D&D 5E Overcoming Bounded Accuracy

[slobster]

If the end result is the character needs to roll an 11 on a d20 to hit, does it matter if the bonus is +7 or +27?

"...but...but this goes to eleven..."

I'm sure you've heard the arguments for why there is some difference. A sense of progress; those giants you fought at level 13 can't scratch your armor at level 22. You're just that good. And Hercules doesn't struggle to force open an iron door, because he's just that epic.

It's easy to tack on and some people want it, so why object to the existence of it as a module?

 

[Kinak]

Did some math to see if I was totally off base. A +3 difference means the underdog will win (or tie) an opposed roll 38.25% of the time. A +10 difference means the underdog will win (or tie) 13.75% of the time.

The default there is 55% (because I'm counting ties). So a +3 bonus effects the outcome 16.75% of the time. A +10 bonus effects the outcome 41.25% of the time.

I really don't want training to matter 1 in 6 (or 1 in 7 without ties) times my players are rolling for something. I can make it be a story element and even fiat some successes, but the mechanics aren't living up those when they are called upon in play.

In that specific example I'd allow the blacksmiths to take a 10, thus solving that problem, but in general I see your issue with the system.

I think we're on the same page there.

I generally just overrule the dice if I realize something dumb had happened. But I'd really rather dumb stuff didn't happen in the first place.

You could have skill training for everyone work like skill mastery for rogues (minus the +3 stat floor). It would mean you have to give some new presents to rogues, but would it be a step in the right direction, in your opinion?

I'd say it's a step in the right direction, but it's really easier just to up the bonus.

Giving a +10 bonus provides consistency (just due to the size of the modifier) and also creates "trained only" tasks without having to explicitly spell it out.

It's worth noting that, in 3rd, a trained first level character is +6 vs. an untrained one (because of the -2 untrained penalty). That increases to +25 by 20th level without talking about attributes at all. A +10 bonus isn't really groundbreaking.

Part of the D&D Next design is that you don't make people roll for things that are easy. I mean, you don't need rules to scale probabilities by level for something like that. Just use common sense.

While your examples are super-awesome and I'd cheerfully play the game you're describing, I don't think that's D&D Next yet.

The problem isn't in asking whether one player succeeds or fails at their task, it's in the comparison of their abilities. If the fighter and the wizard are both trying to inspire a crowd, both have good Charisma, but only the wizard is trained in oratory, what happens?

I think it's pretty clear from the playtest materials that one player's result of 15 is supposed to be interpreted the same as another player's result of 15. There's nothing, for example, suggesting that opposed checks should be made differently if only one side is trained.

Now, what you're talking about is kind of how some of the Background abilities work, like the Bounty Hunter. You can't really fail to track someone, just get complications. I love those and would keep them even if I didn't bother with skills, but a +3 on tracking rolls doesn't sell the character as a super tracker.

A D20 check models exciting, random, combat-like things ok. Where speed is of the essence, and/or anyone could get lucky, or there is lots of distraction.

I would advise not using it for many other situations.

I agree. It really only handles random situations.

Unfortunately, there isn't any chance involved in skill checks short of going straight to the D20. It's GM fiat or d20. So I'd like to see them either introduce a new intermediate stage or increase the skill bonus substantially.

1) Threshold skill, below which you cannot attempt an action, or you have disadvantage.

2) "Needs 2 successes out of 3" for something that might take a while.

I'd be surprised if they didn't have some tasks requiring multiple checks, although I'm curious if they try to bring back skill challenges.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[nightwalker450]

Another way to improve skills is to remove the d20 variability. So that your skill/stat matters more than the dice roll.

Roll either 2d10, or 3d6 (5d4 if you really want to get crazy). This way your rolls will tend more towards the middle of the range instead of being so ridiculously random. I'd actually prefer this for rogues, instead of always 10.. start them at 2d10, and level their skill up by giving them more reliability.

