Fully Bounded Accuracy [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Cybren

2016-06-22, 04:02 PM

If I may:

The trouble with the base system of bonuses is that the DM has to change the numbers to challenge one party vs another. Say you're using this system and use DC 30 as a heroic, "convince someone to defy their God"-tier persuasion check. Well, who's in your party?

If there's a lore bard, and he uses his features correctly, then he can't fail that check. You have to change this DC if you don't want the party to automatically hit it.

However, if you don't have bards or rogues in the party, and nobody is casting guidance, then that 30 is properly heroic. No change needed.

What Kryx's system does is prevent DMs from ever needing, or even being encouraged, to change DCs depending on party composition. This is much easier for DMs and campaign designers to work with.

And, as an added bonus, things like out-wrestling a 30 strength demigod really do require heroic checks, some sort of artifact, or magical / divine assistance. Much like a wizard can't push his DCs over a specific number, the rogue and bard can't push their skill checks over a certain limit, either.

In short, this system fits better with the rest of 5e and its stated design goals. It's not a solution looking for a problem, obviously, because people have been debating expertise ever since 5e's release.

Why would you change DCs? The lore bard should be succeeding, if it's a task possible of success and they invested in being good at it. The skill & ability check system isn't all-encompassing, and it isn't meant to replace other class features. You can't mind control with persuasion, but you could convince someone to do something in your favor. You can't talk Obama into nuking china with a single skill check, but you could convince him to do something he was considering that one of his cabinet was pushing for.

Socratov

2016-06-22, 04:04 PM

While I think that it could work, that soft stacking goes against the whole principle (each advantage a +1 or +2 means the cap increases once again), and that advantage eventually tapers off in usefulness. Eventually advatnage tapers off in what it actually adds statistically speaking which 1) cheapens a cool way for the DM to award player creativity and/or tactical planning, and 2: makes sure that you penalise players who are actaully expecting to be competent (in this case expertise) in a certain skill since luck will become a much bigger factor then just being good at something. it also makes the skilled feat a bit powerful since ti effectively grants (at lvl 19) a +6 to 3 skills. Then there is the rogue and bard. They get advantage on a couple of skills and that's it?

And then the spells, do you nreally need to nerf bless and bane as much? Adn the Cleric's boosts: they are meant to be a big deal, now all they grant is another stack of advantage.

I think that while it might be more balanced, that ithe wonder has gone away somewhat: no progression for the battlemaster of his awesomness in terms of superiority dice. Teh same goes for bardic inspiration. What' smore, classes become even more front-loaded as it doesn't matter how far you take battlemaster fighter, once is enough then you go rogue (get advantage on lots of skills) but are good enough to get lods of sneak attack. What's more, the effects of bless, bardic inspiration, bless etc. make the rogue an expecialy strong sneak attacker.

What I'm saying is that it could be an entertaining feature, but ultimately I'd rathe rplay with the modifiers. Even if that means that some people can't get with it some of the time and that some people will auto succeed on certain checks. Then again, competency is in investment and IMO worth the reward. But those are just my 2 cents.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-22, 04:05 PM

Why would you change DCs? The lore bard should be succeeding, if it's a task possible of success and they invested in being good at it. The skill & ability check system isn't all-encompassing, and it isn't meant to replace other class features. You can't mind control with persuasion, but you could convince someone to do something in your favor. You can't talk Obama into nuking china with a single skill check, but you could convince him to do something he was considering that one of his cabinet was pushing for.

On heroic checks every single time? That reeks of 3.5e, where DMs had to go to great lengths to keep everyone on the same playing field. There's a reason why tiers exist, and it's not because people liked some classes better.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-06-22, 04:07 PM

So in a nutshell, Advantage stacks and anything that once gave a numerical bonus now gives Advantage? It's a fine rule, one supposes. Simplifies some mechanics, albeit in a largely unnecessary way. I can get behind that.

Though (and you may consider this off-topic) I've calculated that you only see 60-65% success rates with Expertise (assuming that a Moderate DC is appropriate for a level 1, Hard for level 10, and Very Hard for a level 20)

Cybren

2016-06-22, 04:10 PM

On heroic checks every single time? That reeks of 3.5e, where DMs had to go to great lengths to keep everyone on the same playing field. There's a reason why tiers exist, and it's not because people liked some classes better.

Why are you assuming people are on the same playing field? Players shouldn't be fighting each other to see who gets to roll a skill check.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-22, 04:23 PM

Why are you assuming people are on the same playing field? Players shouldn't be fighting each other to see who gets to roll a skill check.

Players shouldn't be fighting each other at all. By playing field, I mean effectiveness. A dedicated stun Monk can deliver 4 stunning strikes in a round, six with action surge if he dips. But those stuns have a maximum DC of 19, meaning they can be resisted. A Lore bard, on the other hand, can break heroic checks with every roll. Assuming it's possible, he gets it done every time. He's more effective at his role than the Monk.

Consider the following. One might use the persuade skill to convince enemy forces to surrender, or Deception to convince them they're fighting for the wrong side an in fact he has their best interests in mind. Depending on the situation and opponents, I'd put that check anywhere from 15 - 30.

Uh oh, someone picked a Lore Bard. Now, he can convince anyone of anything at any time, assuming it's possible. Here are my options:

Tell him it's impossible, which will lead to a justified argument about whether it should work
Adjust the DC, which I'm not supposed to do and don't want to do
Let it happen, and try to design the rest of the campaign such that skill checks don't have too much effect, something my players will notice

Or, I can just use this system, turning his bonuses into sources of advantage. Now, he hits those heroic checks more often than the others, but not every single time.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-06-22, 04:33 PM

Easy_Lee

2016-06-22, 04:44 PM

At 20th level, you're talking what... 12+5+d12+d4? That gives you an 82% chance of hitting DC 30,with magical aid. That's not unreasonable for level 20. Especially if you don't create the expectation that social skills are mind control.

Copied from Reddit:
Bards can get Guidance through Magical Secrets (Bard Class Feature)... but it's a bit of a waste.

Alternatively the Feat route;
Magic Initiate: Adds 2 Cantrips and 1 first level Spell to you, Can select Cleric. Just pick buffs and a low Wisdom won't really matter.

Which means it's entirely possible a non-optimised single classed Bard with no feats could learn Guidance and make a DC 35 check easily using just class features.

d20+2d12+17+d4 = Minimum 21 - Maximum 65, Average 43

The core point isn't how likely the bard is to make a given check, although that's a big part of it. The point is that, unlike attacks and AC and saves and attributes and every other pillar of d&d 5e, skills have no bounds. They keep going right on to infinity / however many features you can add together.

And that's in addition to bards being able to, quite easily, achieve well over an 80% success rate on the most legendary of legendary checks, many times per day. That's comparable to being able to hit a God 80% of the time, or being able to stunlock Cthulu 80% of the time, or a target having a 10% chance to make his save or die check. It just doesn't fit the stated goals of 5e.

With advantage, the numbers don't get any higher, the averages do. And it'd be easy for a DM to limit sources of stacking advantage if things got out of hand.

MrStabby

2016-06-22, 04:53 PM

What you consider a feature I consider a bug. Here are some great examples to illustrate the issue:

Maybe it is a matter of choice. The example you gave is actually an example i could give to show why non-stacking advantage is great. It actually seems pretty appropriate to me in the example you quoted.

Kryx

2016-06-22, 05:14 PM

While I think that it could work, that soft stacking goes against the whole principle (each advantage a +1 or +2 means the cap increases once again)
Indeed soft stacking goes against the principle of no small bonuses. But if it's the only small bonus... ;)
I think that is the mindset that the developers used when creating the system, but then the number of small bonuses added up. But truthfully rolling 3 times is too powerful for stacking so +1 seems the most appropriate option imo.

cheapens a cool way for the DM to award player creativity and/or tactical planning
A few more advantages doesn't really cheapen advantage overall. It probably varies game to game, but I rarely see these kind of abilities stacked with advantage. And if you do see those cases then those cases are already auto-successed which this tries to prevent.

2: makes sure that you penalise players who are actaully expecting to be competent (in this case expertise) in a certain skill since luck will become a much bigger factor then just being good at something.
Actually if you look at the table comparisons Advantage is a better ensurer that a skilled person will roll decently during the early to mid levels

it also makes the skilled feat a bit powerful since ti effectively grants (at lvl 19) a +6 to 3 skills.
This has not been changed. The skilled feat previously gave 3 proficiencies and it still does.

Then there is the rogue and bard. They get advantage on a couple of skills and that's it?
Look at the graph please. Advantage on a skill is a huge boon still. Beyond that a Rogue does great DPR and a bard has more uses for Bardic Inspiration (short rest).

And then the spells, do you nreally need to nerf bless and bane as much?
Bane is 3 cases of disadvantage on any 3 attacks or saving throws that you choose. Combine that with a CC spell and that is incredible powerful for a 1st level spell.

Adn the Cleric's boosts: they are meant to be a big deal, now all they grant is another stack of advantage.
Auto hit vs much more likely to hit and more damage. Pretty comparable.

no progression for the battlemaster of his awesomness in terms of superiority dice.......it doesn't matter how far you take battlemaster fighter
Battle master still progresses his supriority dice for everything but the listed item. Damage still increases.
No need to embellish.

What's more, the effects of bless, bardic inspiration, bless etc. make the rogue an expecialy strong sneak attacker.
The rogue needs no help doing damage. Please see "DPR of Classes" which include none of these items. All of these items would be more effective on a -5/+10 build anyways.

So in a nutshell, Advantage stacks and anything that once gave a numerical bonus now gives Advantage?
Pretty much the summary of it, yup!

Regarding the calculation: Easy_Lee summarized it well. And also summarized the goal of the system:

With advantage, the numbers don't get any higher, the averages do. And it'd be easy for a DM to limit sources of stacking advantage if things got out of hand.

Maybe it is a matter of choice.
Indeed. Some people enjoy different things. For example some people enjoy PCs having a 10% chance to succeed on saving throws at top tier. I don't. :)

MaxWilson

2016-06-22, 05:15 PM

Uh oh, someone picked a Lore Bard. Now, he can convince anyone of anything at any time, assuming it's possible. Here are my options:

Tell him it's impossible, which will lead to a justified argument about whether it should work
Adjust the DC, which I'm not supposed to do and don't want to do
Let it happen, and try to design the rest of the campaign such that skill checks don't have too much effect, something my players will notice

Or, I can just use this system, turning his bonuses into sources of advantage. Now, he hits those heroic checks more often than the others, but not every single time.

Sounds like you need more clear rules about what is possible and what isn't. Players need to be able to predict what kinds of things make persuasion possible vs. impossible.

The DC for inventing a process for turning water and electricity into ammonia for explosives is finite, because the reaction is physically possible. (Re-inventing Haber-Bosch.) The DC for turning water into ammonia for explosives is N/A, because the reaction is unphysical and impossible.

If you can map out what it would take to convince the enemy to surrender, then you can have a conversation with the player (in or out of character) which will empower him to meet his goals, if they are indeed possible.

King Kalwraith of the Gnomes is invading Oz. Player's goal is to get him to withdraw peacefully.

Kalwraith's constraint map:
A (fundamental, Insight DC 12 to perceive). Lusts for fame and appreciation.
B (fundamental, Insight DC 6 to perceive). Loves his daughter.
C (depends on A, Insight DC 14 to perceive). Believes that gnomes will appreciate him for his victory over Oz, if successful. This belief is false, but no one in his inner circle doubts it. Persuadable otherwise, but a heartfelt, longstanding belief: DC 20, for anyone who is in his inner circle. (Opportunity to use Disguise Self!)
D (depends on facts, Insight DC 12 to perceive). Trusts General Hanson's advice. This trust is justified--Hanson is loyal and competent--but a suitable frame attempt could undermine his trust in Hanson. Could involve a Deception contest against Hanson's own Persuasion, which is +2.
E (depends on facts and D and A, Insight DC 12 to perceive). Believes that Oz is conquerable with few losses because General Hanson assures him so, and because Kalwraith is not impressed by Oz's army. Could be overcome by a suitable weapons display.
F (depends on facts, Insight DC 8 to perceive). Believes that Ozites are responsible for kidnapping his daughter. Could be overcome by credible real or fabricated hard evidence to the contrary plus a DC 15 Persuasion check. If fabricated evidence, a Deception contest against Kalwraith's Insight (+5) is additionally required.
G (depends on E and F, Insight DC 6 to perceive). Will go to war to rescue his daughter (and win fame). Knocking out either E or both B and F will abort G. Knocking out E without dealing with F will leave Kalwraith an enemy; knocking out F and rescuing his daughter will make him a friend.

Insight DC to perceive applies only if you already know the preconditions. E.g. can't know why he's going to war (G) unless you know E and F already.

No matter what you do with Kalwraith, you can't win this scenario just by making stupendously high die rolls--you have to do some roleplaying here. A good player will accept that A, for example, is not mutable no matter how high your Persuasion skill; he will focus instead of changing the changes he can change such as F.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-22, 05:16 PM

Maybe it is a matter of choice. The example you gave is actually an example i could give to show why non-stacking advantage is great. It actually seems pretty appropriate to me in the example you quoted.

Once and for all, here's one everyone might like.

A paladin walks into a Magically Dark room. He can sense the presence of a powerful demon, here. He draws his weapon. His foot nudges the hapless target, who is prone, restrained, paralyzed, and stunned. A wizard has cast foresight upon the paladin. The paladin, knowing exactly where the target lies, having gained many sources of advantage, swings his holy sword.

The paladin gains no benefit from these multiple advantage sources. Even though he knows exactly where his unmoving target lies, he cannot attack with advantage because he cannot see it. There's a very good chance he'll miss.

You gonna justify that? I dare you, I double dare you mimic lover, tell me that makes sense one more troll-kickin' time. "Simplified" my shaven elven ass! That don't make sense.

MrStabby

2016-06-22, 05:23 PM

Once and for all, here's one everyone might like.

A paladin walks into a Magically Dark room. He can sense the presence of a powerful demon, here. He draws his weapon. His foot nudges the hapless target, who is prone, restrained, paralyzed, and stunned. A wizard has cast foresight upon the paladin. The paladin, knowing exactly where the target lies, having gained many sources of advantage, swings his holy sword.

The paladin gains no benefit from these multiple advantage sources. Even though he knows exactly where his unmoving target lies, he cannot attack with advantage because he cannot see it. There's a very good chance he'll miss.

You gonna justify that? I dare you, I double dare you mimic lover, tell me that makes sense one more troll-kickin' time. "Simplified" my shaven elven ass! That don't make sense.

Ah, I understand now.

I think we are looking for different things - you talk about making sense, which is valuable. My personal aim is for something to be fun. As I say, looking for different things.

And also, in the case you just gave - I would prefer the game where advantage doesn't stack. It allows the demon's team mates to have an impact by applying magical darkness rather than still having no impact on the fight.

Kryx

2016-06-22, 05:27 PM

And also, in the case you just gave - I would prefer the game where advantage doesn't stack. It allows the demon's team mates to have an impact by applying magical darkness rather than still having no impact on the fight.
Conversely it doesn't allow the Paladin's allies to have any impact.

MaxWilson

2016-06-22, 05:29 PM

Conversely it doesn't allow the Paladin's allies to have any impact.

Daylight, True Seeing, Dispel Magic and Counterspell aren't a thing in your games?

Easy_Lee

2016-06-22, 05:33 PM

Ah, I understand now.

I think we are looking for different things - you talk about making sense, which is valuable. My personal aim is for something to be fun. As I say, looking for different things.

And also, in the case you just gave - I would prefer the game where advantage doesn't stack. It allows the demon's team mates to have an impact by applying magical darkness rather than still having no impact on the fight.

Gotcha. And I do see your side of things. To me, it's a my fun vs your fun argument. I always favor systems which enable complexity but don't require it, and which are fair to everyone rather than allowing some do play at a higher level. This way, everyone can play the way they want without penalty.

Unfair systems, such as the "one disadvantage cancels infinite advantage" system, or the "bards and rogues can easily hit numbers others can never hit at all" system, make it harder for me to have fun. That sort of thing really rubs me the wrong way, you know? I deal with unfairness enough in real life. I don't want my fantasy to be unfair, too.

I like consistency, and I like fairness. That's my main gripe with 5e: it got so close to being fair, balanced, and inclusive, but fell short in just a few areas such as these. That's why I like to house rule this sort of thing.

Of course, anyone who disagrees has every right to ignore my shaven elven ass.

Kryx

2016-06-22, 05:36 PM

Daylight, True Seeing, Dispel Magic and Counterspell aren't a thing in your games?
The scenario is being taken exactly as presented.
And while many groups have spellcasters some do not. And of those many with spellcasters many won't have the proper spell prepared.

It's a real scenario that likely wouldn't be so easily countered without pre-knowledge.

There are hundreds of examples one could make about stacking disadvantage. For you it's likely not about the scenario, but more about the concept.

SharkForce

2016-06-22, 05:45 PM

it isn't condescending.

if something isn't possible, you don't roll. advantage, disadvantage, and bonus are all meaningless. it is even clearly stated in the books; you roll when there is a chance of success and failure, and the outcome matters. if there is no chance of success (which makes sense, yes, even for social skills. if 30 of the most persuasive people in the world just walk up to you, knowing nothing about you and having no leverage, they don't have a high probability of persuading you to murder your mother, to give an extreme example. now, if they have some leverage, whether real or fake, they might have a chance. but no matter how persuasively they say the words "you should murder your mother", well, I don't know about you, all 30 of them together are not going to persuade me with that approach, period. they have no chance of success. not because the "DC" is too high. simply because I have no reason to ever consider doing it, reasons to not do it, and they have not provided any reasons.

so who cares if the bard has good odds of rolling 43 or better on a skill check. sometimes, the skill check just can't succeed, because the requirements have not been met for it to have a chance of success.

if there is no reason for the skill check to fail (they have all the tools they would need to have a chance of success, and they rolled well), then it succeeds. if you can't plan around the fact that your players will succeed, you have bigger problems than their bonus being too high. all you need to do is change it to a question of whether they have met the prerequisites to have a chance to succeed first; the merchant who wants them to guard the caravan will gladly pay them if they guard the caravan, but no amount of persuasion checks will get that merchant to pay them the same amount for sitting on their butts in the tavern doing nothing). they then must do something to meet the requirements to have a chance to succeed; they can persuade the bandit king to stop fighting with a successful skill check once they've fought for a few rounds and it's obvious they aren't easy prey. they can climb the sheer glass wall with a successful skill check once they've shut off the flow of grease pouring down it, waited a while, and obtained some very powerful suction cups (or by pounding long metal stakes into the wall). they can grapple the hill giant with a successful skill check when they are under the effects of an enlarge spell. and so on.

(on a side note, the stacking advantage and disadvantage solution I prefer is even more simple; one source of advantage can cancel out or be cancelled out by one source of disadvantage. after cancelling out all possible sources of advantage or disadvantage, make the roll based on what is left).

Kryx

2016-06-22, 06:23 PM

GMs not making rolls possible isn't related to the topic.

The topic is that certain features that make any roll go beyond the expected limits makes GMing impossible without either adjusting DCs which has negative consequences for everyone without the feature or simply letting PCs auto succeed on all rolls of the type. Neither are options I'd enjoy.

I recently experienced this with pass without a trace. It invalidates a large amount of the adventure path to just be able to pretty much auto succeed group stealth checks.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-22, 06:27 PM

Most of the arguments against the system seem to start with the DM taking action. If the DM has to take action to keep the system from breaking, then the system needs improvement.

Cybren

2016-06-22, 06:35 PM

That's not necessarily correct. The DM should be expected to take action in most situations. Because them DM taking action is what presents conflict to the players. High level lore bards being able to reliably make very hard checks isn't a problem unless you create it to be one. Ability checks aren't attack rolls or saving throws, and treating them as such is what creates these problems. I would argue "DM action" is the only reason these are perceived of as a problem. If your real problem with the lore bard being thrown around here is expertise, and you think that problem exists in all cases of expertise and not just in that one particular case, you have a more obvious solution than to file off all the bonuses present in the system, it's just to make expertise 1.5x proficiency instead of 2x.

(Incidentally, I don't get the hate for all the small bonuses you can pick up from spells or abilities like bardic inspiration. Getting a bonus to a roll from an ability isn't counter to bounded accuracy, bounded accuracy actually works well with those bonuses- because it makes them feel more powerful. The designers don't have a problem with spells giving out bonuses because they break math, they had a problem with them because they create memory issues. If you notice, temporary effects that give bonuses tend to give a +1dn bonus, because it allows you to have a physical memory aid in play)

Tosamu

2016-06-22, 07:47 PM

Bardic Inspiration
...
You can use this feature a number of times equal to your Charisma modifier (a minimum of once). You regain any expended uses when you finish a short or long rest.

Normally, Bards get to recover Bardic Inspiration on a short rest at 5th level through Font of Inspiration, so I'm not sure what your purpose is behind rolling the effect into baseline. Is this change intended as a balance tweak to compensate for a (possibly) weaker Bardic Inspiration? If anything, granting advantage seems stronger than a d6 inspiration dice in most cases.

Pope Scarface

2016-06-22, 07:57 PM

Cybren

2016-06-22, 08:03 PM

the 'rule zero fallacy' isn't really valuable because it's a rule that deals with game design, but none of the people invoking it are members of the wizards of the coast design team. It is only used to assert the legitimacy of a houserule on internet forums, and aside from that, it is itself semi-fallacious in that it assumes that all instances where a DM must be made to adjudicate are 1) a demonstration of the flaw of a system (which is obviously wrong, because a large number of popular games are predicated on it. see: GURPS, all of the FATE games, all of the Powered by the Apocalypse Games, etc.) and 2) equal in the degree to which they demonstrate a flaw in the system.

LaserFace

2016-06-22, 08:04 PM

I don't really understand the changes proposed but I feel like I can comment on some of the other stuff discussed in this thread.

I've yet to encounter any problems with Expertise. I just let the Rogue or Bard be good at their skills. If the thing they wanna do is impossible or inappropriate for whatever reason, I don't let them roll. It's that simple. The rules encourage this explicitly.

I also don't throw skill challenges at the party like I throw combat encounters at them. They are perfectly free to use skills where they want, as well as opt not to jump over chasms or break down doors when they don't feel like it. I don't mind some characters being too good at skills, because success in a roleplaying or other non-combat challenges isn't necessarily going to happen just because of a roll of a die (or even a few rolls) anyway. Nothing in the campaign will hinge on a skill check; I think allowing that to happen is just bad DMing.

Like, you're not going to just persuade the BBEG to suicide just because you have a +30 to your roll. That's dumb, and it falls into the inappropriate category. Yes, I am allowed to make that decision by nature of being DM; just like I'm allowed to decide what's an easy skill challenge and what's hard. The game is not just simply about rolling a dice contests with an angry nerd who stares at you with sacred DC charts in hand, hoping you fail because he spent a long time making that NPC. D&D was not designed that way.

A DM also shouldn't be trying to constantly trying to balance the skills of the whole party against a character with Expertise. I wouldn't allow the above example to happen in my game anymore than I would deliver a TPK on a party for failing a group stealth check, which for some reason I set really high as to challenge the Rogue but failed to adjust properly for non-expertise characters. I would let the character with Expertise just be good at their thing. If I'm doing my job as DM, there is still a challenge to be had for the party even if one character is good at something. There is also not an impossible challenge if the party fails. If a specific situation requires special care to avert potential problems, I design that into the encounter.

I don't foresee myself adopting new houserules of this variety because I don't see any examples of how Expertise "... presents severe problems to a GM in his ability to challenge players as the possible level of success differs so greatly from player to player".

Easy_Lee

2016-06-22, 08:13 PM

There are things that are possible and things that are not possible to do with a skill check. Making a list of all the things that are and are not possible would be on the list of things that are not possible. Having skill checks means the DM has to step in, so I guess 'being able to do stuff with skills' can be added to your list of things that are broken because the DM has to take action.

Seriously, you are arguing that deciding whether or not a skill can reasonably do a thing being decided by the DM means the game is broken. If I can walk onto a battlefield and with a DC 30 persuasion check convince all the bad guys to surrender (with no prep), then that is broken, but that I can reliably hit DC 30 as a specific build designed to do this at high level is not why it is broken. That it can be done at all is the problem, and fiddling with how bonuses work doesn't fix that, because you're fixing the part that isn't the problem.

The problem is that rogues and bards can hit higher numbers in this arena than anyone else.

The same isn't true of any other class in any other area of 5th edition; skill checks are the outlier
The DM has to adjust skill checks on the fly, depending on whether a rogue/bard or someone else is rolling, to make sure that "difficult" is still difficult and not trivial.

