Opinion: will you be reluctant or eager to switch from 5E to 6E?

[diplomancer]

Wait. Are you asking if IRL climbing a rope is certain (always pass or always fail) or uncertain?

If you asked me to climb a rope, I would ask "how high?" and then hope I got to that height before I wore out and slipped back down*. Whether I succeed depends a bit on how well I keep my momentum and how the rope moves. There is luck involved as a result of lacking perfect control over the rope. It does not sound binary to me IRL. This sounds a lot like your long jump analogy.
*Obviously slipping back down must have a meaningful consequence in 5E otherwise you skip past the climb. However it is trivial for a rope to exist in an environment with meaningful consequences.

.

For pretty much any physical activity that someone can do, there is a threshold where it will be uncertain if that person can exceed. I'm not sure climbing is different in that regard. So this is, at best, an argument for more detailed rules about when the activity becomes uncertain.

But I admit, I was, deliberately, engaging in simplification, but the exact same simplification that the game applies, say, to languages, or to musical instruments. If you've ever learned a second language, you will know that there's a stage where there is some degree of uncertainty about whether you will understand a particular text in that language. If you've ever learned to play an instrument, there's a stage of some degree of uncertainty about whether you're able to play a particular song. But once you've mastered the language (or the instrument), that uncertainty mostly goes away. When you go to a concert by a world class pianist, it's not a matter of luck that he plays the concerto correctly; but there ARE "uncertainty factors" about how well the performance will be perceived by the audience or even how "emotionally correct" the artist will perform (and this is mostly what will differentiate the reputation of a great artist and a technicallly skilled but mediocre one), which is why a check could be appropriate; but it is not a check a 1st year student could even make.

To model better this "learning curve", you would have to have a completely different system, and you'd have to abandon Bounded Accuracy. I'm talking of a system where the DC for playing a simple tune is something like 26 (so even the most dexterous can't play it without learning to play the instrument a little bit), and for a difficult composition is about 100 or more, and a 3rd year student has a +20, while a master has +100 or more (and even then the 5% "step" of the d20'd be jarring, so you would have probably to abandon that too).

It's a similar thing with a physical skill, like climbing, or even a mental skill, like reading. first, you can't do it. Then you sometimes can do it, but it's uncertain. Then you can do it consistently, though if you try to do it many times or for very long you will reach your exhaustion threshold and it will be uncertain if you can continue the activity. As you practice, your exhaustion threshold expands.
And since I'm talking about mental activities as well, the only thing that makes a DM do a double-check about "everyone can climb" but easily accept "everyone can read and write" is modern urban bias. I'm sure in earlier ages people's expectations about those two actions would be more likely reversed ("what do you mean, everyone can read and writr? LOL, how unrealistic!")

What would not fix the system would be to just start assigning DC numbers to those sorts of tasks and let the system as it stands; that would, in fact, be very counter-productive.

In game, if there is no guideline saying it is certain (a binary always pass or always fail), then there is nothing proving it is or is not uncertain. That is up to the GM to decide

Correct, but the DM can still decide it wrongly. I'm sure you would consider it wrong for a DM to say "game does not say whether tying shoelaces is certain or uncertain. But it IS very easy. So I will say that tying your shoelaces is a dex check, DC 5", and then have, unadvertently (if that's what he was going for and his players are OK with it then fine) a slapstick comedy game where his low dex characters can't tie their shoelaces reliably.

[OldTrees1]

For pretty much any physical activity that someone can do, there is a threshold where it will be uncertain if that person can exceed. I'm not sure climbing is different in that regard. So this is, at best, an argument for more detailed rules about when the activity becomes uncertain.

That is sensible.

What would not fix the system would be to just start assigning DC numbers to those sorts of tasks and let the system as it stands; that would, in fact, be very counter-productive.

Agreed. 5E's bounded accuracy is an impediment to having a smooth transition from "certain no" through uncertainty and then to "certain yes".

Correct, but the DM can still decide it wrongly. I'm sure you would consider it wrong for a DM to say "game does not say whether tying shoelaces is certain or uncertain. But it IS very easy. So I will say that tying your shoelaces is a dex check, DC 5", and then have, unadvertently (if that's what he was going for and his players are OK with it then fine) a slapstick comedy game where his low dex characters can't tie their shoelaces reliably.

Segev's counterargument relied on specific premises some of the other posters had. Some of the other posters insisted "it works if you just go make the DC without any guidance" but then rejected the outcome Segev arrived at when following those instructions. This lead to a contradiction between the lack of guidance being viable and claiming the result of the lack of guidance was wrong.

If I were making a claim that 5E's lack of guidance works for this hypothetical GM, then I would have no basis to insist their "tying shoes is DC 5" was a wrong ruling. Luckily I don't claim 5E's lack of guidance is perfect (a bit of an understatement given my critiques), so I can have a basis to claim a DC of 5 to tie shoes is probably wrong. Specifically I would check with the GM to find out how incompetence they were aiming for, and then check how DC 5 shoes compared to their goal.