For attacks, your level is already represented, and doesn't need to be done by bonuses to defenses/attacks. You are highly skilled because the level 1 person will need to hit you half a dozen times to reduce you to half your life... While at the same time, you'll have to be pulling your attacks in order not to outright kill the person in one swing. Hit points are the representation of your combat skill, more than hit/miss is.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I'm sure you've heard the arguments for why there is some difference. A sense of progress; those giants you fought at level 13 can't scratch your armor at level 22. You're just that good. And Hercules doesn't struggle to force open an iron door, because he's just that epic.

It's easy to tack on and some people want it, so why object to the existence of it as a module?

Who has done that?

I'm all for some advancement/characters getting higher numbers, but the 3rd and 4th Ed system of having +39 and or what-have-you to attack seems excessive, marginalises the d20.

 

[slobster]

Who has done that?

I'm all for some advancement/characters getting higher numbers, but the 3rd and 4th Ed system of having +39 and or what-have-you to attack seems excessive, marginalises the d20.

Of course, it doesn't marginalize the d20 in the sense that a +345 to hit AC 355 has the same odds as a +2 to hit AC 12.

Tacking on numbers to all attack rolls and defenses could rightly be called pointless inflation: it doesn't affect the odds to hit. Increasing the numbers as characters level, by contrast, does introduce different interactions and yields the sense of forward progress that some people enjoy.

Some people like big numbers at big levels. It appeals on a basic level, even if part of that is tricking your sensibilities since % to hit an enemy of your level remains rather constant over the course of the game. And of course it gives you constant improvement from normal to heroic to mythic in power.

Some people find large numbers to be distasteful and prefer bounded progression. It seems like the dice is more important and the world less swingy, even if part of that is tricking their sensibilities since the % to hit an enemy isn't changed if you're rolling +33 against 43 or +3 against 13. And of course it prevents the crazy inflation that means that any high level character is a mythically powerful force that can't be challenged by any number of "normal" foes.

It's all down to taste.

 

[billd91]

Removing the 1/2 level bonus shenanigans from all character's and monster's Attacks, Defences and Skills really helped my 4th Ed campaign.

Do you find that emphasizes the stat bonuses, and thus the initial stat selection, too much? That's one benefit of level-based bonuses, independent of stats. Experience eventually become more of a factor than raw talent. I like that idea, which is why I don't want bounded accuracy to completely do away with level-based bonuses.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

That's absolutely true but, to me, just speaks to the problem. The attribute is the more important part and even that gets drowned out by the d20 in normal cases.

I feel that, if we're talking about the difference between your competent and incompetent character, one of them should be forced off the d20. If an incompetent blacksmith has a 10% chance to make a horseshoe (not just getting a lucky 20, succeeding just because it has a low DC), why does the competent blacksmith still have a 40% chance of failure?

You can take a 10 to make a horseshoe, unless the forge is under attack or something (in which case there are plenty of good reasons why an experienced smith might screw up).

As to your main point - if we take a skill like Diplomacy, I think maybe their approach makes sense. No matter how many self-help books you read on "making a good impression," if you're ugly and/or rude (represented by a low Charisma) you're probably not going to be the world's best diplomat. No matter how long you've trained as a blacksmith, if you're wimpy as a schoolgirl (low Str) you're not going to be forging awesome weapons. The trick is that IRL, training often coincides with increasing your ability scores - you become a great blacksmith by raising your Strength/Dex AND by learning technique. Ability scores increase slowly in D&D because by the time you're first level, you're already in the top echelon of natural and trained ability: depending on your class, you've been studying, practicing, and exercising to hone your natural talents.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

A few test cases to think about:

1. A feeble but powerful wizard (Wiz20, 8 Str) arm-wrestles a low-level bar tough (Commoner 1, 16 Str). Who should win?

2. A fighter with mediocre dexterity and absolutely no training in acrobatics tries to cross a wobbly rope bridge. Should he be better at it at level 20 than he is at level 1, if he NEVER improves his dexterity or trains a skill?