Neither Kryx or I, nor anyone on this forum I'd wager, has problems with rogues and bards being the best at skills. No, my issue is that these classes are capable of significantly raising their minimum and maximum checks. This changes what would be considered a "difficult" check, but only for those classes. And it results in the need for the DM to either adjust DCs whenever one of these two is present, allow checks to be trivial, or just not present them with any sort of skill challenge.

The goal is to have one set of DCs apply to everyone. A difficult check should be difficult. Just because a bard or rogue is rolling, that shouldn't change whether the check is difficult or not. Those classes should just be more consistently successful. But the current system of bonuses makes it so a bard can get his minimum check up into difficult territory, and his high check up well past heroic. That's the part that isn't okay.

I want the Paladin and the bard and the rogue to be able to march up to that army, deliver a rousing speech, and try to persuade them to leave. But if I set a DC that's difficult for the Paladin, then it's moderate for the rogue and easy for the bard. That's the problem.

MaxWilson

2016-06-22, 09:20 PM

pwykersotz

2016-06-22, 09:27 PM

Which means it's entirely possible a non-optimised single classed Bard with no feats could learn Guidance and make a DC 35 check easily using just class features.

d20+2d12+17+d4 = Minimum 21 - Maximum 65, Average 43[/i]

The core point isn't how likely the bard is to make a given check, although that's a big part of it. The point is that, unlike attacks and AC and saves and attributes and every other pillar of d&d 5e, skills have no bounds. They keep going right on to infinity / however many features you can add together.

I agree that the bolded is potentially problematic game design, even though I haven't personally seen it happen yet. Still, design does inform the game and it would be good to have robust systems. But in that case, why not set a simple maximum? Skill max - 20 Hard limit. You are rewarded for stacking features and spells up to that point. You retain a chance of failure for the Very Hard and Nearly Impossible DC's.

Once and for all, here's one everyone might like.

A paladin walks into a Magically Dark room. He can sense the presence of a powerful demon, here. He draws his weapon. His foot nudges the hapless target, who is prone, restrained, paralyzed, and stunned. A wizard has cast foresight upon the paladin. The paladin, knowing exactly where the target lies, having gained many sources of advantage, swings his holy sword.

The paladin gains no benefit from these multiple advantage sources. Even though he knows exactly where his unmoving target lies, he cannot attack with advantage because he cannot see it. There's a very good chance he'll miss.

You gonna justify that? I dare you, I double dare you mimic lover, tell me that makes sense one more troll-kickin' time. "Simplified" my shaven elven ass! That don't make sense.

The problem I have in cases like these is that I would rule that no attack roll was necessary, provided nothing unexpected showed up to harass the Paladin. Why bother with things like sextuple advantage vs disadvantage when the attack can simply be ruled a hit because the narrative supports it? What's the point of rules if they inhibit the desired play? Now the change fixes this too, but with a lot more table calculation. While I respect the system proposed and its authors, do the rules need to cover an outlier like this?

Tosamu

2016-06-22, 09:33 PM

It's not, because the d6 is chosen after the die is rolled whereas advantage (necessarily) has to be declared before the roll. If it were retroactive advantage a la Lucky that would be different; but just plain advantage will be wasted at least half the time, whereas you can arrange regular Bardic Inspiration to never be wasted.

Normally, yes, but part of the modified Bardic Inspiration I left out of my quote says that "It can choose to use Bardic Inspiration after the die is rolled, but before the outcome is determined." By my interpretation that would work the same as Lucky, rather than normal advantage.

Either way, if this is intended to compensate for the modified Bardic Inspiration being weaker, it only does so at bard levels 1-4, when baseline inspiration is at it's weakest. I would expect a change aimed at compensation to become more significant at higher levels when Bards would normally get larger inspiration dice, rather than disappearing entirely.

MaxWilson

2016-06-22, 10:03 PM

Normally, yes, but part of the modified Bardic Inspiration I left out of my quote says that "It can choose to use Bardic Inspiration after the die is rolled, but before the outcome is determined." By my interpretation that would work the same as Lucky, rather than normal advantage.

Either way, if this is intended to compensate for the modified Bardic Inspiration being weaker, it only does so at bard levels 1-4, when baseline inspiration is at it's weakest. I would expect a change aimed at compensation to become more significant at higher levels when Bards would normally get larger inspiration dice, rather than disappearing entirely.

Ah, thanks for the correction. So my semantic quibble is with the author of the house rule then and not with you.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-06-22, 10:06 PM

Bardic Inspiration could perhaps be powered up slightly by allowing you to convert spell slots to inspiration dice?

All in all, I think I'd prefer a less Advantage-based system here, given the overall crudeness of stacking mechanisms. Perhaps "if an effect would allow you to roll a die and add it to your d20 roll, then its size becomes your minimum d20 result." That way reliability is improved, power is not increased and granularity is retained.

Expertise can continue to be auto-Advantage, I suppose. Pass Without Trace is batcrap nuts and should die in a fire (or be heavily houseruled)

SharkForce

2016-06-22, 10:37 PM

you don't need to adjust DCs for people with higher modifiers. you need to adjust the scenario. if the scenario is being beaten by a single die roll, it wasn't much of an obstacle in the first place.

as to stealth in particular, stealth is fine. so what if the party sneaks past someone? they got the advantage of not spending resources on that fight. they didn't get the advantage of dealing with those enemies in a way that prevents them from being a problem later. if there is zero potential for that to be a bad thing later, then you didn't lose much by skipping the encounter.

Tosamu

2016-06-22, 10:46 PM

Bardic Inspiration could perhaps be powered up slightly by allowing you to convert spell slots to inspiration dice?

This seems like a decent replacement for Font of Inspiration. Maybe restore uses equal to half the spell level, rounded up?

Farecry

2016-06-23, 03:06 AM

The problem is that rogues and bards can hit higher numbers in this arena than anyone else.

The same isn't true of any other class in any other area of 5th edition; skill checks are the outlier
The DM has to adjust skill checks on the fly, depending on whether a rogue/bard or someone else is rolling, to make sure that "difficult" is still difficult and not trivial.

Neither Kryx or I, nor anyone on this forum I'd wager, has problems with rogues and bards being the best at skills. No, my issue is that these classes are capable of significantly raising their minimum and maximum checks. This changes what would be considered a "difficult" check, but only for those classes. And it results in the need for the DM to either adjust DCs whenever one of these two is present, allow checks to be trivial, or just not present them with any sort of skill challenge.

The goal is to have one set of DCs apply to everyone. A difficult check should be difficult. Just because a bard or rogue is rolling, that shouldn't change whether the check is difficult or not. Those classes should just be more consistently successful. But the current system of bonuses makes it so a bard can get his minimum check up into difficult territory, and his high check up well past heroic. That's the part that isn't okay.

I want the Paladin and the bard and the rogue to be able to march up to that army, deliver a rousing speech, and try to persuade them to leave. But if I set a DC that's difficult for the Paladin, then it's moderate for the rogue and easy for the bard. That's the problem.

The fighter hits a number of attacks per turn that no one else can hit. Better standardize that as well, since it's exactly the same argument, even though I know you're going to say counter to it. And for number 2, if they are specialized in that one area, it should be an easy check for them, whilst still being a difficult check for the paladin who happens to have a high charisma because the game mechanics for his spell casting demand it.
Side note: bards can't give themselves bardic inspiration so you're formula from Reddit posted earlier needs to be adjusted by a d12.

Kryx

2016-06-23, 04:14 AM

Normally, Bards get to recover Bardic Inspiration on a short rest at 5th level through Font of Inspiration, so I'm not sure what your purpose is behind rolling the effect into baseline. Is this change intended as a balance tweak to compensate for a (possibly) weaker Bardic Inspiration? If anything, granting advantage seems stronger than a d6 inspiration dice in most cases.
Indeed, you are correct. I overlooked that feature. I will modify that back to normal. As you pointed out to Max, it's the same after-the-fact system that normal bardic inspiration uses, but with advantage/disadvantage instead of a d6-d12. I think there was a case where advantage can be chosen after the roll, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

Lucky is "psuedo-advantage that totally isn't advantage". This is similar, but also works with features that require advantage like rogue sneak attack, and is far less verbose.

Why bother with things like sextuple advantage vs disadvantage when the attack can simply be ruled a hit because the narrative supports it? What's the point of rules if they inhibit the desired play? Now the change fixes this too, but with a lot more table calculation. While I respect the system proposed and its authors, do the rules need to cover an outlier like this?
The system does not propose sextuple advantage or disadvantage. I made sure to fully clarify that. The 2 options suggested are either a 3rd dice or stacking up to +/-2.
It's not "a lot more table calculation". You simple cancel-out as RAW and then use any left-overs instead of ignoring them.

you don't need to adjust DCs for people with higher modifiers. you need to adjust the scenario. if the scenario is being beaten by a single die roll, it wasn't much of an obstacle in the first place.
This mindset makes no sense to me. It sounds like "we don't use ability checks to determine outcomes so they are not a problem". Though hopefully I'm not mis-characterising your stance.
The game is based on rolling dice. In every Adventure Path I've ever played there are scenarios setup to have dice determine the outcome. There is roleplaying involved and that can adjust DCs as appropriate, but in the end dice determine chance of success. That is how the published adventures are setup.

All in all, I think I'd prefer a less Advantage-based system here, given the overall crudeness of stacking mechanisms.
You could choose to not use advantage/disadvantage stacking and use the rest of the proposed options. It isn't necessary as their combination is rare anyways and you could fluff it that only so much "help" can help (think bonus types in old editions)

Bardic Inspiration could perhaps be powered up slightly by allowing you to convert spell slots to inspiration dice?
Pretty good idea. I can add this. Thanks!

EDIT: Added it as an optional rule:
"At 11th level, you can expend a spell slot of 2nd level or higher to use the Bardic Inspiration feature."

Bonus action advantage is slightly too much for a 1st level spell imo. 2nd seems perfect.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-06-23, 08:42 AM

You could choose to not use advantage/disadvantage stacking and use the rest of the proposed options. It isn't necessary as their combination is rare anyways and you could fluff it that only so much "help" can help (think bonus types in old editions)
It's not the stacking that's the problem so much as the over-use of a specific, easy-to-find bonus. For insurance, why should I bother with my limited uses of Inspiration when I can just use the Help action. I'm not sure such a system is really compatible with D&D's emphasis on leveling and gaining power- high level effects really don't do any more than low level ones. I'm on board with capping external bonuses, but I think you need more thought into what replaces them.

Pretty good idea. I can add this. Thanks!

EDIT: Added it as an optional rule:
"At 11th level, you can expend a spell slot of 2nd level or higher to use the Bardic Inspiration feature."
That's not a great deal even with vanilla Inspiration. With "only slightly better than Help," it's horribly sad. I'd let it restore uses equal to the spell level.

Kryx

2016-06-23, 09:05 AM

It's not the stacking that's the problem so much as the over-use of a specific, easy-to-find bonus. For insurance, why should I bother with my limited uses of Inspiration when I can just use the Help action.
For Combat purposes you shouldn't be using help as it's not optimal. For Social purposes the player can already use Help. Default Bardic Inspiration adds 3.5 on average. With advantage it effectively adds close to ~3 depending on the normal success rate.

Overall it sounds like you'd prefer a Strong Stacking to advantage
Anydice example (http://anydice.com/program/8af9) which compares a check with 6 proficiency bonus and 5 ability modifiers with 1 and 2 stacking advantage vs DC 25
Normal advantage chance is 51%
Advantage + strong stack = 65.7%
Advantage + weak stack (1) = 57.75%
Advantage + weak stack (2) = 64%

You could also choose to have the weak stack add 2 instead of 1 for that 64%.

I'm not sure such a system is really compatible with D&D's emphasis on leveling and gaining power- high level effects really don't do any more than low level ones. I'm on board with capping external bonuses, but I think you need more thought into what replaces them.
I think you're misunderstanding the system and/or undervaluing the one case that normally scales in Bardic Inspiration.

In the default system the chance to succeed on attacks is scaled to the monster's AC. It's about 60-65% on average. For Ability Checks the DCs generally rise as you go up in levels, but the chance to succeed is around the same amount. By adding a flat bonuses on top of that it's very easy to hit 100%. That is why flat bonuses, especially scaling flat bonuses like expertise/bardic inspiration, shouldn't exist.

The expertise math was done on the reference thread. Bardic inspiration would have similar results. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?490567-Expertise-Breaking-Bounded-Accuracy&p=20871399#post20871399

That's not a great deal even with vanilla Inspiration. With "only slightly better than Help," it's horribly sad. I'd let it restore uses equal to the spell level.
As above I think you're heavily undervaluing Advantage. See the first part of this post

I think you're heavily undervaluing Bardic Inspiration. Before a fight or once each round a bard can use his bonus action to inspire everyone. Some uses:

PCs effectively have Legendary Resistance as it can be saved to prevent a really bad saving throw
PCs can now ensure that huge attack or attack spell hits
PCs can ensure they can grapple someone off a cliff or avoid some kind of push/prone/grapple

Legendary Resistance is by far the most powerful ability. Burning spell slots to give PCs legendary resistance every fight would be far too strong.

Baptor

2016-06-23, 10:18 AM

DM here, here's how I do skill checks.

Easy DC 5
Moderate DC 10
Hard DC 15
Very Hard DC 20

And....that's it. On a rare occasion I might rule a DC 25, but very rarely and honestly I am now leaning towards just imposing disadvantage in those situations since I only throw a DC 25 because there is a circumstance that negatively impacts the person making the attempt. That's more of a Disadvantage situation, now I think of it.

Setting my DCs from 5-20 honors BA. Anyone can do it (roll a 20) but some people can reliably do it and some people almost never fail (expertise). Just because someone with expertise can roll a 30 doesn't mean they can do impossible things like walk on air or convince someone to kill themselves who isn't already suicidal.

It's nice because a high level Rogue with expertise knows they can pretty much pick any lock. And why couldn't they? It's a friggin level 20 rogue! If a wizard can open gates and summon demon lords, a rogue should be able to reliably pick a dang lock without fear of failure.

So that's how I do it and in my game Expertise is not broken. Rather, it is a feature that essentially guarantees success on some skill checks for Rogues and Bards. As long as you don't allow skill checks to do outrageous things, this doesn't present a problem.

YMMV
Happy Hunting.

SharkForce

2016-06-23, 10:22 AM

This mindset makes no sense to me. It sounds like "we don't use ability checks to determine outcomes so they are not a problem". Though hopefully I'm not mis-characterising your stance.
The game is based on rolling dice. In every Adventure Path I've ever played there are scenarios setup to have dice determine the outcome. There is roleplaying involved and that can adjust DCs as appropriate, but in the end dice determine chance of success. That is how the published adventures are setup.

you use ability checks to determine outcomes WHEN THE OUTCOME IS IN QUESTION (and success of failure has meaning).

if there is no question because you know the king is not going to give you the entire kingdom no matter how nicely you ask, you don't roll. now, you could potentially create a situation where the king would give you the entire kingdom (it would likely involve the king having no heirs and having some reason beyond "you asked really really really nicely" to get considered to be declared the heir to the throne, but i could certainly imagine it happening... just not by merely making a single skill check. you're going to need to do a bunch of setup before i even give you a chance to roll at all, because until you've created the appropriate conditions, the outcome is not in doubt, i already know that the king isn't going to agree to it).

i bet you've never seen an adventure path where it says "and for DC <some high number>, you can convince <NPC> of anything no matter how mindblowingly stupid it is". because at some point, there is no DC to do something, you just can't do it. period. end of story. no matter how high your skill check is, the aim of the skill check is impossible.

if the only thing that was needed for X to happen was a single skill check that is at all likely to have occured, i expect that it has probably already happened the great majority of the time. if there was an avalanche just waiting to happen as soon as someone makes a strength check to push the boulders a bit, the wind has probably already pushed those boulders and the avalanche already happened. unless of course you just now created that situation (for example by transmuting large parts of a cliffside into mud, or by setting up an avalanche trap in advance). if the king was considering attacking somewhere to the point where a single skill check could persuade them to do it, one of the king's advisors has probably been making that suggestion already and that's the king's plan unless the information he was making the decision based on changes.

things don't stay balanced on a knife's edge for very long. they tend to be much more fluid and dynamic than just sitting there waiting for the PCs specifically to come and nudge things one way or the other.

Kryx

2016-06-23, 10:25 AM

Leith

2016-06-23, 11:17 AM

First, I think your tweaks have accomplished your goals as you've stated them. You missed a few things like the Archery ability and racial abilities like Stonecunning though. Also I feel like, though you have addressed the needs of bounded accuracy your changes do mess with balance a bit. Guidance is a cantrip that gives a +1 to +4 bonus, advantage is much better than that, and can affect other abilities like sneak attack. So that sort of thing needs some more thought.

Second, I disagree with one of the fundamental assumptions behind the creation of these rules which is that the RAW of 5E requires the DM to alter DCs according to the level of the party and what they are capable of. I used to think this, but the game doesn't bend that way very easily. To challenge characters with higher levels or skill levels 5E (as written) works better if you increase the complexity of a task rather than just the sheer difficulty.
Eg: monsters as they increase in challenge increase incrementally in AC and attacks and DC but increase in damage and HP dramatically. This means that the steps to kill a monster aren't getting bigger, you just have to climb more floors.

In addition, why are we talking about challenging the characters anyway? As a DM you should challenge your players. If you know a PC can auto succeed at something and the player knows it, fine. That player has succeeded at one part of the game, the building of a character. Now challenge his ability to make use of those skills.
If a party uses Pass Without A Trace to subvert your encounters and stealth their way around, that's good. They decided to learn/prepare that spell and chose to use it in a tactically viable way. If you have a group of players who are really clever or a group of characters who are really well built, then the solution is to raise the level of complexity to encounters and adventures. Give them more to think about and deal with, make them different kinds of challenges, and think outside the box.
Otherwise you're just rolling dice, adding numbers and pretending it means something.

Saggo

2016-06-23, 11:18 AM

The system does not propose sextuple advantage or disadvantage. I made sure to fully clarify that. The 2 options suggested are either a 3rd dice or stacking up to +/-2.
It's not "a lot more table calculation". You simple cancel-out as RAW and then use any left-overs instead of ignoring them.

I don't think it's clear. Strong Stacking does say "For an additional source", but I'm willing to bet that most people read it to themselves like I did as "For each additional". If anything, maybe a bit more words to flesh out the idea.

Say I had 5 sources of Advantage and 2 Disadvantage, then I'd have 2 stacking cancels for a net result of 3 sources of Advantage. Per your system, would I have my original d20 and 2 additional d20s (1 for advantage, and 1 for having additional sources regardless of amount) for a total of 3 d20s, or the original and 1 for each source of advantage for a total of 4 d20s? If I understand right, it's the former?

More for commentary, Advantage/Disadvantage do very quickly hit diminishing returns. Anything after 3 d20s is effectively a succeeds or fails (maybe 4 depending on your level of accepted significance). Assuming I did it right, a 50% chance with a normal roll is 25% with 1 Disadvantage and with 2 it's low but narratively dramatic 12.5%. But with 3 and 4 Disadvantages it's 6.25% and 3.13% respectively and that's effectively a fail. It would depend on someone's design goals, but any extra dice beyond 3-4 would basically create the image of affecting the outcome without actually making a significant difference, it's busy work.

Kryx

2016-06-23, 11:41 AM

First, I think your tweaks have accomplished your goals as you've stated them.
Thanks!

You missed a few things like the Archery ability and racial abilities like Stonecunning though.
Archery cannot be adjusted because cover is +2. Archery directly counters that

I did miss stonecunning though, thanks!

Also I feel like, though you have addressed the needs of bounded accuracy your changes do mess with balance a bit. Guidance is a cantrip that gives a +1 to +4 bonus, advantage is much better than that, and can affect other abilities like sneak attack. So that sort of thing needs some more thought.
Advantage ranges typically adds around 3. There is some math floating around that shows this. 3 is pretty close to 2.5 - close enough.

Advantage being used for Sneak Attack isn't a problem imo as Sneak Attack is already incredibly easy to hit. And if your caster is using his action to only give 1 player advantage then he typically has much better things to do with that action.

Second, I disagree with one of the fundamental assumptions behind the creation of these rules which is that the RAW of 5E requires the DM to alter DCs according to the level of the party and what they are capable of. I used to think this, but the game doesn't bend that way very easily. To challenge characters with higher levels or skill levels 5E (as written) works better if you increase the complexity of a task rather than just the sheer difficulty.
Ability checks still have set DCs. What you suggest does not alter some characters auto-succeeding at those checks. Whether that is good or bad is a matter of opinion.

If a party uses Pass Without A Trace to subvert your encounters and stealth their way around, that's good. They decided to learn/prepare that spell and chose to use it in a tactically viable way.
There is no cleverness at all to Pass Without a Trace. It's simply allows PCs to bypass things at the cost of a spell slot - no thought or creativity required.

I don't think it's clear.
I meant I made it clear. See the latest: http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/print/SkIZPQ_B

It would depend on someone's design goals, but any extra dice beyond 3-4 would basically create the image of affecting the outcome without actually making a significant difference, it's busy work.
Strong Stacking is limited to 1 extra dice (so 3 total).

Given a typical 60% chance to hit (anydice (http://anydice.com/program/8b01)):
Advantage = 84%
Double Advantage = 93.6%

Disadvantage = 36%
Double Disadvantage = 21.6%

9.6% or 15.4% are definitely worth tracking imo.

Saggo

2016-06-23, 11:52 AM

I meant I made it clear. See the latest: http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/print/SkIZPQ_B
Gotcha, I can't actually look at homebrewery right now.

Strong Stacking is limited to 1 extra dice (so 3 total).

Given a typical 60% chance to hit (anydice (http://anydice.com/program/8b01)):
Advantage = 84%
Double Advantage = 93.6%

Disadvantage = 36%
Double Disadvantage = 21.6%

9.6% or 15.4% are definitely worth tracking imo.

Thanks for clarifying. I was agreeing that 3d20 is worth tracking, maybe 4d20 (personally I don't), but 5(+)d20 is mechanically pointless.

Leith

2016-06-23, 12:16 PM

Advantage being used for Sneak Attack isn't a problem imo as Sneak Attack is already incredibly easy to hit. And if your caster is using his action to only give 1 player advantage then he typically has much better things to do with that action.

He's not giving it to one person, I was thinking of bless. Which also allows for an increased chance of critical hit. I just think it needs some play testing is all. By someone other than me since I think it's pretty clear I'm happy with the rules as they are. Mostly.

Ability checks still have set DCs. What you suggest does not alter some characters auto-succeeding at those checks. Whether that is good or bad is a matter of opinion.

Agreed. This wasn't actually what I was addressing (it may have been someone else's comment actually...) Somewhere in the thread someone created the impression that bounded accuracy is, in part, about ensuring that the DM doesn't have to mess with DCs to avoid things being too easy for the players. I was just saying that changing the DCs is not what works best for adjusting your difficulty. You can add complexity and houserule in greater bounded accuracy at the same time if you like, they aren't mutually exclusive. But if the reason you hate the auto-succeed is because you think it's too easy or it's unfair, there is a more direct way to deal with that, and I think your players will enjoy it more.

There is no cleverness at all to Pass Without a Trace. It's simply allows PCs to bypass things at the cost of a spell slot - no thought or creativity required.

There doesn't have to be. Dropping a fireball on a bunch o' minions isn't creative either but it is smart. If PCs are by-passing encounters, let them. That's their choice until you take it away from them. Having the spell grant advantage doesn't change how they're going to use it, it just changes the mechanics, and the mechanics aren't what I was actually talking about with that paragraph.

TheOrcNextDoor

2016-06-23, 12:34 PM

SO if I understand correctly, you remade the rule system because two classes that RP wise spend most of their time practicing giving speechs, picking locks, sneaking, or some other 3rd thing while the fighter (who hits better, harder, and more often than them) practices swordplay, or the wizard learns a new spell?

does a wizard need to roll a dice to summon a demon lord and have it kill mr. mcguffin?

the problem is you see a problem in the game where characters based around skills (and being better than reliably good at said skills) can, easily make those checks? a level 5 bard/rogue will never make hard (20-30DC) checks reliably. why? they aren't that skilled yet.

I don't understand where you see this problem. Yes, the bard and rogue can have certain skills auto pass most DCs where other characters can have a very difficult time passing half the time. Thats the point. Thats the design idea. Wizards/sorcers even warlocks/paladins/rangers have things the rogue or bard can't get. The rogue and bard can do things the others can't do. rogue gets someone to buff him to the point of auto passing DC 30-35 for skyrim sneaking? fine, hes learned how to do it and magic helps him. A wizard could likely do the same by casting invisibility on themselves. Perhaps, WotC didn't take EVERY buff into account and didn't catch the super buffed skill checks, most players won't have that on average, or at least not until high levels (which have always been bad, but are much better in 5e)

Easy_Lee

2016-06-23, 12:45 PM

TheOrcNextDoor

2016-06-23, 12:51 PM

Why do some think the point of the system is to make rogues and bards bad at skills? They're still the best skill monkeys after the change, they just aren't auto-succeeding on "Nearly Impossible" tasks.

