Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
If the best possible roll is still a failure and the worst possible roll a success, they shouldn’t even be rolling.
Most of the time, yes - why roll if the outcome is certain? Save the rolls for times of stress or if you just want to see what happens.

For example, suppose characters have to cross a rickety bridge as a lead up to combat. Maybe a DC 5 acrobatics check, which some characters would fail only on a 1. I'd make them roll as things out of their control could cause them to fail. If there were not enemies on the other side, I wouldn't have them roll (5e should have kept taking 10 for casual situations - I still use it). The 5% fail chance is enough uncertainty to make players consider their options.

On the other end, if someone comes up with a plan that's impossible but sounds cool, set the difficulty insanely high and let them try if they still want to.

Unlikely events should be rare but they should have some possibility. When rare events do happen, it makes the session more memorable.
 
Stan Stan I stand corrected and can imagine a few corner cases where it makes sense. I also think the tone of the game makes a difference. Allowing players to do one in a million things on a roll of nat 20 doesn't fly in more grounded games but is par for course in more heroic or light hearted ones.
 
There's a lot to unpack but I am surprised he made the common gamer mistake of conflating Athletics and Acrobatics. Acrobatics is very clearly about balance and not "the DEX version of Athletics" e.g. Athletics is jumping over a distance, Acrobatics is executing a graceful landing. This kind of thing is why I say every DM needs to read the rules at least once.
Agreed but as Fenris-77 Fenris-77 explained, a whole lot of players insist on these skills being used interchangeably.

To the point that I’m amazed that WotC haven’t done just that: merge the two skills into one that can use either ability score.

All of this is moot to me because I intend to ditch skills anyway if I ever run 5e again.
 
I admit that I’m kind of stunned at the negative portrait this paints about the game. It’s true and something that bothered me without really noticing for years.

What do others think of this assessment?
Having wrestled with this issue with my ability system that was first presented in my Majestic Wilderlands supplement in 2009. I have a few thoughts on his assessment.
From Justin Alexander's post
BUT BOUNDED ACCURACY IS BROKEN

What complicates this, however, is that bounded accuracy for ability checks/skill checks in 5E is broken.

The first problem is one of implementation: The instructions for setting check DCs are incorrect, which results in DMs setting DCs that break bounded accuracy.

The short version is that, for legacy reasons very similar to why I had my gut reaction to the playtest mechanics, the DC range in 5th Edition is treated as if it were the same as low-level 3rd Edition, including by the designers and the advice in the Dungeon Master’s Guide. But this isn’t the case. A skilled 3rd-level character in 3rd Edition likely has a +8 or +9 in the skill; the same character in 5th Edition has +4 or +5.
For some reason, he thinks that emulating low-level 3rd edition is the goal here.
Note: The elimination of the Take 10 mechanic in 5th Edition for all practical purposes except passive Perception also has an effect here, but we won’t dive down that rabbit hole today.

This includes several key pieces of advice, which are given in various places throughout the 5th Edition product line and reflected in the design of official scenarios and the like. (From here, this advice also percolates into designer diaries and third-party books, videos, tweets, blogs, etc.)

  • DC 10 is the baseline “easy” check, relevant to unskilled characters.
  • You should rarely or never call for PCs to roll for DCs under 10.
  • You should step up your DCs by 5 points (going from DC 10 to DC 15 to DC 20).
The specific expression of this advice varies, but is fairly consistent. In the DMG, for example: “If the only DCs you ever use are 10, 15, and 20, your game will run just fine.”
What the DMG is calling for are tasks that start out at a 55% chance of success, 30% chance of success, and 5% chance of success.
But if you run the math, what you actually want is:

  • DC 8 is the baseline “easy” check, relevant to unskilled characters.
  • DC 12 should probably be your default difficulty.
  • Thinking in steps of two is probably more useful: DC 8, DC 10, DC 12, DC 14, etc.
As I said, though, this is primarily a problem of praxis. In isolation, it could be trivially solved with better advice.
Rob's Note: Praxis is synonymous with practice.