3. A high-level wizard (Wiz20) gets caught in an anti-magic zone by a few street thugs and has to tussle with his trusty dagger. Should he be able to easily hit them? Should they be able to easily hit him?

For #1 , a 3e or 5e wizard would lose but a 4e wizard would win.

For #2 , a 5e fighter would NOT get better, but a 4e fighter would. A 3e fighter would depend whether the DM used a Reflex save or a Climb or Use Rope check.

For #3 , in any edition the wizard would have a bunch of HP (compared to low-level mooks). A 5e wizard would have mediocre attack bonuses and AC, almost unchanged from first level. (He might well lose.) A 4e wizard would have a bunch of HP, +10 AC, and +10 to hit - he would almost certainly win, probably without taking a scratch. And a 3e wizard would have the same +10 to hit but no AC bonus - he could hit every round, but he might still get beaten down.

Personally, I think the 4e approach gets silly with stuff like Strength checks. If you're honestly getting better at every single thing you use all your ability scores for, then those ability scores should improve. There are some cases where you can fudge things ("years of dungeon-traipsing have taught the wizard the best technique for kicking down doors") but it gets a bit silly.

But at the same time, a high-level character should be a bit of a badass all around. A level 20 character has survived hundreds of epic battles with demons and demigods - should he really have trouble with a locked wooden door?

Overall I guess I'd side with the "bounded accuracy" approach, because when in doubt, go with less bookkeeping. The onus is then on the designers to make sure that high-level characters have badass ways to deal with a wide range of situations. (For example, a fighter shouldn't lose 90% of his effectiveness when the enemy is hovering 10 feet in the air, and the world shouldn't be full of monsters immune to Sneak Attack.) As others mentioned with the first door thread, a level 20 character doesn't have to make a Pick Lock check to open a wooden door - he can blast it apart with hardly a thought, or phase step through it, or rewrite the fabric of the universe so that the guy who installed it was never born, or whatever.

 

[pemerton]

A few test cases to think about:

1. A feeble but powerful wizard (Wiz20, 8 Str) arm-wrestles a low-level bar tough (Commoner 1, 16 Str). Who should win?

<snip>

For #1 , a 3e or 5e wizard would lose but a 4e wizard would win.

<snip>

Personally, I think the 4e approach gets silly with stuff like Strength checks. If you're honestly getting better at every single thing you use all your ability scores for, then those ability scores should improve.

<snip>

Overall I guess I'd side with the "bounded accuracy" approach, because when in doubt, go with less bookkeeping. The onus is then on the designers to make sure that high-level characters have badass ways to deal with a wide range of situations.

<snip>

As others mentioned with the first door thread, a level 20 character doesn't have to make a Pick Lock check to open a wooden door - he can blast it apart with hardly a thought, or phase step through it, or rewrite the fabric of the universe so that the guy who installed it was never born, or whatever.

I just wanted to say - the way that 4e handles the requirements of your last paragraph is (among other things) by granting a level bonus to all checks. The 4e epic wizard beats the commoner at arm wrestling because, with a thought, that wizard can rewrite the fabric of the universe!

 

[GX.Sigma]

A few test cases to think about

It was interesting to answer these. My answers to 1 and three were that the wizard sucks at that stuff, so the commoners should easily win. But my answer to #2 was that the fighter should be totally able to do it, because as an experienced adventurer he has to be better at this stuff than he was at the start of his career. He's not necessarily more dextrous, but his experience allows him to do it better.

But that cast doubt on my wizard answers. A Wiz 20 has lots of experience being in fights, so why wouldn't he be better in a knife-fight than a Wiz 1?

Here are some more to think about:

1. You are a normal man, and a wizard casts hold person on you. Should it be harder to escape a greater wizard's hold?
2. Who has a better chance of taking down a rampaging dragon: an army of militiamen, or a small group of highly trained combatants? Which answer would make more sense in terms of a realistic world? Which would make more sense in terms of a fictional story? Which would make more sense in terms of a game? Are they the same?