D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[Maxperson]

But identical rolls don't have different results. Both attacks hit. That is the result of an attack roll. Damage is a separate roll completely unrelated to the attack roll save in cases of a critical hit.

The result of a hit is not a hit. The result of a hit is damage. If that damage is different, the result is different.

 

[Celtavian]

If you are referring to this quote, then it doesn't say what you are indicating it says.



That paragraph just tells you to establish new DCs or changing existing DCs as put forth in the section that says pass/fail. It doesn't say that the DC can be different for various PCs or that success can have grades. Even including that paragraph, DCs are still binary. Pass or fail.

It very much does say the DM determines how the check works. You keep citing pass/fail. I'm not arguing that at all. What I'm telling you and everyone else on this thread is that I write different DCs for different characters based on something I consider substantial in the game world, I can do that and it is within the rules. Not a house rule.

I do not have to let everyone roll. It has stated in the skill and ability section that I decide how something works and when a roll is needed. That includes saying a 7 foot goliath doesn't need to make a climb check to pull himself up up a 10 foot wall because he's strong enough to pull himself up while making a gnome make a DC 10 or 15 climb check because he can't reach the top easily. In in the 5E skill system, I can very much look at the challenge from a viewpoint that a PC with with a different ability might have a much easier time doing something than a PC without that ability. Yes, I can very much do that.

The skill and ability system is a pass/fail system. But nowhere does it say everyone gets to roll. Nowhere does it say every check is the same for everyone. It doesn't say that at all. It's very much encourages the use of the skill system to enhance the game including highlighting someone's character by making them the only one capable of doing something if you as a DM think it will make for an interesting play.

So this whole, "It's pass/fail" has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. That passage very much says "It's your job to establish the DC for an ability check or saving throw." That means I write it as I want it to work. It doesn't mean I have to say it's a DC 20 check Knowledge Arcana check, everyone can roll. Nowhere does it say I have to do it that way. So don't try to tell me it does.

If all you're going to do is say again, "It's pass/fail" when that isn't the discussion, I guess we're done.

What I'm looking for is someone to show me where it says the DM can't write a skill or ability check in a fashion that provides more information to a person with the actual skill. In fact, I'm looking for someone to show me any limitations on how I write a skill or ability check or a monster as a DM. I'm looking for them to show me where I can't write a check to make a particular PC standout. I'm looking it where it says everyone gets to roll even if they have no reason to know anything about what is being rolled for. Or that everyone gets to pick locks or the like. I'm looking for the rule where I have to write a DC in that fashion. I'm sure not seeing it anywhere in the books like I did in Pathfinder/3E.

Pathfinder/3E had DCs listed for locks, doors, traps, break DCs, diseases, poisons, just about everything had a DC listed that was hard-coded into the system and objectively meaningful. There was very little latitude for going outside those parameters without having to change a few things. It was very clear who was able to roll for what. Pathfinder/3E had an objectively meaningful skill and ability check system meant to provide a touchstone for player and DMs to follow that didn't leave the DM much room for interpretation. I'm not seeing that in 5E at all.

I'm seeing a skill and ability check system that is meant to have impact. If it doesn't, you don't even bother using it. You hand wave it and let the players move on. So the only time you're using a skill or ability check is if it has meaning. If you want to use a skill and ability check to highlight a particular PC, you can write that skill or ability check so they are the only one that can take a crack at the skill or ability check. There is no rule I've seen that indicates I cannot do skill and ability checks in this fashion. Until I see that rule produced by someone, I'm going to keep doing it the way I do it. I won't be having someone tell me it is a house rule when they can't point to all these objectively meaningful DCs.

Skill and ability checks should be used to enhance the game. Anyone that is using them in the same fashion as 3E/Pathfinder where everyone gets to roll is not utilizing the system to its fullest to enhance the player experience, to really make the rogue feel like a rogue or the egghead wizard feel like an egghead. I won't be forced into that box now that I'm not playing Pathfinder/3E.

 

[Celtavian]

You've moved the goalposts here though. Now it's a question of whether or not the character can make a check at all. Fair enough. And certainly an interpretation I can get behind. But that's not the issue. We've allowed both players to make a check and both players have achieved identical scores. But, because of proficiency, you have determined that one player gets a better result than the other player, despite the fact that they have both achieved exactly the same score.

That's the issue that I have.

And, please stop trying to quote chapter and verse on this. We're already into interpretation land, so, unless you can quote chapter and verse that says that proficiency grants better results, you have no more leg to stand on than I do, and considerably less since several skills DO have objective standards. Climbing and jumping and stealth come to mind immediately.

Then I'm in agreement with you. If I say DC 20 to know this and I consider it general knowledge for a particular skill, then whoever makes the roll gets the same information.

If I write the check that proficiency grants better results, then it does. That is already covered in the "DM decides how the check works." The part I do agree with you on is once I set it, it runs that way. If I'm doing stuff on the fly or following the rules for say Stealth, Jumping, and Climbing, then I use them as listed. If I want to say something like this cliff is so harrowing, that only a person with at least a +4 proficiency and 15 dex can attempt to climb it with any success, I can do that even if only one player can manage the climb. Because that would be the DM using the skill and ability check system to allow a player or two to shine in a fashion no one else can in a non-combat challenge. I think that is very much a part of the 5E system.

It's an impactful skill challenge that highlights the difficulty of climbing a particular cliff and it might allow a ranger with survival mountain or a rogue with athletic expertise to stand out doing something amazing that isn't combat. I like a skill system that leaves room for that kind of fun.