So instead of 55% and 30% as his baseline, he likes 65% and 45%. Because?..... that is how it works in 3.X? Which is what I am getting so far. And I don't see how that relates to what he said about the point of bounded accuracy earlier.
Bounded accuracy was the solution. Importantly, bounded accuracy was about two things:

  1. Controlling AC & DC so that the target numbers never become impossible for some of the PCs.
  2. Controlling bonuses so that the results don’t become automatic successes for some of the PCs.

The more fundamental problem is mechanical: There are a handful of class abilities which trivially — but hilariously! — break bounded accuracy.

The rogue, of course, makes an easy example here. Expertise doubles proficiency bonuses, changing a range of +2 to +6 into a range of +4 to +12. Combined with ability score modifiers, this almost immediately turns most reasonable DCs within the system’s bounded accuracy into an automatic success for the rogue, and it gets worse from there.

You need to factor in the attribute bonus here as well. It probably safe to say that a player will have a +3 or +4 attribute bonus for skills that are important to their character concept. So the default range is +6 to +10 out of the gate. With expertise, it ranges from +8 to +16. This translates for the default system of DC in the following way

Start (+2 base, +4 attribute bonus): 95% success for easy, 70% for average, 45% for hard.
End: (+6 base, +4 attribute bonus, 20th level) (current rules) 100% success for easy (can't fail on disadvantage), 100% for average (can't fail on disadvantage), 95% for hard.

Rob's Note: The above only pertains to ability/check checks. Not the to-hit roll.

Sounds bad right?

Except this is how the designers of 5e intended it. Note the distinction between a skill roll and a to-hit roll. Also, note Justin description of bounded accuracy the use of "some characters". This is not an oversight. It is part of the original description of the design principle back in the mid 2010's.


In addition Justin does not note the existence of Very Hard and Nearly Impossible DCs (25 and 30). As given below.
1662643013869.png
Given the general tenor of D&D 5e, I do not view that a character with expertise in a skills having 95% success for Hard task, 70% sucess for Very Hard task and 45% success for Nearly impossible tasks as unreasonable for a fantasy RPG.

Note this would not be my preference (which I will explain later) but given the goals of 5e it is reasonable.

Nor does Justin acknowledge the impact of advantage and disadvantage.

Reliable Talent then comes in for mop-up, making the rogue’s minimum die roll 10. The rogue is now auto-succeeding on every proficient check, and in their chosen Expertise any DC that could challenge them is probably impossible for every other PC.

Of course, those are exactly the DCs these hilariously broken abilities pressure the DM to assign. Partly because they want to challenge the PCs. Partly because it just makes sense that these PCs should be able to achieve things the PCs without the hilariously broken abilities can’t do.
This is that means with a +4 attribute bonus for a

11th level Rogue (+4 bonus, expertise, +4 attribute bonus): DC 10 (Easy): Auto success, DC 15: (Moderate) Auto Success, DC 20 (Hard); Auto Success, DC 25(Very Hard): Needs to roll. DC 30 (Nearly Impossible): Needs to Roll
20th level Rogue: (+6 bonus, expertise, +4 attribute bonus): as above except DC 25 (Very Hard) is now auto success)

Without expertise
11th level Rogue (+4 bonus, +4 attribute bonus): DC 10 (Easy): Auto success, DC 15: (Moderate) Auto Success, DC 20 (Hard); Needs to Roll, DC 25(Very Hard): Needs to roll. DC 30 (Nearly Impossible): Needs to Roll
20th level Rogue: (+6 bonus, +4 attribute bonus): as above except DC 20 (Hard) is now auto success

Now ask yourself at 11th level given the general tenor of D&D 5e. It is unreasonable that a Rogue in a skill in which they have expertise can automatically succeed at a DC 20 (Hard) task. Keep in mind the total number of skills they could have expertise in. Then at 20th level is it unreasonable that Rogues can automatically succeed at DC 25 (Very Hard ) attempts.