[HidesHisEyes]

If I were making a claim that 5E's lack of guidance works for this hypothetical GM, then I would have no basis to insist their "tying shoes is DC 5" was a wrong ruling. Luckily I don't claim 5E's lack of guidance is perfect (a bit of an understatement given my critiques), so I can have a basis to claim a DC of 5 to tie shoes is probably wrong. Specifically I would check with the GM to find out how incompetence they were aiming for, and then check how DC 5 shoes compared to their goal.

If I’ve understood you correctly I think I have no objection to 5E’s lack of guidance regarding setting DCs, and I do think I still have a basis to say setting a DC of 5 (or anything else) to tie your shoelaces is wrong. Or at least bad. Is it not obvious that it’s bad because it’s likely to make for bad gameplay?

[KorvinStarmast]

I do think I still have a basis to say setting a DC of 5 (or anything else) to tie your shoelaces is wrong. Or at least bad. Is it not obvious that it’s bad because it’s likely to make for bad gameplay?

You do have a basis, unless the attempt is under duress, lacks a hand here and there, or otherwise has the matter of "failure or success matters" due perhaps to time constraints.
On the other hand, one can play Roll For Shoes as an alternative ...

[HidesHisEyes]

You do have a basis, unless the attempt is under duress, lacks a hand here and there, or otherwise has the matter of "failure or success matters" due perhaps to time constraints.
On the other hand, one can play Roll For Shoes as an alternative ...

Yes! This is what I keep trying to get across to people who dislike bounded accuracy. You only roll in the first place if it’s meaningful, and if you’re so good or bad at something that the appropriate modifier for your roll is outside the range covered by bounded accuracy, then evidently it’s not meaningful.

[OldTrees1]

If I’ve understood you correctly I think I have no objection to 5E’s lack of guidance regarding setting DCs, and I do think I still have a basis to say setting a DC of 5 (or anything else) to tie your shoelaces is wrong. Or at least bad. Is it not obvious that it’s bad because it’s likely to make for bad gameplay?

The original example was a DM followed 5E's lack of guidance and concluded climbing a rope was DC 20. Others felt it was obviously wrong. Obviously it was not obvious to the DM that set it as DC 20. If the DC 20 was wrong, then 5E's lack of guidance was insufficient to avoid the DM making a wrong DC. The majority that claimed the DC 20 was wrong, were also those claiming 5E's lack of guidance was sufficient to avoid a DM making a wrong DC. "Just go for it and you will be right".

So if a DM uses 5E's lack of guidance and results in a DC 5 for tying shoes, and you judge that is obviously bad because it is likely to make for bad gameplay, then you have a critique of 5E's lack of guidance. Now just roll back the example to the original DC 20 rope and you will see a real DM (Segev) having reached that DC. It is no longer hypothetical. If a DC can be "obviously wrong because it obviously makes for bad gameplay" then you are critiquing 5E's lack of guidance.

Yes! This is what I keep trying to get across to people who dislike bounded accuracy. You only roll in the first place if it’s meaningful, and if you’re so good or bad at something that the appropriate modifier for your roll is outside the range covered by bounded accuracy, then evidently it’s not meaningful.

Again, in the original example the DM already determined the check was meaningful.

PS: Also if that is something you keep reminding people that dislike bounded accuracy, then it comes across as a non sequitur to every critique of bounded accuracy I have heard or had. The main critique is that there is not enough advancement across the RNG because the variation in the bonus (~7) and growth in the bonus (~7) are both dwarfed by the size of the RNG (1d20). Also, please remember the mitochonria is the powerhouse of the cell.

[Psyren]

The majority that claimed the DC 20 was wrong, were also those claiming 5E's lack of guidance was sufficient to avoid a DM making a wrong DC.

Not quite. We're not saying that no DM can ever be wrong or make mistakes with this system. Just that it's worth it to keep the system open-ended the way it is even if not every DM can wrap their head around it (or wrap their head around {insert example} of applying it.)

[OldTrees1]

Not quite. We're not saying that no DM can ever be wrong or make mistakes with this system. Just that it's worth it to keep the system open-ended the way it is even if not every DM can wrap their head around it (or wrap their head around {insert example} of applying it.)

Not quite.

Those referenced that were involved in the conversation were quite insistent on the existing guidance being sufficient for Segev to reach a correct DC and insistent on Segev reaching the wrong DC.

If you don't agree with those involved, then it is poor form to pretend. Not everyone took such a contradictory stance. However the contradictory stance is not made stronger by your statement. If you changed your stance to be less insistent, then you have changed your stance. Changing to a different stance also does not make the contradictory stance any stronger. In neither case is your post relevant.

[Psyren]

Those referenced that were involved in the conversation were quite insistent on the existing guidance being sufficient for Segev to reach a correct DC and insistent on Segev reaching the wrong DC.

Perhaps you should actually point out who you're referring to then rather than hide behind weasel words like "those involved", because neither myself, Keltest, PhoenixPhyre, Gooeychewie, nor diplomancer ever said "the guidance will prevent anyone from doing something wrong."

[OldTrees1]

Perhaps you should actually point out who you're referring to then rather than hide behind weasel words like "those involved", because neither myself, Keltest, PhoenixPhyre, Gooeychewie, nor diplomancer ever said "the guidance will prevent anyone from doing something wrong."