If fighters added twice their proficiency to attacks, or wizards could add 1d12 to their spell DCs a certain number of times per day, everyone would recognize it as broken. So how are skills any different?

Fighters get what, 3, 4 more attacks than a rogue? not counting action surge?

you are right, atm in 5e bards/rogues can have one or two skills they almost auto succeed on (with a little friendly help from someone/thing else). but they are on par with every other class in other regards. if the wizard can summon demons/balls of pure flame why can't the rogue auto-pick the highest grade of mundane locks money can buy if hes spent his whole life (from a IC standpoint) practicing and working on that?

think of expertise as a at-will spell. (much like a warlock)

Easy_Lee

2016-06-23, 12:58 PM

Fighters get what, 3, 4 more attacks than a rogue? not counting action surge?

you are right, atm in 5e bards/rogues can have one or two skills they almost auto succeed on (with a little friendly help from someone/thing else). but they are on par with every other class in other regards. if the wizard can summon demons/balls of pure flame why can't the rogue auto-pick the highest grade of mundane locks money can buy if hes spent his whole life (from a IC standpoint) practicing and working on that?

think of expertise as a at-will spell. (much like a warlock)

If auto success on a task is possible, then DMs must ensure that the task in question doesn't have much impact on the campaign. Otherwise, challenge and dramatic tension go right out the window.

Bards and Rogues, because their skill checks with expertise and inspiration are so high, discourage DMs from creating skill challenges. The spell Pass Without Trace encourages DMs to setup situations where stealth is impossible or invalid. It's just the same as how the aarakocra encourages the DM to include more ranged enemies and indoor encounters.

This is not hard to understand. Auto-success on anything is a problem.

TheOrcNextDoor

2016-06-23, 01:05 PM

Kryx

2016-06-23, 01:10 PM

If fighters added twice their proficiency to attacks, or wizards could add 1d12 to their spell DCs a certain number of times per day, everyone would recognize it as broken. So how are skills any different?
Because why roll for attack when a DM can decide that attack rolls don't matter!?

/s

Easy_Lee

2016-06-23, 01:12 PM

fighters with inspiration and guidance/bonuses will likely auto hit most enemies, is that bad?

the thing is, as others have said, so what if the bard, whos whole thing is talking his way out of trouble, manages to through decent RP and a couple persuasion/bluff checks avoid an encounter. Thats the whole point.

saying you can't convince someone to kill themselves, or abandon their life work by just being really diplomatic and good with speeches, is the same as telling the fighter he can't hack through 10ft of solid rock with his sword. It makes sense.

Fighters basically auto-hitting with expertise to attack would be a problem. Adding 1d12 to a wizard's spell DC, especially if he cast something like Hold Monster or disintegrate, would be a problem. We all know that adding huge static bonuses to these mechanics would be a problem.

And if these things are true, and we accept that skills are also a valid part of the game, then it follows that having certain classes be able to double their proficiency or add 1d12 to skills is, similarly, a problem. Adding +10 to a skill as a second level spell is a problem. Being able to trivialize a source of challenge in the game is a problem.

MaxWilson

2016-06-23, 01:34 PM

Because why roll for attack when a DM can decide that attack rolls don't matter!?

/s

But sometimes attack rolls don't matter. Trying to persuade someone to do something unpersuadable is akin to trying to attack a target which is outside your effective range. Would you let a PC hit someone at 300' with a thrown dagger just because they rolled 38 on their attack? Of course not. Ditto for trying to get someone to surrender to you if they're in a stronger tactical position, or sell you their grandmother as a slave. It's not achievable unless there's something very wrong mentally with the person you're persuading.

Impossible things don't have a DC. They're just impossible.

pwykersotz

2016-06-23, 01:45 PM

Impossible things don't have a DC. They're just impossible.

As a corollary, you don't need a DC for walking down the road. Actions which have no chance of failure are simply accomplished.

MaxWilson

2016-06-23, 02:04 PM

As a corollary, you don't need a DC for walking down the road. Actions which have no chance of failure are simply accomplished.

Agreed.

About half the time, persuasion in my games is simply accomplished: the player makes an argument, and I buy it (on the NPC's behalf), and there is no roll. Only if the argument is somehow dodgy or sketchy, or the NPC would have psychological resistance to the argument--that's when I ask for Persuasion checks as a sort of catalyst between the NPC's emotions and his reason. "Is this guy going to cut off his nose to spite his face, or will the PC smooth it over?"

Easy_Lee

2016-06-23, 02:06 PM

Agreed.

About half the time, persuasion in my games is simply accomplished: the player makes an argument, and I buy it (on the NPC's behalf), and there is no roll. Only if the argument is somehow dodgy or sketchy, or the NPC would have psychological resistance to the argument--that's when I ask for Persuasion checks as a sort of catalyst between the NPC's emotions and his reason. "Is this guy going to cut off his nose to spite his face, or will the PC smooth it over?"

That says more about your DM style than it does about the game. The game should be balanced on its own.

Waazraath

2016-06-23, 02:07 PM

Indeed. Some people enjoy different things. For example some people enjoy PCs having a 10% chance to succeed on saving throws at top tier. I don't. :)

Isn't this applying a double standard? At the high levels, characters can: have a bard in the party for a bonus on saves, have a paladin in the party for bonus on saves, use inspiration, have the lucky feat, or reselience, magical gear... I doubt that in practice there will be many characters that seriously make their saves with only a 10% chance at high levels.

While on the other hand, regarding to skill checks, bards and rogues are considered taking relevant feats, spells, and few times per rest abilities, and this is presented as a problem.

While in practice, players will be more likely to blow resources on deadly saves, than on high skill checks. In my games (ymmv) skill checks are much more common, but have much less impact.

Note: I don't have a strong opinion in this whole discussion; I haven't encountered any of the mentioned problems yet, but admit freely that I haven't played at the higher levels, so I might encounter them later on.

Giant2005

2016-06-23, 02:22 PM

The changes aren't for me.
I'm not one that particularly likes the idea of balancing encounters in the first place and these changes are designed specifically with that in mind. In my opinion, balancing everything makes everything pointless - your players know that they have the tools to overcome every situation, so caution is pretty much obsolete. I prefer to make my encounters organically - if that means that it will be a breeze for the characters, then so be it; if it means it is literally impossible for the characters, then that is fine too. The players need to learn what they are and aren't capable of, or they are going to get themselves killed.
Having said that, some of the changes are good, while some aren't quite so good (if I don't mention a change, go ahead and assume that I am putting it in the good category).
Firstly, I agree that the Archery Fighting Style should be included in the same manner as everything else. The cover rules aren't a reason to exclude it - if you want it to counter the cover rules, then just have it counter the cover rules. It isn't difficult: "Characters with this fighting style ignore partial cover." Done.
I also think that Guidance is already tremendously powerful and anything that beefs it up further is a step away from what we should be going for. It also has some side-effects which I am not a fan of. Rendering the Friends cantrip obsolete is an obvious one, but it (combined with the expertise change) renders expertise obsolete too and buffs casters while comparatively nerfs martials in the process. Most would agree that giving the casters better versions of the very limited toys available to martials is a really bad idea.
I also don't think I like the expertise change so much, as it has really weird effects over the course of a character's journey from 1 to 20. At low levels it is more powerful than the canon version and a huge advantage over non-experts. I am okay with that, but at the higher levels it is much less consequential - experts are barely better than non experts, and level 20 experts are barely better than level 1 experts. It just isn't a dramatic enough change to be really worthy of the name.
My last issue is one that I initially thought I loved, but with a bit more thought, I took a complete 180: Aura of Protection. Aura of Protection got nerfed. Hard. I like that - a lot, but the problem is that while that one ability was nerfed hard, the Paladin itself was buffed considerably. The Paladin no longer has any real reason to care about their Charisma (they have reasons sure, but not reasons strong enough to actually warrant the investment). The Paladin is a very powerful class - quite possibly the most powerful in the game, and that is while having to endure the issues associated with being MAD. Making them effectively SAD would make them far more powerful than the current incarnation and that is a fairly serious issue.

MaxWilson

2016-06-23, 02:23 PM

That says more about your DM style than it does about the game. The game should be balanced on its own.

Yes, it does say something about DMing style. If you want to give everything a chance of failure, you can make the players make DC 5 skill checks to draw their weapons without impaling themselves. I won't tell you you're stupid and a bad person; I will just quietly leave your table and play with a different DM.

Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. The principle I'm proponing is that skill checks only apply to things which could go either way. If you have a problem with that principle, say so.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-23, 02:24 PM

Yes, it does say something about DMing style. If you want to give everything a chance of failure, you can make the players make DC 5 skill checks to draw their weapons without impaling themselves. I won't tell you you're stupid and a bad person; I will just quietly leave your table and play with a different DM.

Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. The principle I'm proponing is that skill checks only apply to things which could go either way. If you have a problem with that principle, say so.

You're putting words in my mouth if you think I would make PCs roll to draw their weapons. I'm obviously talking about there being a chance of failure on major, game-changing things, like a difficult persuade roll to convince a king not to go to war.

MaxWilson

2016-06-23, 02:53 PM

You're putting words in my mouth if you think I would make PCs roll to draw their weapons. I'm obviously talking about there being a chance of failure on major, game-changing things, like a difficult persuade roll to convince a king not to go to war.

Didn't you start putting words in my mouth first? When did I ever say there wouldn't be a persuasion roll involved on a "major, game-changing" attempt to convince a king not to go to war? I posted an example of that scenario earlier in this thread, in reply to you (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20921451&postcount=21) actually, and it had some branches which involved rolls and some things you'd get for free with the right approach. But there's no way to defuse the whole situation purely through freeform RP.

Why are you trying to pick a fight if you don't actually disagree with me?

ZX6Rob

2016-06-23, 03:02 PM

That says more about your DM style than it does about the game. The game should be balanced on its own.

Honestly, I think the game is balanced on its own. I think that people are making a mistake in assuming that if the player rolls high enough, they automatically succeed. The DM's job isn't just to compare numbers, it's to decide when and, more importantly, if a roll is called for in a given situation. The problem lies in when people skip over that mental determination and go straight to the DC table or what have you.

The thing is that an alarming number of people often skip those steps -- determining whether the outcome of a given action is trivial, possible but in doubt, or impossible -- entirely, especially in regards to certain kinds of skill rolls*. In 3.5, this always came up with Diplomacy -- mostly because of a poorly-thought-out expanded skill table in the Epic Level Handbook that explained how you could make a ridiculously-high check to turn someone from Hostile to Fanatic by talking at them correctly. In any event, you ended up with a lot of exchanges that went like this:

"I try to convince the hostile ogre to let us by. I rolled a 47 on Diplomacy"
"Okay, that's pretty high. I guess you succeed. The ogre regards you as a friend."
"Cool. The rogue stabs him in the back and takes his stuff."

5e does try to get away from these kinds of static "if you hit this number, then this always happens" kind of skill reference tables, because they -- inadvertently, I would assume -- encouraged this kind of gameplay. Table arguments would inevitably happen because the DM would rightfully claim that the sovereign king of an enormous nation wouldn't simply hand his kingdom over to a particularly charming bard whom he'd just met, while the players could (rightfully, to a point) demand otherwise due to a reference table that was, for all intents and purposes, a legal part of the game. Instead, by leaving the determination of what ultimately is or is not possible in the hands of the DM, this gives the system a degree of flexibility that 3.5 (and other, more rules-heavy sets) didn't necessarily have.

How does this come into play with Expertise? Well, Expertise allows you to succeed where others would fail. It allows you to have a better-than-slim chance at achieving "impossible" things (as dictated by the table of DCs used by the game). This doesn't mean you can do literally impossible things. A thief who can roll a 37 on his stealth check can't simply hide in broad daylight. A bard who rolls a 70 on his Persuasion check can't simply calm the rampaging orc chieftain with logic. Unless -- and this is the important bit! -- you, as the DM, decide that he can!

"Impossible" is a bar that can be set by each DM, and one of the responsibilities a DM has is keeping that bar level throughout a game! Expertise allows characters to have a chance of hitting extremely high DCs and doing so regularly, but it doesn't mean that the players can start telling you, the DM, what they can and can't do. That's still entirely on you. You get to decide when an action simply isn't going to work. You don't have to hew to a "maximum" DC of 30 or 35 or 70 or 1,000,000. Some things just can't be done.

This means that Expertise isn't an excuse for a character to say "I can always do X". It means that Expertise allows a character to say "If X can be done, I can probably do it." But sometimes, X cannot be done at all. 5e says that it's up to you as a DM to determine when and if that bar applies to what the players are trying to do.

Now, personally speaking, I haven't had any issues in the games I run due to Expertise. If I set a DC on something, then it's something that I am prepared for the players to overcome, either through skill, tenacity, or blind luck. As for one character completely outshining anyone else at something, well, I see that as the reward for specialization. A rampaging, great-weapon-wielding Barbarian with two feats and a shedload of Strength will always out-damage even the most well-built Rogue. Is that a problem for the Rogue? It shouldn't be -- the Rogue brings other things to the table. Like the ability to succeed on Stealth checks where everyone else in the party would fail.

That said, if I did want to rework Expertise in order to keep the numbers involved in skill checks in-line with a tighter upper-bound on expected accuracy (something I'm not 100% convinced is really in the design brief of 5e), I like Kryx's replace-with-Advantage system. It means that the upper limit for what people can eventually do is more constrained, and it means a high-level character is more reliable at succeeding on more mundane tasks than a low level character, but not exceptionally more likely to succeed at nigh-impossible tasks. That works for a more down-to-earth kind of game, and means that, when you say something is a DC 30, it really is nearly impossible even for a trained expert to complete.

Now, on the other hand, part of the reason I don't like that is because, well, I'm always hearing people talking about how "mundane" -- here meaning non-magic-using -- classes don't get nice things. Wizards get spells at nearly every level that render certain skill checks obsolete or make martial characters ineffective. But, Expertise, as written, pretty much does the same thing for high-level skilled characters. If there's a non-magical lock, the Wizard can open it with a ritual cast of knock, or the expert thief can just pick it. That's just what he does. He's so good that no mundane lock can stop him, and even enchanted locks are something he can usually overcome. I like that.

As one last point (because this is already longer than most people want to read), earlier in the thread, Lee, you brought up this point:

Being able to trivialize a source of challenge in the game is a problem.
And on this, I have to say, I disagree. The process of leveling your character in RPGs is the process of trivializing challenges. At first level, a mundane lock is a challenge. A barred door is a challenge. A gang of three kobolds is a challenge. By 10th level, those things are not challenges. They become trivial. You have grown in power and skill to the point where these things are not enough to serve as meaningful obstacles to you. That is how you feel as though you have made progress as a character. Even in a system of bounded accuracy, the things that challenged you at 1st level become trivial at high levels. 1st-level monsters remain useful at high levels due to the bounded accuracy on attacks and bonuses to hit, but at 20th level, your fighter is hewing through rows of monsters that would have lasted rounds at low levels. Your thief is sneaking past anything that doesn't have some kind of extra-sensory perception. Your mage is destroying fortifications that would have stopped you dead in your tracks. And your cleric has conquered the greatest obstacle of all -- character death is eventually all but trivialized in the very late game! The process of becoming a more powerful character is, by necessity, the process of trivializing the things which used to challenge you.

*See this article (http://angrydm.com/2013/04/adjudicate-actions-like-a-boss/) by The Angry GM for reference on adjudicating actions in RPGs. This is where I draw a lot of my philosophy on DM'ing, and it probably explains this point better than I am.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-23, 03:22 PM

Well, then allow me to clearly make my own point. The DC table exists, yes? Players can assume that, if I ask them to make a skill check and they roll nearly impossible, then the check probably succeeds, yes?

Hitting newly impossible for the rogue is merely hard, and for the bard is moderate. That's my issue. I don't want to have to flim flam the numbers, or disallow skill checks on important stuff, just because a rogue or bard is involved. I know you people keep saying I don't but, in order to make those checks actually challenging, I do.

Pass without trace is a straight obvious one. You think I can just say stealth isn't possible? Every time? I don't do that. If I ask for a skill check and a player rolls 30, then he passes. Period. If it wasn't possible, I wouldn't have asked him to roll. And skills are a large part of my games.

So, bearing that in mind, I don't want hitting a 30 to be trivial for anyone. That's all this is about.

Maybe skills aren't large parts of other people's games. Maybe other DMs just say this or that is impossible if they don't want it to happen. I don't. And for DMs like me, who don't want to lord over their players, or change the mechanics of the world on the fly, or arbitrarily decide a given thing is impossible, it's important that we're able to legitimately challenge the players regardless of the classes they choose.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-06-23, 04:20 PM

As above I think you're heavily undervaluing Advantage. See the first part of this post
I'm not arguing that Advantage isn't good, I'm arguing that you're drastically over-using it. You've effectively gone through every source of bonuses in the game, from the pettiest cantrip to the max-level bardic magic, and said "these do the same thing." A first level Bard can give Advantage Cha times/short rest. A twentieth level Bard does the exact same thing. There's no longer any sort of scaling or improvement.

It's also just... sloppy design. You're collapsing a bunch of disparate, unique mechanics into one that's quite frankly straining under the weight. I'm sympathetic to your goal, but I think you're going about it the wrong way. You've found a problem, and put a band-aid on it. C'mon, let's see if we can make things more fun here. What sort of mechanics can we come up with that offer a meaningful bonus, that make it seem like you're performing better, not just more reliabily, without increasing the maximum possible result or relying on rerolls?

Off the top of my head, I can think of "add this to your roll, up to a maximum value of your bonus +20." Which is a similar reliability-increasing method to Advantage, but is at least distinct and original.

I think you're heavily undervaluing Bardic Inspiration. Before a fight or once each round a bard can use his bonus action to inspire everyone. Some uses:

PCs effectively have Legendary Resistance as it can be saved to prevent a really bad saving throw
PCs can now ensure that huge attack or attack spell hits
PCs can ensure they can grapple someone off a cliff or avoid some kind of push/prone/grapple

Legendary Resistance is by far the most powerful ability. Burning spell slots to give PCs legendary resistance every fight would be far too strong.

You know what else does (pretty much) all of that? Your new Bless, available at the low, low level of 1. Meanwhile, it takes three uses of Bardic Inspiration to do that same thing.

TheOrcNextDoor

2016-06-23, 04:23 PM

ask the rogue for a strength check. or a skill check involving something other than his expertise area.

The idea behind expertise is to TRIVIALIZE skill checks in the area they EXCEL at.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-23, 04:26 PM

ask the rogue for a strength check. or a skill check involving something other than his expertise area.

The idea behind expertise is to TRIVIALIZE skill checks in the area they EXCEL at.

Yeah, I get it. And I disagree with the core concept of trivializing skill checks. I'd rather players be able to reroll, hit consistent numbers (rogue reliable talent), retry once after failing, etc. Anything is better than a skill or ability trivializing one of the game's core systems. Advantage is just the easiest thing.

pwykersotz

2016-06-23, 04:31 PM

Off the top of my head, I can think of "add this to your roll, up to a maximum value of your bonus +20." Which is a similar reliability-increasing method to Advantage, but is at least distinct and original.

I recommended a skill cap as a possibility earlier, but this has me thinking about a softer cap. What if skills were limited by the same metrics as stats, where you couldn't have beyond a 20 EXCEPT in the specific few cases where the rules allowed it? Class abilities and spells could have maximums built in based on their spell level and scale. Most would adhere to the cap of 20, but some might push you to 22 or 24. Interesting to think about.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-06-23, 04:59 PM

I recommended a skill cap as a possibility earlier, but this has me thinking about a softer cap. What if skills were limited by the same metrics as stats, where you couldn't have beyond a 20 EXCEPT in the specific few cases where the rules allowed it? Class abilities and spells could have maximums built in based on their spell level and scale. Most would adhere to the cap of 20, but some might push you to 22 or 24. Interesting to think about.
On slightly more thought, I think I'd prefer something like a maximum of bonus+25. That way you can magic yourself up to the next category, so to speak, so buffs retain their classic value, but numbers are still capped at a reasonable level.

pwykersotz

2016-06-23, 05:11 PM

On slightly more thought, I think I'd prefer something like a maximum of bonus+25. That way you can magic yourself up to the next category, so to speak, so buffs retain their classic value, but numbers are still capped at a reasonable level.

Oh, sure. The number is flexible, but the method is the interesting bit.

Kryx

2016-06-23, 05:17 PM

I was going to reply to each individual part, but let's make it very simple: If you don't like the system, then don't use it.

Calling my design choices bad or lazy accomplishes nothing but creating animosity.

In my opinion the designers putting in flat numbers is sloppy design. There have been hundreds of posts since 5e came out echoing this.
I think using the advantage system is a great design! People argued the same thing about advantage when 5e came out: "all these bonuses are so different! How dare you combine them!" You're effectively doing the same thing now.

A first level Bard can give Advantage Cha times/short rest. A twentieth level Bard does the exact same thing. There's no longer any sort of scaling or improvement.
That's literally the whole point of the system. The scaling is already built into the game via proficiency bonus. The whole point of this system is to remove additional scaling above and beyond that normal scaling on attack rolls, saving throws, and ability checks.

Off the top of my head, I can think of "add this to your roll, up to a maximum value of your bonus +20." Which is a similar reliability-increasing method to Advantage, but is at least distinct and original.
You're welcome to use that system. Advantage already accomplishes exactly that. What you call unique and original others call complex and bloated.

If you would like to discuss how to make such a system work then you're more than welcome to propose the idea in a thread of your own.

You know what else does (pretty much) all of that? Your new Bless, available at the low, low level of 1. Meanwhile, it takes three uses of Bardic Inspiration to do that same thing.
Concentration for legendary resistance once on 3 people is relatively equivalent to Concentration for +2.5 on all attacks and saves and for a whole minute on 3 people. Perhaps you don't know how strong that is, especially when combined with -5/+10.

DanyBallon

2016-06-23, 05:30 PM

I was going to reply to each individual part, but let's make it very simple: If you don't like the system, then don't use it.

Calling my design choices bad or lazy accomplishes nothing but creating animosity.

When posting in the 5e general forum, you should be aware that not everyone will agree and will challenge you in manners you may not like.

Posting in the 5e general forum is asking for people arguing and challenging what you post, and unfortunatly, not always in with the best manners. The homebrew forum would have been a bettr place to post your new rule as the community there is less antagonist toward new ideas. The side effect is that there is less activity on the Homebrew forum.

I really wished it would be different, but that's just how this community is. Paizo 5e forums seems to have a tone less "aggressive" but is also way less active.

Kryx

2016-06-23, 05:38 PM

When posting in the 5e general forum, you should be aware that not everyone will agree and will challenge you in manners you may not like.
I'm not asking him to agree. I'm asking him to be a cordial human being who treats other people and their ideas respectfully.

I really wished it would be different
Me as well, which is what I'm asking.

I posted here for feedback so of course people are free to disagree and provide different ideas. Many of my ideas change as a result of feedback

But the feedback is presented in a demanding way that incredibly condescending and rude. Ain't nobody got time for that.

Lombra

2016-06-23, 05:41 PM

Personally I think that your system is kinda bland. All you use is advantage and suddenly it becomes a warhammer game where you count the number of the dies that succeeded at the check. There's nothing wrong if a character built for something is good at that: taking the bard example, since it appearently is the most interesting one, he will succeed at any charisma check, so what? Mental statistics require roleplay, you can't just score a 50 to avoid paying that beer and have the player say:"I don't want to pay" if such skill checks become a problem then the problem is the DM which can't figure out solutions to it's own challanges, not the system.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-06-23, 06:00 PM

Calling my design choices bad or lazy accomplishes nothing but creating animosity.
I apologize. I was posting in a hurry in the middle of a stressful day, and I more of that of that came through than I wanted.

In my opinion the designers putting in flat numbers is sloppy design. There have been hundreds of posts since 5e came out echoing this.
I think using the advantage system is a great design! People argued the same thing about advantage when 5e came out: "all these bonuses are so different! How dare you combine them!" You're effectively doing the same thing now.
Advantage is a fantastic system for ad-hoc bonuses. It's a great way to combine all the little pluses and minuses that previous editions attached to various conditions and positions. It's quicker and easier to remember... but it's also a very flat bonus. Linear. Discrete. You have it or you don't. Numerical bonuses are much more continuous-- they can be compared, improved, and so on. There is, I think, a certain virtue in having both, at least in some format.

