How do we fix Bounded Accuracy? [Math], [D&D]

>>52828565
So, how could this be fixed?

My gut instinct is that Replace Proficiency with the following would improve things:
>"Skill Proficiency" is a flat +7. This stacks with Proficiency Bonus, and if You're proficient in a skill, you get both. Trained characters (Proficient, +2 Ability Score) cannot fail a DC 10 Task at all, and are unlikely to fail anything up to a DC 12. Trained & Prodigy characters (Proficient, +5 Ability Score) are unlikely to fail a DC15, and cannot fail a DC13. Prodigy untrained characters (Nonproficient, +5 Ability Score) Can reliably manage up to a DC7.

This extra +7 of course, means characters can eventually get a +18 (+23 for "Doublers"), allowing them to routinely accomplish DC20 tasks when they're badass heroes, and Allowing for slim chances of people pulling off a DC38 (for whatever extraordinary tasks are worth that much).

Anything I'm overlooking? Any reason this wouldn't fix things? Am I misunderstanding the math of the system and doing it wrong to begin with?

>>52828570
Call it "Trained" for clarity.

You could hypothetically introduce a +4 "hobby" tier which might be picked up in one way or another, for something between Trained and Untrained.

I get your point, but I don't like your fix.
Now you are going back to DC40 territory.

What about just reajusting DCs?

do you want to play 3.5? i think you want to play 3.5?

>>52828882
>Adjusting DCs
Adjust them how? Reduce them all by 7? I mean, that allows competent characters to succeed on the same tasks, but it also means unskilled characters succeed at everything.

What's the problem of a potential DC range from 5-40? I'm not suggesting making tasks arbitrarily more difficult to fill that range. I'm suggesting leaving DCs as is, and anything above 30 would be explicitly for herculean superhuman tasks. +7 was chosen based on what seemed like reasonable odds for a trained character with the current DCs.

>>52828973
As the poster above said, you'll end up with 3.5 bloat of having hill gianta guard adamantine locks to make the +27 rogue work with the +8 fighter.

>>52828565
Why not just use a Routine check? As long as your character isn't under pressure, they can take a 10 on the roll, just in case I need to specify.

>>52828962
I want to be able to make a character who is actually competent at a skill, like you can in 3.5/PF, yes.

The skill system in 5e does indeed feel like a step backwards from both 3.5 and 4e.

However, I don't want to have to wade through a sea of trap options to build a character, or deal with the headaches that are designing enemies for 3.5, or deal with the massive class disparities.

3.5 is a pain in the ass to GM, to teach to newbies, and to build characters for.

>>52829006
>Take10
I thought that was deliberately removed from 5e.

I know a lot of GMs hate it, and it has an obnoxious requirement of players needing to know what they are able to accomplish while taking 10, and 5e doesn't exactly have a clear list of specific DC examples.

>>52828565
I've looked at it before, and I honestly thing that multiplying things by 2 (Ability mod is score-10, proficiency is just doubled) would solve all the problems for skills
>maximum level 1 bonus goes from +5 to ~+11, so there's actually a point in specializing at low levels
>level 20 specialist has +22, meaning they'll always succeed at what an untrained person could attempt
>even just the skill at level 20 is +12, which is enough that they always succeed at what an average person does half the time

You'd need to change Expertise (maybe just have it give advantage), and the thing that makes bounded accuracy good (combat never being a complete lockout by one side) falls out if you do this.

Simpler option that gets around the latter: using a d10 for skill checks. The decrease in granularity isn't too significant, since margin of success is basically not a thing, and it does the same thing to the odds of a given level and proficiency being able to succeed as the above.

>>52829089
I don't understand why it would be removed, I mean you have passive perception for fuck's sake that is literally just that. Obviously contested checks or other stuff with so many variables like Persuasion wouldn't have them, but if it is something your characters should be able to do, then there should be a routine check allowed.

>>52828565
>Bounded Accuracy
>a problem
>not a solution
But bounded accuracy is good

>>52829001
Unlike 3.x, everyone has a bunch of skills, and rogues only have 2 more than fighters.

>>52829124
>It's a houserule.
Oh. Well, that explains that.

Yeah. Passive checks are for the DM to roll against you in secret, not for you to autosucceed.

>>52829113
>Double the math
That would be a bit Overkill, but I can see it working for skills. I suspect it would fuck up combat though.

>Use a d10
That may mean training matters more, but it wouldn't fix the problem of trained characters being bumbling incompetents.

>>52829170
Maybe in combat.

Out of combat it's a swingy bumbling Clusterfuck.

>>52829012
Trap option is lazy design, but is not intrinsic of 3.5.

>>52829202
Obviously you'd adjust the DCs if you stepped down to a d10 (now that I think about it, a d12 would probably be better, since there's a chance of a +0 rolling something that overlaps with the +11's chances), such that the average person succeeds 50% of the time at a DC 5 (technically it would be 60%, but that's a minor note). In this model, the DC 11 is impossible for someone with no talent or training, but is a 50/50 shot for a level 1 specialist.

And yeah, doubling the math would certainly fuck up the one good thing 5e's combat has going for it, which is why changing the die used for skill checks would probably be better.

File: D&D bluff.jpg (61KB, 604x482px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 604x482px

>>52829219
I don't know, before bound accuracy skills checks could get crazy.

>>52829170
I don't understand this meme.
Not thinking it's good, I mean posting
>but bounded accuracy is good
and nothing else on every discussion of the topic.

>>52829302
>meme
No anon, bound accuracy is good. It truly is.

>>52829238
>Not intrinsic
I'm not talking about 3.x as the hypothetical game that could have been, I'm talking about the extant game that is.

3.x is filled with trap options that are a nightmare to slog through.

But being able to autosucceed on routine checks you're skilled at, and to know exactly what that amounts to (because you could print out the skill DCs and know if the task you're attempting is easier than what you could take 10 for) was one of few areas where PF was better than 5e.

>>52829295
I'll grant you, social skills had retarded DC examples - it was mind control, no save, full stop.

>>52828565
I'm not that familiar with 5e, but one way to increase the value of a few points is to use different dice. 3d6 gives you a slightly smaller range, and a much steeper curve. With a +6, you have a 74.1% chance to beat a DC of 15, while a guy with a mere +1 only has a 16.2% chance. On a d20, you're looking at 60% vs. 35%. Using 3d6, there is a gap of 57.9% between the success rates of the two people, while using a d20, there is only a 25% gap. That's quite a difference.

>>52829336
I think we essentially agre, I just find trap options not such a big deal, you generally recognize them on sight. Even less on a full-ogl game.

>>52829373
>and a much steeper curve
Which is to say that it has a curve at all, which makes it much steeper than a flat distribution.

File: 1447732228982.jpg (139KB, 500x378px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 500x378px

>>52828565
>DC10 is easy
>"Anything a normal person fails 50% of the time, is not easy."
The DCs aren't for normal people, they're for PCs. Are you really getting hung up on them naming DC10 as "easy". That's crazy.

They're (painfully obviously) based on what a level 1 character who's focused on that skill can do.

>>52829170
I'm a new player to 5e, can you explain what bounded accuracy is?

>>52828565
Replacing d20 roll with dice pools would be a good start

>>52829446
Basically they cap DCs, ACs and how high your Ability scores can be ect.

That way there's less level disparity, and shit doesn't get too ridiculous as far as trying to hit an enemy or succeeding a skill check.

>>52829490
No, that would make hitting average numbers more likely, but making hitting high numbers less likely. Using a dice pool would be more of a double edged sword than anything.

>>52829553
>but making hitting high numbers less likely
Adjust your high result floor accordingly. Dice pools certainly reduce probability that skilled characters fail simple rolls better than highly volatile single roll. Dice pools are simply better than d20, face it.

>>52829596
>Adjust your high result floor accordingly.
You might as well just let people auto succeed without a roll.

>Dice pools certainly reduce probability that skilled characters fail simple rolls better than highly volatile single roll.
You sound like someone salty because they made some bad rolls last session. It a dice game, there's supposed to be luck involved.

>Dice pools are simply better than d20, face it.
Absolutely not.

>>52829527
can they put a cap on your hit modifier?
I'm currently sitting on +9 at lvl4 and I'm using the precision skill from fighter to get +1d8 to hit.

>>52829652
>>Adjust your high result floor accordingly.
>You might as well just let people auto succeed without a roll.
We are talking about top perfomance here. Dice pools scale it better and provide a way to measure degree of success.>>52829652
>You sound like someone salty because they made some bad rolls last session. It a dice game, there's supposed to be luck involved.
I'm not and my last session wasn't d20 game of any kind. It was d100.
>Absolutely not.
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt, anon.

>>52829693
>can they put a cap on your hit modifier?
In a round about way they do. Your hit modifier is your Dex or Str mod + Proficiency + whatever else. Proficiency modifier caps at +6. Your ability score modifier have a soft cap of +5 and a hard cap of +7. So it should cap at 11 or 13 + whatever other bonuses you have.

td;dr The numbers that make up your attack modifier have caps

>>52829702
A single dice has flat chance for every result. A dice pool creates a bell curve making "middle" numbers more probable and "high" and "low" numbers less probable. Good if you need a "middle" roll, bad if you need a "high" roll.
>Hurr durr, lower the DC so you don't need the "high" rolls
You could do that with a single dice. But doing that with dice pools so every roll needed is a "middle" roll kind of defeats the purpose of rolling. Yeah, there's a slight chance you lose, but you'll usually succeed... on what would normally be difficult. Why do that? You would practically auto succeeding you're players.

You know people who don't have fragile egos get bored when games are too easy.

Dice Pool combined with Bounded Accuracy actually makes for a very interesting probability spread.

The reason for Bounded Accuracy is to make granular modifiers less damning, and also less important than the die roll.

Dice Pools make the probability of the rolls matter less due to their weightedness.

Add those together and you're looking at a system that is nearly predictable, not that that's a bad thing. I'd love to try out 5e with 3d6+2.

The only thing that would be finnicky then however would be the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. Instead of giving roughly +/- 3 it would be giving something probably closer to +/-1.4 or so. Maybe in that case, advantage/disadvantage could just become a flat +/- 3 modifier to the roll. That's what I'd do at least.