You are capable of reading the thread if you want to focus on "who" rather than "what". I rather focus on the arguments when clarifying.

I suspect your next post will be a waste of my time. I will not read it.

[Psyren]

You are capable of reading the thread if you want to focus on "who" rather than "what". I rather focus on the arguments when clarifying.

The "what" isn't terribly useful when you're deriving it from something you can't even be sure anyone actually said.

[HidesHisEyes]

The original example was a DM followed 5E's lack of guidance and concluded climbing a rope was DC 20. Others felt it was obviously wrong. Obviously it was not obvious to the DM that set it as DC 20. If the DC 20 was wrong, then 5E's lack of guidance was insufficient to avoid the DM making a wrong DC. The majority that claimed the DC 20 was wrong, were also those claiming 5E's lack of guidance was sufficient to avoid a DM making a wrong DC. "Just go for it and you will be right".

So if a DM uses 5E's lack of guidance and results in a DC 5 for tying shoes, and you judge that is obviously bad because it is likely to make for bad gameplay, then you have a critique of 5E's lack of guidance. Now just roll back the example to the original DC 20 rope and you will see a real DM (Segev) having reached that DC. It is no longer hypothetical. If a DC can be "obviously wrong because it obviously makes for bad gameplay" then you are critiquing 5E's lack of guidance.

Again, in the original example the DM already determined the check was meaningful.

PS: Also if that is something you keep reminding people that dislike bounded accuracy, then it comes across as a non sequitur to every critique of bounded accuracy I have heard or had. The main critique is that there is not enough advancement across the RNG because the variation in the bonus (~7) and growth in the bonus (~7) are both dwarfed by the size of the RNG (1d20). Also, please remember the mitochonria is the powerhouse of the cell.

I see what you’re saying, but to me it’s ultimately a much more powerful system when the details of how the core mechanic is applied are left to the DM to decide, in context, each time you use it. I find this really encourages engagement with the fiction because the DM and the players all have to make sure they’re on the same page about the state of the fiction. If everyone is doing this I think unexpectedly high DCs just go away. Sometimes there’s a little bit of negotiation or clarification:

“I climb up the rope.”
“Make a Strength Athletics check, DC 20.”
“20!?”
“Yeah, remember those orcs are still throwing axes at you and it’s raining.”
“Oh fair enough.”

If that sounds like the game not giving you enough guidance, I just disagree. This is roleplaying: describing an imagined scenario together and applying rules to navigate it. And hey 3.5 had much more robust guidance around skill checks and DCs, and it’s not like no one had this kind of discussion about 3.5.

(As a side note: if a DM set the DC to 20 for just climbing a rope in normal conditions with no danger, I would object to that. But I still don’t see it as a failing of the game rules.)

And then the reason this comes up in discussions about bounded accuracy is because when people make the RNG critique that you articulated, I think they are thinking about the game system as a kind of god’s eye view of the game world. The DC is an objective description of the difficulty of the action. I don’t think this is the case in 5E. I think 5E starts from the assumption that if you’re making a check, your chance of success is about 50/50. Then it says, now what is the difficulty given all the present circumstances, and what ability and proficiencies can a character bring to weight the die in their favour? Calling for an ability check means making this assessment every time on a case by case basis.

I wrote a blog post about this if you want to indulge my perspective further: https://amotb.blogspot.com/2020/12/s...-d-5e.html?m=1

Anyway I’m well aware this is only my interpretation of the rules, and I think the RAW don’t do a good job of explaining it. But I think if you look at the game of 5E overall, this is how it wants to be played. And playing it this way I get good results.

[EggKookoo]

And then the reason this comes up in discussions about bounded accuracy is because when people make the RNG critique that you articulated, I think they are thinking about the game system as a kind of god’s eye view of the game world. The DC is an objective description of the difficulty of the action. I don’t think this is the case in 5E. I think 5E starts from the assumption that if you’re making a check, your chance of success is about 50/50. Then it says, now what is the difficulty given all the present circumstances, and what ability and proficiencies can a character bring to weight the die in their favour? Calling for an ability check means making this assessment every time on a case by case basis.

I agree. I see a lot of players who view the rules as a kind of game engine that's driving what's going on. It's the other way around. The rules provide player access to what's going on.

I've said it before. Your PC didn't hit the monster because you rolled high. Your high roll reveals to you that your PC hit the monster.

[HidesHisEyes]

I agree. I see a lot of players who view the rules as a kind of game engine that's driving what's going on. It's the other way around. The rules provide player access to what's going on.

I've said it before. Your PC didn't hit the monster because you rolled high. Your high roll reveals to you that your PC hit the monster.

Yeah exactly. Relatedly, the players don’t make things happen by rolling a die, they make things happen by describing their actions. The rules are the tools you use to find out the outcome of those actions.

My caveat is that, in D&D at least, this is not so much the case in combat, because in combat the stakes are set for you (by the action economy, hit points and so on). But even then, the decision to enter “combat mode” is a decision to pick up a tool. That means making the subjective, contextual decision that that tool is appropriate for the situation in the fiction.

