one some classes. Only rogues could open hard locks and disarm hard traps. Only rangers could track well without taking a huge cost for the tracking ability. Only bards could sing or play instrument at top levels.

5e removed most of this only purpose. It just made experts better and more likely to have the needed proficiency.

It is up to individual group if they want to add arbitrary niche protection back.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

If your eyeballed estimate for the volume of a paraboloid object happens to be within 1% of the value determined by my application of calculus, why am I able to derive extra information that you couldn't?

Because training matters.

 

[Celtavian]

Personally, I don't see the issue of bounded Accuracy and success chance. I also don't see the need to alter the info made for success.

A d20 ability check is a check to see if something remotely possible cannot happen. It uses an element of natural talent (ability score) and trained skill (proficiency).

A DM is perfectly in the clear to not allow some characters who lack a proficiency to roll a d20 ability check if the check is for something they cannot possibility success in without proficiency or outside knowledge. If your PC has never studied magic or ready about the arcane arts, a DM could deny letting them roll recalling arcane theorem useless the player can justify the PC knowing that bit of information and holding onto it.

However if the action or reaction can be muscled but pure physique, mental strength, or raw senses, there is no need to protect the skilled against the talented.

It all comes down to niche protection.

Some of the game's niche protection from the past was pretty bad because it relied on spotlight balance. The game used to lock some actions to one some classes. Only rogues could open hard locks and disarm hard traps. Only rangers could track well without taking a huge cost for the tracking ability. Only bards could sing or play instrument at top levels.

5e removed most of this only purpose. It just made experts better and more likely to have the needed proficiency.

It is up to individual group if they want to add arbitrary niche protection back.

It all comes down to cinematic impact to me. I just want to make sure I'm not encouraging the 3E/Pathfinder method of everyone rolling where a natural 20 accomplishes something because 4 to 6 players are rolling their d20 multiple times. Or someone takes a 1 in a Knowledge skill with a high intelligence because they know the CR of all creatures in that category are low, so they don't need more skill points. Or any of the ridiculousness in a system with hard-coded DCs that let everyone roll increasing the chance they succeed to nearly 100% because eventually someone will get lucky.

I want skill proficiency to have meaning. I want to be able design challenges that only the big guy in the group can possibly pull off or that only the big brainy wizard can figure out. I don't want a bunch of random die rolls for any ability check turning skills into a probability roll based on an entire group getting to make the check. That system was no fun and the antithesis of interesting. It turned the skill system into a system of tedious rolling with very little narrative impact.

It was the very definition or "roll-playing" versus "role-playing."

 

[Minigiant]

It all comes down to cinematic impact to me. I just want to make sure I'm not encouraging the 3E/Pathfinder method of everyone rolling where a natural 20 accomplishes something because 4 to 6 players are rolling their d20 multiple times. Or someone takes a 1 in a Knowledge skill with a high intelligence because they know the CR of all creatures in that category are low, so they don't need more skill points. Or any of the ridiculousness in a system with hard-coded DCs that let everyone roll increasing the chance they succeed to nearly 100% because eventually someone will get lucky.

I want skill proficiency to have meaning. I want to be able design challenges that only the big guy in the group can possibly pull off or that only the big brainy wizard can figure out. I don't want a bunch of random die rolls for any ability check turning skills into a probability roll based on an entire group getting to make the check. That system was no fun and the antithesis of interesting. It turned the skill system into a system of tedious rolling with very little narrative impact.

Well you shouldn't have to do anything then.

1) There are no skill points by default. Therefore a PC can't snag 1 point and use ability score to claim mastery. Proficiency are have or have not.
2) You don't get many skill proficients. Only the skill classes bard, ranger, rogue) and the skills classes (elf, half elf) can get many. Most are stuck with 4 skills and maybe 1 tool. With 19 skills and all the tools, it's hand for a group under 7 member for cover all the skill with more than 2 members. Add in the skill you want everyone to get (Perception) and it gets harder.
3) Therefore there will be many skills and tools only 1 PC will has access too. Only if the players double up on purpose would no one have a unique skill or 3.