>>52829437
Ah. I recognize them fairly quickly, but it still means sifting through a mountain of sand by hand looking for stones. It's slow.

And where everything has obnoxious prerequisites, you need to plan several levels ahead, which makes things even slower.

>>52829445
If you're failing 15% of the time, and you're good at something, that's definitely not easy.

>>52829446
Attributes: +1..+5.
Proficiency: 1+RoundUp(lv/4)
Expertise: Double proficiency bonus
Magic Items: +0..+3 (and no guarantee you will have one).

Much slower dice bonus advancement.
But it also still starts with really low numbers, which results in the issues OP mentioned, regarding skills.

File: 1450918212619.jpg (15KB, 244x255px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 244x255px

>>52830107
>If you're failing 15% of the time, and you're good at something, that's definitely not easy.
No. If I shoot 20 baskets and I make 17 of them, I think I'm doing pretty good.

>>52830254
If you're shooting 20 baskets and you get 17 of them, you are doing pretty good.

But if it was "easy" you wouldn't be missing more than 1/10.

File: 1462912248377.jpg (140KB, 520x678px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 520x678px

>>52830350
>But if it was "easy" you wouldn't be missing more than 1/10.
That's making 18 out of 20 baskets.

You are officially retarded.

>>52830771
Yes. Yes it is 18 out of 20 baskets. What's your point? You've got to set a minimum somewhere.

An easy task is one you basically cant fail. I can chalk <=10% up to a fluke in a game (I'd prefer only fail on a 1, since again, fluke). 1 in 6 is too much to be a fluke, ergo not easy.

A trained character should have a bunch of tasks he autosucceeds on, that an untrained character would usually fail.

I don't know what about that you don't get.

>>52831667
different guy here.
heres my analogy. free throws are easy. 85% puts you at 30th in the NBA. fuck your stupid logic, im going to another thread.

>>52829006
I've heard this take 10 or take 20 rule before but I've never seen it I the rule books. Is it a home brew fix or is it jus really deep in the dmg?

>>52831838
If you have the opportunity to take 10 or twenty, why should you have to make a check at all? In that case, just say you need +X modifier to pass.

>>52831838
It's a rule from 3.5 that many people haven't realized doesn't exist in 5e.

Take 10 is not very useful when you don't have a big list of example tasks so that you know the approximate difficulty of anything you might attempt, withing like 3 pts. In 3.x you have such a list. In 5e you don't. Basically, when you know a 10 is good enough, and you're not under pressure, you don't roll, you just take 10.

Take 20 is for when you can attempt something over and over again and all it costs you is time. Rather than rolling until you get a 20 to see if you succeed, you take 20x as long, say you got a 20, and see if that's enough to succeed or not.

>>52831870
Take 10 is the autosuccess.

If you're not being attacked or chased, you can take 10. It's the "I line up the shot and do it right", vs shooting from the hip because you don't have time to line up the shot.

You succeed if your skill is good enough, you fail if not. Unless you know the DC, you have to guess whether to roll or take 10. Thus, using take 10 for all but the simplest tasks only really happens if the player knows/has a cheat sheet of relevant DCs and therefore has a really good idea of if taking 10 is a good idea.

>>52828570
Don't forget the 'add proficency when using the help action' feat, it's an easy boost for every party.
The maximum is +30, dc40 isn't hard (with advantage), dc50 is the max,

>>52831765
And I'm saying that based on those odds, free throws are not easy.

Driving a standard without stalling the car or crashing, is easy.

Balancing on an 18 inch wide platform without falling, is easy (an official DC 10 example).

Making a free throw is not easy. It's easier than many other tasks in basketball, but it's not easy overall.

>>52831918
Which feat is that again?

>>52828565
Why not have a prestige-based game, where a character changes classes every five levels into different prestige classes?
For your first class and every time you 'promote' into a greater class, you get a +3 bonus to that class's skills. You could have magic powers based on spell points, which classes gain by level, instead of spell levels, and if there was a cut and dry way to create a spell (as well as spell examples already given by the book) DMs could create spells appropriate to the campaign. Spell points would be gained on a level-by-level basis, and martial dice or the equivalent could be used in much the same way. The higher your number of spell points, the greater the spell you can cast. Hell, add a third increasing feature like Expert Dice for things like rogues and rangers that help out with certain skill checks.
If you wanted to go down the cashgrab route, new books could be used to give new features that you could attach to spells, and weapon attacks for the cost of new points. Like some sort of horrid bastardization of 4E and GURPs.
I really need to stop going on /tg/ when tipsy. Every time I do I turn into an idea guy for a fantasy heartbreaker.

>>52828565
The 4e/Star Wars Saga Edition curve was literally perfect for the d20.

Everything advances at 1/2 level (+ stat when applicable), trained skills get a +5, expert skills get another +5 (this last one is a SE thing).

>>52831667
Nigger, you are forgetting that dice are supposed to represent variance and chance. Sometimes you hit 19 or 20, sometimes just 16 or 17. People aren't machines and usually don't act in perfect laboratory conditions, some variance is to be expected and desired by the resuliton system. Otherwise you could forego rolls completely and say "If you have a 7 or higher, you pass"
Incidentally that's also why there should be a small chance that a trained person fails an easy task, because that happens, sometimes. No, get that natural 1 horseshit out of here, that's terrible.

I've applied a generic -4 across the board on things a character is untrained in.

So the gap between trained and untrained starts at 6, or 30%, which is quite a bit more substantial. It also effectively shifts their range of rolls from 1 to 20 to -3 to 16.

Realistically people tend to become proficient at things their best stats line up with. For a character out of the newbie levels, I consider +7 (4 from stats, 3 from prof) about normal for the stuff they'll be trying for the group, which means they'll reliably hit dc10 with 90% success. Someone not proficient will tend to be more about -2 overall (2 from stats, -4 from nonprof), meaning they'll hit dc10 about 45% of the time. So the trained user is "almost always" and the untrained user is "maybe", which is where I want it. Shifts that around a few percent depending on the power level of your game. Also this puts the disparity between trained and untrained at 9 points in actual use.

DC5 has a purpose, as the untrained user can still fail them a third of the time, while the trained user doesn't even need to roll. Going up to DC15 puts the trained user in 2/3 range and the untrained in 1/5. Going up to DC20 puts the trained user in more uncertain 2/5 while the untrained user simply can't. DC25 is for heroic efforts that even the trained user drops to about 1/6.

>>52830771
>>52831765
>>52832693
What can you expect of an autistic retard?

Bounded accuracy is a legitimately good mechanic, 3.5/PF might be more up your alley, OP.

>>52834858
Already addressed that comment.

I like Pathfinder way better for skills, and like 5e better for everything else.

>>52834858
No, it's not. It's directly responsible for HP staying at 3.5 levels but damage being half of that if we're being generous. It's also responsible for the horseshit that is a top of the line level 20 non-Rogue or Bard failing a check then some untrained, untalented chucklefuck succeeding on it.

4E's skill system was far better than this.

>>52828565
Considering that a level 1 PC with proficiency in a skill should have at least +3 to +5, the DC 10 task should be pretty easy. The DC assumes that you're doing it in a rush, anyways.

In the way of "useless-expert", have you heard of Expertise?

>>52838610
Yeah, that's the reason I'm inclined to want to fix the skill math.

Also, you're right about HP getting pretty bloated. But what really matters in terms of hp is the number of attacks it takes to kill something, and the number of hits you can survive.

>>52838610
Out of curiosity, how would you fix 5es math scaling?

>>52839202
Move the attribute caps and make ASIs independent of feat progression, give everyone Expertise in a few skills, make crits actually double damage, remove BM Fighter, then make their dice and maneuvers a standard part of *every* martial to a lesser or greater extent(ie: War Cleric/Valor Bard get less dice compared to a Paladin or Ranger or Fighter).

That's just if I wanted to stick to stuff that's easily done with existing 5E content. If I was making it for me, I'd jettison the whole fucking game and make ToB 2.0.

>>52839325
I'm interested in hearing more...

Where would you move attribute caps to?
>ASIs separate from feats
I was leaning towards this as well. Make feats into 2 Pt. Things, and the ones that normally give a +1 stat, you don't get the +1, and it's worth 1 Pt. Give points spread evenly, maybe 10/20lvs or so.

>Give everyone expertise
Then why not just drop it and increase the progression speed?

>Maneuvers and dice to all martials
I definitely agree regarding maneuvers. Why for dice?

Let's presume, for arguments sake, we're making 5e work, not starting over from scratch.

>>52839702
>Where would you move attribute caps to?
26. 5E may say that magic items aren't necessary, but that is a blatant lie if you take one look at high CR enemies and their AC and attack bonuses. +3 to hit and damage, and AC for Dex users, solves part of that issue.
>Then why not just drop it and increase the progression speed?
Because you only need to ensure that more classes get Expertise to turn it into the two-tier training system that it functionally is for Rogues and Bards.
>Why for dice?
Because that was the original concept for them and it's a far better idea than what we ended up getting.

>>52839873
>26
So, bring back WBL, or scale up attributes more?

>just have Two tier training
But that doesn't really address the bad chumpiness of experts until the highest levels, and it also drastically increases the effective per-level scaling, up to ~2+half level. That's why I suggested a flat bonus plus a scaling level bonus - like 4e.

>Playtest spread the dice around more and it's better than what we have now.
Fair enough.

>>52839702
>Where would you move attribute caps to?
They should cap at 36. Just like levels.

>>52840045
Go home old guy. You're drunk. Take your racial level caps, staggered XP charts, race as class, and descending AC with you.

>>52840271
Hey, 4e capped at level 36! I'm still cool!

>>52840501
I'm no 4rrie, but I'm pretty sure 4e capped at 30.

>>52840527
For players, but Bahamut was the highest level monster, at level 36.

>>52840556
Ah. I hadn't considered enemy levels

>>52838130
>>52838610
Your mistake was thinking 5e still clung to baggage from 3.5/PF severe autism edition.

>>52842734
>He assumes everyone is "le samefag"
>He thinks having odds that actually make sense is somehow PF baggage.