[Psyren]

I see what you’re saying, but to me it’s ultimately a much more powerful system when the details of how the core mechanic is applied are left to the DM to decide, in context, each time you use it. I find this really encourages engagement with the fiction because the DM and the players all have to make sure they’re on the same page about the state of the fiction. If everyone is doing this I think unexpectedly high DCs just go away. Sometimes there’s a little bit of negotiation or clarification:

“I climb up the rope.”
“Make a Strength Athletics check, DC 20.”
“20!?”
“Yeah, remember those orcs are still throwing axes at you and it’s raining.”
“Oh fair enough.”

If that sounds like the game not giving you enough guidance, I just disagree. This is roleplaying: describing an imagined scenario together and applying rules to navigate it. And hey 3.5 had much more robust guidance around skill checks and DCs, and it’s not like no one had this kind of discussion about 3.5.

(As a side note: if a DM set the DC to 20 for just climbing a rope in normal conditions with no danger, I would object to that. But I still don’t see it as a failing of the game rules.)

This is pretty much the process I would follow.

Yeah exactly. Relatedly, the players don’t make things happen by rolling a die, they make things happen by describing their actions. The rules are the tools you use to find out the outcome of those actions.

My caveat is that, in D&D at least, this is not so much the case in combat, because in combat the stakes are set for you (by the action economy, hit points and so on). But even then, the decision to enter “combat mode” is a decision to pick up a tool. That means making the subjective, contextual decision that that tool is appropriate for the situation in the fiction.

Spot-on. It's well worth remembering that even combat-adjacent actions (like "I want to stab the vizier") don't need the combat framework to play out. The DM decides when to use those tools just like they decide the resolution method of every other action the players attempt.

Anyway I’m well aware this is only my interpretation of the rules, and I think the RAW don’t do a good job of explaining it. But I think if you look at the game of 5E overall, this is how it wants to be played. And playing it this way I get good results.

I think most people do. Expecting everyone to do this without errors is an impossible standard (one that thankfully nobody espoused), but enough people get it right.

I'm interested in helping the ones that don't, provided they're interested in finding a solution that isn't "burn it all to the ground and start over."

[EggKookoo]

Yeah exactly. Relatedly, the players don’t make things happen by rolling a die, they make things happen by describing their actions. The rules are the tools you use to find out the outcome of those actions.

My caveat is that, in D&D at least, this is not so much the case in combat, because in combat the stakes are set for you (by the action economy, hit points and so on). But even then, the decision to enter “combat mode” is a decision to pick up a tool. That means making the subjective, contextual decision that that tool is appropriate for the situation in the fiction.

I think fundamentally there isn't that much of a real difference. Combat has more structure in the rules about what calls for a roll vs. what can be a simple DM decision. You don't see situations where the player attacks a monster and the DM just declares a hit or miss (I mean in a conventional turn-based situation). But strictly speaking there's nothing preventing it, and in all honesty I've occasionally done it myself as a DM. But under the hood, it's still 1) player declares action 2) DM resolves action, possibly using dice to determine the outcome.

[HidesHisEyes]

I think fundamentally there isn't that much of a real difference. Combat has more structure in the rules about what calls for a roll vs. what can be a simple DM decision. You don't see situations where the player attacks a monster and the DM just declares a hit or miss (I mean in a conventional turn-based situation). But strictly speaking there's nothing preventing it, and in all honesty I've occasionally done it myself as a DM. But under the hood, it's still 1) player declares action 2) DM resolves action, possibly using dice to determine the outcome.

Yeah for sure, and as Psyren mentioned too you don’t have to use the combat system every time someone “makes an attack”. The thing with D&D is it has this nested tactical combat game within it, which is designed to be played for its own sake *as well as* being a resolution tool in the larger game system. If you’re playing the combat game then you’re playing the combat game, but you don’t necessarily play it every time a character draws their sword.

[diplomancer]

Yeah for sure, and as Psyren mentioned too you don’t have to use the combat system every time someone “makes an attack”. The thing with D&D is it has this nested tactical combat game within it, which is designed to be played for its own sake *as well as* being a resolution tool in the larger game system. If you’re playing the combat game then you’re playing the combat game, but you don’t necessarily play it every time a character draws their sword.

And this is something that most DMs eventually realize, when they see that allowing players to "mop up" remaining enemies (say, the turned Undead in a closed room), speeding up the last rounds, is pretty much always a good idea.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My caveat is that, in D&D at least, this is not so much the case in combat, because in combat the stakes are set for you (by the action economy, hit points and so on). But even then, the decision to enter “combat mode” is a decision to pick up a tool. That means making the subjective, contextual decision that that tool is appropriate for the situation in the fiction.

And the decision to exit combat mode. And even in combat mode, nothing says "ok, now you play like an old JRPG on a separate map and nothing you do there counts except combat." I've had many combats ended by things entirely different than making attacks or depleting hit points. Including stopping and going "wait, why are we fighting? Let's talk about this."