That's literally the whole point of the system. The scaling is already built into the game via proficiency bonus. The whole point of this system is to remove additional scaling above and beyond that normal scaling on attack rolls, saving throws, and ability checks.
The class feature, however, does not scale. A first level Bard and a 20th level Bard are equally inspiring. That just seems wrong, especially given that it's their main, defining class feature. It's like if a Barbarian's rage didn't get better over time, or a Rogue never dealt more sneak attack damage. You don't have to fold the benefit into the skill boost, but there should be something. Something like this, perhaps:

At 5th level, a creature with an Inspiration Die gains a 10ft bonus to movement speed.
At 10th level, a creature with an Inspiration Die gains immunity to charm effects
At 15th level, a creature with an Inspiration Die may ignore up to three levels of exhaustion.
At 20th level, a creature with an Inspiration Die automatically succeeds on death saves.

Just as a random example. Bounded Accuracy is maintained, but there's still a sense of progression to the ability.

You're welcome to use that system. Advantage already accomplishes exactly that. What you call unique and original others call complex and bloated.

If you would like to discuss how to make such a system work then you're more than welcome to propose the idea in a thread of your own.
I'd like to help make a no-flat-bonuses system work, because I largely agree with you that it would be healthy for the game and have my own burning hatred for Expertise-as-written (though, I think, coming from a different perspective).

Concentration for legendary resistance once on 3 people is relatively equivalent to Concentration for +2.5 on all attacks and saves and for a whole minute on 3 people. Perhaps you don't know how strong that is, especially when combined with -5/+10.
I'm... not sure what you're arguing here? I'm comparing Inspiration (bonus action for Advantage on one attack, check, or save for one person) with your revised Bless (action and concentration for Advantage on one attack or save for three people). I think they probably come up roughly even, meaning one use of Inspiration is worth about one first-level spell. Which is worth... two spell levels, I guess, if Font of Magic is to be believed.

SharkForce

2016-06-23, 07:16 PM

You're free to not use ability checks and roleplay it out without using the ability checks provided by the game.

But that's entirely irrelevant to the discussion of balance of the system that is used when ability checks are used.

nobody is suggesting not using ability checks at all.

we're simply stating that sometimes, you don't get to make a roll. that's built right into the system, it straight-up explicitly tells you that you roll when there is a chance of success and failure and the result is meaningful. if success or failure are guaranteed, you don't roll. period. if the result isn't meaningful (it will take you an extra attempt to climb the 10 foot wall, and you're not in a hurry), don't roll. that isn't something crazy we're pulling out of nowhere, that's exactly how the rulebooks tell you to use ability checks.

sometimes a thing that would normally be impossible can become possible by doing other things; you can't climb a greased glass wall upside down unless you have something that creates solid places to plant your hands and feet. you can't organize a group of people to build a good fortress unless you have decent tools and workers skilled in at least a few things. you can't persuade the king to give you absolute control of the kingdom unless there are some very extreme mitigating circumstances.

the adventure then becomes not about rolling high on a single ability check, but on creating the situations that allow you to roll the check at all (and probably succeed).

That says more about your DM style than it does about the game. The game should be balanced on its own.

it really shouldn't. if i wanted to only play games like that, i'd play computer games (and spend the whole time complaining that the game isn't balanced around a DM who can make the game work better).

the game should be balanced on its own within reason, and it is. it doesn't need to be balanced by perfect equality either. i remember when starcraft first came out and it was really exciting because you had 3 races that were all completely different and yet fairly close to balanced (not perfectly, of course, but your skill had far more to do with your chance of winning than the race you picked, unless you're very close to evenly matched in skill. even then, you generally weren't looking at huge margins; if you were a skilled protoss player and zerg was slightly better, you didn't switch to zerg and suddenly start winning much more often).

the DM absolutely *should* be an integral part of balance assumptions. it shouldn't be required to have the DM intervene in major ways, but the game is not designed to be run by a computer, it is designed to be run by a DM; you balance the different specializations of characters not by making those characters identical, but rather by creating different scenarios where the different characters can shine. expertise is merely providing one way for those characters to shine. i could be persuaded that bards are overtuned in that they can do a bit too many things a bit too well, but that isn't because anyone has expertise, it's because bards have expertise *and* a whole lot of other stuff too, and that other stuff is also really good.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-23, 07:38 PM

it really shouldn't. if i wanted to only play games like that, i'd play computer games (and spend the whole time complaining that the game isn't balanced around a DM who can make the game work better).

the game should be balanced on its own within reason, and it is. it doesn't need to be balanced by perfect equality either. i remember when starcraft first came out and it was really exciting because you had 3 races that were all completely different and yet fairly close to balanced (not perfectly, of course, but your skill had far more to do with your chance of winning than the race you picked, unless you're very close to evenly matched in skill. even then, you generally weren't looking at huge margins; if you were a skilled protoss player and zerg was slightly better, you didn't switch to zerg and suddenly start winning much more often).

the DM absolutely *should* be an integral part of balance assumptions. it shouldn't be required to have the DM intervene in major ways, but the game is not designed to be run by a computer, it is designed to be run by a DM; you balance the different specializations of characters not by making those characters identical, but rather by creating different scenarios where the different characters can shine. expertise is merely providing one way for those characters to shine. i could be persuaded that bards are overtuned in that they can do a bit too many things a bit too well, but that isn't because anyone has expertise, it's because bards have expertise *and* a whole lot of other stuff too, and that other stuff is also really good.

If I understand you correctly:

The game shouldn't be balanced because there's a DM. It only needs to be kind of balanced.
You believe expertise A) lets rogues and bards shine, and B) therefore is fine.

I strongly disagree with your first point. Classes should have different roles and mechanics, but the game has to follow consistent logic. Games should be balanced, regardless of what kind of game they are. And skills are the one area, in all of 5e, where bonuses can truly get out of hand. There's nothing wrong with a house rule that fixes that.

As to your second point, I agree with A and disagree with B. If I gave fighters a feature that added double proficiency to their weapon attacks, that would allow them to shine. It would also be broken, as anyone besides a fighter would be vastly inferior at making attacks. Yes, fighters already make the most attacks, but they makes those attacks using the same rules and bonuses as everyone else.

Bards and Rogues play by different rules when it comes to skills. Anyone with Pass Without Trace plays by different rules when it comes to sneaking. These sorts of things are anomalous within 5e. They should be changed. You may not like our specific fixes, but I think it's silly not to recognize how out of place expertise, inspiration, pass without trace, etc. are within 5e. And I think it's even sillier to dismiss the observation that, if one class can average 43 when everyone else struggles to reach 30, something is wrong.

LaserFace

2016-06-23, 08:08 PM

Easy_Lee

2016-06-23, 08:21 PM

I'm still having a hard time seeing how a few characters being able to regularly pass high skill DCs at high levels is a problem.

You can dislike it and play differently, and as far as I can tell the OP's design might work? But, that doesn't mean the system fails to operate how it was designed. No DM worthy of their party should be afraid of a player saying "I'd like to do the thing I'm good at" and then succeeding, because the game is about the PCs getting challenges they can overcome. If you don't want it beaten by a single skill roll, find creative ways to complicate the issue. Trust me, the player doesn't want a win-button anymore than you do; they won't mind you saying "This is just beyond your abilities" or "Sure, but ... " and yeah, I'm pretty sure this was how you were supposed to DM all along.

Again, the issue isn't that bards and rogues are better at skills. The issue is the way in which it was done.

Fighters are the best at attacking because they get the most attacks. Wizards are the overall supreme spell casters because they have the largest spell list. Rogues and bards already get the most skills. In previous editions, that was it. This edition added expertise, which if it provided advantage or similar would be perfectly fine. Instead, it just sets the rogue and bard numbers higher so that no one else can hit the same numbers.

And that's goofy in any edition. If one class had a feature to add double prof to spell DCs, we'd all recognize that as broken. If a spell added +10 to attack rolls for an hour, everyone would ban that spell. But for some reason, many give expertise a pass.

Cybren

2016-06-23, 08:23 PM

but skills aren't attack rolls or saving throws, and being unquestionably good at one isn't the same thing as being good at combat, because they're not symmetrical concepts.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-23, 08:27 PM

but skills aren't attack rolls or saving throws, and being unquestionably good at one isn't the same thing as being good at combat, because they're not symmetrical concepts.

I believe that they are, because I treat skills as just as important as combat in my games. Realistically, skills would be even more important than combat prowess, after all. And skills can often be used in combat if the player is creative. Athletics is just one obvious example, since grappling and shoving targets is RAW.

Edit: but why would "skills aren't as important as combat" make it okay for the skill system to be busted by Expertise, Inspiration, Pass Without Trace, etc.? Just because skills come up less often in most games doesn't mean it's okay for them to be broken.

comk59

2016-06-23, 08:29 PM

Specter

2016-06-23, 08:35 PM

I would never dream of applying a system that makes the skill checks of characters even flatter than they already are, and trivializes advantage itself which can be obtained in many other ways. But if you tried it and your players liked it, kudos to you.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-23, 08:35 PM

At high level, wizards can use spells to trivialize skills, combat, AND reality. I really don't see an issue with letting rogues pick a lock by brushing up against it, or talk the local magistrate into thinking that he's there for a surprise inspection.

And here's this argument, again. Wizards having spells is not an excuse for the skill system being broken.

Situation: a king wants to go to war. The party must stop him.

If they pick a fight, they have to win combat. Combat is quite balanced.
If they try to mind control some key figure and force a truce that way, the target has to fail his saves. Nearly all detrimental spells allow saving throws, and the highest a player can get his DC (without rare magic items) is 19.
If they try to persuade him not to go to war, the Bard can succeed on a Nearly Impossible roll nearly every time, several times per day.

Number 3 is the problem. Rogues and Bards already have the most skills, and I agree that Expertise should make their skill rolls more consistently high. But I disagree with features that give strict pluses to skill rolls, placing them outside the bounds of the system. I especially disagree with any such features that are restricted to specific classes.

Cybren

2016-06-23, 08:43 PM

"In this contrived set of scenarios where I allow a single die roll to influence a course of events, I am insufficiently satisfied that a single die roll influenced a course of events"

LaserFace

2016-06-23, 08:43 PM

Again, the issue isn't that bards and rogues are better at skills. The issue is the way in which it was done.

Fighters are the best at attacking because they get the most attacks. Wizards are the overall supreme spell casters because they have the largest spell list. Rogues and bards already get the most skills. In previous editions, that was it. This edition added expertise, which if it provided advantage or similar would be perfectly fine. Instead, it just sets the rogue and bard numbers higher so that no one else can hit the same numbers.

And that's goofy in any edition. If one class had a feature to add double prof to spell DCs, we'd all recognize that as broken. If a spell added +10 to attack rolls for an hour, everyone would ban that spell. But for some reason, many give expertise a pass.

But, skill checks are entirely different from attack rolls and spell saves. Who cares if nobody else can hit the same numbers as someone with Expertise? The DCs are set, and characters with Expertise pass them more often than others. And what do they accomplish? Their successful Investigation check gives them a useful clue. Wow. I'm so sad to divulge slightly beneficial information to my players. And yes, "slightly" beneficial because the game shouldn't instantly come to screeching halt because someone failed a skill check. Not because I devalue skills, but because skills aren't combat. There isn't an Investigation Armor Class and an Investigation Hit Points pool that the party works together to overcome. I can understand if you want to do something like that, okay, but this is some heavy houseruling and strays from relevancy.

Skills aren't combat. They are there to complement the aspects of gameplay outside of exploring Dungeons and fighting Dragons. Sometimes you can use a skill to make a fight easier, or avoid combat entirely. It can be meaningful in other ways. But, skills aren't designed to be the campaign, so the rules weren't designed that way. It's not a broken system, it's a simple system.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-23, 08:53 PM

Skills aren't combat. They are there to complement the aspects of gameplay outside of exploring Dungeons and fighting Dragons. Sometimes you can use a skill to make a fight easier, or avoid combat entirely. It can be meaningful in other ways. But, skills aren't designed to be the campaign, so the rules weren't designed that way. It's not a broken system, it's a simple system.

Going to bold it this time, since my message seems to be getting lost. In my campaigns, skills are often just as important as combat.

Do not assume that everyone plays the game the same way as you do.
Do not assume that everyone ascribes to the idea that D&D is only good for combat.
Just because you think skills are less important, that doesn't justify the skill system being broken.

Everyone who casts spells can hit the same DC. Some classes can cast more spells, and some classes can cast spells more often.
Everyone who attacks can achieve a persistent +11 on the attack roll or slightly higher. Some classes can make more attacks than others.
Rogues and Bards hit far higher numbers with skills than the other classes. They also get the most skills, meaning they get to use them the most often.

That ain't right. Maybe you think it's fine, maybe you don't take issue with it. But regardless of how you feel, I believe I've at least demonstrated that this aspect of the skill system is an anomaly within 5e. These rules are intended to fix that.

LaserFace

2016-06-23, 09:03 PM

And here's this argument, again. Wizards having spells is not an excuse for the skill system being broken.

Situation: a king wants to go to war. The party must stop him.

If they pick a fight, they have to win combat. Combat is quite balanced.
If they try to mind control some key figure and force a truce that way, the target has to fail his saves. Nearly all detrimental spells allow saving throws, and the highest a player can get his DC (without rare magic items) is 19.
If they try to persuade him not to go to war, the Bard can succeed on a Nearly Impossible roll nearly every time, several times per day.

Number 3 is the problem. Rogues and Bards already have the most skills, and I agree that Expertise should make their skill rolls more consistently high. But I disagree with features that give strict pluses to skill rolls, placing them outside the bounds of the system. I especially disagree with any such features that are restricted to specific classes.

Number 3 is solved by making a note of "Unless the PCs come up with good enough arguments the King actually wants to hear, he's not going to be persuaded. BTW he's a raving lunatic so basically No."

The rules explicitly say don't roll for things that are impossible or inappropriate. It means the DM is allowed to characterize NPCs and decide the framework where success is possible; and DMs won't be giving you DCs they mind you beating, they won't be giving you NPCs they don't mind you persuading or killing.

It means this isn't an edition for bad DMs. It's an edition for people who don't want to get bogged down while on an Adventure. Everything about 5E is about jumping right into a higly accessible fantasy experience.

Going to bold it this time, since my message seems to be getting lost. In my campaigns, skills are often just as important as combat.

Do not assume that everyone plays the game the same way as you do.
Do not assume that everyone ascribes to the idea that D&D is only good for combat.
Just because you think skills are less important, that doesn't justify the skill system being broken.

Everyone who casts spells can hit the same DC. Some classes can cast more spells, and some classes can cast spells more often.
Everyone who attacks can achieve a persistent +11 on the attack roll or slightly higher. Some classes can make more attacks than others.
Rogues and Bards hit far higher numbers with skills than the other classes. They also get the most skills, meaning they get to use them the most often.

That ain't right. Maybe you think it's fine, maybe you don't take issue with it. But regardless of how you feel, I believe I've at least demonstrated that this aspect of the skill system is an anomaly within 5e. These rules are intended to fix that.

Skills are important to you. That's nice. I hope you find some good houserules to support that style of gameplay. I hope you actually make significant departures from the 5E skill system, because its design was deliberate. I don't even recommend the OP's approach because that doesn't go nearly far enough, if I'm understanding your issues.

Actually, I recommend you find other RPG systems because there are a few out there that probably work better with the style you want. But, you not finding something useful doesn't mean it's "broken" or "bad". This whole thread is full of people who don't have issues with how it works; I assume that's because they follow the intended design.

Cybren

2016-06-23, 09:04 PM

D&D isn't only about combat, but combat is the most detailed and robust system in the game, partly out of tradition, and partly because a regularly occurring event where failure could result in death (or any number of negative things) needs to have an element of stability to it, and an increase in the number of iterations increases stability.

Skill checks are not combat. The three pillars of the game are not "Combat, Skill Checks, and Pizza". Skill checks are using a single die roll to abstract a series of in-game events that present a challenge but do not substantiate the principle element of the adventure. They're simple obstacles that the characters can tackle to either gain a slight edge or mitigate a weakness. A single skill check should not greatly impact the success or failure of an adventure to the point where it trivializes the entire adventure. If in your game, everything hinges around convincing the king not to go to war, you should not require a single skill check to allow that to happen. If D&D had a Burning Wheel style Duel of Wits mechanic, you could argue being that good at persuade is broken, but it doesn't.

I would not argue that you "play D&D wrong", but I would argue that you don't understand the fundamental theory the 5E designers were using to approach the game, and you don't understand the functions of the tools they created. Skill checks are not attack rolls, they are ability checks, and they're not themselves parallel to combat. Even in the case you present, that's not a very well-constructed scenario because everything can hinge on a single die roll. What, you'd prefer it to have a 50/50 shot? Whether you can do it reliably or as a shot in the dark, you're still allowing the adventure to be trivialized by one die roll. And on that note- you have a bard with expertise in persuade in your group, and you designed an adventure where persuade can make it pointless, and that's akin to being mad an 11th level wizard makes castle walls trivial.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-23, 09:05 PM

Actually, I recommend you find other RPG systems because there are a few out there that probably work better with the style you want. But, you not finding something useful doesn't mean it's "broken" or "bad". This whole thread is full of people who don't have issues with how it works; I assume that's because they follow the intended design.

In any argument on these forums, it's only a matter of time before someone says, "You don't play the same way I do, therefore you need to find a different game."

LaserFace

2016-06-23, 09:18 PM

In any argument on these forums, it's only a matter of time before someone says, "You don't play the same way I do, therefore you need to find a different game."

See Cybren's post.

or if tl;dr

You don't seem to play the game the way it was designed and how most other people play it, so in interest of offering something helpful, I recommend you check out other games. The Burning Wheel might be up your alley.

Or you can sulk, whatever.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-23, 09:34 PM

See Cybren's post.

or if tl;dr

You don't seem to play the game the way it was designed and how most other people play it, so in interest of offering something helpful, I recommend you check out other games. The Burning Wheel might be up your alley.

Or you can sulk, whatever.

From another thread:

5e is all about customization and changes to make the game you want to play.

If this A/D stacking system works for someone, by all means they should use it. If it doesn't work for someone else, they shouldn't use it.

It's that simple. As a community, we should be helping people get the game they want to play and advise them on the goods and bads of their house rules so the can better judge if they want to implement it.

What we shouldn't be doing is denigrating people for daring to change a portion of the game to better fit their idea of how thier home games should be played.

tl;dr You aren't being helpful, you're being dismissive and condescending. Everyone can see it. No one appreciates it. And it doesn't help anyone.

LaserFace

2016-06-23, 09:48 PM

I don't get it.

5E having room for customization doesn't mean that because I failed to customize my game the way you did yours, that the system failed you or was ill-designed. It also doesn't mean you're free from criticism if you make poor arguments.

There is nothing wrong with saying "eh 5E's skill system is just a little weak for me, I think introducing elements X, Y and Z give it some more oomph", but your earlier remarks and the OP basically claim it's a ruined mess, and I was refuting that.

Sigreid

2016-06-24, 12:47 AM

This whole concept is not something I'm interested in using at all, but I have to jump on Kryx's side a little bit here. This thread is clearly to work out the kinks for the people who do not like Expertise the way it is. I do, but I don't really see the benefit to anyone of jumping in here just to argue that the people who are interested in it shouldn't be/it's not needed.

I mean, if you want to read the thread just to get another perspective, that's all well and good, but there isn't much point in fighting with them trying to convince them that they shouldn't do anything. If they want to change some stuff up a bit, no skin off my nose. Similar to how it's no skin off anyone else's nose if my group lets Eldritch Knights choose any two schools instead of automatically being stuck with evocation and abjuration.

Giant2005

2016-06-24, 01:42 AM

Something that might help your concept is differentiating different advantage effects by giving some weaker effects.
Abilities could have 1 of 3 different versions of advantage: a weak advantage, a standard advantage, or a strong advantage.
Weak Advantage: Roll a d20. Roll a second D20. If both rolls are odd, take the highest, if both rolls are even, take the highest, if one roll is even and the other odd, stick with your initial roll. (Idea pillaged from what I think they were trying to convey here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?488456-Oddvantage)).
Standard Advantage: Exactly as the book states.
Strong Advantage: Roll 3d20 and take the highest result.

For things that should be weaker like Guidance, use the Weak Advantage. For things that should be stronger like Expertise, use Strong Advantage (personally for Expertise I'd rather use a more complicated system where it starts as a weak advantage, progresses to standard advantage, and then eventually rests as a strong advantage).

Lombra

2016-06-24, 06:28 AM

Kryx

2016-06-24, 06:37 AM

Another example: classic barbarogue power grappler can shove, grapple, pin to the ground a giant using a finger. That's fine, why? Because it's built for it, it's going to be amazing at athletics checks, but if you as a DM let the player trivialize combats by just shoving things the problem is yours, not of the game design.
So if a Fighter has +20 to hit then that's fine because "he's built for it"?

Obviously not.

Cybren

2016-06-24, 06:43 AM

So if a Fighter has +20 to hit then that's fine because "he's built for it"?

No (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence), I don't think that is an argument made in good faith.

Lombra

2016-06-24, 06:44 AM

So if a Fighter has +20 to hit then that's fine because "he's built for it"?

Obviously not.

Can't you really see the difference between combat and skill checks? Like, really?

Kryx

2016-06-24, 06:49 AM

No (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence), I don't think that is an argument made in good faith.
I'm not being sarcastic, at all. My argument is comparing the two options. Both options can be used in combat. Both options can determine the outcome of events. They are equivalent.

For those of us who do use the skill system I'd like them to work.

If anything I don't think your argument is made in good faith. You're wilfully ignoring part of the game and telling us who look at that part of the game that we're playing it wrong.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-06-24, 06:58 AM

I hope you actually make significant departures from the 5E skill system, because its design was deliberate.
I'm going to have to disagree on that one. I don't think any edition has put much thought into skills compared to, and 5e may be the worst of all in that regard. They paid no need to how many skills each ability governed, how likely characters were to make their checks, how easy it was to get skill check bonuses... They gave virtually no guidance on how to set DCs, and what little there was seems unrelated to the actual bonuses. They didn't include anything about resolving situations with multiple rolls. They didn't stop to think about just how much they were relying on random chance, or how much their recommended DCs exceeded normal BA. There's no useful help or hints or rules, just "Easy is DC 10. Moderate is DC 15..."

Seriously, look at the numbers for Expertise sometime. Expertise is a pathetically obvious bandaid that brings your success rate at level-appropriate DCs (moderate at 1st, hard at 10th, very hard at 20th) to the same "roll an 8 or better" role that combat scaling follows. And it gets haphazardly slapped on anything that's supposed to be "good at skills" so they can actually do their job.

And all this is doubly frustrating because skills are usually the ONLY way noncasters can interact with the world. Crappy skill rules are, in my opinion, the single biggest reason for the mundane-caster divide.

You could do so much more than D&D does with this crap it calls a skill system. Give us social combat rules! Give us skill challenges! Give us skill tricks! Give us the ability to do new things with old skills as we gain levels! Give us ways for the Rogue to be as epic at 20th level as the Wizard!
(EDIT: That rant is at WotC, not anyone here)

Cybren

2016-06-24, 06:59 AM

Easy_Lee

2016-06-24, 08:08 AM

"Determining outcomes" and "hinging everything on the result of" are two different things. The former is letting someone use persuade to convince the king to recall his dovish ministers that had been put under house arrest so that they can steer the court away from war. The latter is letting someone use persuade to just bypass the entire adventure and convince the king to do whatever they want.

The purpose of a skill check is not to replace or bypass an adventure. If your skill check has a 10% chance of doing that, it's an example of bad adventure design, same as if it has a 90%, but it's not an indictment on the skill system, because it's not the purpose of the skill system

Comparing attack rolls to skill checks is absurd because
1) Combat encounters consist of a series of attack rolls, not a single attack roll
2) Succeeding on an attack roll does not guarantee that your attack deals a significant amount of damage, because there is a complex set of interactions and abilities that determine how combat plays out

Skill checks are isolated events, or a short series of events, with a vague and abstract resolution. IF you want to make an adjustment to fundamental propositions to the system, that's fine, but you should do so with awareness of purpose and in good faith of intent. The system is not broken, it just is not the system you want it to be.

You know, you wrote a lot of stuff here, and I Googled some of it. But I failed to find a single official source stating that any of this was the intent. And the purpose of skills, the intent behind the system and full rationale, is obviously not some well-known thing, either.

Not that it matters. The fact is that different groups use skills differently. None of us are "wrong," just different. And the current skill system does not meet the needs of any group intending to use it heavily.

Incidentally, I love how the opposition has shifted their argument from "the skill system isn't broken" to "it's broken on purpose because it's designed not to be used much!" Good one, guys.