Think of it this way. Sure the cleric can take Survival and have a higher raw stat for it than the ranger. But now the cleric took that skill as one of his 4 skills and the ranger can outdo the cleric in Insight or Medicine with his 14 Wisdom score.

Basically it's a theorycraft problem. It only occurs in huge groups, redundant groups, and table with altered rules who create the problem themselves.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

No, no it isn't possible. 2d6+3 for the magical greatsword has a minimum damage of 5. 1d4+0 for your dagger gives a maximum of 4. You could never under my example do equal damage with an equal roll.

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.

The damage you do (still talking as a metaphor) has to do with training. The one with the +3 greatsword has training and the one with the dagger does not. The dagger (untrained) will never be able to do as much damage as the greatsword (trained) with an equal roll. There is a major 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?

Yes to all of those. People trained in climbing and jumping will kick my rear at those things.

 

[Maxperson]

It isn't a house rule. There are not hard-coded DCs save for very few things. There are very general DCs. Nowhere does it say that I can't make something harder for one individual than another. Sorry, you do not have a rule that says I cannot do it. So don't assume I'm using a house rule unless you have a very specific rule telling me I can't do something.

You and I seem to be in agreement on how to run skills, but the part I bolded above isn't true. When looking at what the rules allow, you can only go by what they say they allow. You cannot go by what it doesn't say you can do or not do. The instant you say that unless you have a specific rule telling you I can't do something, I can, you have just added 99.9999 of the entire universe to every rule as part of the rules. After all, no specific rule tells you that a fireball can't turn everything within 10 miles bright pink and pin those it hurts to the sky forever, so by your argument it wouldn't be a house rule for a fireball to do so. That's simply not the case.

For skills, the rules say that if you meet or exceed the rules you succeed, otherwise you fail. It doesn't say there are gradations to success, so there aren't. When I add a graded success based on trained vs untrained, I'm creating a house rule. What would not be a house rule would be if I didn't allow untrained people to roll at all. There is another specific rule that says that a roll is called for only if the outcome is in doubt, and I can rule that the chances of a untrained PC knowing or doing something is 0 and therefore not in doubt.

 

[Celtavian]

You and I seem to be in agreement on how to run skills, but the part I bolded above isn't true. When looking at what the rules allow, you can only go by what they say they allow. You cannot go by what it doesn't say you can do or not do. The instant you say that unless you have a specific rule telling you I can't do something, I can, you have just added 99.9999 of the entire universe to every rule as part of the rules. After all, no specific rule tells you that a fireball can't turn everything within 10 miles bright pink and pin those it hurts to the sky forever, so by your argument it wouldn't be a house rule for a fireball to do so. That's simply not the case.

For skills, the rules say that if you meet or exceed the rules you succeed, otherwise you fail. It doesn't say there are gradations to success, so there aren't. When I add a graded success based on trained vs untrained, I'm creating a house rule. What would not be a house rule would be if I didn't allow untrained people to roll at all. There is another specific rule that says that a roll is called for only if the outcome is in doubt, and I can rule that the chances of a untrained PC knowing or doing something is 0 and therefore not in doubt.

I agree for the most part. I'm speaking about this specific instance of skills and ability checks. I've read the skill and ability check section in PHB and DMG. I see nothing indicating that skills are objectively meaningful. I've read nothing to indicate that they are subjective either. All I see is a skill and ability check system that the DM uses to create challenges other than combat. That's why I don't think Hussar's view or my view or anyone else's are correct. 5E skill system is very much a "use skill and ability checks to checks to make the game more fun system in whatever way seems best for your group. Here's some very basic rules to use and some advice on how to use them".

This is very different from 3E/Pathfinder hard-coded skills and ability checks that were objectively meaningful or simulationist if you prefer that word. 5E skill and ability checks are very open-ended. You can do a lot of things with them in 5E to enhance the game. That very much means they are not objectively meaningful and can be used to represent a variety of narrative or mechanical concepts.