[OldTrees1]

I see what you’re saying, but to me it’s ultimately a much more powerful system when the details of how the core mechanic is applied are left to the DM to decide, in context, each time you use it. I find this really encourages engagement with the fiction because the DM and the players all have to make sure they’re on the same page about the state of the fiction. If everyone is doing this I think unexpectedly high DCs just go away. Sometimes there’s a little bit of negotiation or clarification:

I notice you did not claim the rope DC 20 was wrong. Segev's argument only impacts cases with both premises.

Personally I both want optional guidance buried in the DMG/web article that are well done (similar to what Tanarii agreed would be a workable idea). However I also saw nothing wrong with the DC 20 climb check because the DM has control over the DC. Since I did not fulfill either premise, Segev's argument also didn't impact me.

Just for clarification: "The details are left up to the DM to decide, in context, each time" is true of both the status quo and the suggested optional guidelines. Even 3E satisfied that condition.

Let's add a bit more history to your example.

“I climb up the rope.”
“Make a Strength Athletics check, DC 20.”
“20!? I remember climbing ropes in combat was around 10 before.”
“Yeah, remember not only are those orcs are still throwing axes at you, but it is also raining.”
“Oh fair enough.”

Which system did I use? It is hard to tell from this example. All you can see is the DM decides the DCs, in context, each time and the player is trying to understand their character's in character knowledge about their capabilities.

(As a side note: if a DM set the DC to 20 for just climbing a rope in normal conditions with no danger, I would object to that. But I still don’t see it as a failing of the game rules.)

Agreed, that is the meaningful check requirement in action.

And then the reason this comes up in discussions about bounded accuracy is because when people make the RNG critique that you articulated, I think they are thinking about the game system as a kind of god’s eye view of the game world. The DC is an objective description of the difficulty of the action. I don’t think this is the case in 5E. I think 5E starts from the assumption that if you’re making a check, your chance of success is about 50/50. Then it says, now what is the difficulty given all the present circumstances, and what ability and proficiencies can a character bring to weight the die in their favour? Calling for an ability check means making this assessment every time on a case by case basis.

I wrote a blog post about this if you want to indulge my perspective further: https://amotb.blogspot.com/2020/12/s...-d-5e.html?m=1

Anyway I’m well aware this is only my interpretation of the rules, and I think the RAW don’t do a good job of explaining it. But I think if you look at the game of 5E overall, this is how it wants to be played. And playing it this way I get good results.

You are right the DC does not ignore context, however those with critiques about Bounded Accuracy are not forgetting that obvious fact.

1) If 5E assumes the chance of success is about 50/50 (say need a 7-14) then a 1d20 is too large an RNG to communicate when to switch from automatic fail (need a 6) to automatic success (need a 15). Even using 1d10+5 can fix this flaw if 5E indeed assumes all checks only need rolls near 50/50. If the entire RNG is not intended to be used, then shrink the RNG until the math matches the assumptions. However I see no evidence that 5E assumes only the middle of the RNG.
2) We can consider counterfactuals that don't change the circumstances of the check. My 13th level Paladin that has being trying to be better at climbing can consider how they would have faired at 1st level and how they would fair at 20th level in the same circumstances. If we are assuming 5E uses the entire 1-20 RNG then we run into a lack of sufficient progress between the 1st level and 20th level Paladin. If climbing a wet rope over a chasm is a risky move at 1st, why is it still a check at 20th for a character trying to master that activity? The same circumstances, but the math intentionally prevents mastery.

Swapping ability checks from a 1d20 to a 1d10 better fits both your assumption that only the middle values are intended (regardless of if 5E shares your assumption) and it addresses the lack of growth. However shrinking the RNG from 1d20 to 1d10 is the same as saying that Bounded Accuracy, as applied to non opposed ability checks, has a mismatch between the size of the RNG and growth or variety in the bonus.

PS: The article you linked talked about describing success and failure based on the context of who was doing the check and how they were doing it. That is orthogonal to the primary critique against bounded accuracy. The primary critique is about the math and the lack of progression.

PPS: The article also mentioned an "arms race". Perhaps a different metaphor will help. Consider building a tower. As you build it higher there are more floors to can visit. The top floor is exposed to the wind and can be risky. The other floors are safe and you can visit them when you want to. (Those completed floors are some of the most important floors in my experience) What once was a meaningful check, now becomes something you are capable of without a check. What once was too hard, comes into reach as your tower grows. It is not an arms race. It is getting better at the old and being able to try the new because the old is still relevant and the new is different rather than being the old with a new skin. Bounded Accuracy forbids building more than 1 new floor of the tower despite 20 levels. (Sidenote, the tower metaphor also let's us know a character can choose to stop building and use the completed floors. Those floors don't vanish like the arms race metaphor assumes.)

[HidesHisEyes]

And this is something that most DMs eventually realize, when they see that allowing players to "mop up" remaining enemies (say, the turned Undead in a closed room), speeding up the last rounds, is pretty much always a good idea.

And the decision to exit combat mode. And even in combat mode, nothing says "ok, now you play like an old JRPG on a separate map and nothing you do there counts except combat." I've had many combats ended by things entirely different than making attacks or depleting hit points. Including stopping and going "wait, why are we fighting? Let's talk about this."