MaxWilson

2016-06-24, 08:14 AM

So if a Fighter has +20 to hit then that's fine because "he's built for it"?

Obviously not.

You're missing the point (which is about how proning a target doesn't end an encounter in and of itself) but hey, I'll engage with this point anyway:

Yes, +20 to hit is fine. If a Dex 22 (magical tome) Fighter at 20th level with +7 proficiency (due to Ioun Stone of Mastery) is using a +3 bow with Archery style, and he's Blessed, his to-hit bonus per attack ranges from +19 to +22 depending on the attack, with an mean of +20.5. And this does not break the game, nor does it in and of itself trivialize encounters.

Against a number of foes and in a number of situations, +20 isn't even significantly better than +6 to hit. If you're fighting a horde of zombies, who cares if you have +20 to hit? They have AC 8. And they can still tear your face off if you make the wrong decisions.

If you think +20 to hit in a niche scenario is a problem for 5E, you've failed to understand what bounded accuracy is and how to use it.

Kryx

2016-06-24, 08:16 AM

Seriously, look at the numbers for Expertise sometime. Expertise is a pathetically obvious bandaid that brings your success rate at level-appropriate DCs (moderate at 1st, hard at 10th, very hard at 20th) to the same "roll an 8 or better" role that combat scaling follows. And it gets haphazardly slapped on anything that's supposed to be "good at skills" so they can actually do their job.
You made this claim a few times. Lets look at the math of it.

"level-appropriate DCs" isn't really what 5e setup. The system is setup with flat DCs with 5 being easy, 10 being easy, 15 being medium, 20 being hard, 25 being very hand, and 30 being nearly impossible. Those numbers do not change at higher levels - they are static.
Now what I assume you meant is that as you progress in levels the higher DCs are more common, and that's likely true.

So if we look at a proficient skill that use the main stat and compare success rates at several levels:

1st level: 2 prof and 3 ability mod (anydice (http://anydice.com/program/8b16)):
Very Easy: 100% chance to succeed
Easy: 80% chance to succeed
Medium: 55% chance to succeed
Hard: 30% chance to succeed
Very Hard: 5% chance to succeed
Nearly Impossible: 0% chance to succeed

5th level: 3 prof and 4 ability mod (anydice (http://anydice.com/program/8b17)):
Very Easy: 100% chance to succeed
Easy: 90% chance to succeed
Medium: 65% chance to succeed
Hard: 40% chance to succeed
Very Hard: 15% chance to succeed
Nearly Impossible: 0% chance to succeed

9th level: 4 prof and 5 ability mod (anydice (http://anydice.com/program/8b18)):
Very Easy: 100% chance to succeed
Easy: 100% chance to succeed
Medium: 75% chance to succeed
Hard: 50% chance to succeed
Very Hard: 25% chance to succeed
Nearly Impossible: 0% chance to succeed

13th level: 5 prof and 5 ability mod (anydice (http://anydice.com/program/8b19)):
Very Easy: 100% chance to succeed
Easy: 100% chance to succeed
Medium: 80% chance to succeed
Hard: 55% chance to succeed
Very Hard: 30% chance to succeed
Nearly Impossible: 5% chance to succeed

17th level: 6 prof and 5 ability mod (anydice (http://anydice.com/program/8b1a)):
Very Easy: 100% chance to succeed
Easy: 100% chance to succeed
Medium: 85% chance to succeed
Hard: 60% chance to succeed
Very Hard: 35% chance to succeed
Nearly Impossible: 10% chance to succeed

The claim you've made is that the "normal" goes from Medium -> Hard-> Very Hard.
The default numbers seem to suggest Medium -> Hard

If we compare that to monsters from the Monster manual and look at their average skill proficiency.

CR 1 (1st level)
Athletics 1.2
Acrobatics 1.3

Even if we round up to +2 we're looking at a 61% chance we'll win the contest. (anydice (http://anydice.com/program/8b1c))

CR 5 (5th level)
Athletics 2.6
Acrobatics 1.4

Assuming Athletics if we round up to +3 we're looking at a 66% chance we'll win the contest. (anydice (http://anydice.com/program/8b1d))

CR 9 (9th level)
Athletics 3.9
Acrobatics 1.5

Assuming Athletics if we round up to +4 we're looking at a 70% chance we'll win the contest. (anydice (http://anydice.com/program/8b1e))

CR 13 (13th level)
Athletics 4.9
Acrobatics 1.5

Assuming Athletics if we round up to +5 we're looking at a 70% chance we'll win the contest. (anydice (http://anydice.com/program/8b21))

CR 17 (17th level)
Athletics 5.8
Acrobatics 2

Assuming Athletics if we round up to +6 we're looking at a 70% chance we'll win the contest. (anydice (http://anydice.com/program/8b20))

Based on monster manual data we scale from a 61% chance to win to a 70% chance to win. No bandaid needed.

I haven't played any of WotC's adventures, but if I briefly look through Curse of Strahd:
Village of Barovia (level 1-3): 11 perception, 15 deception/persuasion, 12 str
Town of Vallaki (level 4): 20 persuasion, 10 intimidate, 20 dex, 14 investigation, 14 arcana, 15 arcana, 20 str, 10 perception, 10 investigation, 15 perception, 15 perception
Old Bonegrinder (level 4): 12 insight

Castle Ravenloft (level 9): 20 int, 15 str, 10 str, 20 perception, 10 perception, 15 perception, 15 dex, 10 str, 16 perception, 20 perception, 15 investigation, 10 perception, 15 performance, 15 perception, 13 perception, 15 acrobatics, 15 perception, 15 investigation, 10 perception, 10 intimidation, 20 str, 13 perception, 10 str, 10 perception, 10 athletics, 20 dex, 25 str, 10 athletics, 25 athletics, 15 investigation, 20 perception, 15 str, 12 perception, 15 int, 10 athletics, 15 str, 20 str, 25 str, 15 str, 25 str
Amber Temple (level 9): 20 perception, 20 perception, 25 str, 12 perception, 10 perception, 25 str, 25 str, 25 str

ignoring the ability checks without skills (as proficiency and expertise doesn't affect the ability to break down doors and the like):

Level 1-4 is pretty much easy or medium which is a 55-80% success rate. Expertise would be a 65-90% success rate.
Level 9 is pretty much medium or hard which is a 50-75% success rate. Expertise would be a 70-95% success rate.

That seems to scale exactly as the system expects. Unfortunately the adventure ends there so I can't tell you how it scales to 20.

TL;DR: The skill system math seems to scale exactly as intended without expertise on MM data and Adventure data, but adventure data is a small sample size.

I've used up my allotment of time so I shall not argue the value of the skill system. I'll let Easy take those as he's doing a pretty good job showing how ignoring the skill system shouldn't be the default.

pwykersotz

2016-06-24, 08:35 AM

I find it funny that I haven't yet seen the issue in game, because the arguments that Easy Lee and Kryx are putting forth address the same problems that led me becoming dissatisfied with 3.5, just on a smaller scale.

I personally despise immunities (though I love resistances) and auto-win buttons. Negating damage, the cover negation of Sharpshooter, and auto-success on rolls all fall into this area. It's true that if you pump the baseline high enough, you can't count on certain classic obstacles posing any threat at all anymore. Flying negates those pesky pit traps. Darkvision makes light unnecessary. (http://goblinpunch.blogspot.com/2015/05/keep-dungeon-threats-threatening.html) And high skill checks mean that the DM has to consider if it's worth calling for the party to make a check when one person can automatically succeed.

What I like instead is new abilities that allow you to tackle problems from different angles.

Off the cuff example: Perception Expertise - As long as your senses are within range of an area you have scouted previously, you become incredibly sensitive to changes in the area. If something changes, you can continue to sense those changes by carrying forward your Perception roll, even if a great deal of time passes.

Granted, this ability is not the most well thought out, but I think it's a serviceable illustration.

I guess this is a long way of saying that while many of us may not particularly resonate with the fix posted and the example situations designed to illustrate it, I can definitely see that there is a problem. It hasn't affected me yet, but the idea of it runs afoul of my design sensibilities. It's just not serious enough yet (level 13 is the highest my party has hit) to cause a need for correction.

Lombra

2016-06-24, 09:07 AM

Incidentally, I love how the opposition has shifted their argument from "the skill system isn't broken" to "it's broken on purpose because it's designed not to be used much!" Good one, guys.
Where are you reading this?

MaxWilson

2016-06-24, 09:32 AM

I think it's telling when someone on an Internet forum refers to "the opposition", as if the thread were a tribal conflict. If you're (generic "you") more invested in "winning" the argument than in pursuing insight, then you (generic "you") and I have nothing to discuss. I don't come to GITP to fight other posters, gain XP, and level up. That's what D&D is for. ;-)

Kryx

2016-06-24, 09:37 AM

Yes, +20 to hit is fine. If a Dex 22 (magical tome) Fighter at 20th level with +7 proficiency (due to Ioun Stone of Mastery) is using a +3 bow with Archery style, and he's Blessed, his to-hit bonus per attack ranges from +19 to +22 depending on the attack, with an mean of +20.5. And this does not break the game, nor does it in and of itself trivialize encounters.
The average AC of an enemy at CR 20 is 19.7. If you have between +19 and +22 to hit then you only miss on a 1.

Since you consider that balanced then it makes sense that you consider skills going really high balanced.

I don't consider any auto success balanced.

Kryx

2016-06-24, 10:02 AM

Grod, and others who are interested in the system without debating the merits of using the skill system or not please see:

Fully Bounded Accuracy 2: For those who want an alternate system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?492586-Fully-Bounded-Accuracy-2-For-those-who-want-an-alternate-system)

MaxWilson

2016-06-24, 10:03 AM

The average AC of an enemy at CR 20 is 19.7. If you have between +19 and +22 to hit then you only miss on a 1.

Since you consider that balanced then it makes sense that you consider skills going really high balanced.

I don't consider any auto success balanced.

In the 5E paradigm (per Rodney Thompson, whom you quote in your very own document!), at level 20, you can fight zombies hordes (AC 8; +6 is as good as +20) and they're basically an auto-hit even under your own system. Conversely, you can fight ancient dragons who have AC 22 +Shield spell + Darkness + blindsight, which means that +20 will hit about 50% of the time. You can also fight dragons who simply don't come within reach of your weapons (0% hit rate), and even AC 15 wizards who use Mirror Image or Blink to force misses despite your nominal +20 to-hit.

In short, no, that's not an auto-success even on a single hit, let alone on the combat.

I get that you don't consider it balanced, but if you re-read Rodney Thompson's article including his statement on monsters never going obsolete, you may perceive why many people don't share your apprehension. One reason you've had so little feedback on your proposed fix is that the fix isn't well-motivated; few people even see a problem that needs fixing.

If I were in your shoes, I'd just start a new thread that states its goals clearly in the OP: "This thread is only for people who think that 5E needs flatter math. Others please stay out." This thread, at this point, isn't accomplishing your goal of talking about your proposal. Edit: haha, I see that you did that while I was writing this post. Great minds think alike? At least on this one point.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-06-24, 10:10 AM

You made this claim a few times. Lets look at the math of it.

"level-appropriate DCs" isn't really what 5e setup. The system is setup with flat DCs with 5 being easy, 10 being easy, 15 being medium, 20 being hard, 25 being very hand, and 30 being nearly impossible. Those numbers do not change at higher levels - they are static.
Now what I assume you meant is that as you progress in levels the higher DCs are more common, and that's likely true.
Not exactly. What I mean is that as you gain levels, you should be able to (routinely) roll higher numbers to achieve more difficult things. After all, that's the point of a level-based game, right? Walls won't miraculously get harder to climb as you get a better Athletics check, but you will be able to climb smoother and steeper walls by virtue of your improved check.

The claim you've made is that the "normal" goes from Medium -> Hard-> Very Hard.
The default numbers seem to suggest Medium -> Hard
I admit that it's hard to know exactly what "normal" was intended, but I see the progression I mentioned as appropriate due primarily to the way the values with Expertise parallel attack and save progression against expected monster AC/DCs. (You might say that I was...:smallcool:...thunderstruck). The default numbers are approximately one benchmark too low-- as you've showed, a proficient character starts off being able to make Easy checks reliably, hits Moderate at mid levels and Hard at high.

If we compare that to monsters from the Monster manual and look at their average skill proficiency.
Hmm. Hadn't looked at those at all, but given how many different rules monsters follow? Eh. I'm also curious how many proficient vs nonproficient monsters you're averaging together there, as I suspect that might be throwing things off.

I haven't played any of WotC's adventures, but if I briefly look through Curse of Strahd:
So the takeaway here is that DCs at levels 1-10 should go from ~10 to ~20? Okay. That tracks with what I propose as the appropriate progression.

------

The issue, perhaps, is that I consider a 50-50 success rate to be too low for a character who's supposed to be good at a skill. When trying something you "should" be able to do, skills should have a reasonable chance of failure but you should generally expect success. And you "should" be able to do more impressive things as you level up, which I think the default system doesn't do a good job of encouraging.

EDIT:

Grod, and others who are interested in the system without debating the merits of using the skill system or not please see:

Fully Bounded Accuracy 2: For those who want an alternate system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?492586-Fully-Bounded-Accuracy-2-For-those-who-want-an-alternate-system)
Sorry, I didn't see this until I finished typing

Kryx

2016-06-24, 10:27 AM

I get that you don't consider it balanced, but if you re-read Rodney Thompson's article including his statement on monsters never going obsolete, you may perceive why many people don't share your apprehension. One reason you've had so little feedback on your proposed fix is that the fix isn't well-motivated; few people even see a problem that needs fixing.
As I've stated from the beginning I don't except everyone to want the same thing and that's totally fine - people play the game for many different reasons.

It's a bit difficult to re-read Rodney Thompson's post about bounded accuracy as the WotC forums imploded and that is where much of it was. But to address your points:
It seems you expect a GM to compensate for +20 to hit with things like a Dragon with shield or flight. I don't mean to diminish your point so I apologize if I've mis-phrased it.
From my perspective those type of scenarios are pretty rare in my games. Beyond that a GM shouldn't have to make those adjustments. In my games the vast majority of rounds allow melee characters to engage enemies. Though perhaps your games are different.

D&D has a history of allowing brokenness at high level just because "it's high level - you won't play it long!". See the Balanced saving throws thread that illustrates PCs scaling to ~5-15% success rate on non-proficient saving throws.
I find the +20 to hit and 5-15% saving throw success rate unsatisfactory and prefer that the math stay balanced. I understand that others prefer the unbalanced system.

_______________________

So the takeaway here is that DCs at levels 1-10 should go from ~10 to ~20? Okay. That tracks with what I propose as the appropriate progression.
What I outlined is different than what you had expected. What I outlined tracks with the proficiency progression, not the expertise progression like you expected.

The issue, perhaps, is that I consider a 50-50 success rate to be too low for a character who's supposed to be good at a skill. When trying something you "should" be able to do, skills should have a reasonable chance of failure but you should generally expect success. And you "should" be able to do more impressive things as you level up, which I think the default system doesn't do a good job of encouraging.
This is the summary that matters. At 20 a 60% success rate for proficient skills doing a hard task is pretty good. That lines up with what is expected at level 1 vs Medium tasks. If you then stack on the advantage like I propose (anydice (http://anydice.com/program/8b24)) you then arrive at a 84% chance to do hard tasks and a 57.75% to do very hard and a 19% chance to do nearly impossible. That tracks perfectly with my expectations. Under expertise those numbers are 90%, 65%, and 40% (anydice.com (http://anydice.com/program/8b25))

But it should also be kept in mind that expertise can still roll really low and fail quite a bit. I linked the thread on expertise before. Advantage makes expertise more reliable. It wins out on averages at low to mid tiers, but starts to lose on averages at 13+ (which is fine in my opinion).

MaxWilson

2016-06-24, 10:41 AM

It seems you expect a GM to compensate for +20 to hit with things like a Dragon with shield or flight. I don't mean to diminish your point so I apologize if I've mis-phrased it.
From my perspective those type of scenarios are pretty rare in my games. Beyond that a GM shouldn't have to make those adjustments. In my games the vast majority of rounds allow melee characters to engage enemies. Though perhaps your games are different.

You misunderstand. I cited both the zombies and the dragon because it's an illustration for purposes of an Internet discussion, so it's useful to illustrate both ends of the difficulty spectrum. In actual play, it would be up to the players whether they went zombie hunting against (presumably thousands of) AC 8 zombies (plus other things mixed in, like death tyrants with disintegration rays, and Shadows) which don't care at all that you have +20 to hit because they don't rely on AC; or if they went dragon-hunting and really needed that +20 to hit in order to have some chance of hitting the dragon.

But it's a sandbox, so neither the dragon nor the zombies are customized specifically to "counter" PC abilities. (The dragon's spells are that way mostly to deal with (1) armies of archers, and (2) other dragons. Not specific PCs.) Building custom anti-PC monsters is bad DMing. To customize monsters against specific PCs is to deliberately deprive players of meaningful choices, and should not be done. Yes, that is an opinion, and it is mine.

D&D has a history of allowing brokenness at high level just because "it's high level - you won't play it long!". See the Balanced saving throws thread that illustrates PCs scaling to ~5-15% success rate on non-proficient saving throws.

If, arguendo, the success rate really is that low, high-level play will consist chiefly in finding ways to avoid making saving throws.* Players should be doing that anyway, but high-level PCs will be even better at that game because they tend to have more proactive options available to them. Etherealness, Contingency, etc. So, even if that statistic is accurate for a given table, I think it is misleading, for skilled players. (And unskilled players should have their PCs killed off before reaching high level, or should gain enough skill to avoid getting killed off.)

* In my experience, even low- and mid-level play consists in trying to avoid making saving throws. Saving throws are the DM's way of telling you, "You just blew it. Let's see if you can salvage something from the situation."

I find the +20 to hit and 5-15% saving throw success rate unsatisfactory and prefer that the math stay balanced. I understand that others prefer the unbalanced system.

Put scare quotes around "unbalanced" there and I'll have no quibble with your statement. But I understand that from your perspective, it really is unbalanced, no scare quotes required. That's no different from my opinion that the problems you're worried about can't happen unless the DM is bad at DMing: that statement probably doesn't sit well with you any more than your "unbalanced" claim sits well with me. Different people have different opinions, and yes, it's fine for you to play the way that makes you happy.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-24, 10:42 AM

In the 5E paradigm (per Rodney Thompson, whom you quote in your very own document!), at level 20, you can fight zombies hordes (AC 8; +6 is as good as +20) and they're basically an auto-hit even under your own system. Conversely, you can fight ancient dragons who have AC 22 +Shield spell + Darkness + blindsight, which means that +20 will hit about 50% of the time. You can also fight dragons who simply don't come within reach of your weapons (0% hit rate), and even AC 15 wizards who use Mirror Image or Blink to force misses despite your nominal +20 to-hit.

In short, no, that's not an auto-success even on a single hit, let alone on the combat.

I get that you don't consider it balanced, but if you re-read Rodney Thompson's article including his statement on monsters never going obsolete, you may perceive why many people don't share your apprehension. One reason you've had so little feedback on your proposed fix is that the fix isn't well-motivated; few people even see a problem that needs fixing.

If I were in your shoes, I'd just start a new thread that states its goals clearly in the OP: "This thread is only for people who think that 5E needs flatter math. Others please stay out." This thread, at this point, isn't accomplishing your goal of talking about your proposal. Edit: haha, I see that you did that while I was writing this post. Great minds think alike? At least on this one point.

By the time you get to level 20, the chances are that someone in your party is a spell caster. That means they can provide things like advantage from Guiding Bolt, Counterspell Support, Foresight, Truesight, etc. So you aren't trying to hit the dragon through his darkness, or the wizard through his mirror image and blink, nearly as often as you would have been trying to do things at those levels.

Regardless, the bounded accuracy means you'll be hitting more often at those levels than you did at low levels, so it's an odd point to make, anyway. Auto-hitting should not be a thing. Consider that a level 20 monk can, every round for four straight rounds, force 4 consecutive save-or-stuns. Legendary resistance only even goes up to 3 uses, last I checked. Auto-hitting should not be a thing.

Also, I think it goes against the forum rules to tell people who disagree not to post in your thread.

Kryx

2016-06-24, 10:48 AM

Different people have different opinions, and yes, it's fine for you to play the way that makes you happy.
We did it! Rejoice! We reached some consensus without being bitter toward one another!!

Funny part: I had the quotes there, but I then removed them before I hit submit :D

If, arguendo, the success rate really is that low, high-level player will consist chiefly in finding ways to avoid making saving throws. Players should be doing that anyway, but high-level PCs will be even better at that game because they tend to have more proactive options available to them. Etherealness, Contingency, etc. So, even if that statistic is accurate for a given table, I think it is misleading, for skilled players. (And unskilled players should have their PCs killed off before reaching high level, or should gain enough skill to avoid getting killed off.)
I just can't understand/agree with the mindset of "if the system is broken, then avoid the system!!!". It has been one used for the skill system and here for saving throws (the math of which can be seen in the other thread or on google docs (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ZeFuwQVvb9DsMseUU8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit#gid=1759684098)). It is indeed true.

It seems you think magic should compensate for a "broken" system. I would argue that magic should complement a working system.

But I don't mean to enforce my views on you, just sharing my own.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-24, 10:53 AM

[QUOTE=Kryx;20928374]I just can't understand/agree with the mindset of "if the system is broken, then avoid the system!!!".

This is what bothers me most about the skill system. In short, the line of thought goes something like this:

Pickup 5e and realize it's pretty balanced and easy to play
Notice skill system is an anomaly; there aren't many standard DCs and some classes make skill checks as if they were several levels higher than everyone else
Realize skill system doesn't work too well because it's random for some and trivial for others
Don't use skill checks much
Claim the game wasn't designed for skill checks to have much relevancy
Criticize anyone who uses skill checks for important matters
Resist efforts to fix the skill system

I like to be able to use skill checks for important matters in my games. For that, I need my players to know about what numbers they're trying to hit for a given task, and I also need to be able to challenge all of them with the same numbers. For me, that's all this is about.

Cybren

2016-06-24, 10:55 AM

MaxWilson

2016-06-24, 10:56 AM

By the time you get to level 20, the chances are that someone in your party is a spell caster. That means they can provide things like advantage from Guiding Bolt, Counterspell Support, Foresight, Truesight, etc. So you aren't trying to hit the dragon through his darkness, or the wizard through his mirror image and blink, nearly as often as you would have been trying to do things at those levels.

Yes, having a wizard available to give Foresight to the archer, lock the dragon down with Otto's Irresistible Dance from on top of his Phantom Steed, Dispel the Darkness, and Counterspell the dragon's Shield will vastly increase your chances of success. Hooray for teamwork! Now not only the archer, but also the necromancer's own skeletal minions can effectively attack the dragon, and perhaps even kill it.

That's called a "victory." That feeling of accomplishment what the game is about.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-24, 11:00 AM

Yes, having a wizard available to give Foresight to the archer, lock the dragon down with Otto's Irresistible Dance from on top of his Phantom Steed, Dispel the Darkness, and Counterspell the dragon's Shield will vastly increase your chances of success. Hooray for teamwork! Now not only the archer, but also the necromancer's own skeletal minions can effectively attack the dragon, and perhaps even kill it.

That's called a "victory." That feeling of accomplishment what the game is about.

What are you trying to say, here? I was talking about how the fighter can hit the dragon with his own bonus, as long as he has spell support. I was saying he doesn't need +20 to hit to do that. We all agree that fighters with a permanent +20 to hit would be busted. I'm pretty sure everyone on the forum can agree with that.

MaxWilson

2016-06-24, 11:05 AM

We did it! Rejoice! We reached some consensus without being bitter toward one another!!

Awesome! Well done Mr. Kryx.

I just can't understand/agree with the mindset of "if the system is broken, then avoid the system!!!". It has been one used for the skill system and here for saving throws (the math of which can be seen in the other thread or on google docs (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ZeFuwQVvb9DsMseUU8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit#gid=1759684098)). It is indeed true.

It seems you think magic should compensate for a "broken" system. I would argue that magic should complement a working system.

But I don't mean to enforce my views on you, just sharing my own.

You're seeing things from your own perspective, but you misunderstand my perspective. It's not a reaction to the system. I play AD&D exactly the same way, despite the fact that the odds of success in AD&D approach 90% success rates on saving throws at high levels. The key principle is: don't do stupid stuff that can get you killed, unless you really have to. Or as Sun Tzu might say,

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."

99% success rate is not enough when your life is on the line. Nevertheless, on death ground, fight!