>>52828570
That is the worst possible name I think you could give something. So you're proficient in a skill, and you also get Skill Proficiency on top? Why would you name your secondary bonus the same thing as the first bonus?

>>52829012
If you have to invest so much in skills to be able to use them, you're going to have trap options. It's not even going to be up to the game to decide what they are.

>>52828565
Your STAT for a check can only be increased or decreased once. That is: only one bonus applies at a time. Bring back granular bonuses.

>>52843288
When I wrote it I was thinking of having proficiency be a flat +8, and then have level scaling apply to *everything*. But making adjustments to not drastically alter combat and such was getting too finicky, so I reworked the bonus to only apply to skills. I agree it's a bad name if proficiency bonus is still a thing on top of that.

>>52843385
What, like stackable advantage?

That still doesn't help how little difference training makes.

I think the central issue is that D&D isn't realistic enough.
There's no point in the dice/stat matrix where a trained character nearly always succeeds where an untrained person nearly always fails.
For an untrained person who just learned what a plane is the moment before isn't going to able to randomly pilot a plane successfully. A trained pilot is almost never going to crash a plane, disregarding external factors.

>>52830107
You realize that on skill checks where a person should auto-succeed, you're supposed to not roll at all, right?

>>52843337
What you mean PFs skill point system?

Yeah. When I play PF I assign skillpoints in order to hit a certain amount of consistency. Some skills I level until +5, others +7, some +15. Contested skills I raise every level.

I agree, people do fuck that up. It's spelled out for you pretty plainly though. The DCs are laid out in the book, and it's easy to know when you can take 10 or take 20, and what tasks you can do that with. But it means bringing a skill DC cheatsheet for the skills you use, and keeping it as part of your character sheet.

I'm not advocating that for 5e. However, I do prefer that to the mess that 5e has, which is that nobody is competent (unless you override the published DCs and set new ones), and the difference between a trained character and an untrained one is next to nothing unless you are a high level, or a middling level with expertise.

Proficiency = +5, nonscaling, add 1/3.5lv to all checks, and expertise doubles level bonus (or gives a flat +3) seems the way I want to go, to start.

The gap between trained and untrained is about the same as the upper levels, the scaling is nearly the same throughout. Then I can just adjust from there.

>>52843454
Which really, 5e's skill checks blatantly go by the opposite because it's a game and they want every player to be able to fail or succeed a check more than they want to be realistic. It's not really a place where the game failed as a place where they went in a direction you didn't want.

>>52843521
So, how do you do that for tasks where a trained person should autosucceed, and anyone who isn't trained would have a good chance of failure?

At what point do I say: Brian, you don't have to roll, but everybody else make me an acrobatics check not to fall down.

>>52843630
What action is this where the skilled person has absolutely no chance to fail, but everybody else has a high chance of failing? What's so easy a braindead half-asleep moron could do it if they just took a class on it the day before, but hard enough to warrant a roll in the first place?

>>52843630
For 5e:
When Brian has expertise in the skill and literally cannot fail, remembering that nat 1s are not autofails on skills?

When Brian is a rogue in general, and cannot get less than a roll of 10?

>>52843621
Okay. Yes. They deliberately set the DCs such that everybody has a chance to succeed at everything, and experts have an unusually high chance to fail shit that should be trivial for them.

The druid with points in Nature should 100% be able to do stuff with it that the rest of the party would likely fail.

And yes, I do not find the swingy wobblyverse math to be at all desirable. I do want more realism and competence with skill performance than 5e offers, as that other anon mentioned.

Hence this entire fucking thread.

>>52843621
>It's not really a place where the game failed as a place where they went in a direction you didn't want.
This is a problem because in my 5e games I've wanted to do something I was trained in and still. Constantly. Fail.
It's not the untrained succeeded alone that is the problem, it's that being proficient in something still has a decent chance of failure.
I am still salty over being an orc barbarian and rolling <10 on everything, for multiple sessions in a row. Felt like an incompetent comic relief when my character was supposed to be intimidating.

>>52842806
I'm seeing a bunch of you wanting to bring PF 's or 3.5's mechanics into the mix. If you can't see these systems are very poorly designed then there's no helping you and you're trying to shove horseshit mechanics into an actually well designed system.
But hey, all the more power to you.

>>52843648
Hmm. For some real world examples?
>Driving a standard without stalling for 10 minutes, for someone who has never driven and is receiving no directions.
>Writing a simple command line dice rolling app within an 40 minutes without help.
Et-fucking-cetera.

>>52843660
Exactly. Hence my problem with 5es math. Flattened progression, no significant bump up for training at the beginning, means you need to have expertise and enough of a bonus for that to matter to be good at _anything_

>>52843788
Those aren't really things you should roll for, they're just following instructions. Do you roll for grocery shopping?

>>52843788
Why the actual fuck do you want to roll for them? What the fuck, has Pathfinder completely rotted your brain or something.

>>52843761
Op here. Nobody has mentioned that at all.

People have however stated that "even Pathfinder's skill system is better than 5es skill system". I agree with them. PFs skill system has issues. It's overly fiddly. Some of the DCs are stupid. But it's at least *possible* in PF to be competent in a skill without being level 9+, with levels in rogue.

It's not about a love for skill points. It's about bonuses being abysmally low for trained characters in 5e.

>>52843788
Those are things where you'd automatically fail without training, so they don't really fit the criteria that well. You wouldn't even roll, you'd either have them interact with the car and have them see what happens based on what they try, or in the command line dice rolling app just have auto-fail without training because how could you ever hit upon that set of directions without training ever. Those are actions that are complicated, but not hard: dice rolling never comes into the question.

And you seem to assume that anything less than a +10 is a worthless skill investment.

>>52843761
3.5's problem was that the skills were incredibly poorly balanced against each other, that certain skills had breakpoints beyond which more points were not useful, that adding INT to skills known favored spellcasters and screwed over classes that couldn't use INT for anything, and that cross-class skills were shit. It's not the large numbers at all, it's the fact that some people were completely locked out of doing anything useful with their skill points while others got to jack off to having the god skills of Diplomacy and UMD.

>>52843867
Presumably because they're things your medieval knight has a good chance at failing, and there's some sort of story consequence for doing so. It was simply an example of a task you are unlikely to succeed without directions, and which you basically can't fail if you know what you're doing, because >>52843648 seemed to think there were no such situations in life where skill difference would be so relevant, so I gave him some obvious and simple examples.

>>52843873
You realize that 5e is a genre shift due to grittier, lower powered fantasy don't you?
If you want to break the system assumption, that's fine, but it means you're also completely misunderstanding the point of the system.

>>52843910
No shit your medieval knight would fail because the things wouldn't have been invented in his lifetime. But the fact in that context you need rolls for every little thing suggests you're autistic and need an autistic system, 5e isn't that and you're better off playing PF.

>>52828570
>So, how could this be fixed
Nigga, the stuff you said could literally just be fixed by the GM adjusting DCs for skill checks.

>>52843944
Yes, it is shifted to a lower power level.

And trained characters are less competent in skills than starting AFMBE characters,

A shift from super heroes to action heroes is fine. The math for skills is more like a shift from super heroes to 4th graders.

>>52843982
Giving different DCs for the same task, to different players? I'm sure that will go over well.

>>52843944
If by that you mean it's shifted to lower than fucking AD&D levels.

>>52844050
Super heroes to 4th graders.

>>52844033
That is what you want though, from these posts. You want things to be possible for success or failure for some players, and auto-failure or auto-success for others. That's different DCs to the same task for different players.

>>52844126
>That's different DCs to the same task for different players.
That's not how the game works you fucking idiot, AND it's better solved by having larger bonuses anyways.

>>52844024
>>52844050
>>52844066
You're not going to be happy unless you change your mindset going into playing 5e, but your severe autism will want to keep playing Pathfinder.

>>52844297
I dislike PF plenty, I just happen to dislike 5E a fuckload more.

>>52828565
Dude, walking in a straight line is not a DC10 check.

>>52844333
Have you tried not playing either of those games. Don't use your personal bias to disrupt a game's system, you autist, we have enough autists for that.

>>52844376
It's not personal bias to note that 5E's skill system is retarded as fuck.

>>52844393
If you don't understand the underlining mechanical and genre assumptions and power scaling and bring PF/3.5e baggage in with you, yes it is completely retarded and your retarded personal bias.

>>52844393
Thinking every little thing needs a dice roll is autistic and retarded as fuck. 5e doesn't function like that at all.

>>52844449
The underlining assumptions are shit. They're out of line compared to literally every skill system D&D has ever had.

>>52844508
That's you admitting to understanding fuck all and then autistically screeching. That is your own fucking bias and you being a retard.

>>52844496
If those things didn't need rolling, then why are they presented in the book as examples of things that need rolling?

>>52844534
No, I understand it very well, you're just not understanding why a small difference in bonuses with a dice mechanic with a huge range of results is inherently shit. It should tell you something that expertise doubles it and that's STILL not enough, so Rogues get even more than that.

>>52844546
Because rules needed some example. Why do you seek some ultimate authority where there's none?

>>52844609
>you aren't supposed to roll for examples the game tells you to
Holy shit are you even trying anymore?

>>52844546
Post your examples from the books, please.

>>52844579
Your autistic screeching and "attempts" to fix it are evidence enough you understand fuck all of the system, especially so because you have all of your autistic assumptions intact.

>>52844626
That's for DM to decide. Or maybe you need a full, exhaustive catalogue of "shit you need to roll for"?

>>52844789
Are you saying that the example DCs aren't actually example DCs?

>>52844789
The autistic retards in this thread need a full, exhaustive catalogue otherwise they'll keep screeching the system is shit. This is goddamn baffling.

>>52844864
If you actually read the OP's post you'd know that the DCs aren't the only issue. "just temper your expectations bro" won't do shit to change the fact how small the bonuses are.

>>52828565
>Not even an "Easy" task. "Easy" tasks are also poorly named. Anything a normal person fails 50% of the time, is not easy.