Agreed, in both of these situations it becomes clear that combat doesn’t need to be completely separate from the context surrounding it. I do think D&D combat wants to be played as its own self-contained game, and a big part of this game’s appeal over the other RPGs I like to play is that it’s a fun combat game. But it by no means has to be kept totally separate from start to finish. Usually if we get two or three rounds of playing the combat mini-game before the enemies want to flee or parley or some other narrative circumstances intrudes, then my tactical boardgamey itch is scratched. And of course, how much table time someone wants to spend on the combat game is purely subjective (although if it’s none at all I might recommend playing a different game, but that’s a separate issue).

[HidesHisEyes]

Ok, sounds like we agree on more than I thought. I'll respond to the parts where there's still disagreement.

You are right the DC does not ignore context, however those with critiques about Bounded Accuracy are not forgetting that obvious fact.

1) If 5E assumes the chance of success is about 50/50 (say need a 7-14) then a 1d20 is too large an RNG to communicate when to switch from automatic fail (need a 6) to automatic success (need a 15). Even using 1d10+5 can fix this flaw if 5E indeed assumes all checks only need rolls near 50/50. If the entire RNG is not intended to be used, then shrink the RNG until the math matches the assumptions. However I see no evidence that 5E assumes only the middle of the RNG.
2) We can consider counterfactuals that don't change the circumstances of the check. My 13th level Paladin can consider how they would have faired at 1st level and how they would fair at 20th level in the same circumstances. If we are assuming 5E uses the entire 1-20 RNG then we run into a lack of sufficient progress between the 1st level and 20th level Paladin. If climbing a wet rope over a chasm is a risky move at 1st, why is it still a check at 20th? The same circumstances, but the math intentionally prevents mastery.

Swapping ability checks from a 1d20 to a 1d10 better fits both your assumption that only the middle values are intended (regardless of if 5E shares your assumption) and it addresses the lack of growth. However shrinking the RNG from 1d20 to 1d10 is the same as saying that Bounded Accuracy, as applied to non opposed ability checks, has a mismatch between the size of the RNG and growth or variety in the bonus.

So I didn't mean to say the RNG is only supposed to use the middle of its scale. I meant that it's not the job of the RNG to determine when something is going to be an automatic success or failure, since it assumes that the chance of success or failure is appropriate to the scale of the RNG. I wasn't being very clear when I said 50/50. I meant "appropriate for a d20 roll against a DC of 10 to 25ish, with a modifier from about -1 to about +15". And that's the mechanics translation of "the kind of thing adventurers face that is a challenge for them", what we've been calling a meaningful check. In fact, it's not even that the RNG assumes the task fits its scale. It's that the concept of the RNG scale just isn't relevant until you've subjectively decided, based on the shared understanding of the fiction, that it's time to make a check. That's because rules and mechanics in 5E are tools for resolving moments in the fiction, not a mathematical description of the fiction.

And yeah, absolutely the maths intentionally prevents mastery for many things, but I wouldn't agree that it amounts to insufficient progress. If we set the DC for the wet rope chasm check at 20 then I'd expect the paladin to have a 30% chance (mod of +5) to do it at level 1 and a 55% chance (mod of +11) at level 20. (I wouldn't necessarily set it at 20 btw, but I don't want to lowball it just to make my point). That's a big increase when you consider that climbing ropes isn't what paladins are all about, it's just something they have to do in the course of their adventures. This seems about right to me. When a particular skill is what a character is all about there's usually a class feature or other option to reflect that. (Rogues can get their Stealth bonuses high enough to easily overcome almost every monster's passive perception in the MM.)

Where you do see a big change of scale is in characters' ability to take down enemies in combat. I know bounded accuracy is often said to mean that low-level enemies can still be a threat to high-level characters, and that's true to some extent (and I think it's a good thing), but you absolutely gain mastery of your class's combat capabilities so that ever-increasingly nasty monsters cease to be able to stand against you in most circumstances. It's just that this is achieved through escalating hit points and damage output, and other features, instead of through an increase to modifiers on the core mechanic. (If anything, I'd like to see bounded accuracy taken further to the point where hit points and damage also don't escalate so much and there aren't quite so many "leagues" when it comes to monsters and their CRs, but that's probably a separate discussion).

PPS: The article also mentioned an "arms race". Perhaps a different metaphor will help. Consider building a tower. As you build it higher there are more floors to can visit. The top floor is exposed to the wind and can be risky. The other floors are safe and you can visit them when you want to. (Those completed floors are some of the most important floors in my experience) What once was a meaningful check, now becomes something you are capable of without a check. What once was too hard, comes into reach as your tower grows. It is not an arms race. It is getting better at the old and being able to try the new because the old is still relevant and the new is different rather than being the old with a new skin. Bounded Accuracy forbids building more than 1 new floor of the tower despite 20 levels. (Sidenote, the tower metaphor also let's us know a character can choose to stop building and use the completed floors. Those floors don't vanish like the arms race metaphor assumes.)