=================================

What are you trying to say, here? I was talking about how the fighter can hit the dragon with his own bonus, as long as he has spell support. I was saying he doesn't need +20 to hit to do that. We all agree that fighters with a permanent +20 to hit would be busted. I'm pretty sure everyone on the forum can agree with that.

I was trying to say, "I don't really understand the point you're trying to make here, but I see something that I agree with so I'll say so."

Kryx

2016-06-24, 11:19 AM

One of the principle points of contention is your insistence that the system is broken, and that arguments against your system are because someone accept it as such but somehow prefers it that way.
The math has been shown. There hasn't been disagreement on the math, only "you shouldn't use the math to solve anything meaningful".

You're seeing things from your own perspective, but you misunderstand my perspective. It's not a reaction to the system. I play AD&D exactly the same way, despite the fact that the odds of success in AD&D approach 90% success rates on saving throws at high levels. The key principle is: don't do stupid stuff that can get you killed, unless you really have to.
Old D&D played in this very similar way with very deadly saving throws. 5e is balanced around about a 60-60% success rate, at least on attacks and proficient saving throws.

I understand your perspective - you like the deadly saving throws. And that's what I mentioned above (which Cybren didn't like)

LaserFace

2016-06-24, 11:36 AM

I'm going to have to disagree on that one. I don't think any edition has put much thought into skills compared to, and 5e may be the worst of all in that regard. They paid no need to how many skills each ability governed, how likely characters were to make their checks, how easy it was to get skill check bonuses... They gave virtually no guidance on how to set DCs, and what little there was seems unrelated to the actual bonuses. They didn't include anything about resolving situations with multiple rolls. They didn't stop to think about just how much they were relying on random chance, or how much their recommended DCs exceeded normal BA. There's no useful help or hints or rules, just "Easy is DC 10. Moderate is DC 15..."

When I said "deliberate" I didn't mean it was cautiously and thoroughly designed, but rather that the decision to make it simple was consciously made. I've noticed the ability score / skill disparity, and DC-setting is very simple and vague; I agree, this isn't a lot to work with. I don't think there's anything wrong with expanding upon the rules.

My disagreement comes from me not seeing how it causes severe DM limitations by its design; it was because this seemed to be the primary argument behind the presented changes, that I have a hard time offering advice that tweak the actual mechanics given.

I have no issue with people doing what they want to have fun, but if their argument behind changes seems like it has holes in it, it seems natural to me to test if they're not just simply trying to operate beyond the bounds of the intent of the design (as I understand it). I just think it's important to distinguish between "this is lacking" and "this doesn't operate as intended".

Waffle_Iron

2016-06-24, 11:37 AM

Players shouldn't be fighting each other at all.

Uh oh, someone picked a Lore Bard. Now, he can convince anyone of anything at any time, assuming it's possible. Here are my options:

Tell him it's impossible, which will lead to a justified argument about whether it should work
Adjust the DC, which I'm not supposed to do and don't want to do
Let it happen, and try to design the rest of the campaign such that skill checks don't have too much effect, something my players will notice

Or, I can just use this system, turning his bonuses into sources of advantage. Now, he hits those heroic checks more often than the others, but not every single time.

Or... He goes around persuading people all the time, because it's something he's invested in. Off-screen, given time to consider their actions, or confronted with the consequences of their actions, these people reconsider.

The bard becomes known for a gilded tongue, and now suffers the consequences for HIS actions.

The NPCs who have been duped in the past may even realize while talking to each other that they were fooled by the same person, and now have reason to collude...

It's a feature, not a bug, if genre emulation and unintended consequences are your thing.

Kryx

2016-06-24, 11:42 AM

The swordsman becomes known for a sharp blade, and now suffers the consequences for HIS actions.

The NPCs who have friends killed in the past may even realize while talking to each other that their friends were killed by the same person, and now have reason to collude...

It's a feature, not a bug, if genre emulation and unintended consequences are your thing.
By changing a few words in your justification I just justified a fighter having +20 to hit and +50 damage.

A GM making interesting things stem from ridiculous results does not make those results less ridiculous.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-24, 11:45 AM

Or... He goes around persuading people all the time, because it's something he's invested in. Off-screen, given time to consider their actions, or confronted with the consequences of their actions, these people reconsider.

The bard becomes known for a gilded tongue, and now suffers the consequences for HIS actions.

The NPCs who have been duped in the past may even realize while talking to each other that they were fooled by the same person, and now have reason to collude...

It's a feature, not a bug, if genre emulation and unintended consequences are your thing.

I always love it when, in response to a skill or spell that can be cheesed, people assume the correct response is to punish the player. I disagree. If an ability is busted, fix the ability. Don't punish the player for using it.

MaxWilson

2016-06-24, 11:53 AM

The math has been shown. There hasn't been disagreement on the math, only "you shouldn't use the math to solve anything meaningful".

Well, that's a caricature of those who disagree with you.

"The math" has in fact been disproven: +20 is not auto-hit in some cases, and in other cases auto-hit is achievable at +5 (Black Puddings, maybe even lower for other things). Therefore, you either need to cap at +5 to-hit if you're trying to avoid auto-hit against anything (which your system doesn't do) or, if you're just trying to avoid auto-hit against everything, concede that "the math" is fine with +20.

But the real point of contention is whether "the math" is being applied appropriately. "That math doesn't prove what you claim it does" is a more correct characterization.

I mean, I could claim that there hasn't been any disagreement that the math shows that Bounded Accuracy is fine. And it has, from one perspective (the math has been used to counter the auto-hit claim), but only if you don't realize that "fine" is not a mathematical term and that what we're really discussing here is "preference", which is emotional. Apparently, you happen to like rolling dice, and you dislike it when a given roll is insufficiently swingy too often. That's not "math" showing the system it's broken; it's just an assertion of preference from Kryx and Easy Lee.

Do what you want at your table, but 5E bounded accuracy works pretty well the way it's written. The biggest difficulty with it is actually one your system doesn't address: it's really easy to become invulnerable. I'm surprised you didn't fix things like the Shield spell, Defense fighting style, and Blur while you're at it, because "monsters always miss me" is a lot easier to (ab?)use in play than "I always hit the monsters."

I understand your perspective - you like the deadly saving throws. And that's what I mentioned above (which Cybren didn't like)

You misunderstand my perspective yet again. I am indifferent towards the deadly saving throws from a game design perspective. They're part of the game; you play the game that's in front of you.

And in fact, they're not all that deadly if you play skillfully. In one party I can think of, the PCs have the Lucky feat, Paladin Auras, Bardic Inspiration, Bend Luck all planned for high-level play (about half of them have been achieved already), which means that even non-proficient saving throws will have high odds of success (in the neighborhood of 50-60%) when they have to make them, with Revivify/Greater Restoration on tap for when somebody fails one. But they still have no intention of making any saving throws against deadly effects if they can avoid it.

And in fact, the Paladin has had the Lucky feat since first level but only ever used it once, when ambushed by multiple Banshees. Aside from that, he's never used it, because he's never failed a save or been critted in a situation where it was worth expending a precious Lucky usage to avoid it... because you could run into Banshees next.

Kryx

2016-06-24, 12:26 PM

"The math" has in fact been disproven
Against the average CR 20 it's an auto hit. I could lay out all of the monsters and we could compare each one individually, but there is no value in that. 90%, 95%, 100%, it's all effectively the same thing.

That's not "math" showing the system it's broken; it's just an assertion of preference from Kryx and Easy Lee.
The math is what it is and people can have opinions on if that is right or wrong.

5E bounded accuracy works pretty well the way it's written. The biggest difficulty with it is actually one your system doesn't address: it's really easy to become invulnerable. I'm surprised you didn't fix things like the Shield spell, Defense fighting style, and Blur while you're at it, because "monsters always miss me" is a lot easier to (ab?)use in play than "I always hit the monsters."
That's an interesting topic. 20 AC + shield and Blur would definitely be hard to hit, but there aren't any tank mechanics in 5e so monsters would switch targets after figuring it out. (yes, I see the parallels you'll draw to my complaints about "if the system is broken, just avoid it", but this one plays out naturally, whereas the other doesn't, though you probably think both play out naturally)

They're part of the game; you play the game that's in front of you.
herein lies the difference. You're willing to play the game, warts and all. Easy and I would prefer to shave those warts off!

And in fact, they're not all that deadly if you play skillfully. In one party I can think of, the PCs have the Lucky feat, Paladin Auras, Bardic Inspiration, Bend Luck all planned for high-level play
By "if you play skillfully" you mean "if you pick your classes to try to balance out the imbalance". If high level play is predicated on having some combination of a Bard, Paladin, or some other save booster then that is a problem in the eyes of many people who don't want to bother with those classes or those who don't want to feel restricted by the system.

MaxWilson

2016-06-24, 01:32 PM

That's an interesting topic. 20 AC + shield and Blur would definitely be hard to hit, but there aren't any tank mechanics in 5e so monsters would switch targets after figuring it out. (yes, I see the parallels you'll draw to my complaints about "if the system is broken, just avoid it", but this one plays out naturally, whereas the other doesn't, though you probably think both play out naturally)

(Un?)fortunately, the statement in bold is incorrect. There are a number of tank mechanics in 5E: grappling, Sentinel, and physical constraints (i.e. chokepoints) are three right off the top of my head. It's even fairly easy to create virtual chokepoints using caltrops. If you think 5E doesn't support tanking, you're missing out on a whole, very powerful, area of play which is probably making you overestimate monster difficulty.

===================================

Against the average CR 20 it's an auto hit.

A -> B, therefore, what? Means nothing unless A has been proven.

"If you fight nothing but a uniform distribution of CR 20 monsters, +20 is an auto hit and +6 is not." Okay, so what?

If you lay your "proof" out in actual mathematical form you'll find that most of your premises are controversial. The math doesn't back you up; only your own assumptions back you up, and when you claim that the only objection is that "you shouldn't use the math to solve anything meaningful" you are misunderstanding why you fail to persuade.

You can't improve your technique unless you're willing to understand the problem.

SharkForce

2016-06-24, 01:47 PM

If I understand you correctly:

The game shouldn't be balanced because there's a DM. It only needs to be kind of balanced.
You believe expertise A) lets rogues and bards shine, and B) therefore is fine.

I strongly disagree with your first point. Classes should have different roles and mechanics, but the game has to follow consistent logic. Games should be balanced, regardless of what kind of game they are. And skills are the one area, in all of 5e, where bonuses can truly get out of hand. There's nothing wrong with a house rule that fixes that.

As to your second point, I agree with A and disagree with B. If I gave fighters a feature that added double proficiency to their weapon attacks, that would allow them to shine. It would also be broken, as anyone besides a fighter would be vastly inferior at making attacks. Yes, fighters already make the most attacks, but they makes those attacks using the same rules and bonuses as everyone else.

Bards and Rogues play by different rules when it comes to skills. Anyone with Pass Without Trace plays by different rules when it comes to sneaking. These sorts of things are anomalous within 5e. They should be changed. You may not like our specific fixes, but I think it's silly not to recognize how out of place expertise, inspiration, pass without trace, etc. are within 5e. And I think it's even sillier to dismiss the observation that, if one class can average 43 when everyone else struggles to reach 30, something is wrong.

not quite.

the game should be balanced with the assumption that the DM is there, and will smooth out the small things according to the preferences of the group. you get it close enough that the DM doesn't have to rewrite everything, and that's fine. furthermore, the game absolutely should *not* be balanced by making everyone exactly the same. i mean, that can work for some games (say, monopoly for example... everyone has exactly the same resources, abilities, etc), but it is completely undesirable for a game like D&D. in the case of the skill system in particular, they've *told* you how to apply it, and the way you apply it is that you don't let people roll for the impossible (or for the guaranteed success, though that's less of an issue). that means you as the DM are expected to know what is possible and what is not. there is no problem with a PC rolling a 40 on their persuasion check and ending the quest before it starts; you prevent that by not having the entire quest hinge on a single ability check, just as you shouldn't have a monster that instantly kills anything they hit, has AC 30, and automatically dies if it is hit.

it is fine that rogues have more skill effectiveness than fighters, because fighters generally have more combat effectiveness than rogues.

expertise is one of the key things that makes rogues different. if you take it away and just give them advantage, then you might as well just cross out "rogue" and instead write in "fighter with worse damage", because the fighter can easily get advantage on most skill checks too.

(i'm considerably less adamant about expertise on bards though. they've probably got enough going for them that they don't really need expertise to shine).

Easy_Lee

2016-06-24, 01:48 PM

(Un?)fortunately, the statement in bold is incorrect. There are a number of tank mechanics in 5E: grappling, Sentinel, and physical constraints (i.e. chokepoints) are three right off the top of my head. It's even fairly easy to create virtual chokepoints using caltrops. If you think 5E doesn't support tanking, you're missing out on a whole, very powerful, area of play which is probably making you overestimate monster difficulty.

===================================

A -> B, therefore, what? Means nothing unless A has been proven.

"If you fight nothing but a uniform distribution of CR 20 monsters, +20 is an auto hit and +6 is not." Okay, so what?

If you lay your "proof" out in actual mathematical form you'll find that most of your premises are controversial. The math doesn't back you up; only your own assumptions back you up, and when you claim that the only objection is that "you shouldn't use the math to solve anything meaningful" you are misunderstanding why you fail to persuade.

You can't improve your technique unless you're willing to understand the problem.

Auto-hits in combat against CR 20 monsters should not be a thing at any level. Hence, auto-successes on hard, very hard, and nearly impossible skill checks should not be a thing, either.

expertise is one of the key things that makes rogues different. if you take it away and just give them advantage, then you might as well just cross out "rogue" and instead write in "fighter with worse damage", because the fighter can easily get advantage on most skill checks too.

If you believe this, then you believe that rogues have never been rogues until this generation. Somehow 5e, unlike any previous generation, has "real" rogues. All of the rogues which came before weren't really rogues, just "fighters with worse damage."

I don't buy it.

MaxWilson

2016-06-24, 01:55 PM

just as you shouldn't have a monster that instantly kills anything they hit, has AC 30, and automatically dies if it is hit.

Hahaha, you just gave me an awesome (abusive, cheesy) idea for a CR 0 monster with DPR in the hundreds and thousands of HP, with an offensive CR of 30 and a defensive CR of -30 despite its monstrous HP because its AC is -100.

The non-ridiculous point there is that the DMG treats HP and AC as fungible. If you did want for some reason to "challenge" a player with +20 to-hit (even though building anti-player monsters is wrong), you should not build a monster with AC 30 or 35. Instead you should build a monster with AC 8 and thousands of HP. That's essentially what my previously-cited example with the horde of zombies does: the player is auto-hitting the zombies, and so is everyone else, and yet it doesn't matter because the zombies just won't die and besides there's thousands of them! And yet, in this scenario the player with only +7 to hit is competitive with the guy with +20 to hit.

Which is exactly the point of bounded accuracy, and illustrates why there isnt' a problem. Monsters don't go obsolete.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-24, 02:00 PM

Hahaha, you just gave me an awesome (abusive, cheesy) idea for a CR 0 monster with DPR in the hundreds and thousands of HP, with an offensive CR of 30 and a defensive CR of -30 despite its monstrous HP because its AC is -100.

The non-ridiculous point there is that the DMG treats HP and AC as fungible. If you did want for some reason to "challenge" a player with +20 to-hit (even though building anti-player monsters is wrong), you should not build a monster with AC 30 or 35. Instead you should build a monster with AC 8 and thousands of HP. That's essentially what my previously-cited example with the horde of zombies does: the player is auto-hitting the zombies, and so is everyone else, and yet it doesn't matter because the zombies just won't die and besides there's thousands of them! And yet, in this scenario the player with only +7 to hit is competitive with the guy with +20 to hit.

Which is exactly the point of bounded accuracy, and illustrates why there isnt' a problem. Monsters don't go obsolete.

That's not what bounded accuracy means. It means that anyone can land attacks against the highest permanent AC on a good roll, which means low level creatures never become a non-threat. And bearing in mind that creature AC only goes up to about 22, permanent attack bonus shouldn't go higher than about +13. Otherwise the character never needs to roll attacks.

Z3ro

2016-06-24, 02:34 PM

Easy_Lee

2016-06-24, 02:37 PM

That's not what bounded accuracy means at all. All bounded accuracy means is that there's a defined lower and upper bound. It most certainly does not mean anyone can hit anything (any more than it did in 3rd, when a 20 still auto-hit).

You're talking about the concept, and I'm talking about the result. The result of 5e's implementation of bounded accuracy, having a defined upper and lower bound to attack rolls and AC, is that anyone can hit anyone on a good roll.

And back on topic, I'd simply like bounded accuracy, which currently applies to attack rolls, AC, and spell / ability DCs, to also apply to skills. Aka: consistency.

Waffle_Iron

2016-06-24, 02:41 PM

I always love it when, in response to a skill or spell that can be cheesed, people assume the correct response is to punish the player. I disagree. If an ability is busted, fix the ability. Don't punish the player for using it.

I always love it when, in response to a suggestion to make the game more interesting, by adding world changing agency to the players actions, that people assume the correct response is to make a safety-zone hug-box where nothing can ever go wrong or be surprising.

I disagree. If the ability allows the player to shape the world, allow the world to be shaped. Don't punish the player for wanting to use it.

LaserFace

2016-06-24, 02:51 PM

And back on topic, I'd simply like bounded accuracy, which currently applies to attack rolls, AC, and spell / ability DCs, to also apply to skills. Aka: consistency.

I think more fundamental changes are needed than toying with Expertise, if you want skills to have to the same level of detail and balance as combat. Skill challenges don't have anything analogous to hit points or challenge rating, and you might want to consider implementing these concepts if you intend to create a design within the same philosophy as combat mechanics.

Waffle_Iron

2016-06-24, 02:55 PM

By changing a few words in your justification I just justified a fighter having +20 to hit and +50 damage.

A GM making interesting things stem from ridiculous results does not make those results less ridiculous.

You may have justified it, but not by using logic, or equivalency.

Social skills don't impact HP ratings, nor do they have the same level of tactical options available in combat.

Social skills are also, by definition, a means of impacting the game world that exists outside of combat. The fallout of a successful social engagement without consideration for the social 'war' should reflect the personalities involved.

If you socially manipulate people unable to effectively change the social landscape or status quo, why the heck is the GM calling for a roll anyway?

Oh no, the peasant blacksmith let me kiss his wife! Game over man! Better fix the system!

What qualifies as ridiculous is opinion. I find the idea of high level bards NOT being able to charm someone's socks off just as ridiculous.
DND is primarily a genre emulator, and gritty-realistic-failure is not the default setting.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-24, 02:59 PM

I think more fundamental changes are needed than toying with Expertise, if you want skills to have to the same level of detail and balance as combat. Skill challenges don't have anything analogous to hit points or challenge rating, and you might want to consider implementing these concepts if you intend to create a design within the same philosophy as combat mechanics.

I think what we really need is an updated DC table, with columns for both skill checks and straight attribute checks. If players know, for instance, that a hard skill check is always this number, and DMs know that a moderate attribute roll is always some other number, then that makes it quite easy to assign DCs to particular actions. Breaking manacles through sheer strength would be a nearly impossible strength check, descending a dry rope would be a trivial athletics check, etc.

I'm thinking on these and will get back to you guys.

ZX6Rob

2016-06-24, 03:27 PM

I think what we really need is an updated DC table, with columns for both skill checks and straight attribute checks. If players know, for instance, that a hard skill check is always this number, and DMs know that a moderate attribute roll is always some other number, then that makes it quite easy to assign DCs to particular actions. Breaking manacles through sheer strength would be a nearly impossible strength check, descending a dry rope would be a trivial athletics check, etc.

I'm thinking on these and will get back to you guys.

You know, I actually think that's a pretty good idea. Honestly, it's kind of what I'm doing in my head when I set DCs in the game -- if it's something that can be bypassed or affected using a skill, I know the numbers involved are going to be higher than flat ability checks. Might be nice to codify it a bit.

MaxWilson

2016-06-24, 03:36 PM

That's not what bounded accuracy means. It means that anyone can land attacks against the highest permanent AC on a good roll, which means low level creatures never become a non-threat. And bearing in mind that creature AC only goes up to about 22, permanent attack bonus shouldn't go higher than about +13. Otherwise the character never needs to roll attacks.

Rodney Thompson says it means precisely that, among other things. From the original article:

We think the bounded accuracy system is good for the game for a number of different reasons, including the following:

Getting better at something means actually getting better at something. Since target numbers (DCs for checks, AC, and so on) and monster accuracy don't scale with level, gaining a +1 bonus means you are actually 5% better at succeeding at that task, not simply hitting some basic competence level. When a fighter gets a +1 increase to his or her attack bonus, it means he or she hits monsters across the board 5% more often. This means that characters, as they gain levels, see a tangible increase in their competence, not just in being able to accomplish more amazing things, but also in how often they succeed at tasks they perform regularly.

Nonspecialized characters can more easily participate in many scenes. While it's true that increases in accuracy are real and tangible, it also means that characters can achieve a basic level of competence just through how players assign their ability bonuses. Although a character who gains a +6 bonus to checks made to hide might do so with incredible ease, the character with only a naked ability bonus still has a chance to participate. We want to use the system to make it so that specialized characters find tasks increasingly trivial, while other characters can still make attempts without feeling they are wasting their time.

The DM's monster roster expands, never contracts. Although low-level characters probably don't stack up well against higher-level monsters, thanks to the high hit points and high damage numbers of those monsters, as the characters gain levels, the lower-level monsters continue to be useful to the DM, just in greater numbers. While we might fight only four goblins at a time at 1st level, we might take on twelve of them at 5th level without breaking a sweat. Since the monsters don't lose the ability to hit the player characters—instead they take out a smaller percentage chunk of the characters' hit points—the DM can continue to increase the number of monsters instead of needing to design or find whole new monsters. Thus, the repertoire of monsters available for DMs to use in an adventure only increases over time, as new monsters become acceptable challenges and old monsters simply need to have their quantity increased.

Emphasis added. The full article is quoted here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?22999-Bounded-Accuracy-and-the-new-flat-math).

SharkForce

2016-06-24, 05:32 PM

If you believe this, then you believe that rogues have never been rogues until this generation. Somehow 5e, unlike any previous generation, has "real" rogues. All of the rogues which came before weren't really rogues, just "fighters with worse damage."

I don't buy it.

not at all.

expertise is what makes rogues stand out in 5th edition.

that doesn't mean I'm making some declaration about all rogues ever in any edition of D&D or any other game in existence. these are the 5e forums. if I want to talk about other editions, i'll call that out.

5e rogues are better at skills, and worse at combat, than other non-spellcasters. that's not a bug, it's a feature. they're designed to be really likely to succeed at their chosen skills. and it doesn't much matter if they can roll a 40 or not, because DCs don't scale that high. they can't do impossible things just because they can get 40 on certain skill checks, but they can be really reliable at doing things. if something is impossible, you don't give it a DC of 50, you just say "that can't be done" and get on with your life. if your supremely skilled character can now do things that are *nearly* impossible more often than not, then great... that's what they do. the fighter gets more attacks than anyone else and does lots of damage. the rogue can pick a lock that is nearly impossible to pick with relative ease. both can do amazing things without stepping on the toes of the other.

pwykersotz

2016-06-24, 07:25 PM

The full article is quoted here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?22999-Bounded-Accuracy-and-the-new-flat-math).

For the love of criminy, thank you. I have failed to find that article for a long time now. I'll be saving that to my google drive immediately. :smallsmile:

Edit: This part seems especially relevant:

We want to use the system to make it so that specialized characters find tasks increasingly trivial, while other characters can still make attempts without feeling they are wasting their time.

djreynolds

2016-06-25, 04:01 AM

First off, great stuff man, very professional.

Second, dumb question, but how does the Monster Manual really determine the challenge rating of a monster. Is there a formula?

What determines this? Perhaps the problem could lay here, where we use the recommended CR monsters for our level.

What is the challenge rating of say a 15th level champion guard or 15 level paladin?

A vrock, drider, and invisible stalker are all CR6, why? But each is a vastly different opponent.

Right now we are 6th level in CoS, stuff has a 14AC, even without advantage or my cleric casting bless our ranger with a 16 in dex lands sharpshooter a lot.

But is there a formula to determine a monster's challenge rating?

Zalabim

2016-06-25, 04:08 AM

The math has been shown. There hasn't been disagreement on the math, only "you shouldn't use the math to solve anything meaningful".

The math shows that DC 30 ability checks aren't trivial (there is a chance for failure and a cost to achieve the high rate of success Lore Bards are capable of) and that classes other than bards and rogues can succeed at DC 30 ability checks. That is not broken.

Pass Without Trace deserves special mention. Yes, it can make your rogue undetectable, as long as there's somewhere to hide. No, it doesn't make your paladin undetectable. It enables your paladin to consider stealth as an option. In order for a party buff to allow your party to sneak around, it has to do something like this.