My guess your answer will depend on what your view of 11th to 20th level is when using the 5e rules. If you believe that by 11th level that a campaign still should be a gritty and down to earth affair, I bet your answer will be negative. Also if as a referee you tend to gloss over the details and resolve entire non-combat situation with a single die roll, your answer is will be probably negative.

For the record, like many past editions and RPGs, I think the 5e DMG (and PHB) does a poor job if explaining how to break down situations and how to use that breakdown to craft a series of rulings. Sure there are specific advice about specific task like stealth but what about being the court of a king seeking an audience? There is a burning tenement and you need to get folks out of there?

A series of challenge rolls 4e style doesn't cut it either. It attempts to sub in what is a dice game in order handle a naunced situation. What needed is advice use the #1 rule of all RPGs. That you describe what it is do as your character, I describe the result as the referee. Then you make a decision on what to do next and we repeat. It could be a single roll if that suits the tenor of the campaign and the interest of those playing. Or it could be more naunced. But the 5e DMG is largely silent on that matter. Although it does encourage folks to be creative about the use of ability checks and skill rolls.

Finally none of this is relevant to to-hit rolls in combat which received the bulk of the designer's focus.

The end result, of course, is exactly the problem bounded accuracy was introduced to eliminate.

The new auto-fail/auto-success rules technically patch this up a bit:
  • You’ve set a DC too high in order to challenge the hilarious broken character? At least the other PCs won’t auto-fail.
  • You’ve set the DC “correctly” for bounded accuracy? The hilariously broken character can at least theoretically still fail.
But only in the crudest sense.

The whole 5e system of skill bonus is pretty crude in my opinion. But it's secret sauce that coupled with advantage and disadvantage it is fairly approachable. And it achieved the goal of allowing DCs to remain static across different adventures targeting different levels.

Provided you accept the fact that a 20th level figher with proficiency in Athletics is pretty much always going to be able to open that stuck door. And that rogues are going to be able to do a handful of things with automatic success including tasks that supposed to be hard starting at 11th level with Reliable talent and expertise.

The change in the OneD&D playtest just tones this down a bit and probably made to reflect how people actually play 5e.

Overall I think it is a poor analysis of the situation. It obvious Justin has a view of high level play that is at odds with the designer of 5e.
 
Agreed but as Fenris-77 Fenris-77 explained, a whole lot of players insist on these skills being used interchangeably.

To the point that I’m amazed that WotC haven’t done just that: merge the two skills into one that can use either ability score.
WotC shouldn't enshrine stupid house rules as canon just because DMs allow them in their shitty home games.
 
WotC shouldn't enshrine stupid house rules as canon just because DMs allow them in their shitty home games.
I think the problem is that Acrobatics is actually a pretty shit skill when it doesn't contain the stuff that Athletics does. I don't think it should mind you, but if you take out jumping and climbing what does Athletics really do? It's just keeping your balance and some useless ribbon-y crap about dives and rolls. I think straight Dex checks would cover keeping your balance just fine thank you very much.

I think it would be much cooler if acrobatics allowed the PCs to do specific fancy shit in combat, which is a feature of a lot of conceptual high-Dex builds. Not so much to do with hit and damage, but something akin to the Battle Master's maneuvers. IDK how useful that could be, but it sounds like more fun than the current model where the skill should be called Try Not to Fall Over.
 
My feeling on the 5e skills system is that thete's this huge unexplained gulf between combat and everything else. Combat is a hard-ruled simulationist game of second-by-second action where people walk incredibly slowly but otherwise act inhumanly fast. The skills are a soft-ruled and more narrative game that works well when run closer to PbtA or Fate style.

The three big deals are:
1) this isn't well explained and lacks good examples in the books. Like my current DM & table dislikes the stupid jumping rule so much that our entire party had flight magic items before level 10 and we're considering ruling on getting a shield guardian to attune some flight boots.

2) its a massive rules & game style switch and I see lots of people fail to make that curve. Especially people who aren't gaming, game design, & probability experts. Basically if I meet someone doesn't trawl forums & advice blogs then I can assume they'll see something with a dc in a module and call for a roll no matter the circumstances.