It's easy, for an adventurer, not a normal person. Using your own example of a 4th-level character with a +6 to a given skill, a DC 10 is passed on a roll of 4 or better - so it's only a 15% fail rate.

That sounds like a pretty easy task to me.

So your most basic assumption was wrong from the start. A DC 10 task is not supposed to be "easy" for John Doe off the street. It's supposed to be easy for a 4th level character.

>So supposed experts frequently fail at shit they should reasonably have no chance of failing

If a character has no reasonable chance at failing something, then they shouldn't even be rolling in the first place. They just do it.

This is why, for example, everyone can long-jump a number of feet equal to the Strength score automatically without needing a check. You only check when you want to try and exceed that.

>and the town idiot has an unusually high chance of success at stuff he should have no chance of success at.

Everyone gets lucky sometimes, and in a system meant to emulate cinematic battles and HIGH ADVENTURE!, people get lucky more often than in real life.

D&D is not and was never intended to be a real life simulator.

File: ay swar on me mum ill nok u in da gobber ya cheeky whayle cunt.jpg (37KB, 414x445px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 414x445px

>>52828565
>1) I have a shitty DM
>2) I am also a shitty player

Go play PF

File: Variant, Automatic Success.png (524KB, 465x699px) Image search: [Google]

524KB, 465x699px

I like this ruling.

>>52844886
Which goes back to the fact that you and the OP have no understanding of 5e's underlining power assumptions and scaling and mechanics at all.

OP's assumptions in the OP are fucking retarded.

Nothing to fix. Adjust trifling DCs a little.

Done.

>>52844952
Cue someone bitching about how you need to house-rule the game in 3...2...1...

>something's only easy if you're able to succeed 6σ

holy fuck this thread

>>52829170
Okay. Have fun never getting better at anything while claiming to understand how the d20 mechanic """works."""

>>52844973
I'm pretty sure we have a better grasp of it than you since you seem to think that smaller bonuses on a large roll means nothing important.

File: christie.png (285KB, 338x426px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 338x426px

>>52844973
>5e's underlining power assumptions and scaling and mechanics at all.

You mean a fighter who literally NEVER gets any better at defending himself over TWENTY levels of experience? Your armor class never gets ANY better. You are still ENTIRELY dependent on your armor, you never get better at dodging or parrying despite that being fucking half if not most of being proficient with a weapon.

>>52844979
Is it really a houserule if it's in the core rulebook?

>>52845094
Sure you do, your autism aside, what you fail to account for is the advantage/disadvantage mechanic and the DC scaling is lower overall.

>>52845132
Your exaggeration and autistic screeching aside, the martial classes are actually competent and useful in this edition, of course you'd feel shortshafted coming off of PF and still encumbered by that autistic baggage.
And it depends on your fighting style and archetype, thanks for being disingenuous.

Also, 5e is a party-oriented game, the team is helped overall.
If you want individualistic hogging the spotlight shit, go back to playing PF.

>>52845259
>the martial classes are actually competent and useful in this edition

Fighters are still the most middling shit ever outside of a fight.

>>52844886
AC versus attack roll bonus is better in 5e, you dingus.

>>52845279
If your DM or you as a DM aren't crafting little situations to spotlight all of the PCs in the group, you're a shit DM.

That is a good point. If the book gives you an example, that's what the book expects you to use. Yes, you can tune it to your liking, the book doesn't demand you to use it, but the example isn't there to show you
>Hey! This is how you assign a DC for something! Put a random number and then 'DC' after it and there you go!
It's there to say
>We have assigned this task a DC of X in the mind that the typical physical capabilities of the characters in this fictional game setting could be that of peak humans in real life.

Obviously, there are supernatural physical feats present and doable, see Barb rage and Monk speed, but not all classes get those. A sorc isn't intended to be able to jump 5 feet straight upwards without magic. If you want that level of physical ability to be commonplace, fine. That's called homebrew.

>>52845094
Do you have any fucking idea how 5e works? Any idea at all?

>>52845279
At least they're useful in one, for once.

>>52845132
Yes, if you didn't take the additional Fighting Style: Defence at level 10 as a Champion,
or take Defensive Duellist, Dual Wielder, or Blade mastery, all feats that say that you learn how to parry well enough to add to your AC.

>>52845259
>is the advantage/disadvantage mechanic
Means less than nothing unless you're throwing advantage at someone with a high bonus just because and throwing disadvantage at someone with a low bonus just because.
>and the DC scaling is lower overall.
Also means less than nothing when the point of contention is that the difference between a trained and untrained character is far too small for most of the game.

>>52845420
>you have to take a special fighter option to get any benefit from learning to defend yourself like anyone who gained proficiency with a weapon would

You are retarded.

>>52845415
They're less useful than they were in 4E, that's for fucking sure.

File: dnd_editions.png (948KB, 680x1388px) Image search: [Google]

948KB, 680x1388px

>>52845374
>Do you have any fucking idea how 5e works? Any idea at all?

You can't just go "lol do you have any idea how this game works" as a response to us calling out that exact game on its shitty design.

Yep, there are issues with 3.5's huge-ass number bloat and constant stacking bonuses. But 5e goes too far in the other direction and makes it so that a fighter only gets 20% better over 20 levels at attacking.

A master swordsmith is only 20% better than an apprentice.

5e is shit.

>>52845222
A logical question, but the people who bitch about bounded accuracy are not generally logical people.

>>52845030
>Have fun never getting better at anything

I mean, that's false, though. In OP's own example he posits a 4th-level character with a +6. The same character by 20th level will have a +11 instead at minimum.

Meaning that a DC 10 task is now an auto-success instead of an 85% chance of success. A DC 15 task was once a 60% chance of success, now it's an 85% chance. A DC 20 task was a 35% chance, but now it's a 60% chance. And a DC 25 was once a 10% chance of success, but now it's a 25% chance.

That's demonstrable improvement. And we haven't even brought in Expertise or anything yet.

>>52845132
>You mean a fighter who literally NEVER gets any better at defending himself over TWENTY levels of experience?

What are you on about? A 20th level fighter has considerably more hit points - he's better at absorbing blows or turning them aside into glancing hits. He's had several Ability Score Improvements that could have gone into either Dexterity or into feats that improve his defense, such as Defensive Duelist. And he's got Indomitable for defenses against more esoteric attacks.

That's without getting into any kit-specific abilities...

>>52845493
>The one class able to get a heap of feats while getting 20STR and 20CON should take none to reflect that.
Are you?

>>52845525
+5 over 16 levels on a fucking d20 roll is a sad joke.

>>52845222
No, it's a variant rule.

>>52845479
Then you have no fucking idea where/when to use disadvantage or advantage, 5e is also more story driven and less autism driven in its mechanics.

A trained character gets proficiency in their skills, an untrained character doesn't but can still use their skill and can hope for the best, ie either character is more useful overall.

>>52845493
Are you fucking retarded for disallowing/banning actual fighter mechanics? Are you fucking autistic?

>>52845561
What are you trying to do that you need more?
Also, really, check the DMG variant rule.
>>52844952

>>52845522
>>52845561
You are continually pestering the thread with continued baggage and assumptions brought over from a system that exists with a different fantasy genre in mind.

Anyone can make a number in a vaccum, especially so because you fail to take a lot of different variables and situations into account. You went full autistic and full disingenuous little shit.

At this point I'm not sure if you're legitimately severally retarded or trolling.

>>52845561
You're only saying that because 3rd and 4th Edition taught you to expect to have +9001 to those same rolls. Calibrate your damn expectations. D&D 5e is a different game, just as 3rd Edition was very different from 2nd Edition.

The AD&D equivalent to skill checks - nonweapon proficiencies - had set modifier values that never exceeded 6, were almost always just 0, 1, or 2, and were rolled against your ability score, which didn't change in AD&D nearly as much as it did in later editions (including 5e).

>>52845654
Because AD&D apparently didn't have scaling numbers either and is a totally different genre from 5E. Please at least try to know what you're talking about.

Yep. Looks like Dungeons and Dragons has finally cemented its place as a containment RPG.

It's not like this wasn't already a thing. Ever since third edition came out the trend was already starting. Fourth edition came with the popularity surge of The Big Bang Theory which resulted in a spike in sales, which was not enough to save 4e's badly-written mechanics.

Fifth edition was specifically watered down to be palatable both to grognards (who do not rely on the active D&D community nor do they need a new ruleset, thus this pandering was stupid) and to normies, who flocked to the game in great masses thanks to the game's appearance on two terrible TV shows (Stranger Things and Big Bang Theory). Also, the prevalence of Critical Role podcast created quite a lot of love for D&D, which found itself inundated by waves of new players. Wizards of the Coast saw sales skyrocketing, giving them the false message that dumbing down the game represented an improvement in game design (though they did streamline many of the mechanics, which *was* a good thing). As a result, Wizards is very happy with this diluting of the Dungeons and Dragons fanbase. /tg/ has also deluded itself into thinking this influx of players is a good thing. This lack of foresight is to be expected.

D&D is now the containment RPG. It keeps the dumb-ass Skyrim addicts and the brain-dead hipster roasties who can't even figure out which die to roll, out of the good RPGs. Which is sad, because D&D, despite being shit in many small ways, was overall a very fun and enjoyable roleplaying game. It was structured that way. However, the fanbase it is now attracting is making it intolerable, and the way said fanbase is guiding the mechanics is a direction that would make a game like Dungeon World seem sophisticated.

So, in short, D&D is dead, but thank god for its existence.

>>52845680
>and were rolled against your ability score
Which already makes for a much larger scope of difference than you get in 5E. A trained 18 vs an untrained 9 is a huge degree of difference and isn't fucking backloaded.

>>52845706
Did you dig out of your pockets willingly or are you just spilling pasta?
>>51873923

>>52845522
I'm not here to say you're wrong or to argue against you per say, but...
>a fighter only gets 20% better over 20 levels at attacking.
>A master swordsmith is only 20% better than an apprentice.
You're taking into account a single attack.
And only an attack action at that.

If I remember rightly, fighters do get more attacks as they level. And while attacking is a large part of what little they do, they do improve in more than just attacking. HP for example. And carrying capacity. Skill checks also. They do get other combat tools aswell depending on what type of fighter path you choose.