That's a good metaphor and I hadn't thought of it that way before. I think my problem is that in practice it just seems to be very difficult to balance the lower floors remaining relevant with the higher floors being there too as a worthy challenge. I actually haven't played much 3.5, but I'm currently playing Pathfinder 2E and this is a problem for me. The book contains listed easy, medium and hard DCs for every character level (and these DCs seem to assume the PC has the maximum possible bonus for the roll in question). So the game seems to assume GMs are increasing the DCs as the players level, in other words always operating at the top floor of the tower - in which case what good is having mastered the lower floors? On the other hand, if the GM is taking a more simulationist approach and saying "well, a slippery rope is a slippery rope and the DC remains the same" then at some point they have to replace slippery ropes with some more difficult variant of the same thing, and then again a few levels later, and again after that. I think it really makes the GM's job harder in this respect, compared to something like 5E where you're always working with the same scale, and setting DCs is very intuitive. But I don't know, can you elaborate on what you mean by the lower floors of the tower remaining relevant?

[OldTrees1]

Ok, sounds like we agree on more than I thought. I'll respond to the parts where there's still disagreement.

Heh heh, yeah it is usually that way.

So I didn't mean to say the RNG is only supposed to use the middle of its scale. I meant that it's not the job of the RNG to determine when something is going to be an automatic success or failure

Okay. That is reasonable, but I don't see how it is related to the critiques about Bounded Accuracy. With or without Bounded Accuracy the GM first decides if it is automatic and then decides the DC.

And yeah, absolutely the maths intentionally prevents mastery for many things, but I wouldn't agree that it amounts to insufficient progress.

This difference in preference is valid. It indicates you are listening to the actual critique and just have a different preference. This is a much better response than reminding them of what they already know (aka the meaningful check requirement). Hence my initial comment about the non sequitur reminder.

At its core, yes the critiques of Bounded Accuracy are difference of opinion on what the ideal progression across the RNG looks like from level 1 to level N. Personally I favor "Progression(20 levels) = 1.5 x Size of the RNG" meanwhile 5E chose "Progression(20 levels) = 0.35 x Size of the RNG". I will indirectly elaborate on why I like 1.5 down in the "tower" metaphor.

If we set the DC for the wet rope chasm check at 20 then I'd expect the paladin to have a 30% chance (mod of +5) to do it at level 1 and a 55% chance (mod of +11) at level 20. (I wouldn't necessarily set it at 20 btw, but I don't want to lowball it just to make my point). That's a big increase when you consider that climbing ropes isn't what paladins are all about, it's just something they have to do in the course of their adventures. This seems about right to me. When a particular skill is what a character is all about there's usually a class feature or other option to reflect that. (Rogues can get their Stealth bonuses high enough to easily overcome almost every monster's passive perception in the MM.)

I feel that is a small increase for a character focusing on improving their climbing. Sure some Paladins will increase from +3 to +5 incidentally, but this Paladin increased from +4 to +11 because they chose to hone that skill. Climbing ropes is part of what this Paladin was about, and yet it does not feel like 19 levels of honed skill to me (although it might to you due to different preferences).

That's a good metaphor and I hadn't thought of it that way before. I think my problem is that in practice it just seems to be very difficult to balance the lower floors remaining relevant with the higher floors being there too as a worthy challenge.

I don't see any problem with lower floors remaining relevant. Let's say I fill my combats with terrain and features. There is elevation changes, balconies, pits, poles, chandeliers, tables, etc. Accelerated movement though those obstacles instead of around results in meaningful checks at 1st level due to time being a factor in those combats and failure resulting in delay or damage. The actual math depends on how much the character wants to do and the system math. One of the characters is going to become this nimble swashbuckler and starts to hone their mobility checks. They are building that tower. By 5th level they automatically pass any of those earlier obstacles unless they are trying to run through 4 of them in the same round. At this point I have also introduced other obstacles like rafters or continuous traps (rolling boulders). The swashbuckler can avoid the new obstacles like the rest of the party, or they can attempt them (the new level of the tower). At the same time the old obstacles still exist and the swashbuckler is having fun choosing between automatically overcoming 3 of them per round (old level of the tower), or pushing themselves to try 4+.

Develop a capability (it becomes possible). Hone the capability (it becomes reasonable). Master the capability (it becomes automatic). Then use that mastered a capability. If a swashbuckler masters how to run along a rope, I don't make arms race and make every rope a thin thread just to restore the risk. I might expand my descriptions to mention the harder, but now possible, terrain but I won't power scale the old terrain.

I actually haven't played much 3.5, but I'm currently playing Pathfinder 2E and this is a problem for me. The book contains listed easy, medium and hard DCs for every character level (and these DCs seem to assume the PC has the maximum possible bonus for the roll in question). So the game seems to assume GMs are increasing the DCs as the players level, in other words always operating at the top floor of the tower - in which case what good is having mastered the lower floors?

That is a terrible way to present it for exactly the reason you mentioned. Ugh. Just no. Pathfinder 2E is presenting it as a treadmill and that is bad. (Pathfinder 2E might even assume it should be a treadmill, which is worse)

Say I am creating a dungeon room with lots of holes in the floor (and something to make falling meaningful) to reward & challenge a barbarian that loves jumping, jump attacks, and shoving. If they are 5th level and a 20ft jump is a challenge, should I make every gap 20ft? NO. Some gaps might still only be 5ft and some might be 30ft. Sure the barbarian automatically passes any 15ft jump, but now they have a choice between risk/reward vs security while also letting them show the skills they honed in contrast to the heavy armor paladin that decided to master 5ft jumps and leave it at that or the wizard that is going to be cautious and fly rather than risk the smallest jump.