3) these two different rule sets don't mix worth a damn. Giving you characters who are competent deadly combat experts that regularly fail basic routine non-combat tasks if they're under any stress at all and often even when they aren't stressed. Its like tween AD&D in the '80s, everyone is afraid of water because nobody can make three seim checks in a roe.

It doesn't help that D&D spells & magic items are all little combat hard-rules that give players agency to effect change in the game state, but they apply to the noncombat soft-rules activities where players are supposed to be requesting their effects from the DM.

Edit: re: acrobatics
Acrobatics should cover all circus, dance, and Olympic style activities done by anyone where lifting heavy things vs gravity or pushing against another force/person isn't the primary activity. Like rowing & shotput are strength+athletics stuff, but things like parallel bars & trapeze acts are acrobatics.
 
Last edited:
I think the problem is that Acrobatics is actually a pretty shit skill when it doesn't contain the stuff that Athletics does. I don't think it should mind you, but if you take out jumping and climbing what does Athletics really do? It's just keeping your balance and some useless ribbon-y crap about dives and rolls. I think straight Dex checks would cover keeping your balance just fine thank you very much.

I think it would be much cooler if acrobatics allowed the PCs to do specific fancy shit in combat, which is a feature of a lot of conceptual high-Dex builds. Not so much to do with hit and damage, but something akin to the Battle Master's maneuvers. IDK how useful that could be, but it sounds like more fun than the current model where the skill should be called Try Not to Fall Over.
DEX is the God-tier stat in 5e so I don't think Acrobatics needs to be turned into weaboo fightin' or gymkata to give high DEX builds a much-needed boost. Acrobatics covers feats of balance, agility, and motor coordination. Examples include dancing, juggling, swinging, tightrope walking, tumbling, and diving. I'd rule that Acrobatics also covers landing correctly so you don't break your leg when jumping down from a height. Keeping balance while fighting on a ship? Acrobatics.
 
Last edited:
Doesn’t the playtest document also set limits for DCs of 5-30 and state you can’t fail if the DC is under 5 and can’t succeed if it is over 30? That seems to be lost in these speculations that players will now be able to do anything if they roll a 20.
 
Don’t get me started on a circus performer PC with proficiency in Acrobatics, Performance and Acrobat’s Tools.

…a common house rule is: “give them advantage if they have 2 or more overlapping proficiencies”. But somehow I get the feeling that this could cause some problems.
 
The problem is a lot of things that we associate with "high dex" requires someone to actually be pretty strong. Like, hand-eye coordination/balance is one thing, but stuff like gymnast tumbling, or an NFL player making a quick cut while running, doesn't make sense to be divorced from how strong someone is.

Basically: Dex already incorporates things that would require muscle strength to do, so high Dex, low Str characters are already hard to understand from the way D&D views the stats.
 
DEX is the God-tier stat in 5e so I don't think Acrobatics needs to be turned into weaboo fightin' to give high DEX builds a much-needed boost. Acrobatics covers feats of balance, agility, and motor coordination. Examples include dancing, juggling, swinging, tightrope walking, tumbling, and diving. I'd rule that Acrobatics also covers landing correctly so you don't break your leg when jumping down from a height. Keeping balance while fighting on a ship? Acrobatics.
OK, I'll nitpick. If swimming is athletics then diving probably should be as well, but you can argue the other side too. Really my beef is that that shit mostly doesn't need a dedicated skill IMO, jus Dex checks, and the remainder doesn't feel like it's enough to mean it needed a whole skill (chosen at the expense of another skill). I complete agree about Dex being the uber-stat in 5E, I was just trying to think of something interesting that Acrobatics can do beyond walking and chewing gum.
 
Basically: Dex already incorporates things that would require muscle strength to do, so high Dex, low Str characters are already hard to understand from the way D&D views the stats.
Pictured below is headcannon for high Dex low Str characters. They conveniently forget that gymnasts are fucking strong.

p8758_p_v13_ac.jpg
 
My feeling on the 5e skills system is that thete's this huge unexplained gulf between combat and everything else. Combat is a hard-ruled simulationist game of second-by-second action where people walk incredibly slowly but otherwise act inhumanly fast. The skills are a soft-ruled and more narrative game that works well when run closer to PbtA or Fate style.