And most importantly, a 20% increase to attacking becomes more and more significant as more attacks are made. Remember that fighers get more attacks per attack action as they level, and can fight for longer with their increased HP.

>>52845684
No, I want to you to prove your point, if you had any.

>>52845706
You really have no friends, do you.

>>52845720
Because, you fucking retard, there are different assumptions in play here. Are you guys trolling? Because it is baffling how fucking retarded you are.

>>52845522
>>52845829
The 20th fighter also gets four attacks on their turn, can action surge and gets a bunch of other things to do depending on feats, fighting style and archetype.
>>52845522 is a literal fucking retard.

>>52845829
Yeah, a level 20 will get at least 4 attacks, and can action surge to make 8, and superiority die, and extra attacks from their weapon mastery...

>>52845798
My point is that 5E's assumptions are shit. They're not just out of line with every other edition of D&D, which is something I could get over if that was the only issue, but they create scenarios that are just as blatantly fucking retarded as dart Fighters being gods(2E), some guy with a short sword being twice as dangerous as a guy with a big ass zweihander because all damage is 1d6 but the former attacks twice for every swing the second one gets(Basic) or throat slitters being at their least dangerous in a dark alleyway(3E).

>>52845893
No, it's only your assumptions that are fucking shit, with you being disingenuous and getting your points btfo's with actual thought and reading of 5e's mechanics.

>>52845720
>Which already makes for a much larger scope of difference than you get in 5E.

It makes for much more randomness given that you were more often than not rolling a flat d20, with a result of natural 20 ALWAYS a failure.

Since the default method of determining ability scores in AD&D was 3d6, the average result is 10, meaning that with no modifier a roll-under method means you only succeed on a flat d20 check 45% of the time. A -2 modifier gives you a whopping 55% chance of success instead. And you were stuck with this for your entire adventuring career, since, again, means of raising ability scores were rarer in AD&D. 1st level, 20th level, doesn't matter. This is also, barring DM fiat, the target you have to hit for ALL tasks. Meaning that it doesn't matter if you're trying to walk across somewhat icy ground, or walk across a tightrope. Either way the "difficulty" is the same: your ability score.

Conversely, even if you don't get to add your ability score to the check for some reason, a 1st-level character just adding proficiency has a 65% chance of success at level 1, and an 85% chance of success at level 20.

5e characters are just better at their jobs than AD&D characters, I guess.

>>52845938
There is nothing reasonable about a literal 6 INT retard being able to succeed on an untrained DC 15 check while Wizardus master of Wizardry with maxed INT and proficiency in the skill fails 15% of the time.

>>52845893
>>52845522
Your assumptions vs the system's assumptions with examples below
>>52845829
>>52845868
>>52845889

Are you actually comprehending what you're reading or do you like to dribble on regardless?

>>52845976
So don't play 5e

>>52845974
>Since the default method of determining ability scores in AD&D was 3d6
4d6 drop 1.

>>52845976
There is when the 6 INT retard is the hero of a HIGH ADVENTURE! story.

File: Untitled.png (306KB, 620x206px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 620x206px

>>52845993
I gots me an AD&D player's handbook (2nd Edition) says different. There were other alternatives, but they were just that: alternate, not the default. Which is what I stated in the first place, that the default method was 3d6.

>>52845976
Then git gud at rolling. Sorry I automatically assumed you were the literal Int 6 retard.

>>52846001
Int 8 wizards are a meme but can be a thing in 5e.

>>52846027
1E's default is 4d6 drop 1 and specifically says that using 3d6 is a bad idea unless you want PCs to die all the time.

>>52844162
Are you drunk? That was exactly my point.

My complaint is that skilled characters are incompetent and not reasonably better at a task than unskilled characters, and that numbskull says I can fix that problem by changing DCs.

The only way you could use DCs to fix the problem would be to give different DCs to people with different skill levels, which is a terrible fucking idea. So I pointed out how absurd his suggestion was.

>>52846027
>There are several methods
>Method 1

That's clearly presenting multiple options with equal weight.

>>52846049
It looked to me like you were suggesting using it. This thread is kind of a clusterfuck.

>>52844297
Actually, I'd rather play Shadowrun. Or Unisystem. Or GURPS. Or RuneQuest. Not Pathfinder.

And I'm not going into 5e with a Pathfinder mindset. I'm fine with not superhero scale. Give me Shadowrun or Unisystem scale competence and I'm good.

I like lots of things about 5e. I just don't like its fucktarded number scale for skills.

Hence wanting to fix the math.

>>52846049
What skill, what task and what DC?
What characters?

And we're rolling in a vaccum.

>>52845706
Tell me what you think is wrong with 5th ed without telling me it's pop culture's fault.
And I mean specifically. Don't just say
>Watered down
or
>Dumbed down
or whatever catch phrase variant. I mean, yeah, to a degree, 5th ed is dumbed down and simpler, but telling us that it's Big Bang Theory's fault without actually stating what exactly is wrong in the first place isn't very clever.
Fuck, it could be Big Band Theory's fault, but you still haven't stated what exactly you think is wrong with the game itself. Now I hate Big Band Theory as much as the next guy, but this is sort of like accusing the murderer's great great great grandson of the crime.

A DC is for when your adventuring not for just walking around town

>>52844340
That's not what the official adventures say. I didn't make up those numbers. I just pointed them out.

>>52845976
Wizardus master of Wizardry is a 19th (+6 proficiency) level Wizard with a 20 Intelligence (+5) that has access to the Guidance (+1d4, average 2) cantrip because, being intelligent, he dipped a level in Cleric. He fails far less than 5% of the time.

>>52843423
No, like through training you can acquire greater bonuses, but only one such bonus can apply at a time.

Like instead of having expertise double your proficiency bonus, you could have levels of expertise, that change your bonus you can add to a skill. For instance, the "proficiency bonus" for a "journeyman" might be +3, while the proficiency bonus for an "expert" might be +4, and so on and so on.

>>52844756
Op here. I've been on the phone for a few hours. You're arguing with multiple people.

I don't want Pathfinder math for skills. I would prefer Pathfinder math over 5e math.

But ideally 5e would have skill competence comparable to like, Buffy/Angel/World of Darkness Mortals/All Flesh Must Be Eaten/Shadowrun.

>>52846044
Source? I provided mine.

>>52846082
No, they are not equally weighted. The other methods are a) presented under a nice serif header that says "alternate methods", and b) specifically says that you must ask DM permission before using them.

>>52831765
Literally the best example i've seen on this topic. Well done anon.

>>52844675
They're linked in the OP. Big ol spreadsheet of published DCs from published adventures, collected by a bunch of folks on GitP.

>>52844817
They are telling you the DCs for tasks in the adventures are not the DCs for those tasks, and those printed numbers are the result of everyone lying eyes. Apparently.

File: method 1.png (147KB, 441x458px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 441x458px

>>52846168
Sure.

>>52846213
Half of them are accompanied by WTF?! And aren't sourced.
I don't trust it.

>>52844952
This ruling should indeed be the default. It's a good ruling.

>>52846115
>>52846166
Pathfinder maths isn't going to work in 5e unless you want numbers bloat and irrelevancy of characters, that is, you need to better understand the underlying reasoning behind 5e''s bounded accuracy mechanics.

This is also how low-level threats continue to provide reasonably meaningful challenges, if albeit brief, throughout a PC's adventuring career.

>>52845342
And according to the official examples, walking in a straight line on level ground is DC 10.

>>52846235
Hey, look, it doesn't specifically say, or even imply, that 3d6 is a bad idea unless you want PCs to die all the time.

Also I'mma go ahead and call my source more relevant for the purposes of this discussion, on the grounds that it was published more recently and was from an edition better than 1E.

Namely, 2E.

>>52846138
>He fails far less than 5% of the time.
3.75% of the time, so not that much less.

>>52846280
I understand the underlying reasoning, but I fundamentally disagree with it and think it causes more issues than it solves.

>>52846294
This claim is not in OP and not found in OP's Gdoc. The closest thing is a DC 10 acrobatics check to "walk" around a column while running across difficult terrain, in order to avoid a 10 foot speed penalty.

It is a) not sourced, so I'm not inclined to trust it; and b) not a check to "walk in a straight line", but rather a check made while running around a corner on difficult terrain in order to avoid slowing down due to both the turn and the difficult terrain.

>>52846138
>if you boost your skills with *magic*, then it works fine
and they say caster supremacy is dead in 5e.

>>52846342
I'm certain that it must be less than that, given that Guidance will let him pass the check on a result of 2, 3, or 4.

>>52846247
Ok, I recognise some of those, but a most suffer from an awful lack of context.
>>52846294
I keep trying to find it but the closest is walking on a 18 inch ledge.

>>52846168
>No, they are not equally weighted.
By all means post the rest of the page, because what you posted clearly implies that there are more equally weighted options just beneath.

Now I may be wrong and the person editing that book may have just done a poor job, by all means post proof if that's the case, but as it stands right now the thing you posted doesn't actually support your position.

>>52846126
Any and all.

I'm not talking about a single instance. I'm making a complaint about the scale of bonuses a skilled character gets in comparison to an unskilled character of the same level, and in comparison to the dcs being faced.

But at this point I've determined what *I'm* going to do already.

Everyone can add 1/3.5xlv to all their rolls, (+1-+5 between levels 3 and 17), and proficiency as a flat +5. Expertise doubling the scaling level bonus.

Increases the competence of skilled characters. The number disparity between skilled and unskilled will be no larger than it is in the upper levels of 5e.

And then I'll tweak it if there's an issue.

>>52846381
Well you'd be wrong. This is simple dice math, not quantum physics, you can check it yourself.

>>52846280
My gripes with 5es skill system has nothing at all with its combat mechanics.

>>52846356
Then at best you're completely changing how the game works without understanding how it works and introducing bloat and irrelevancy into the mix, and at worse your disagreement is irrelevant and meaningless because no one gives a shit.

This goes for you too>>52846415

>>52846364
"Balance on an 18 inch ledge without falling".

That's "walk in a straight line."

Unless you're 5 feet wide at the waist.

