D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[Maxperson]

So, my 20th level fighter rolls what dice when he rolls damage with his greatsword? What damage dice does the peasant roll?

Ignoring that the trained fighter does more damage doesn't help your case.

Why is training effectively using a weapon that does triple the damage?

Um, analogy.

We're both making the same check, we both got the same final result on that check. But, for some bizarre reason, you're claiming that because you have training and I don't, you should potentially do triple my damage?

Yes. Training is absolutely huge.

Nothing in D&D works that way.

Asking about why we would change the rules to be a certain way and then responding with, "Nuh uh! It doesn't work that way in D&D." is extremely disingenuous of you. You are debating in bad faith and I'm going to bow out of this with you now.

 

[Dausuul]

In other words, you're okay with it being inconsistent. The result of a hit in combat is damage, but, the damage you deal is irrespective of training. A peasant with a great sword does the same damage as a 20th level fighter.

No. The fighter's hit is more effective, due to fighting style, improved crit chance (if playing a champion) or maneuvers (if playing a battlemaster), feats (if allowed by the DM), etc. The difference is not necessarily a large one, but it's there.

You're pretty much saying that natural talent doesn't matter. Or at least matters less than training.

I don't really see the problem with this. Natural talent does matter less than training. In just about any field of human activity, there are things a trained person can do that an untrained one can't, no matter how much raw talent the latter may possess.

 

[kalil]

As for comparing Int 18 with no training vs. Int 10 with training (level 9 so they have a +4 proficiency bonus); you're looking at someone who has an IQ near 200 (I forget the bell curve exactly here).

Off topic, but Int 18 would be around IQ140

 

[Tony Vargas]

No. The fighter's hit is more effective, due to fighting style, improved crit chance (if playing a champion) or maneuvers (if playing a battlemaster), feats (if allowed by the DM), etc. The difference is not necessarily a large one, but it's there.

So, if none of those ifs apply and the style is, for instance, protection, the fighter's hit is no different than the next guy's with the same STR? After 5th, though, the fighter is probably attacking more often, which, I guess, is just hitting more often (a /lot/ more often), just in a mechanically distinct way from merely having a larger bonus.

None of that really changes the binary nature of the d20 system. You match the DC or you don't.

I don't really see the problem with this. Natural talent does matter less than training. In just about any field of human activity, there are things a trained person can do that an untrained one can't, no matter how much raw talent the latter may possess.

Yes. Training is absolutely huge.

With some tasks more than others, which a system could model or gloss over. In 3.x, for instance, you had explicitly 'trained only' skills, in 4e training was a +5 to the roll. In 5e, training is less huge, until you get to high level, and/or unless you have expertise.

Asking about why we would change the rules to be a certain way and then responding with, "Nuh uh! It doesn't work that way in D&D." is

Par for the course for D&D discussions, really. D&D has a tremendous amount of inertia. Even when the current ed of actual D&D does something in a new/interesting/better/just-different way it can run afoul of "It doesn't work that way in D&D!"

 

[Celtavian]

In Out of the Abyss there is a part where only those proficient in Knowledge (Arcana) obtain any information a particular object. That's the kind of skill check manipulation I was referring to as allowed by the rules in 5E.

 

[Maxperson]

With some tasks more than others, which a system could model or gloss over. In 3.x, for instance, you had explicitly 'trained only' skills, in 4e training was a +5 to the roll. In 5e, training is less huge, until you get to high level, and/or unless you have expertise.

Right. I'm talking about a more realistic model of skills and training. A trained climber can attempt and succeed at things that would guarantee me maiming or death, and do it faster than I could on an easy rock. Training is more important than a stat when attempting to model things that way.

Par for the course for D&D discussions, really. D&D has a tremendous amount of inertia. Even when the current ed of actual D&D does something in a new/interesting/better/just-different way it can run afoul of "It doesn't work that way in D&D!"

Yeah. It's just more disappointing, because he knew we weren't talking about what the rules say when he asked.

 

[Maxperson]

In Out of the Abyss there is a part where only those proficient in Knowledge (Arcana) obtain any information a particular object. That's the kind of skill check manipulation I was referring to as allowed by the rules in 5E.

Right, and I agree. What that isn't, though, is engaging in 1) multiple different DCs for the same challenge, 2) engaging in different levels of success based on trained/untrained. The rules specifically say you only roll if the outcome is uncertain. What Out of the Abyss did is an example of saying that the outcome is only uncertain if you are trained.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Right. I'm talking about a more realistic model of skills and training. A trained climber can attempt and succeed at things that would guarantee me maiming or death, and do it faster than I could on an easy rock. Training is more important than a stat when attempting to model things that way.

Yeah. It's just more disappointing, because he knew we weren't talking about what the rules say when he asked.

That is what the athlete feat is for... Specialized training.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I don't really see the problem with this. Natural talent does matter less than training. In just about any field of human activity, there are things a trained person can do that an untrained one can't, no matter how much raw talent the latter may possess.

And yet the opposite can also be true. Do you believe, given enough training, you* could ever run faster than someone who is naturally gifted at being a really fast runner?

(*Not "you" specifically, but rather the stereotypical gamer)

 

[NotActuallyTim]

And yet the opposite can also be true. Do you believe, given enough training, you* could ever run faster than someone who is naturally gifted at being a really fast runner?

Of course...if that person hasn't also been training.

And that is actually simplifying it. Even running can vary in kind. Do you mean a sprint? A marathon? On average across different length races and terrains? With shoes on or not?

Training matters more because techniques can be improved, refined and varied. Experimented on. By direct contrast, even if there are are people who have a better body for some task, there's still only going to be one Usain Bolt. Believing that the form matters more than training implies the difference between a schmuck and an Olympian. And being an Olympian doesn't guarantee better performance at many somewhat related tasks-only having an advantage on some specific event.

Being Usain Bolt might help in a race, but using the stats to model him is silly, because those are going to assume a broader range of competence that he might possess. If his stats matter more than the Prof bonus, then they're going to also put capabilities into him that he doesn't have, like sword fighting, or hot-dog eating or rock skipping.

Handling the kind of advantage Bolt has over other runners is better represented with some specific and special bonus to that sort of task, beyond either the stats or the Prof bonus. Not necessarily the feat system. Maybe just a straight bonus that no one else can have.