The three big deals are:
1) this isn't well explained and lacks good examples in the books. Like my current DM & table dislikes the stupid jumping rule so much that our entire party had flight magic items before level 10 and we're considering ruling on getting a shield guardian to attune some flight boots.

2) its a massive rules & game style switch and I see lots of people fail to make that curve. Especially people who aren't gaming, game design, & probability experts. Basically if I meet someone doesn't trawl forums & advice blogs then I can assume they'll see something with a dc in a module and call for a roll no matter the circumstances.

3) these two different rule sets don't mix worth a damn. Giving you characters who are competent deadly combat experts that regularly fail basic routine non-combat tasks if they're under any stress at all and often even when they aren't stressed. Its like tween AD&D in the '80s, everyone is afraid of water because nobody can make three seim checks in a roe.

It doesn't help that D&D spells & magic items are all little combat hard-rules that give players agency to effect change in the game state, but they apply to the noncombat soft-rules activities where players are supposed to be requesting their effects from the DM.

Edit: re: acrobatics
Acrobatics should cover all circus, dance, and Olympic style activities done by anyone where lifting heavy things vs gravity or pushing against another force/person isn't the primary activity. Like rowing & shotput are strength+athletics stuff, but things like parallel bars & trapeze acts are acrobatics.
I only have a passing familiarity with 5e, but your description actually sounds like an attempt at good design: plenty of detail at the focal point and abstract systems to deal with other things. If everything was over-engineered the rules would become unwieldy.
 
Maybe for some, but this is kind of what I think of


This is one of the reasons I like the SIZ characteristic in BRP-based games, it gives you a way to have high strength, but low mass, which also influences things like damage bonus and your ability to resist being pushed around, but you can still perform athetic feats that require a certain level of muscle mass.
 
OK, I'll nitpick. If swimming is athletics then diving probably should be as well, but you can argue the other side too. Really my beef is that that shit mostly doesn't need a dedicated skill IMO, jus Dex checks, and the remainder doesn't feel like it's enough to mean it needed a whole skill (chosen at the expense of another skill). I complete agree about Dex being the uber-stat in 5E, I was just trying to think of something interesting that Acrobatics can do beyond walking and chewing gum.
Ugh don't get me started on the lame 5e skills I don't even use skills any more; I use background + class to determine if someone can apply proficiency to a task (not sure I would do this in a public game with randos tho!)
 
Basically: Dex already incorporates things that would require muscle strength to do, so high Dex, low Str characters are already hard to understand from the way D&D views the stats.

Since we don't have a size stat, high dex, low str could be smallish - muscular for their weight be still not that strong. Like a tiny dancer. Like all the stats really, dex means multiple things because it covers manual control as well as agility. It's easy to imagine a low str artist or such. The only way around these oddities is an explosion of ability scores; I think that cure would be worse than the problem.
 
OK, I'll nitpick. If swimming is athletics then diving probably should be as well, but you can argue the other side too. Really my beef is that that shit mostly doesn't need a dedicated skill IMO, jus Dex checks, and the remainder doesn't feel like it's enough to mean it needed a whole skill (chosen at the expense of another skill). I complete agree about Dex being the uber-stat in 5E, I was just trying to think of something interesting that Acrobatics can do beyond walking and chewing gum.
From my experience with the Majestic Fantasy RPG for the past 12 years, coming up with a skill list is a juggling act.

For example, I have an Athletics Ability (STR), and a Climbing (STR or DEX) ability. Why the two separate skills? Where is Acrobatic in all this?