File: Untitled.png (1MB, 872x1231px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 872x1231px

>>52846414

>>52846462
5E's mechanics are not sacred, stop treating them like they are.

>>52846462
I ran the numbers, and I'm not seeing where that will cause a problem.

>>52846473
UNGH

THICKER.

>>52828565
>how to fix swingyness in dice
Stop using d20, use 3d6 or dicepools.

>>52846536
B-buh that's bad since high results will be much rarer!!!

>>52846415
>>52846500
Good for you, but you're failing to understand 5e isn't autistic maths edition.

>>52846443
This is the thing with bounded accuracy, if you don't understand that it permeates into other areas, you need a better understanding of what it is.

>>52846491
I'm not saying it's sacred, I'm questioning whether the autism in changing it is worth it if you don't understand the system.

>>52846583
That's not how that works. The skill system is functionally separate from other parts of the game.

>>52846583
>I don't like how 5E's skill system works so I'm changing it
>WOOOOOW AUTISM YOU'RE AUTISTIC FOR CARING ABOUT NUMBERS
Why are you such a shitty poster?

>>52846618
"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.

Now, note that I said that we make no assumptions on the DM’s side of the game about increased accuracy and defenses. This does not mean that the players do not gain bonuses to accuracy and defenses. It does mean, however, that we do not need to make sure that characters advance on a set schedule, and we can let each class advance at its own appropriate pace. Thus, wizards don’t have to gain a +10 bonus to weapon attack rolls just for reaching a higher level in order to keep participating; if wizards never gain an accuracy bonus, they can still contribute just fine to the ongoing play experience.

This extends beyond simple attacks and damage. We also make the same assumptions about character ability modifiers and skill bonuses. Thus, our expected DCs do not scale automatically with level, and instead a DC is left to represent the fixed value of the difficulty of some task, not the difficulty of the task relative to level."

>>52846660
Why the fuck are you such a disingenuous, snivelling always autistically screeching little shit.

>>52846671
Which is immediately contradicted by proficiency bonuses and monster AC climbing as CR goes up.

>>52846782
Not really.
>>52846671
>Now, note that I said that we make no assumptions on the DM’s side of the game about increased accuracy and defenses. This does not mean that the players do not gain bonuses to accuracy and defenses. It does mean, however, that we do not need to make sure that characters advance on a set schedule, and we can let each class advance at its own appropriate pace. Thus, wizards don’t have to gain a +10 bonus to weapon attack rolls just for reaching a higher level in order to keep participating; if wizards never gain an accuracy bonus, they can still contribute just fine to the ongoing play experience.

You just don't need to give a fighter the sword of +huge at level 5 or he will be worthless.
Now it's just something nice to have.

>>52846660
Haha.

A bit more obnoxiously than I would have responded to his post, but you've got the main point, yeah.

Apparently not enjoying whatever shit is being shoveled your way is autism. If you don't like how the math works out-or frankly, doesn't work-autism.

If you point out how the skill system doesn't really interact with the rest of the game though, ooh boy, get ready for an autistic quote about how they're using the same math assumptions in the rest of the game, as though that disproves something.

>>52846853
Man, you are arguing against a system you don't like nor have to use.
You are indeed sounding like you want to play with a spreadsheet.

>>52846853
Good job putting yourself on the back for being a screeching autist. Play a game better suited to your autism is really what you need, Pathfinder is right up your alley.

>>52846473
And about this, its not a beam you can balance on, its a ledge. You don't have space to a side and can't use most of the easy tricks you'd use to walk on a normal flat surface.

>>52846853
If you don't like how the maths works in a non-maths centric, narratively focused game where rolling can sometimes even be a formality, you really need a mathsfinder autism heavy game.

There's no one holding a gun to your head telling you you have to play the system.

>>52846853
>>52846853
The autistic quote is from one of the designers of game, but it's actually not surprising you think you know more about the game than they do.

>>52846889
>Anybody who disagrees with me should >>pfg.
Get fucked.

5e is better than pf or 4e, outside it's garbage skillsystem, which is even worse than Pathfinder's.

>>52846931
>If the math results in play that isn't fun, your only options are to go back to the game you shelved 5 years ago because it wasn't fun (for reasons other than its skill system) game or learn to like it.
No, shockingly enough, those are not the only options.

>>52846964
Fine, then >>52795686

>>52846964
It sounds like Pathfinder is really up your alley, both because of your continued screeching and your inability to comprehend what 5e is trying to do.
Just actually stop and think before you try inserting shit into a system you don't yet fully understand.

Your opinions are also garbage because you find 4e to be shit.

>>52847016
Hang on, where did he say that?
He just called 5e better.

>>52828570
I like this idea of adding another bonus to skill rolls that doesn't apply anywhere else.

To avoid adding another stat, maybe say that you apply double your proficiency bonus to skills. Expertise lets you add triple proficiency. At level 1 with a +2 in a stat you will succeed at an easy DC 10 task 85% of the time if you are trained. If you have expertise you will succeed 95% of the time. Once you are level 5 (no longer a baby adventurer) and have a +2 in the skill (it isn't a main stat of yours) you will beat a DC10 95% of the time and beat DC 12 100% of the time if you have expertise.

At max level with expertise and +5 in a stat you can roll up to 43. Combining various bonuses you might be able to get to 65. You will auto succeed on checks with a DC of less than 23. This seems a bit ridiculous to me but high level characters should be ridiculous.

>>52847058
I'm just dissing.

>At max level with expertise and +5 in a stat you can roll up to 43. Combining various bonuses you might be able to get to 65. You will auto succeed on checks with a DC of less than 23. This seems a bit ridiculous to me but high level characters should be ridiculous.
This is fucking retarded however, and if you think the 5e skill system should allow for this, you might as well say skill rolls are irrelevant, you automatically succeed.

It also strongly suggests the poster has not fucking clue how 5e works.

>>52846989
Actually I just picked up a bunch of GURPS books (basic + high tech + powers), and will likely be using it for an upcoming Stargate type campaign.

>>52847162
I will point out that I gave the maximum total you could get. You won't have expertise in every skill, nor even be proficient in every skill with a normal build. If you are a level 20 character with expertise in something then you should be the absolute pinnacle of that ability. Completing tasks that are "Very Hard" DC 20 with no problems. If you are just proficient you will still fail at a DC 20 10% of the time (still pretty consistent) with +5 in the stat.

Your post shows you didn't even bother to consider the number in context. You just saw a big number and got triggered. The point of this thread is to brainstorm ideas to separate highly skilled characters from peasants. For a highly skilled character to consistently do tasks that would be nearly impossible for a commoner you need to increase the max they can roll in this system.

>>52847162
I dunno who that poster is you're greentexting, but it's not me.

>>52847016
>>52847058
Never said 4e was shit. I do prefer 5e though. I'd consider 4e for a Diablo campaign, with it's focus on minion combat.

>>52847386
Yeah, I don't get the hate it gets, it was an honest suggestion. When you "make" your system, you are way more likely to like it.

>>52847432
Yeah, it looks pretty good. Itll be my first GURPS game though. Might pick up the "action" books to go with it for said Stargate campaign. I hear it'll really cut down on the workload for prep work.

But for simple to GM fantasy gaming I'd rather run 5e, and add in houserules for the bits that I and my group are not such a fan of, like the skill chances.

Plus, they have a preference for Pathfinder over 5e or 4e, and I fucking hate GMing pathfinder. And one of the reasons why, is they also don't like how in 5e everyone feels so incompetent (and I get it, I didn't like that part when I was a player either, hence this thread).

But they enjoy Shadowrun and enjoy when I run Buffy/Angel Unisystem, so they don't need supers-tier power, just action movie hero levels.

Hence working on putting together a patch-fix that will let me grab 5e and run out of the abyss for them, and 'fix' their biggest issue with the system.

If that goes well, maybe we'll start running 5e instead of Pathfinder more often and I'll actually get to play it.

>>52847420
I'm baffled why you think a highly skilled PC should have scores that astronomically outclasses others and why they should be ridiculous as you put it within the context of 5e.


This shows you fundamentally fail to understand 5e as a system.

If you wanted any of that, just go back to playing autistimal Mathsfinder.

>>52847554
I'm baffled why you think they shouldn't astronomically outclass a scrub off of the streets.

>>52847537
This may sound dumb, but if you are the DM, just don't ask for rolls for things they shouldn't fail.

Also, I'd recommend using passive checks for things bellow a threshold.

>>52847621
Because that isn't the premise of 5e, again you have a failure to understand the fundamentals of 5e.

You realize pfg is some doors down, don't you? That place seems well suited to your powergaming autistic tendencies.

>>52847537
But then again, if GURPS Stargate goes over well, and I like GMing it as much as I like GMing 5e, I may just start running 5e adventures for them with the dungeon fantasy boxed set that's supposed to be coming out soon.

>>52847624
That road (with my group at least) results in the expectation that I basically never ask for rolls. The complaint was largely a combination of them complaining about how often they fail when they're "good" at stuff, and how often the PCs who aren't good at it succeed. (IE swinginess). When the two happen together, and the wizard keeps failing "easy" Arcana checks the barbarian succeeds at (for instance), that's what really bugged them. And when I was a player, I felt the same way.

>>52847643
Please enlighten us all about the fundementals of 5e that make this such a terrible idea. Willing to bet you will say something about bounded accuracy without understanding what bounded accuracy actually means for the game.

>>52847696
I dunno. I'll run some a playtest session with the +5 thing. That's the high end of what proficiency is worth, and it may be enough to satisfy the issue.

>>52847696
Hm...
I'd say only one person can do it, or just let the wizard try again- The scroll isn't going to explode if you can't identify it in 6 seconds.

>>52847716
Do you understand what bounded accuracy actually is or are you content just to screech?

>>52846922
You should still have room to walk normally, maybe with one of your shoulders slightly brushing the wall.

Agreed. It would be super easy for me as a 5'4" manlet.

>>52847886
>>52848149
Not for me, at 6'1 I measured my shoulders and I'd have to walk at a weird angle and raise an arm.

>>52848188
I'd have to walk with one shoulder forward, but it wouldn't be too hard.