One encounter challenging characters with multiple different skill levels while also allowing them each to choose their lower floor or their top floor. This lets the characters celebrate their mastery and/or choose to challenge themselves.

On the other hand, if the GM is taking a more simulationist approach and saying "well, a slippery rope is a slippery rope and the DC remains the same" then at some point they have to replace slippery ropes with some more difficult variant of the same thing, and then again a few levels later, and again after that. I think it really makes the GM's job harder in this respect, compared to something like 5E where you're always working with the same scale, and setting DCs is very intuitive. But I don't know, can you elaborate on what you mean by the lower floors of the tower remaining relevant?

Why do you need to replace the ropes? If the rogue has trained in climbing wet surfaces, leave wet ropes wherever wet ropes exist. As they get better maybe be more detailed when describing the other wet surfaces like the wet stone walls. They can travel a bit out of their way to the rope (automatic but costs movement), throw up a rope of their own (automatic but costs fractions of an action), or they can scale the wet stone wall(a meaningful check).

Also, it is good when the systems don't have mandated DC. This rope left out in the rain overnight might be DC 10 but the rogue's rope will be DC 8 because it is just now exposed to the rain. We can still use circumstances. (Although those DCs would be for the druid, because in this example the rogue is good enough that climbing the rain soaked rope is an automatic pass).

[PallyBass]

I will be reluctant, I don't want to spend money on all new books. I will wait to gauge people's reaction to it and if overwhelmingly positive then slowly get into it. 5e has been alot of fun to play.

[Warder]

Well, tomorrow is the Wizards Presents event where they're showcasing what is to come for D&D and M:TG in the future, so maybe some of the speculation in this thread will receive some answers then. But some answers have already been forthcoming, as this (very unconfirmed, but very legit-looking) picture was leaked in advance:

https://i.redd.it/xx2qaepbzai91.jpg

If that is legit, they are severely limiting the free D&D Beyond tier, while increasing the monthly price of the subscription tier by 500-1000%! But the big thing to look at here is that they justify the price hike by giving subscribers access to all books; basically, you'll pay $360/year to rent the D&D rules. I think no matter what mechanical changes 6e will bring, "D&D as a service" is the future of the game in WotC's eyes.

Edit: Seems like it might've been a hoax? We'll know today for sure. I'm leaving the post as is for posterity.

[Zevox]

Well, tomorrow is the Wizards Presents event where they're showcasing what is to come for D&D and M:TG in the future, so maybe some of the speculation in this thread will receive some answers then. But some answers have already been forthcoming, as this (very unconfirmed, but very legit-looking) picture was leaked in advance:

https://i.redd.it/xx2qaepbzai91.jpg

If that is legit, they are severely limiting the free D&D Beyond tier, while increasing the monthly price of the subscription tier by 500-1000%! But the big thing to look at here is that they justify the price hike by giving subscribers access to all books; basically, you'll pay $360/year to rent the D&D rules. I think no matter what mechanical changes 6e will bring, "D&D as a service" is the future of the game in WotC's eyes.

Wow. That certainly makes me happy that I have never had any need or desire to use D&D Beyond.

[Dienekes]

Well, tomorrow is the Wizards Presents event where they're showcasing what is to come for D&D and M:TG in the future, so maybe some of the speculation in this thread will receive some answers then. But some answers have already been forthcoming, as this (very unconfirmed, but very legit-looking) picture was leaked in advance:

https://i.redd.it/xx2qaepbzai91.jpg

If that is legit, they are severely limiting the free D&D Beyond tier, while increasing the monthly price of the subscription tier by 500-1000%! But the big thing to look at here is that they justify the price hike by giving subscribers access to all books; basically, you'll pay $360/year to rent the D&D rules. I think no matter what mechanical changes 6e will bring, "D&D as a service" is the future of the game in WotC's eyes.

If this is true, may this ship sink.

Cutting off access to homebrew? The **** they’re not even making?

Get off it.

[EggKookoo]

Cutting off access to homebrew? The **** they’re not even making?

Frankly I was surprised they ever allowed homebrew to begin with. It's too easy to use it to bypass paid content.

[Amnestic]

If that is legit, they are severely limiting the free D&D Beyond tier, while increasing the monthly price of the subscription tier by 500-1000%! But the big thing to look at here is that they justify the price hike by giving subscribers access to all books; basically, you'll pay $360/year to rent the D&D rules. I think no matter what mechanical changes 6e will bring, "D&D as a service" is the future of the game in WotC's eyes.

I don't feel particularly prescient in calling it but I did say in a thread months ago about them getting D&DB that they'd probably do exactly this.

Even so...

Called it!

[EggKookoo]

What I'd mostly be concerned about is content-sharing. Currently in DnDBeyond, if I own a sourcebook and I create a campaign, anyone who joins my campaign can use content from that sourcebook when creating a PC, even if that person doesn't own the book itself.

Hopefully that won't be going away.