Because in playtesting this felt the most D&Dish. And I didn't have any complaints to me during a campaign that Acrobatics couldn't be improved.
  • There isn't a tradition of tumbling, doing kips, or somersaults, in classic D&D.
  • There is a traditional doing various feats of strength, like bending bars, jumping, and breaking doors.
  • There is a tradition of climbing stuff associated with classes that are known to be dextrous. But given what I know about real world climbing, raw strength and often a factor as well so hence the Strength or Dexterity choice of an attribute modifier.
I used to have Accounting as an ability for making large scale trade deals and as a knowledge skill for finances for when players got land of their own. I loaded up Locution with haggling tasks for day to day deals. But after a campaign where most of involved the characters tooling around in a sailing ship trading, I was persuaded to axe accounting as boring, and move the haggling part out of Locution into a new ability called Haggling.

I also added Seamanship and Shipwright as a result of that campaigns to handle the mechanics I came up with regarding ships.

Right now I am not sure about having both Eavesdrop and Perception.
That tracking creature is part of Survival or would it be more D&Dish to make it separate.
While Thaumatology is solid as a magical lore and identity magic item ability, Theology I am a bit shaky on as the divine counterpart. Not whether it should exist but should it be based on intelligence a something representing knowledge or wisdom because well it is about the divine.
 
If the best possible roll is still a failure and the worst possible roll a success, they shouldn’t even be rolling.

I agree that DC 8 and 12 should be the default DCs in more grounded games of 5e. Not so certain in full-bore 5e with all the options. Regardless I use passive skills as an ersatz "take 10" all the time in situations where failure is inconsequential and all they need to do is spend time (typically in ten minute blocks or the classic "turn").

I still think Take 10 and Take 20 from 3E were some of the best rule tweaks D&D has ever introduced. Dunno why they got rid of those.
 
I still think Take 10 and Take 20 from 3E were some of the best rule tweaks D&D has ever introduced. Dunno why they got rid of those.
Well, part of that might be that there's a more basic and underlying idea that you shouldn't call for rolls when it doesn't matter. So in a lot of situations where the take 10 or 20 rules might apply, I'm simply not calling for a roll. That's just me though, and there are still places where they might apply.
 
Well, part of that might be that there's a more basic and underlying idea that you shouldn't call for rolls when it doesn't matter. So in a lot of situations where the take 10 or 20 rules might apply, I'm simply not calling for a roll. That's just me though, and there are still places where they might apply.
I agree that the end result of take 10/take 20 is the same as simply not calling for a roll, but having the rules as guidelines helps some people adjudicate fairly and consistently.

Edit: I remembered the DMG addressed the issue and I found it on page 237. Sorry no screen shot the text is split up.

Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task. However, no amount of repeating the check allows a character to turn an impossible task into a successful one.
 
So in response to the One D&D announcement about 1s always fail, 20s always succeed (and monsters no longer crit) the Alexandrian posted an article critical of 5e’s bounded accuracy and skill system.

I admit that I’m kind of stunned at the negative portrait this paints about the game. It’s true and something that bothered me without really noticing for years.

What do others think of this assessment?


I still don't understand what "Bounded Accuracy" is
 
I still don't understand what "Bounded Accuracy" is
The TLDR is that the range of possibility (ability checks, AC, to hit rolls, saving throws, etc) is limited to -3 to 30, more closely matching earlier editions. There isn't a hard cap but in practice it's unlikely you will experience anything outside of this range.

Edit: Max ability modifier is +5, max proficiency is +6 at 20th level, max roll is 20. Magic items, skill expertise and a few other things can push these numbers higher but I stand by the -3 to 30 as the range most will experience.
 
Well, part of that might be that there's a more basic and underlying idea that you shouldn't call for rolls when it doesn't matter. So in a lot of situations where the take 10 or 20 rules might apply, I'm simply not calling for a roll. That's just me though, and there are still places where they might apply.

That's now how we used Take 10/20 when I played/ran 3E. We didn't use them in cases where there was no need to roll, but instead in cases where we were willing to take the associated risks of investing a large amount of time to ensure that something succeeded. So we knew we'd be greatly increasing the chances of a random encounter or the clock running or whatever. They were always situations where rolling was called for, but the outcome had particular weight.