>>52848188
Scratch that. Measured up against the wall. It would be stupid easy. I have lots of room on the wall side still.

>>52848149
I'm so sorry.

>>52848188
Yeah, I'm the same height as you, but muscular due to gyming most days.

I just realised we are basically strapping mouses to ur wrists.
Fug.
>>52848294
How did it go?
I'm a skeleton from the waist up so I imagine it was uncomfortable.

>>52828565
Are you a player or a DM? As a player, you just gotta deal with it. As a dm, well, what I do is I don't have checks that are DC 10. If it's something that would have a DC that low I just let them do it. I don't have any checks that are below 15. In fact, most checks are 15 because at the level my players are at and how I want them to interact with the world and the game (meaning, I want them to roll dice because they like it, but I also want them to do some things without a chance of failure) a DC of 15 is about appropriate and allows for what so far has been an acceptable level of success and failure.

If that's too loose for you (which if you don't want to play 5e loose, this next point is very relevant for you) then you'll want to play another system. Cypher/numenera is pretty good with checks, difficulties (the steps are in sets of 3 rather than 5) and the player characters can just try harder if they really don't want to fail.

>>52846536

d20 can emulate 3d6. The draw on 3d6 is that you have big gains around the average numbers to give skilled users a substantial advantage, and then diminishing returns to leave some rng in there.

d20 can do that just as well. Put up a large initial bonus to differentiate the trained from the not, and then small gains afterwards to prevent pathfinder math.

>>52829446
Instead of having huge pools of modifiers that go up and down based on the situation, you have much smaller modifiers that are static. Swinginess based on situational effects are represented by advantage and disadvantage (rolling 2d20 and taking the higher or lower roll respectively) and AC, the thing that determines how often you'll get hit, doesn't change much throughout the career of a character and how dangerous enemies are is instead represented by the percentage of your health an enemy might take off, which gets smaller quickly as you level up instead of enemies always missing you as you get better. The ends results are the same- with high numbers you hit that gerblin super hard and he doesn't hit you as often, with low numbers you'll kill him with the same rate of improvement and he'll hit you but do comparatively less damage.

>>52834489
I actually like this. Might implement it for a few sessions and see what happens.

>>52848721
You have retards in this thread who need to have all DCs and what it means for that DC to be explicitly spelt out, otherwise it's uncharted territory for them and they can't deviate from what's written. In other words, their blatant and severe autism is hindering them.

>>52848801
You have retards in this thread who want to bring back the horrendously autistic modifier pool.

>>52848294
Eh. I'm a scruffy manlet, and I've got enough confidence that I do just fine. I can't use my physical size in life, so Ido other things instead. I have nothing but disdain for people my size who think that's an excuse to be a pathetic submissive little twat. If I like them at all tend to punch them and push them around until they learn to man up. So far, I've made two man-legs man up.

>>52849196
Manlets*

>>52828565
Don't have people roll for easy checks if they're skilled characters.
So you may roll to balance across the narrow walkway at level one, buy by level 5 you would only need to roll if the walkway was as thin as a regular rope, or if you were in a hurry / otherwise distracted (being drunk).

>>52834489
>I've applied a generic -4 across the board on things a character is untrained in.

So in other words a character who's untrained shouldn't even bother trying to make the checks. Sure, that sounds like a whole lotta fun, just sitting out of a session for an hour while the other party members get to do fun stuff.

>>52848721
Both. I wanna run and play 5e with my group. We've got a dynamic where we get together for 3 days straight, once a month, and play 4 campaigns in different systems, of which I typically run one.

>>52849235
It's not an issue of level, it's an issue of specialization and characters being way less competent than they think they should be, given their specialization.
>>52847537
>>52847696

File: FantasyCraft___Astrolabe_by_Inkthinker.jpg (243KB, 650x850px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 650x850px

>>52828565

Fantasycraft kinda deals with this by giving just about every class two skills that they basically only fail on an error; the ability says that if you fail a skill check with a DC less than 20+your class level, you still succeed unless you roll a nat 1. For an Assassin it's Blend and Resolve, for a Scout it's Survival and Tactics, etc.

>>52849248
Well there you go. When it's your turn to run, all you gotta do is keep in mind what actions would possibly have a state of failure, and whether the failure is even worth considering. Look at what your player's characters are capable of, and adjust things based on that. Or just ask for rolls and decide on the fly based on what they rolled if you think it's good enough. Only thing with that method, is keep the DC you decide on after the first character rolls consistent if multiple characters attempt the same activity.

Or, conversely, set a concrete DC before anybody attempts and let the attempts at the activity happen as expected. The factor that decides which approach to take is gonna be whatever is the most fun for your party. They might want to roll everything, and everything they attempt to be exceedingly difficult. Or they might like the possibility of falling on their ass and taking 2 bludg trying to climb a staircase. Or they might not want to bother rolling to make a campfire when their character is supposed to be an outdoorsman and has made a campfire literally every day of their life. The most important thing is look at what your party wants and give it to them. Note, sometimes what your party wants is for their DM to fuck their ass hard.

>>52829124
>but if it is something your characters should be able to do, then there should be a routine check allowed.

You're missing the forest for the trees.

In those cases, the DM shouldn't call for a test at all: the character simply succeeds.

>>52849371
But what one character should be able to autosucceed on is not necessarily something another character should be able to autosucceed on.

>>52849563
The rules will never be able to account for everything. Players have in the past exceeded expectations in all directions, making it impossible to plan for everything. The DM needs to learn to judge the situation beyond the rulebook and their DM Screen charts and lists to run a proper game.

Ergo, if Meat McMuscles has a 18 Str, he doesn't roll to break down the wooden dungeon door with his foot out of combat. He just does it. Bookworm VonSpellstein on the other hand, with his 8 Str, will indeed have to roll in hopes of being lucky, or find a different way to do it more up his alley, such as leaving it to Meat. The inverse is true if Meat wants to disable a magical portal with his 8 Int. He either lets Bookworm shine, or finds something he can do to make it stop that doesn't involve knowing how it works.

The DM is more than just the guy controlling the monsters. They are also the one to adjudicate issues like these. A DM needs to learn to do this if they're going to run a game properly, no matter what the rules say or how fleshed out they are. It's inevitable.

>>52844952
If you (hypothetically) wanted to standardize/simplify this rule, it averages out to "you autosucceed on checks up to bonus +5, ignoring expertise, excluding contests, saving throws, and attack rolls".

>dm doesn't call for a roll in a situation where your trained pc wouldn't realistically have a chance at failure and saves rolls with DC checks for either stressful situations or unusual tasks that require success on the first try and you can't just focus on trying until you get it right.
Wow that was hard

>>52850139
The problem is less solvable when multiple PCs attempt something, some of them who wouldn't realistically have a chance at failure, and others who would be unlikely to succeed.

Which was clear by the end of the second post.

>>52850270
Only the autists have been having issues with the skill system, others have all suggested solutions and have been suggesting solutions which you guys don't seem to want to hear. No one else seems to be having the same issues as you autists.
Have you tried playing systems other than 5e.

>>52850139
>>52849918
This evidently isn't going to please the autists in the least.

>>52828565
The game allows you to use Take 10 whenever the DM feels like it.

That's all you need.

>>52850539
I still don't understand what the problem with taking 10 was. If you're not in immediate danger or distracted by something other than the task at hand, you can just choose to pretend you rolled a 10, and see if that succeeds. If it does, then congratulations, the task was easy for you. If it fails, then it wasn't. It lets people do things that are easy for them under most conditions, but in high stress situations like combat, there's a potential for failing.

I wonder why it got taken out?

>>52850616
Dunno really, it was a bad decision on part of Wizards, you're right. Its absence means autists are going to continue to have problems with the skill system, where it isn't even that big of an issue.

>>52850578
>>52850616
This is a fucking solution right here.

But the autists will screech this isn't actually part of the rules system, they must of course follow all the rules to the letter, any deviation from the ruleset is bad.

>>52850679
I mean, I actually like 3.pf, even knowing it's flaws and having played other systems. There's some pretty interesting developer commentary posted on the paizo boards regarding how take 10 is intended to work, and it's pretty much to enable both regular humans acting like regular humans, and to enable heroic people to do heroic things regularly.

Here's some links that are relevant, if you wanna take a gander:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nasd&page=3?Taking-10#112

File: SKR grows up.png (183KB, 1176x1496px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1176x1496px

>>52850702
Just posting a few more that are relevant to this thread:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ozfy&page=4?Armor-Equipment-and-Encumbrance-How-do-You-Play#180
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ozfy&page=4?Armor-Equipment-and-Encumbrance-How-do-You-Play#193
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2maxw?If-you-are-NOT-in-combat-can-you-still-take-10#18

It was a pretty good rule desu

>>52850702
Thanks bro, will check them out.

>>52850539
Yeah. A handful of solutions have been proposed. And shouted down by anyone screeching and calling the people who think there *is* a problem with the default math design, autists.

Personally I like the proficiency=+5 suggestion.

>>52850578
>>52850616
They replaced it by the overcomplicatedly phrased ~5+bonus autosuccess rule.

>>52850679
Why would people who are discussing houserules to fix something they dislike about a game object to houserules? Are you retarded?

The problem is that adding "take 10" back in, instead of the current "take 5", doesn't fix the problem being mentioned. You still have experts failing stuff that they arguably shouldn't have to roll for, while chump amateurs succeed, because the math is so swingy.

>>52850869
Your continued screeching and misunderstanding and thus mishandling of the system does mean you are autistic and the "solution" you wanted to propose was extraneous and irrelevant.

I'm not sure why houseruling D&D 5e is considered bad and evil. OP started proposing his own solution, and then got called an autist for it
meanwhile, in any other system people would just discuss these things with no problems

Rather than calling OP an autist why not explain why changing the math would be bad?
So far I haven't seen a good argument for changing it other than "any dm won't have problems with it because he'll already be houseruling it to not even require checks" which is not a good reason to try to shut down the discussion.

>>52849918
>The DM is more than just the guy controlling the monsters. They are also the one to adjudicate issues like these.
So what's wrong with a DM wanting to discuss proposed rules changes to adjudicate these issues?