Old D&D played in this very similar way with very deadly saving throws. 5e is balanced around about a 60-60% success rate, at least on attacks and proficient saving throws.

A successful saving throw is like missing an attack. A DC 21 saving throw isn't deadly. It's accurate. Deadly is an effect, not a hit chance. For effects, there are very few deadly effects in 5E. Most of those that exist have their Challenge based on the level needed for the party to reverse them. Failing to save against the Ancient Red Dragon's DC 25 Wing Attack, or DC 24 Breath Attack is no different from failing to have high enough AC to avoid it's +17 Bite, Claw, or Tail attack. You can stand up to the dragon now because you have enough HP, not because it doesn't hit you all the time.

MaxWilson

2016-06-25, 08:30 AM

First off, great stuff man, very professional.

Second, dumb question, but how does the Monster Manual really determine the challenge rating of a monster. Is there a formula?

There's a formula in the DMG, which basically says "take the 3/2 power of HP ('defensive CR') and the 3/2 power of DPR ('offensive CR') and average them together to get CR." It's a little bit more complicated than that because of special abilities, but that is the core of what CR is in 5E.

The final step in the formula suggests that the DM overrule the final CR if he feels it is inappropriate, so technically there isn't an overall formula*, but still, if you want to understand CR in 5E, look in the DMG. It's at the back around page 280 or so.

* Likewise, if you recompute CR of MM monsters, there are a few monsters which come out as the "wrong" CR. For example, goblins should be higher than CR 1/4 according to DMG tables. This could be an example of the MM authors tweaking the final CR; or it could be because the DMG was still four months from publication when the MM came out.

Edit: also, here's a tool by Leugren (http://1-dot-encounter-planner.appspot.com/quick-monster-stats.html) which implements the DMG CR calculator tables. You still need to use the DMG inputs to figure out "effective" values for some things (e.g. a barbarian with 200 HP has 400 effective HP because of Rage) but if you just want to calculate the DPR of a fighter or wizard, that tool will get you to the right ballpark.

georgie_leech

2016-06-25, 09:42 PM

Apologies if this has been brought up already but I keep seeing this and I need to mention it before I go crazy. A theoretical Fighter with a +20 could reliably hit most things, yes. This does not let him automatically solve encounters. This is because a successful attack does not end an encounter on its own. It's just one of many methods you can use to work towards resolving the encounter. If you're attacking, presumably you're trying to overcome the enemy via HP depletion, and against powerful foes a single turn's worth of attacks by this hypothetical Fighter won't deplete their HP completely.

Would this Fighter be unbalanced? Yes, definitely. AC is one of the obstacles players are expected to overcome, and a +20 without extending resources lets them ignore that particular obstacle in most situations. Is it broken? I would argue no, because again, being able to reliably overcome one particular obstacle in combat (AC) isn't enough to solve all of the other obstacles (HP totals, conditions, positioning, terrain, and their attempts at overcoming the obstacles the Fighter is trying to put between themselves and dying horribly).

Now, you know what would be broken? If there was a feature in the game that said 'if you roll 30 or higher on your attack roll, you instantly win the combat.' That would be a horrible rule, as that really would allow high level characters with many bonuses to attack to immediately solve encounters. Luckily, there exists no such rule.

The same is true for skill checks. There is no rule that says rolling 30 or higher means you instantly succeed at solving entire scenarios. In fact, a single roll of any sort should never be the solution to an entire scenario. A single roll is appropriate for overcoming or limiting the effect of a single obstacle. This doesn't mean skill checks are meaningless. But they should be like attack rolls: an attack/skill use should move you closer to success but not be enough on its own. If a single roll is all that's required, it's not an appropriate challenge.

A single Athletics check is not enough for the (not flying) party to climb up and down the walls of the Gorge of Gorey Death and navigate the treacherous rapids that rush along the bottom. A single attack roll is not enough to slay the Dread Dragon of Doom and Despair dominating Dullsville. Likewise, a single Persuade check is not sufficient to convince the King not to go to war, if the whole point of this particular part of the adventure is to stop the King from going to war. Maybe a successful Persuade check will get him to reveal his motivations, which lets the party go off and solve those issues. Maybe it convinces him to delay the start of hostilities, enough to recruit allies or otherwise strengthen the other side so war would be stupid. Maybe it convinces the King's advisor even if it doesn't convince the King, and he has a plan that, with some help from some sympathetic adventurers, will lead to him stealing power from the King.

TL, DR: An adventure solved by a single skill check is as broken as an adventure solved by a single attack roll.

MaxWilson

2016-06-25, 10:43 PM

Now, you know what would be broken? If there was a feature in the game that said 'if you roll 30 or higher on your attack roll, you instantly win the combat.' That would be a horrible rule, as that really would allow high level characters with many bonuses to attack to immediately solve encounters. Luckily, there exists no such rule.

Reminds me of this hypothetical (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15126/roleplaying-games/game-structures):

One of the most overlooked aspects in the design and play of traditional roleplaying games is the underlying game structure. Or, to put it another way, there are two questions which every game designer and GM must ask themselves:

(1) What do the characters do?

(2) How do the players do it?

These questions might seem deceptively simple, but the answers are complex. And getting the right answers is absolutely critical to having a successful gaming session.

Some of you may already be challenging this. “How difficult can it be? The players tell me what their characters are doing and then we resolve it. What could be easier?”

To demonstrate the oversight taking place here, let me give you a quick example of play:

Player: I want to explore the dungeon.

GM: Okay, make a Dungeoneering check.

Player: I succeed.

GM: Okay, you kill a tribe of goblins and emerge with 546 gp in loot.

Is there anything wrong with that? Not necessarily. But it’s certainly a very different game structure than the traditional D&D dungeoncrawl.

He then goes on to talk about how to make sure you have the right task granularity for the kind of game you're trying to accomplish, so that the players get to do the right amount of the fun parts while skipping over the boring parts. (I'm oversimplifying and paraphrasing from my own perspective--read the article series to get the Alexandrian's perspective.)

Cybren

2016-06-25, 10:54 PM

The same is true for skill checks. There is no rule that says rolling 30 or higher means you instantly succeed at solving entire scenarios. In fact, a single roll of any sort should never be the solution to an entire scenario. A single roll is appropriate for overcoming or limiting the effect of a single obstacle. This doesn't mean skill checks are meaningless. But they should be like attack rolls: an attack/skill use should move you closer to success but not be enough on its own. If a single roll is all that's required, it's not an appropriate challenge.

...

TL, DR: An adventure solved by a single skill check is as broken as an adventure solved by a single attack roll.

This is exactly what I've been trying to convey this whole thread. Thank you

georgie_leech

2016-06-26, 02:07 AM

Reminds me of this hypothetical (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15126/roleplaying-games/game-structures):

He then goes on to talk about how to make sure you have the right task granularity for the kind of game you're trying to accomplish, so that the players get to do the right amount of the fun parts while skipping over the boring parts. (I'm oversimplifying and paraphrasing from my own perspective--read the article series to get the Alexandrian's perspective.)

Exactly. Take the Gorge of Gorey Death. At low levels, it's a great adventuring spot. You could have encounters on the way down a narrow ridge, a more open section along the bottom where the players have to figure out a way across the river, then some more encounters on the way up (where things like dropping rocks now work against the players instead of for them :smallamused:) with a plot relevant event of some kind near the top somewhere. At higher levels or if the Gorge is just an obstacle on the way to the bit the players actually care about? A skill check or expending some reources (Fly, etc.) And we're done. If I'm doing the former, I'd make it clear that the quest goal is in the Gorge somewhere. If the latter, brief description and move on. In no way does me letting a skill check cross the Gorge in the latter scenario mean that I would let my players go 'I roll Athletics to win the quest,' if I was running the former.

TheFlyingCleric

2016-06-26, 02:44 AM

Easy_Lee

2016-06-26, 03:11 PM

Succeeding on an attack roll does not mean you win the combat. It means you make progress.
It might be enough to kill a very weak monsters, but there will be more of them.

Same goes for skill checks. One skill check should not win you an entire social encounter. And sometimes its unreasonable to make one, similar to the fact you can't hurl a sword 120 feet at an enemy.

That's true, but if skills checks are close to auto success for certain classes then it doesn't matter how many of them there are. The result is that either the chance of failure goes away, or the DM must assure that particular skill can't be used for anything major.

Edit: as in, if the bard has expertise in Deception and his inspiration dice ready, the DM would have to ensure that players can't lie themselves out of the situation they're in. Otherwise, the bard both can and should do it, and there will be next to no chance of failure for an appropriate DC.

Cybren

2016-06-26, 03:14 PM

Easy_Lee

2016-06-26, 03:16 PM

1) It certainly matters in the regard that the Lore Bard is spending their Bardic Inspiration dice to win all these skill checks, so there's an upper limit to how effective it can be
and
2) There's no guarantee that the same skill check will be useful multiple times within the same scene.

True, but what are you going to do. Require multiple consecutive successes? Somehow write the scene such as perception, Deception, and investigation are all needed for that particular gambit to succeed? And if so, would the players even be able to figure out what you wanted them to do? That last bit is probably the most difficult of all to control in such situations.

georgie_leech

2016-06-26, 03:21 PM

Much like a combat where the attackers just go 'I attack. I attack again. I attack again...' ad nauseum is a boring combat, if you want to allow skills to be the main method of resolution, you need to design it better than letting 'I Persuade them. I Persuade them again. I Persuade them again...' work. So no, I don't think it's all that unusual to expect social situations require a bit of nuance and more than just automatic Persuade checks.

MaxWilson

2016-06-26, 03:21 PM

True, but what are you going to do. Require multiple consecutive successes? Somehow write the scene such as perception, Deception, and investigation are all needed for that particular gambit to succeed? And if so, would the players even be able to figure out what you wanted them to do? That last bit is probably the most difficult of all to control in such situations.

Combat requires multiple successes.

I wrote a scenario in post #21 that outlines a scenario in which multiple successful skill checks can point the PCs in the right direction and get the PCs about halfway to victory. Note further that that scenario obeys the bounded accuracy principle: +6 will give you an excellent chance of getting everything there is to get out of the scenario; +20 is just overkill.

Much like a combat where the attackers just go 'I attack. I attack again. I attack again...' ad nauseum is a boring combat, if you want to allow skills to be the main method of resolution, you need to design it better than letting 'I Persuade them. I Persuade them again. I Persuade them again...' work. So no, I don't think it's all that unusual to expect social situations require a bit of nuance and more than just automatic Persuade checks.

Yeah, what he said.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-26, 03:46 PM

Please give an example of such a scenario. Because, given the multitude of options one has in a given situation, I can't see how you would expect your players to figure out what you wanted. What I've seen more often is, when persuasion fails on a high roll, the PCs give up and assume it's not an option.

And regardless of the number of successes it takes, the rogue and bard are effectively several levels higher. That means unlike in combat, where the barbarian does the most damage but the rogue and bard can do other things, no one besides the rogue or bard can participate in those skills at the same level.

Again, that's unless you require several eclectic skills for the social encounter to succeed. And if that's the case, and especially if they're active skills, I wonder how your players are supposed to figure out what you want.

No, I've much more often seen it go like this: a player figures out something I didn't think of, I roll with it, and if they do well then they get it. But when all you have is a hammer (expertise: Deception), everything looks like a nail (better try lying, again).

Lombra

2016-06-26, 03:55 PM

Please give an example of such a scenario. Because, given the multitude of options one has in a given situation, I can't see how you would expect your players to figure out what you wanted. What I've seen more often is, when persuasion fails on a high roll, the PCs give up and assume it's not an option.

You investigate on someone's past to get the chance to persuade him in the future. Multiple skill checks to achieve a goal which will lead to increased chances of victory in a presumeable near encounter with that character.

No, I've much more often seen it go like this: a player figures out something I didn't think of, I roll with it, and if they do well then they get it. But when all you have is a hammer (expertise: Deception), everything looks like a nail (better try lying, again).

Why wouldn't a character with strong deception lie? It probably is how he wants to RP his roblems out. If as a DM your campaign gets messed up by a deception check that campaign is designed in the wrong way.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-26, 04:00 PM

You investigate on someone's past to get the chance to persuade him in the future. Multiple skill checks to achieve a goal which will lead to increased chances of victory in a presumeable near encounter with that character.

Why wouldn't a character with strong deception lie? It probably is how he wants to RP his roblems out. If as a DM your campaign gets messed up by a deception check that campaign is designed in the wrong way.

I think you're missing the point. For the first, the persuade didn't come up without investigation, which is weird design if we're really comparing it to combat. For the second, it's not about the player messing up the campaign with Deception, it's about him either a) near auto-succeeding on anything he might accomplish via Deception, or b) requiring the DM to set different DCs when he rolls Deception.

The issue is that, if Deception will get him something, there's little chance he won't get it without DM interference. That doesn't spell the end if the campaign, but it does make things overall less exciting.

Zalabim

2016-06-27, 02:42 AM

I think you're missing the point. For the first, the persuade didn't come up without investigation, which is weird design if we're really comparing it to combat. For the second, it's not about the player messing up the campaign with Deception, it's about him either a) near auto-succeeding on anything he might accomplish via Deception, or b) requiring the DM to set different DCs when he rolls Deception.

A isn't true and B shouldn't be done if it were true, so there's no problem, right? http://anydice.com/program/8b66. The first because if you're trying to deceive someone, you're probably not allowed to cast guidance first. The second is in case your deceiver suddenly has to work with the paladin to convince someone honestly. The third is what an archery fighter rolls to hit AC 20 without using any resources. The fourth is for a situation where you can also use guidance. The last is just what it says.

Since it is easier to hit normal ACs in combat than it is to hit DC 30 on an ability check, nearly impossible tasks are not trivial or near auto-succeeding, by my estimation. So what's the point?

Lombra

2016-06-27, 04:50 AM

I think you're missing the point. For the first, the persuade didn't come up without investigation, which is weird design if we're really comparing it to combat. For the second, it's not about the player messing up the campaign with Deception, it's about him either a) near auto-succeeding on anything he might accomplish via Deception, or b) requiring the DM to set different DCs when he rolls Deception.

That is exactly what I meant: skills shouldn't be used as attack rolls, so there's no point in treating them that way. Plus persuasion checks don't magically change the mind of who gets persuaded, a succesful persuasion check makes people/monsters incline towards a different mindset, making them think that they should take more risks to accomplish what the character suggested.

The issue is that, if Deception will get him something, there's little chance he won't get it without DM interference. That doesn't spell the end if the campaign, but it does make things overall less exciting.

Why would the DM interfere on a successful deception roll of a liar character? Don't you allow different play and role play styles?

georgie_leech

2016-06-27, 05:02 AM

The only comparisons I meant to draw were that a single attack/skill use shouldn't solve encounters on their own, and that scenarios where the optimal response is to do the same thing over and over again are badly designed, so I'd agree. Besides, if we are going to stretch this comparison, using Insight to get the necessary pieces for a successful Persuasion has a rough analogue in needing to do things like Kill the Cultists shielding their Ancient Evil Guy from harm.

And if nothing else, I find 'something seems off about what the King (or whatever) wants,' or similar, is plenty for prompting the players (myself included) to start going 'I try to get Insight into his motivations' or 'I look around for clues on what the King fears,' or whatever. It's not railroading to remind players that they have more tools than just flinging Persuade checks at people.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-27, 09:02 AM

Takewo

2016-06-27, 09:10 AM

A metaphor, then. How would the playground feel if wizards were able to select individual attack spells to be Practiced Spells, and add double their proficiency to the attack / DC? Would it be broken that only wizards could hit those numbers? I mean after all, it doesn't guarantee that the spell won't be resisted. It just gives the wizard a better chance of success than the other classes. And we all know wizards are supposed to be the best spellcasters; that's their thing.

Is it the same, though? A wizard is already better at casting spells than any fighter or rogue will ever be, they don't need any additional way to boost their spells. Moreover, why does it have to be attack spells? Why can the effect double the amount of water created using create water? Skills are rarely used to attack.

I understand what you're trying to do here (at least I think I do), but I do not think you can make an analogy between attack spells and skills, not at this level.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-27, 09:13 AM

Is it the same, though? A wizard is already better at casting spells than any fighter or rogue will ever be, they don't need any additional way to boost their spells. Moreover, why does it have to be attack spells? Why can the effect double the amount of water created using create water? Skills are rarely used to attack.

I understand what you're trying to do here (at least I think I do), but I do not think you can make an analogy between attack spells and skills, not at this level.

Why are wizards already the best at casting spells? Hold Person cast by a wizard is no different from the same spell cast by an equal level Sorcerer.

Giant2005

2016-06-27, 09:23 AM

Easy_Lee

2016-06-27, 09:28 AM

I haven't bothered reading this thread since my initial responses on page 4 or something, but has anyone actually questioned whether or not this thread actually has anything to do with bounded accuracy?
The point of bounded accuracy is to give large numbers of low level creatures the ability to fight high level creatures. Bonuses to attack rolls don't impede that design goal, they actually help make it possible. What harms bounded accuracy is the other side of the equation - bonuses to AC scores. If AC scores soar too high then low level creatures cannot reasonably harm high level creatures at all.
If you want fully bounded accuracy, then you need to give the AC bonuses this treatment, not the attack roll bonuses.

"The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM’s side of the game that the player’s attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster’s hit points; likewise, the character can now stand up to a few hits from that monster without being killed easily, thanks to the character’s increased hit points. Furthermore, gaining levels grants the characters new capabilities, which go much farther toward making your character feel different than simple numerical increases." - Rodney Thomson

The premise of the thread is to apply bounded accuracy to everything, including skills. Features which just grant a strict numerical increase are imbalanced and uninteresting.

And since nobody took the bait, the reason why wizards are currently the best spellcasters is because they have the most spells. Regarding skills, this is already true of bards and rogues without expertise.

Takewo

2016-06-27, 09:28 AM

Why are wizards already the best at casting spells? Hold Person cast by a wizard is no different from the same spell cast by an equal level Sorcerer.

Are they? I never said that they were, I only said that they are better than rogues or fighters. Moreover, why should a wizard be better at casting spells than a sorcerer or a cleric?

Easy_Lee

2016-06-27, 09:31 AM

Are they? I never said that they were, I only said that they are better than rogues or fighters. Moreover, why should a wizard be better at casting spells than a sorcerer or a cleric?

Why should a rogue who takes arcana be better at using arcana than a wizard?

Lombra

2016-06-27, 09:41 AM

Why should a rogue who takes arcana be better at using arcana than a wizard?

Probably because that rogue fears magical traps and wants to go thieving knowing what he'll find in the archmage tower protecting that magical artifact.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-27, 09:46 AM

Probably because that rogue fears magical traps and wants to go thieving knowing what he'll find in the archmage tower protecting that magical artifact.

Totally makes sense he would understand those traps better than the person who created them. Which has been the general issue with expertise from day one, even more than bard inspiration (which is at least temporary).

Takewo

2016-06-27, 09:47 AM

Why should a rogue who takes arcana be better at using arcana than a wizard?

What does this question have to do with whether the wizards should get double bonuses to attack spells or not?

As for the answer, well, you could imagine a very smart, studious rogue who's simply spent a lot of time studying about spells, magic items, planes, legendary creatures and such sort of stuff. After all, she hasn't got to spend hours and hours practising and memorising spells. It's possible not to be able to play a single instrument and yet know more about harmony than a really good violinist (note that I said possible, not common).

Anyway, I'm not trying to create hypothetical scenarios. My only and sole point is that rogues aren't necessarily better at skills than other classes without expertise, while wizards (and other full casters) needn't any additional advantage in order to be better than other classes at casting spells.

Giant2005

2016-06-27, 10:04 AM

Why should a rogue who takes arcana be better at using arcana than a wizard?

For the same reason that an Engineer might not know as much about physics as a theoretical physicist.
Mastering the practical aspects of a skill doesn't mean that you are the master of all aspects of that skill.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-27, 10:24 AM

For the same reason that an Engineer might not know as much about physics as a theoretical physicist.
Mastering the practical aspects of a skill doesn't mean that you are the master of all aspects of that skill.

And the wizard (engineer) can't master his skill without taking some rogue (theoretical physicist), which somehow makes him lose progression (become worse) at what he does even though he now understands it better...

Rogues aren't theoretical physicists. They get the most skills, behind bards, and are more like a dilettante. The guy who took lots of different courses but then majored in liberal arts.

MaxWilson

2016-06-27, 10:32 AM

I haven't bothered reading this thread since my initial responses on page 4 or something, but has anyone actually questioned whether or not this thread actually has anything to do with bounded accuracy?
The point of bounded accuracy is to give large numbers of low level creatures the ability to fight high level creatures. Bonuses to attack rolls don't impede that design goal, they actually help make it possible. What harms bounded accuracy is the other side of the equation - bonuses to AC scores. If AC scores soar too high then low level creatures cannot reasonably harm high level creatures at all.
If you want fully bounded accuracy, then you need to give the AC bonuses this treatment, not the attack roll bonuses.

Yes, it was discussed briefly. However, that thread of conversation didn't go anywhere because it doesn't leave anything to argue about. :-P

If you really want to linearize power in 5E you need to get rid of all the things that trivialize defense. Mobile feat, monsters all have ranged attacks, no Shield spell, no Defense style, no Warcaster, no Squeezing Into Smaller Spaces disadvantage for the monsters, monsters all have incorporeality to eliminate terrain considerations, etc., etc. If you do that then the game really does become a contest of attack rolls vs. attack rolls and a race to zero HP. You also need to eliminate all the healing spells (especially Aura of Vitality).

In fact, you could go further and eliminate all bonuses entirely. You hit a monster if you roll 10+ on a d20. It hits you if it rolls 12+.

Now the game becomes as exciting as War (the card game). Instead of being about the player decisions, it's now about "who's going to roll the next 20 on the dice?" Incredibly boring IMO but apparently some people like rolling dice and get upset when the odds drift away from 40-60% success rates.

georgie_leech

2016-06-27, 10:38 AM

And the wizard (engineer) can't master his skill without taking some rogue (theoretical physicist), which somehow makes him lose progression (become worse) at what he does even though he now understands it better...

Rogues aren't theoretical physicists. They get the most skills, behind bards, and are more like a dilettante. The guy who took lots of different courses but then majored in liberal arts.

Except that's not really mechanically supported, since as noted, they've got 4 Expertise skills. So the Rogue really is part theoretical physicist in this case. You can say 'I don't think they should be that,' but that's clearly not the default in this edition.

I'd suggest giving Wizards Expertise in Arcana to patch this particular wrinkle if it bugs you, but as you've made clear by this point you don't like Expertise at all.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-27, 10:57 AM

Except that's not really mechanically supported, since as noted, they've got 4 Expertise skills. So the Rogue really is part theoretical physicist in this case. You can say 'I don't think they should be that,' but that's clearly not the default in this edition.

I'd suggest giving Wizards Expertise in Arcana to patch this particular wrinkle if it bugs you, but as you've made clear by this point you don't like Expertise at all.

I don't like expertise as-is, because it breaks the mold. Rogues shouldn't be more capable of persuasive speeches than paladins, more capable of athletic feats than Barbarians, more capable of understanding ancient magic than wizards. I'm fine with consistency from training, but not with them just being flat better.

And I'd rather not need to adjust DCs just to make things challenging. Take a look at the published adventures and consider just how busted expertise (perception) would be, compared with the norm.

SharkForce

2016-06-27, 11:03 AM

it's not more challenging to have to roll higher numbers.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-27, 11:06 AM

it's not more challenging to have to roll higher numbers.

Didn't realize that 20 was no harder to hit than 10.

georgie_leech

2016-06-27, 11:09 AM

I don't like expertise as-is, because it breaks the mold. Rogues shouldn't be more capable of persuasive speeches than paladins, more capable of athletic feats than Barbarians, more capable of understanding ancient magic than wizards. I'm fine with consistency from training, but not with them just being flat better.

And I'd rather not need to adjust DCs just to make things challenging. Take a look at the published adventures and consider just how busted expertise (perception) would be, compared with the norm.

That's your perogative, yes. I'm not saying it's wrong to dislike that there are 2 classes that are better at skills than the others, I'm saying it's not an inherent design flaw. Like, someone could say 'I don't like how Knights in the first Final Fantasy can cast White Magic, because Knights should fight with Sword and Shield and not use Magic at all.' That doesn't mean FF is flawed for having their Knight be closer to a Paladin than 'guy in heavy armor.' Again, not saying it's wrong to think that; I'm not fond of how the general AC system works because of certain cases that really seem like they should stack but don't, for instance.