It's very much a learned skill as a GM to know when to call for rolls and when not to. I like this guidance from the 5E DMG, but it's buried and likely glossed over by many, many new DMs.

When a player wants to do something, it’s often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character’s ability scores. For example, a character doesn’t normally need to make a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room or a Charisma check to order a mug of ale. Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.

When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:

  • Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
  • Is a task so inappropriate or impossible — such as hitting the moon with an arrow — that it can’t work?
If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate
 
Ugh don't get me started on the lame 5e skills I don't even use skills any more; I use background + class to determine if someone can apply proficiency to a task (not sure I would do this in a public game with randos tho!)
Or look to TFT for a better way to do and divide up "skills" :smile:

I do like your approach, sounds like C&C which to me, is the most D&D-ish way to handle "Skills"
 
Or look to TFT for a better way to do and divide up "skills" :smile:

I do like your approach, sounds like C&C which to me, is the most D&D-ish way to handle "Skills"

The system he's using is an optional one from the 5e DMG, it is also in 13th Age. Wish they'd implement as the default for the updated edition.
 
The problem is a lot of things that we associate with "high dex" requires someone to actually be pretty strong. Like, hand-eye coordination/balance is one thing, but stuff like gymnast tumbling, or an NFL player making a quick cut while running, doesn't make sense to be divorced from how strong someone is.

Basically: Dex already incorporates things that would require muscle strength to do, so high Dex, low Str characters are already hard to understand from the way D&D views the stats.
I interpret that as muscle mass - high dex, low strength characters are very slight. I have a friend ( a lady) who practices yoga every day and is great with needlecraft. Her balance, coordination, flexibility are of a high order. She has the strength to do her activities, but not to powerlift or wrestle.
 
You can just use Ability checks instead of looking for narrow cases for Skill checks. Ability checks are the PCs' whole pie, Skill checks are the slices that got the frosted rosette. Also there is the Variant suggestion to adapt skills to abilities for game context.

Variant: Skills with Different Abilities

Normally, your proficiency in a skill applies only to a specific kind of ability check. Proficiency in Athletics, for example, usually applies to Strength checks. In some situations, though, your proficiency might reasonably apply to a different kind of check. In such cases, the DM might ask for a check using an unusual combination of ability and skill, or you might ask your DM if you can apply a proficiency to a different check. For example, if you have to swim from an offshore island to the mainland, your DM might call for a Constitution check to see if you have the stamina to make it that far. In this case, your DM might allow you to apply your proficiency in Athletics and ask for a Constitution (Athletics) check. So if you’re proficient in Athletics, you apply your proficiency bonus to the Constitution check just as you would normally do for a Strength (Athletics) check. Similarly, when your dwarf fighter uses a display of raw strength to intimidate an enemy, your DM might ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check, even though Intimidation is normally associated with Charisma.
(Basic 5e pdf. 2018. p. 62.)

I never found Skills all that hard to adjudicate in 5e beyond readjusting the difficulty baseline to V Easy (5+) for most low level early game things. (This metric gets closer to baseline 75% success rate, +/- 10% PB or Ability Penalty, which is closer to that human feedback happy zone I've learned amateurly from gambling/gaming statistics and human psychology management.) That way high level late game you get that endorphine feedback of MOAR POWAH with that PB and ASIs without having to deal with starting stat inflation or stat progression treadmill. Bounded Accuracy works for me! :thumbsup:
 
I don't get the idea of just handwaving a 'take 10' or 'take 20' skillcheck. Sure this could be a way to guarantee success for an easier (but still perilous) check, like say walking across a damaged bridge over a deep ravine... but I think it's also useful as a way to boost chances of an otherwise impossible or out of reach skill check. Like forging a note or fixing a broken crossbow spanner, or mixing a rare drug or poison. Anyway that's how I use it.

I like to use the "Roll Many / keep one" dynamic as well (ala "Advantage" in 5E). I've used something like this in my own games for years. I find it has the added benefit of almost eliminating the dreaded statistical 'flat curve' of a single die roll, making it all too likely that you'll roll a 'critical failure' (everybody hates the 'flat curve' whether they realize it or not) and greatly increasing the chance of a critical success (which everybody likes), while still retaining some of the innate tension of a random die roll.