Anyway, I'm done with this odd conversation. I like the open-ended and interpretative nature of the 5E skill and ability check system. I plan to continue to use it to enhance my game in creative ways. I'm glad the simulationist approach of 3E/Pathfinder is not part of the system. I was so tired of five or six die rolls around the table for every check anyone could make. Some guy gets a lucky roll and knows more than the skilled rogue or highly intelligent wizard. Made it all seem like a big waste of time. I much prefer a skill system that lets me allow a player to shine based on some aspect of their character rather than a lucky die roll and good attribute.

 

[Uchawi]

You will have to be prepared as a DM to explain why a player/character can not roll. But the skill system really is no different from any other version of D&D, except those that did not have explicit skills. The bounds have changed, and it is more abstract. Plus some additional features like tool proficiencies were added. But overall the approach 5E has taken is not ground breaking in any sense when looking at 3E or 4E in my opinion. The DM was always free to establish a DC, whether they are consistent versus arbitrary when doing it is another discussion.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Maybe use the rule: if its your field of proficiency, you don't have to roll for DC = int score.

 

[Celtavian]

You will have to be prepared as a DM to explain why a player/character can not roll. But the skill system really is no different from any other version of D&D, except those that did not have explicit skills. The bounds have changed, and it is more abstract. Plus some additional features like tool proficiencies were added. But overall the approach 5E has taken is not ground breaking in any sense when looking at 3E or 4E in my opinion. The DM was always free to establish a DC, whether they are consistent versus arbitrary when doing it is another discussion.

If this were true, the term rules lawyer would not have been so prevalent during 3E/Pathfinder. That systems skill and ability check system was not friendly to DMs. Then again the entire system was not friendly to DMs.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If this were true, the term rules lawyer would not have been so prevalent during 3E/Pathfinder. That systems skill and ability check system was not friendly to DMs. Then again the entire system was not friendly to DMs.

Do you believe the term occurred only after 3e launched? Because I assure you, from everything I've heard, "rules lawyer" and "munchkin" have been with us nearly as long as there's been social discussion of the game, those terms have been used. Given the age listed on your profile, this is probably already known to you, but...

 

[Minigiant]

Maybe use the rule: if its your field of proficiency, you don't have to roll for DC = int score.

There is a DMG variant for that.

Autosuccess.

You automatically succeed on DC that are Ability Score - 5.
You automatically succeed on DC 10 or less checks if you have proficiency.
You automatically succeed on DC 15 or less checks if you have proficiency and are level 11 or greater.

Considering that
Very Easy = DC 5
Easy = DC 10
Moderate = DC 15
Hard = DC 20
Very Hard = DC 25
Nearly Impossible = DC 30

It looks good. I might run that variant by the group.

 

[Maxperson]

It very much does say the DM determines how the check works. You keep citing pass/fail. I'm not arguing that at all. What I'm telling you and everyone else on this thread is that I write different DCs for different characters based on something I consider substantial in the game world, I can do that and it is within the rules. Not a house rule.

Where? The DMG paragraph you cited says to set DCs using the PHB rules. The PHB rules do not say that you can set different DCs for different PCs for the same task.

I do not have to let everyone roll. It has stated in the skill and ability section that I decide how something works and when a roll is needed. That includes saying a 7 foot goliath doesn't need to make a climb check to pull himself up up a 10 foot wall because he's strong enough to pull himself up while making a gnome make a DC 10 or 15 climb check because he can't reach the top easily. In in the 5E skill system, I can very much look at the challenge from a viewpoint that a PC with with a different ability might have a much easier time doing something than a PC without that ability. Yes, I can very much do that.

You do not have to let everyone roll. However, there is no rule that says you can vary the DCs for PCs that you allow to roll regarding the same task.

The skill and ability system is a pass/fail system. But nowhere does it say everyone gets to roll. Nowhere does it say every check is the same for everyone. It doesn't say that at all. It's very much encourages the use of the skill system to enhance the game including highlighting someone's character by making them the only one capable of doing something if you as a DM think it will make for an interesting play.

It's in the Ability Checks section. "For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task." It calls for the (singular) difficulty of the task. Everyone gets to roll against "the" DC.

What I'm looking for is someone to show me where it says the DM can't write a skill or ability check in a fashion that provides more information to a person with the actual skill. In fact, I'm looking for someone to show me any limitations on how I write a skill or ability check or a monster as a DM. I'm looking for them to show me where I can't write a check to make a particular PC standout. I'm looking it where it says everyone gets to roll even if they have no reason to know anything about what is being rolled for. Or that everyone gets to pick locks or the like. I'm looking for the rule where I have to write a DC in that fashion. I'm sure not seeing it anywhere in the books like I did in Pathfinder/3E.

It has been shown to you. You just don't want to see it. Maybe you are adverse to house rules, so if different DCs for the same task is a house rule that will be bad for you somehow. I don't know. The rules, though, are written for one DC to apply to everyone and for the effect to be pass/fail.

 

[Jaelommiss]

You do not have to let everyone roll. However, there is no rule that says you can vary the DCs for PCs that you allow to roll regarding the same task.

The obvious solution then is to not make it the same task for everyone.

The wizard trained in all things magical makes a DC 10 Intelligence (Arcana) check to recognize those glyphs on the door as a magical seal designed to keep something inside. He simultaneously makes a DC 20 Intelligence (Arcana) check to recognize that it was written in human blood, and that that can be used to seal away a specific type of aberrant creature.

Because they have no training in magic, the rogue and barbarian may not attempt the previous two checks, but instead may attempt a DC 15 Intelligence check to remember a time when they came across similar looking magic squiggles that were protecting a valuable item.

As the DM I wouldn't bother explaining that they were making different checks unless they asked. I would just call out for an Intelligence (Arcana) and go from there based on the results.

Fortunately for me, my players recognize that I am handling a lot of information that they aren't privy to and are happy to accept that I had a good reason for the wizard's 12 to trump the rogue's 19.