Also, as a Rogue with Expertise in Perception that's planning on taking Observant later, I think it's more that I don't like being surprised by enemies or missing clues and will invest resources to prevent that. You need to look at what you're actually trying to challenge: is the goal to have your party be ambushed to add tactical depth to an encounter? There are other ways of achieving that than just arbitrarily raising stealth scores. Like, no amount of Perception is going to help you against an Invisible enemy magically Silenced. It's the same as saying that you shouldn't need to adjust DC's to challenge the Barbarian at feats of strength: being good at feats of [whatever] is what the PC's do.

EDIT:

Didn't realize that 20 was no harder to hit than 10.
Less likely =/= more challenging. Either way you're rolling a d20 and seeing what number you get. Higher DC's aren't a situational challenge, they're a planning based one; does the party choose to spend resources making that check more likely, and if so, do they have enough?

SharkForce

2016-06-27, 11:20 AM

Didn't realize that 20 was no harder to hit than 10.

it isn't. just less likely. either way it's just a roll of the die. there's no skill to rolling a 20. there is nothing i, as a player, nor my character, can do to make that 20 more likely to come up (short of cheating, which shouldn't happen).

when your campaign gets derailed because you decided that no matter how stupid it is anything must be possible with a high enough roll, it really doesn't matter much whether the high enough roll was a 10 or a 20. it matters that the entire campaign was set up to be derailed by a single roll, instead of making it a challenge to figure out what needs to be done.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-06-27, 11:27 AM

Totally makes sense he would understand those traps better than the person who created them.

The NPC archmage in the tower is not bound by the rules governing PCs. If a roll was ever needed for them, the DM could give them whichever bonus they wanted.

georgie_leech

2016-06-27, 11:34 AM

The NPC archmage in the tower is not bound by the rules governing PCs. If a roll was ever needed for them, the DM could give them whichever bonus they wanted.

That's an important note, yeah. The PC casters spend a lot of time dealing with the practical effects of magic, which gives them a great deal of power, but not necessarily more insight into the underlying moving parts of the magic than a dedicated researcher not spending time running around caves.

Side note, that power and experience still helps them if they do decide to study magic more in depth though (represented by spending resources to nab Expertise). A Wizard 16 taking a level of Rogue suddenly gets a lot more insight into the nature of Magic than he would get taking that level at Wizard 2 instead.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-27, 12:38 PM

Side note, that power and experience still helps them if they do decide to study magic more in depth though (represented by spending resources to nab Expertise). A Wizard 16 taking a level of Rogue suddenly gets a lot more insight into the nature of Magic than he would get taking that level at Wizard 2 instead.

And loses spellcasting progression and class features in the process of "studying magic." And for some reason, expertise can't be taken as a feat, without homebrew.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-06-27, 12:56 PM

It doesn't have to be represented as "knowing more about magic" as much as "having a knack for identifying/recalling/gleaning just the piece of information you need in the process of adventuring".

ClintACK

2016-06-27, 12:57 PM

It does seem nuts to me that the Cleric literally can't become an expert on religion without learning to sneak attack and speak Thieves' Cant.

Proposed Alternate Rule: At 1st level, if a Character already has proficiency in a class skill (from race or background), and they take that skill *again* as one of their 1st level class skills, they gain expertise in that skill, at the cost of being proficient in one fewer skill. A Character may gain expertise in only one skill in this way.

Please give an example of such a scenario. Because, given the multitude of options one has in a given situation, I can't see how you would expect your players to figure out what you wanted. What I've seen more often is, when persuasion fails on a high roll, the PCs give up and assume it's not an option.

Bard: "King Robert! Your wife, Cersei, has been betraying you all along -- none of your children are even yours!"
DM: Roll a Persuasion check.
Player: I got a 53.
DM: Wow! King Robert stares at you, shock turning to concern.
King Robert: "I can see that you honestly believe that, as mad as it sounds. But there are too many ears here -- come to my sitting room an hour after I leave dinner. Bring whatever evidence you have -- and it had better be good."

So a killer Persuasion (or Deception) check makes the king believe that you are sincere -- so he doesn't just throw you in the dungeon for such a treasonous slander -- but you still might be wrong. What you've won in this first check is that he's going to listen to your evidence.

So now the party is on a deadline. Hopefully they already have some leads. What kind of evidence could they possibly gather? Maybe the Wizard will use History and Investigation to find a book describing the hair color of all the children of the Baratheon line. Maybe the Paladin will hear rumors of a king's bastard and the Bard will persuade a certain brothel owner to take a bribe and provide information. Maybe Stealth and eavesdropping will let the Rogue overhear the time and place of the next amorous rendezvous, allowing them to set a trap. A really good Insight check on the illicit lovers when they're in the same room might turn up a hint of another clue. And, of course, you-the-DM should come up with at least half a dozen more pieces of evidence they could turn up -- the short length of a pregnancy after the King was away for two months, a series of maids who have gone missing, a nanny who caught them at kissing games years ago...

But wait... maybe someone overheard the Bard talking to the king, or in their haste to gather evidence the PCs aren't being very subtle. How will the Queen and her lover react to the danger? Will Robert even survive until their meeting? Will they walk in to find him dead, apparently having drunk himself to death? Will the Queen have timed things so well that the unimpeachably honorable Sir Barristan will walk in just as the PCs are gaping in horror at dead King Robert, making them the lead suspects?

Persuading King Robert to arrest the Queen for treason and declare his brother Stannis his sole true heir is not a single die roll, it's a whole session or more of work by the whole party -- some of it using skills and other abilities, but some of it just the Players thinking of things and honing their argument.

Anyway... that's just one way to do it. If your party signed up to fight in the Civil War, all of that's prologue, and maybe it *should* be decided on a single die roll. It depends what's important to the story you are telling together.

That's true, but if skills checks are close to auto success for certain classes then it doesn't matter how many of them there are. The result is that either the chance of failure goes away, or the DM must assure that particular skill can't be used for anything major.

Sure. But that's true of a lot of abilities. A 1st level party can be seriously challenged trying to cross a raging river when the bridge is out. Athletics (swimming) and Survival and Strength checks to haul on ropes will likely come into play. A 5th level party is more likely to use magic -- Fly and Tenser's Floating Disc or a few uses of Levitate make the challenge trivial. Another party might just magically rebuild the bridge. And a 13th level party is going to wonder why you're telling them about a silly bridge -- they were just planning to Teleport or Wind Walk past all that intervening countryside.

Yes. Certain challenges become auto-success. That's an important part of a level-based game. High-level PCs aren't Game of Thrones characters they're Marvel's Avengers characters.

Edit: as in, if the bard has expertise in Deception and his inspiration dice ready, the DM would have to ensure that players can't lie themselves out of the situation they're in. Otherwise, the bard both can and should do it, and there will be next to no chance of failure for an appropriate DC.

Exactly.

You don't challenge a party with a 14th level Druid by putting rough terrain in between them and the dungeon. And you don't challenge a party with a deception-expert Bard by putting them in a situation that can be permanently resolved with a convincing lie.

That doesn't mean you don't *do* that -- but you put the rough terrain in so the 14th level Druid can flex his magical might and feel useful. And you put a dumb guard on the door so the Bard can enjoy making up a silly lie to get the party past him.

One thing to remember is that *success* on a roll doesn't mean there won't be consequences. If you lie to the king and manage to get him to execute his innocent wife for treason -- if he ever realizes what happens, you now have a very high price on your head and the threat of execution in that kingdom.

georgie_leech

2016-06-27, 01:01 PM

And loses spellcasting progression and class features in the process of "studying magic." And for some reason, expertise can't be taken as a feat, without homebrew.

Because instead of writing computer programs to do interesting things, whether developing them themselves or by copying what someone else made, they're learning about what makes a computer language work in the first place. And the lack of ways to get Expertise is an attempt at niche protection. They did it in a clunky way that makes me like the game less, because I also agree there should be non-class ways of gaining Expertise, but it's not so much an inherent flaw as a design choice. After all, the whole point of a class-based system over a point- or ability-based system is that the different classes do not have significant portions of the features easily poach able by other classes. In theory, at least.

Incidentally, for an example of skill weirdness I prefer Rogues potentially being more knowledgeable to about animals and plants than Druids, as I have a much harder time justifying that one with a real-world comparison. :smallbiggrin: The best I can do is say that part of the skillset of Rogues and Bards is an eye for seemingly inconsequential details that most other people ignore.

EDIT:

It doesn't have to be represented as "knowing more about magic" as much as "having a knack for identifying/recalling/gleaning just the piece of information you need in the process of adventuring".

Or that, yeah. Better intuition actually covers most of the edge cases I can think of, is thematically appropriate, and fits a number of characters I'd already model as at leat partly Rogues. New favorite justification.

Revenge of the EDIT:

It does seem nuts to me that the Cleric literally can't become an expert on religion without learning to sneak attack and speak Thieves' Cant.

Proposed Alternate Rule: At 1st level, if a Character already has proficiency in a class skill (from race or background), and they take that skill *again* as one of their 1st level class skills, they gain expertise in that skill, at the cost of being proficient in one fewer skill. A Character may gain Expertise in only one skill this way.

I actually really like that at first glance.

MaxWilson

2016-06-27, 01:38 PM

Proposed Alternate Rule: At 1st level, if a Character already has proficiency in a class skill (from race or background), and they take that skill *again* as one of their 1st level class skills, they gain expertise in that skill, at the cost of being proficient in one fewer skill. A Character may gain expertise in only one skill in this way.

I'd point out that this is not much of a restriction at all, because background can get you any skill at all, if you have a plausible story behind it. The PHB encourages you to pretty much customize backgrounds to whatever you want, including mix-and-matching features and skills between backgrounds.

*snip some excellent stuff*

You don't challenge a party with a 14th level Druid by putting rough terrain in between them and the dungeon. And you don't challenge a party with a deception-expert Bard by putting them in a situation that can be permanently resolved with a convincing lie.

That doesn't mean you don't *do* that -- but you put the rough terrain in so the 14th level Druid can flex his magical might and feel useful. And you put a dumb guard on the door so the Bard can enjoy making up a silly lie to get the party past him.

One thing to remember is that *success* on a roll doesn't mean there won't be consequences. If you lie to the king and manage to get him to execute his innocent wife for treason -- if he ever realizes what happens, you now have a very high price on your head and the threat of execution in that kingdom.

Like. Great point about consequences too. There are times in fact when failing on a roll leads to a better outcomes than succeeding on a roll. "Success" on a skill check means "whatever you were attempting to accomplish, happened", which is not synonymous with "you just did the right thing." Easy example: when your point guard fails his perception roll in the Underdark but makes his stealth roll, it's possible for Underdark monsters to walk right into the party with no warning to the PCs from their scout. If the point guard had failed his roll at least the monsters wouldn't have been on top of them when the fight started (he's probably optimized w/ Alert so he could have lit a torch and Dodged on round one while everyone else attacked the monsters from outside their darkvision range in the light of the torch for advantage).

georgie_leech

2016-06-27, 01:43 PM

I'd point out that this is not much of a restriction at all, because background can get you any skill at all, if you have a plausible story behind it. The PHB encourages you to pretty much customize backgrounds to whatever you want, including mix-and-matching features and skills between backgrounds.

I could be wrong but I suspect that's the point; it's a way to give characters that care about being good at a particular skill a means to do so without having to learn Thieves Cant or how to be particularly inspiring. All it needs is an appropriate background. The Cleric that spent her time cloistered away in her religious studies is better at Religion than the Cleric that spent the last few years helping the populace as a Folk Hero. Seems appropriate.

Cybren

2016-06-27, 02:19 PM

If you want your cleric to get double proficiency on religion, they can do that already, without multi classing.

georgie_leech

2016-06-27, 02:26 PM

If you want your cleric to get double proficiency on religion, they can do that already, without multi classing.

The Druid for Nature then, or the Ranger for Survival.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-27, 02:28 PM

The Druid for Nature then, or the Ranger for Survival.

Or barbarian for athletics, wizard for arcana, monk for acrobatics etc.

georgie_leech

2016-06-27, 02:37 PM

Or barbarian for athletics, wizard for arcana, monk for acrobatics etc.

Indeed. It seems a rather elegant solution to how much baggage Expertise normally comes with, isn't a huge change, and comes with a baked in class restriction. You're not going to get Monks being a master of the Arcane this way. I'm always fond of general rules that don't need specific exceptions for every class.

MaxWilson

2016-06-27, 03:03 PM

The Druid for Nature then, or the Ranger for Survival.

Rangers already have this in the relevant terrain:

Natural Explorer

You are particularly familiar with one type of natural environment and are adept at traveling and surviving in such regions. Choose one type of favored terrain: arctic, coast, desert, forest, grassland, mountain, or swamp. When you make an Intelligence or Wisdom check related to your favored terrain, your proficiency bonus is doubled if you are using a skill that you’re proficient in.

While traveling for an hour or more in your favored terrain, you gain the following benefits:

Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
Your group can’t become lost except by magical means.
Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger.
If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.
When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would.
While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area.
You choose additional favored terrain types at 6th and 10th level.

Giving Rangers Expertise in Survival would just make Natural Explorer just that little bit more redundant.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-27, 03:12 PM

Indeed. It seems a rather elegant solution to how much baggage Expertise normally comes with, isn't a huge change, and comes with a baked in class restriction. You're not going to get Monks being a master of the Arcane this way. I'm always fond of general rules that don't need specific exceptions for every class.

It's been proposed before, giving each class expertise in a relevant skill. Regardless of whether expertise is changed or not, I'm in favor of it.

georgie_leech

2016-06-27, 03:20 PM

It's been proposed before, giving each class expertise in a relevant skill. Regardless of whether expertise is changed or not, I'm in favor of it.

Oh yeah, I just like how this way I don't need to worry about what skills those are, since the class skill lists are already thematically appropriate and I don't have to work with every player to figure out what skill they get, or if they even want expertise at all. If nothing else, I'm glad of this thread for this new house rule I'm itching to try.

Cybren

2016-06-27, 03:56 PM

Rangers already have this in the relevant terrain:

Giving Rangers Expertise in Survival would just make Natural Explorer just that little bit more redundant.

I think the expectation that any given class be able to have expertise is a separate question from the bounds of bounded accuracy, but an any rate I don't believe each class should easily be able to acquire it. D&D is a class based game, and by that each class should have different resources and abilities not easily lifted from each other class. For game balance reasons, nothing would explode in your game if you gave magical secrets to sorcerers and wizards, but it does make the bard a little less special. Most classes intended on being "good" at something already have an avenue to do so, as you point out with Rangers and Natural Explorer, or with Clerics and the Knowledge Domain. I'd prefer if you wanted a wizard that had expertise in arcana to be made as a new wizard subclass whose purpose is to be a master of general magical theory. (2nd level might give them expertise in two of their intelligence skills & additional cantrips, 6th might give them more spells known, perhaps 3 per level, and additional prepared spells, etc)

Easy_Lee

2016-06-27, 04:05 PM

Rogues and bards already have the most skills, as they did in previous generations. The question is whether they should also be better at a selection of those skills than any other class. If every class gets one expertise skill, but rogues and bards got four additional expertise skills, the result would be that everyone got a bit stronger in the skill department. It wouldn't destroy the "skilled" niche.

But that is indeed a different debate. My contention is that static plusses mess with the concept of bounded accuracy. Character advancement should yield new abilities, not static numerical increases (because proficiency and HP already cover that).

georgie_leech

2016-06-27, 04:09 PM

I think the expectation that any given class be able to have expertise is a separate question from the bounds of bounded accuracy, but an any rate I don't believe each class should easily be able to acquire it. D&D is a class based game, and by that each class should have different resources and abilities not easily lifted from each other class. For game balance reasons, nothing would explode in your game if you gave magical secrets to sorcerers and wizards, but it does make the bard a little less special. Most classes intended on being "good" at something already have an avenue to do so, as you point out with Rangers and Natural Explorer, or with Clerics and the Knowledge Domain. I'd prefer if you wanted a wizard that had expertise in arcana to be made as a new wizard subclass whose purpose is to be a master of general magical theory. (2nd level might give them expertise in two of their intelligence skills & additional cantrips, 6th might give them more spells known, perhaps 3 per level, and additional prepared spells, etc)

Also possible, though it requires more individual work, and still runs into weird cases where, say, the frothing berserker with a bloody great axe and murder in his eyes needs to better understand how to use daggers in order to be more Intimidating. If this is a concern, I'm not sure that letting Expertise be given out in limited measure devalues the Rogue or Bard too much. After all, the Martial Adept feat doesn't totally devalue the Battlemaster Fighter despite straight lifting their mechanics in limited form.

EDIT:

But that is indeed a different debate. My contention is that static plusses mess with the concept of bounded accuracy. Character advancement should yield new abilities, not static numerical increases (because proficiency and HP already cover that).

Slight quibble, while a flattened power curve can be desirable, it's not quite the same thing in terms of Bounded Accuracy. While 5e's take depends on a certain amount of flattening, it's more about avoiding the all too common 'You must have +X modifier to even bother trying this' moments that were so replete through 3.X and 4e. It's more important for the design of 5e that target numbers (Save DC's, AC, etc.) not exceed certain bounds than it is for bonuses to rolls.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-06-28, 09:25 AM

For game balance reasons, nothing would explode in your game if you gave magical secrets to sorcerers and wizards, but it does make the bard a little less special.
Point of order: Expertise is a very minor facet of the Rogue and Bard. The Rogue's main shtick is sneak attack; their secondary, skills*, is still handled by getting more proficiencies, reliable talent, and the Thief subclass. The Bard is all about inspiration, not being an expert. Inasmuch as they have a skill-based identity, it's Jack of All Trades and Lore Bard, not in Expertise.

*problematic as it is that one class is designed to be better at two of the three pillars, essentially

Waffle_Iron

2016-06-28, 10:05 AM

And loses spellcasting progression and class features in the process of "studying magic." And for some reason, expertise can't be taken as a feat, without homebrew.

And since your suggestions regarding "fixing" the system are also homebrew, you can now choose whichever you prefer, the simple one or the complicated one.

The add-one-feat solution, or the completely-overhaul-the-skill-system solution.

Mr.Moron

2016-06-28, 11:09 AM

That's your perogative, yes. I'm not saying it's wrong to dislike that there are 2 classes that are better at skills than the others, I'm saying it's not an inherent design flaw. Like, someone could say 'I don't like how Knights in the first Final Fantasy can cast White Magic, because Knights should fight with Sword and Shield and not use Magic at all.' That doesn't mean FF is flawed for having their Knight be closer to a Paladin than 'guy in heavy armor.' Again, not saying it's wrong to think that; I'm not fond of how the general AC system works because of certain cases that really seem like they should stack but don't, for instance.

I think part of the issue is that D&D clearly has certain design goals. One of the goals is to provide an Archetypal fantasy experience. It offers classes that all fall into very well-trodden fantasy gaming tropes and everything about the system seems to generally built up around supporting them.

In that context it is fair to say that one of the design goals is making sure the classes when taken at straightforward and at face value, should meet the general expectations of those archetypes.

The Studious Wizard should be (or at least be capable of being), at the upper bound for knowing about spells, ancient towers and the composition of dragon poop.
The Righteous Paladin should be (or at least be capable of being), at the upper bound for rallying men, quoting the law & scripture and driving his horse into danger.

As is they aren't the best, can't even approach being in the small ballpark as the best. They are nowhere near the upper bound for the archetypal skill sets. While sure in a vacuum you can't call this a design flaw for games in general,for what D&D is clearly trying to be it does represent a failure.

Kryx

2016-06-28, 11:19 AM

The add-one-feat solution, or the completely-overhaul-the-skill-system solution.
Changing Expertise to advantage is not an overhaul.

Cybren

2016-06-28, 11:28 AM

It most certainly is, since adding this many easy sources of advantage necessitates making advantage stack?

Grod_The_Giant

2016-06-28, 11:34 AM

It most certainly is, since adding this many easy sources of advantage necessitates making advantage stack?
Which is another minor houserule that I suspect a good many groups do accidentally, never mind those that do it on purpose.

Easy_Lee

2016-06-28, 01:00 PM

Again, I'm cool with bards and rogues being the best at skills. I just want to keep their rolls within the same bounds as everyone else. It's an extension of the bounded accuracy philosophy.

SharkForce

2016-06-28, 07:45 PM

Easy_Lee

2016-06-28, 08:09 PM

except it isn't at all part of the bounded accuracy philosophy.

bounded accuracy means that anyone can succeed. it doesn't mean that nobody is allowed to be really good at something, even to the point of being unable to fail at certain tasks.

I have no idea where you people get your ideas of what bounded accuracy means. Again, here's the quote from Rodney Thompson.

"The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM’s side of the game that the player’s attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster’s hit points; likewise, the character can now stand up to a few hits from that monster without being killed easily, thanks to the character’s increased hit points. Furthermore, gaining levels grants the characters new capabilities, which go much farther toward making your character feel different than simple numerical increases."

If we apply this philosophy to skills, then players shouldn't be gaining strict numerical increases to their skill checks. They should be able to do things will skill checks that they couldn't before. Unfortunately, we don't have anything like skill tricks in this edition. So we have to make do. And, without adding skill tricks, there are many other possibilities for what expertise and inspiration could do:

Allow you to try again after a fail (I know some feel this is too powerful)
Grant advantage with the skill
Allow you to automatically succeed at most checks with the skill
For inspiration, allow the target to treat non-proficient checks as proficient
etc.

Two classes just having higher numbers than the others is A) not bounded, B) uninteresting, and C) unfair to everyone else. Bards and rogues already have the most skills in addition to a wide variety of unique features for each class. The way expertise was handled is just plain weak.

And again, I'm not trying to force anyone to update expertise and inspiration. But what I am saying is that strict numerical increases, such as these, go against the philosophy of bounded accuracy. Perhaps I'm being thick, but I don't see how anyone could argue that point, whether they like expertise and inspiration or not.

Z3ro

2016-06-28, 08:31 PM

And again, I'm not trying to force anyone to update expertise and inspiration. But what I am saying is that strict numerical increases, such as these, go against the philosophy of bounded accuracy. Perhaps I'm being thick, but I don't see how anyone could argue that point, whether they like expertise and inspiration or not.

Except you are wrong. If strict numeric increases went against the philosophy of bounded accuracy, there wouldn't be an increase in proficiency bonus as the player leveled up. Or archery style.

SharkForce

2016-06-28, 08:46 PM

yeah, keep reading.

the next sentences talk about why they do that, and what they've done beyond that: the goal is to make sure that you don't need a certain bonus to be able to participate. you get better at fighting enemies because when you succeed (which you could have done at lower levels), you succeed at doing something better.

bounded accuracy means that there is no "you must be this tall to ride" in your numbers. the only ones breaking bounded accuracy are the people increasing numbers to force the rogue to roll a high number because they think that's more challenging than rolling a lower number, which locks out the people that don't have expertise.

so, bounded accuracy means don't boost a monster's AC to 30, requiring that you be blessed, using the archery style, and spending superiority dice on hitting to have a decent chance.

bounded accuracy means you don't make a monster with a paralyze save DC of 28 that requires a +8 bonus to even have a chance of resisting.

bounded accuracy means you don't set the disarm trap DC at 30 because the rogue has a high modifier, you set it at 20 if you want it to be a difficult trap to disarm and many people can try with varying chances of success, while the rogue can try and will almost certainly succeed because the rogue is really damn good at what they do.

and when you do that, guess what? who cares if the rogue can routinely hit DC 30 when attempting to disarm a trap. it doesn't matter. the traps are all DC 20 anyways. do that with everything, and suddenly it doesn't matter if the bard can hit DC 40 with all their special abilities mixed in. the DC to get the information you *needed* was only 18 anyways, the bard just did it with more style (and by spending a bunch more resources). all that matters is that the rogue can reliably hit a number that other people will only be able to hit some of the time. nobody needs to care that they do that by rolling high enough to hit DC 30, because it doesn't matter. things that are DC 30 are few and far between (perhaps don't even exist for many things), and absolutely should not be something you must do for the story to move onward.

it also doesn't mean that you never ever under any circumstances break that, of course... dragons have something like a passive perception of 21+ at a certain point, for example. a few dragons also have save DCs for certain abilities in the mid 20s. but again, the crucial thing is to make certain it doesn't disallow participation. a dragon might knock you down with a high DC save, dealing damage and costing some movement to get back up, but they don't (for example) have DC 24 sanctuary as an ability because at that point you cannot fight them at all, due to your numbers being too low.

and meanwhile, on those very rare occasions where you do have a DC 30 check... hey guess what, the ability to make that check is something that nobody else can do. it is a new capability exclusive to those that can make it that serves to differentiate that character (but again, bounded accuracy means that this should be useful, but not plot-critical, just like you shouldn't have an enemy that can explicitly only be defeated if you are a character that has the extra attack ability 3 times, and not by having 4 characters attack once each).