D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[UngeheuerLich]

That sounds ok untilled you get half elf lore barded.

More problematic because it makes the level 10 rogue ability obsolete. I guess setting the floor to 5+bonus would be sufficientfor everyone. It is 10 at a good ability at level 1.

 

[Ovinomancer]

One house rule I've been mulling over using is that proficient users have a floor. Take 10, if you will, if the die roll isn't higher.

More problematic because it makes the level 10 rogue ability obsolete. I guess setting the floor to 5+bonus would be sufficientfor everyone. It is 10 at a good ability at level 1.

No it doesn't, because a rogue can still do that even if under pressure or if there's a penalty for failure.

ETA: well, you should ask for a check if there isn't a penalty for failure, so I really just mean 'under pressure'.

 

[Hussar]

How would I apply proficient vs non-proficient for a climb check? Easy, the proficient climber has the opportunity to assay the climb and choose an easier route (if one exists). The non-proficient climber does not. So the proficient can find an easier DC, and they can even take some time to share the details of that route with the non-proficient. The actual check might be the same DC, but the proficient has a chance of changing that DC. And, depending on the resultant DC, I might choose to not even require a roll from the proficient.

Which brings me to a question: for those arguing that it must be the same DC for everyone with the same results on a strictly pass/fail basis, would you ever allow a proficient person to auto-succeed while requiring the non-proficient to roll? If so, how is that different from setting different DCs, or varying the results of success?

Why is the proficient person auto-succeeding? Because their bonus is just that high? Then, sure, no problem. Otherwise, no, I would call for rolls.

Being proficient does not equal being a master at something. Especially in D&D. Good grief, barring other stuff, the difference between someone with zero skill and talent and a proficient, max bonus character is still only +11. ((Yeah, yeah, there's expertise and whatnot, I know that, but, otherwise, this is true). Which means that adventurers, barring those additional modifiers, are never so expert at something that someone else can't ever succeed where they fail.

What that +11 means is that you can attempt stuff that the unskilled person can't possibly succeed at - anything DC 21 or higher. So, in many situations, yeah, you're fantastic. But, sometimes, if the DC is under 20, there is a chance that the unskilled person can succeed where you fail. It happens. And it leads to more interesting stories IMO. Why did that unskilled guy succeed where you failed? What happened?

Making "Proficient" even better than it is just means that we should go back to the 3e days where you had those who could make the check and the rest don't even bother. Not interested. I love the fact that in bounded accuracy, anyone can potentially contribute to most scenarios. That's the point of bounded accuracy. So, why am I giving extra bennies to those who have proficiency? They already get pretty good benefits. It's just not worth the work to me.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Why is the proficient person auto-succeeding? Because their bonus is just that high? Then, sure, no problem. Otherwise, no, I would call for rolls.

Being proficient does not equal being a master at something. Especially in D&D. Good grief, barring other stuff, the difference between someone with zero skill and talent and a proficient, max bonus character is still only +11. ((Yeah, yeah, there's expertise and whatnot, I know that, but, otherwise, this is true). Which means that adventurers, barring those additional modifiers, are never so expert at something that someone else can't ever succeed where they fail.

What that +11 means is that you can attempt stuff that the unskilled person can't possibly succeed at - anything DC 21 or higher. So, in many situations, yeah, you're fantastic. But, sometimes, if the DC is under 20, there is a chance that the unskilled person can succeed where you fail. It happens. And it leads to more interesting stories IMO. Why did that unskilled guy succeed where you failed? What happened?

Making "Proficient" even better than it is just means that we should go back to the 3e days where you had those who could make the check and the rest don't even bother. Not interested. I love the fact that in bounded accuracy, anyone can potentially contribute to most scenarios. That's the point of bounded accuracy. So, why am I giving extra bennies to those who have proficiency? They already get pretty good benefits. It's just not worth the work to me.

In your opinion, does proficiency at a skill represent anything other than a mechanical plus to checks?

 

[Hussar]

Well, proficiency means that your training is such that eventually you will be capable of things that natural talent cannot accomplish.

 

[Horwath]

As some stated I would like to see that is you have skill/tool trained lowes die roll is 5.

that gives you a sense of consistency it that you are skill as you cannot fail mundane tasks. Unless low key ability or low level so there is low proficiency bonus.

Rogues lvl11 still get roll 10 minimun so they have big edge there.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, proficiency means that your training is such that eventually you will be capable of things that natural talent cannot accomplish.

In reality, that isn't true. Natural talent doesn't match training. Training > natural talent. However, training + natural talent > than training. That's why I change the rules the way I do. The rules fail to adequately model skills. They also negate player choice. I player choosing proficiency with a skill is saying they want to be good at it. When everyone can roll and as a result, they are often not even the best roll at the table, that choice is negated.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, proficiency means that your training is such that eventually you will be capable of things that natural talent cannot accomplish.

The difference between max natural talent and max proficiency is one point. How does a +1 allow you to do things natural talent won't?

 

[Azurewraith]

The difference between max natural talent and max proficiency is one point. How does a +1 allow you to do things natural talent won't?

1 point is the difference between life and death!

 

[Ovinomancer]

1 point is the difference between life and death!

Sure, but that wasn't the question.