So for example I'll let players sometimes combine multiple skills into a single roll. Maybe they have a 'craft' ability but also a 'knowledge:' or 'profession:' capability that might be applicable. Sometimes multiple characters have complimentary skills. Like maybe they are trying to disable a particularly dangerous trap, and one of them is a Rogue (do they still have those in 5E?) and another one has a background as a blacksmith. I'll let two players combine their efforts in a 'Take Ten' skillcheck. This may result in as many as three dice being rolled, and you just keep the highest one. That way again, you are more likely to get a critical success, but there is still some chance of failure and therefore, dramatic tension.
 
One of the more creative, and potentially similar to step die (e.g. Savage Worlds), suggestions for D&D Abil/Skill rolls was in AD&D 2e bluebook Creative Campaigning (IIRC). It said another way to change statistical probability is choose a different die and modifier combination.

e.g. So, in a roll under stat, maybe it is an above-average task but with little variation: d4+10. End result is it keeps out low stats from trying because the range is 11-14.
e.g.2. Another, also roll under stat, maybe you want to keep it a simple task, so most people can pass, yet are interested for the degree difference for competence: d6+3. Range ends up 4-9, which works out fine for 3d6 down the line characters, where 9 is threshold for class minimums.

It was a great way of breaking out conceptually the die as a tighter wave range and the modifier as a threshold slider. Unfortunately it also expects much higher mathematical fluency to be used improvisationally. Great probability teaching tool, and fun sideshow for dice tricks, but might have been too intimidating for the Plug 'n Play crowd.
 
Most of the time, yes - why roll if the outcome is certain? Save the rolls for times of stress or if you just want to see what happens.

For example, suppose characters have to cross a rickety bridge as a lead up to combat. Maybe a DC 5 acrobatics check, which some characters would fail only on a 1. I'd make them roll as things out of their control could cause them to fail. If there were not enemies on the other side, I wouldn't have them roll (5e should have kept taking 10 for casual situations - I still use it). The 5% fail chance is enough uncertainty to make players consider their options.

On the other end, if someone comes up with a plan that's impossible but sounds cool, set the difficulty insanely high and let them try if they still want to.

Unlikely events should be rare but they should have some possibility. When rare events do happen, it makes the session more memorable.
Degrees of success? This idea of binary yay or nay sorta bothers me.
 
One of the more creative, and potentially similar to step die (e.g. Savage Worlds), suggestions for D&D Abil/Skill rolls was in AD&D 2e bluebook Creative Campaigning (IIRC). It said another way to change statistical probability is choose a different die and modifier combination.

e.g. So, in a roll under stat, maybe it is an above-average task but with little variation: d4+10. End result is it keeps out low stats from trying because the range is 11-14.
e.g.2. Another, also roll under stat, maybe you want to keep it a simple task, so most people can pass, yet are interested for the degree difference for competence: d6+3. Range ends up 4-9, which works out fine for 3d6 down the line characters, where 9 is threshold for class minimums.

It was a great way of breaking out conceptually the die as a tighter wave range and the modifier as a threshold slider. Unfortunately it also expects much higher mathematical fluency to be used improvisationally. Great probability teaching tool, and fun sideshow for dice tricks, but might have been too intimidating for the Plug 'n Play crowd.

Inspired by that book, I've considered the possibility of doing a system that keeps the uniform scale of D&D/d20 attributes, but varies up the randomizer by scenario: d20 for combat/life-or-death situations, 3d6 for skill checks and more mundane things, 2d10 for things like morale and reactions that fall in between. Never done more than idle speculation with the idea.
 
Would the DMG variant about using Proficiency dice instead of flat bonuses be something to work with?

Would it be better if Inspiration impacted the proficiency die instead of the d20? Eg. Roll 1d20 + 2d6 (keep highest)

Or maybe Inspiration just let you DOUBLE your proficiency die? Eg. Roll 1d20 +2d6?
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top