>>52850911
>extraneous and irrelevant.
so rather than saying why it is irrelevant you're just gonna screech
>I don't like it get it off my board stop talking about it reeeee

>>52850917
>>52850903
Their houserules are objectively shit.
Have you considered the idea that experts don't require rolling while chumps do and the DCs each must hit are titled differently?

>>52850930
Whatever helps you sleep better at night, autistic screecher.

>>52850869
>>52850903
>>52850917
Bringing in baggage and attempting to use that to change the assumptions of the system is the best idea yet.

>>52850949
>are objectively shit.
Why are they objectively shit?

> experts don't require rolling
so again, your argument is "just use the houserule that experts don't require rolling". That's fine, but it's not objectively better than increasing the bonuses. This entire thread you failed to explain why having characters be more competent in skills is "objectively bad"

If you have no argument, and don't want to explain why they are bad, why even post?

>>52850930
The screeching was really began by you autists. But good luck including more bloat into the system.

>>52850978
>Bringing in baggage and attempting to use that to change the assumptions of the system is the best idea yet.
just saying "Oh you silly autists, don't you realize how stupid you're being" without actually giving a real reason why the autists are wrong doesn't really do anything

>>52850989
making proficiency give a bigger bonus hardly sounds like "bloat". It's just changing the math. Same with changing how auto-success work.

>>52850903
But adding increasing the take 5 to a take 10 would certainly make characters feel more competent across the board.

>>52850911
Name-calling and nonsensically telling people "you people just don't understand what makes this fun!" doesn't make you right, it just makes you an asshole.

And a solution to a problem that actually comes up and has been called out more than once in the thread is not extraneous and irrelevant.

Great. You enjoy a game with wizards routinely failing dc15 checks relevant to their specialties, while the barbarian who has a +0 succeeds at them, and vice versa. You're fine with super swingy odds, and experts being regularly shown up by amateurs. Not everyone enjoys that kind of gameplay, intended or no.

That does not mean we don't fucking understand, you snot nosed little cunt, it means we disagree with this decision being a good idea, and having seen it in play, found it made the game less fun, rather than more fun.

"Allow auto successes for everyone for easy tasks"
"Take 10"
And "Take 5"

Don't address the fucking problem. You're clearly the one who doesn't fucking understand.

It's not about 1 character and 1 task. It's about multiple characters, and how they compare with eachother in the game, over multiple tasks.

I mean, christ. Are you literally retarded? It feels like I'm talking to a 4 year old screeching "nuh-uh, doody head! I know you are but what am I!" over and over, while I try to talk to them like an adult.

>>52850980
Why do you need to have a mechanical outcome and mechanical avenue for something the expert should, by assumption, be reliably be able to do?

What is the point of the bonuses in a more narratively focused game where rolling isn't actually the point of the system?

Why not play PF if you want maths simulator 2017.

>>52851033
>Why do you need to have a mechanical outcome and mechanical avenue for something the expert should, by assumption, be reliably be able to do?

Because there are situations where there is a chance of failure, and rolling is required but it shouldn't be as high as the system innately makes it. Which is the point of increasing the base prof bonus.

There is room for more granularity between "auto-succeed" and "50% chance to fail"

>>52851003
>>52851031
We sure have badasses over here.
If you want to criticize the reasons for calling you fucking mentally deficient shitstained autists with fucking good reason, go further up the thread and actually fucking comprehend the words you are reading and stop being goddamn illiterate.

If you have that much of a problem with being autistic and with the system, don't fucking play, there's no one forcing your head in the toilet again and setting it to continually flush.

>>52851095
>don't fucking play
or we can adjust it to our tastes and ignore your own retarded screeching?
Seriously, what is wrong with houseruling D&D 5e? What is wrong with discussing possible houserules in /tg/?

No other system players behave like this. People have no problem discussing possible house rules, or explaining why they are a bad idea. Just 5e players.

This thread just makes me think of the true AD&D fag from /osrg/. YOU MUST ONLY PLAY THE SYSTEM AS THE CREATORS INTENDED, OTHERWISE YOU ARE NOT PLAYING TRUE D&D5E(tm)

>>52851135
The ones going full autistic screecher are you fucks, then you got severely butthurt. Do you have any other problems with the system or is it all peachy, you sniveling dribbling weasel?

>>52851164
lol whatever m8
you get mad at people houseruling their own games in other threads too?

>>52850978
>Baggage
You're projecting pretty hard there.
>"If they dislike something they must actually want to play 3.x instead!" "I know, I'll tell them to go back to Pathfinder and call them austists for daring to disagree with me. That will show them how smart I am!"

>Change the assumptions of the system.
Well, if an assumptions of the system is what is causing your issues, why the fuck not?

Do you have any actual points to make?

Or are you just going to call me names and whine about how "I just don't understand" and bring up your irrelevant dislike of some random other game again?

You think it will end the world if I want to change something about the games core math? Then explain your rationale like an intelligent adult.

We understand the design. We have played it. We disagree with you that it helps make the game fun. This one thing you like about the game is the obvious cause for the circumstances in the game we find unfun.

So please, if you're capable, tell us why changing this math is a disaster, rather than deflecting and name calling.

What exactly will fall apart, if the number gaps between experts and schlubs are comparable at level 1 to what they normally are at level 20?

Hypothetically
Proficiency = +6, flat.
Expertise = +6 more.
What catastrophe happens? Why is this so terrible? Why is it okay at level 17 but not at level 1?

>one group starts screeching like autists
>the other group starts screeching like autists too thinking that will solve the problem

you're all autists

>>52851175
>>52851180
>getting autistically butthurt
>lol, no I was only pretending to be retarded

I wasn't criticizing you wanting to homebrew, that's the point of 5e, you modify the game to how it suits you. But your work reeks of all the problems with homebrewing 5e, not actually understanding the underlying assumptions and inserting power gaming shit.

Sure you understand the design, I believe that when you're trying to change the game to be from its assumptions.

>>52851164
OP here.

Revisionist history, at its finest.

I started a thread to discuss houserules for the thing my group found unfun in 5e.

A bunch of psychos come in and tell me "I don't understand", and call me an autist for daring to consider houseruling 5e, while flinging irrelevant comments about "Pathfinder being the game I want to play", for daring to question the wisdom of their favorite game.

They continue to screech at us and call us names any time we actually try to discuss houserules. We spell out what we find unfun about BA, and in response we get deflections and name-calling, (and lots of accusations of autistic screeching every time someone tries to explain why they want to make a houserule) rather than rational responses.

>>52851147
Right. Or get out. And while you're at it lets call you an autist for daring to consider houserules! But let's mention some irrelevant houserules that don't address the thing you're making houserules for as though we offered the only solution to your problem just to show it's only okay if the houserules are the ones we use.

>>52851180
>>52851230
Protip, this isn't your fucking blog no matter how much your tears hurt, no one actually cares.
You did shit design without understanding the fundamental mechanics, but sure if you want to continue posting your brew. Good for you.

>>52851225
>Powergaming.
>If you want to change a core mechanic you must not understand how it works.

So, you've got nothing, just more name-calling?

If you've got anything that will show how the game will collapse with that houserule, math, an example scenario, whatever, let's hear it. But I ran the numbers, and I gotta tell you, unless 5es math (without magic enhancement bonuses) is already broken at level 17 - it's no more broken than that.

>>52851260
So, no actual criticisms or rational points to anyone's posts then?

Just deflections, dismissing anyone who disagrees with you, name calling, and straw men?

>>52851230
Your assumptions were legitimately wrong, don't mistake screeching with a legitimate critique, your snotnosing aside.

>>52851303
Be specific.
What assumption was wrong?
What specifically have we all failed to understand while playing the game that is apparently so obvious to you?
Give us details. Give us the math, ideally, so we can finally see that you know what you're talking about, since we are after all, discussing changing the math of the game.

Because we've been running the numbers, and have suggested several houserules, and have explained what were trying to change.

But remember
"You don't understand"
And
"You're just an autist if you care what the rules do"
And
"Blah blah baggage Pathfinder blah"
Are not legitimate points, they're deflections.

>>52851303
>Your assumptions were legitimately wrong
>doesn't elaborate

That sure is going to convince people.

>but I don't want to waste effort on obvious autists
then why even be in the thread?
If no one responded OP would just leave.

>>52851225
>doesn't want to explain
>doesn't want to engage in discussion of other houserules
>is not even posting some random images or whatever to try to derail the thread

All you've done is call OP autist. Fine. he's an autist. I concur, so does everyone else.
What now?

>>52851359
I dunno anon. I was convinced. I guess houserules are bad. I'll be sure to only ever run my games 100% out of the book, and the only alternate mechanics I will use are the ones the publisher released, from now on. Because if someone doesn't like how a game mechanic made by the current WOTC team works, they must just not understand it. 100%.

How didn't I see it before?

>>52851273
>>52851294
>>52851355
>>52851359
>>52851383
Let's try the jack of all trades, the bard, let's say 5th, over the cusp of expertise.

He, because we're also apparently sexist, is lithe and has Athletics of +8 because we rolled a Dex 14 with the ASI into Dex and into something else. Or he could take Acrobat.

On other hand, the commoner who is useless has no Athletics score at all and a Dex of 10

What's the problem here?

>>52851422
That you need to be a bard or rogue at level 5+ to be meaningfully "trained" at any skill before late in the campaign.

>>52851422
This guy isn't even the most dextruous, a point buy with Dex 15, +2 ASI into it and elf means a Dex 19 and +10 Athletics. Is this an expert, who knows.

>>52851422
that requires proficiency and an extra in order to be unlikely to fail at an "easy" DC 10 task. At a DC 15 task you're still 30% likely to fail, while the commoner has a 70% chance to succeed at a "medium" task

the chances sound fine for the commoner, but for investing that much into athletics that you're still only 40% better than a untrained commoner at a medium difficulty task is a little low

Adding a bonus to the proficiency value would work better.

>>52851460
The op assumes a high failure rate in skills for skilled characters with solid training, ie the example above, compared to useless characters, which I am assuming the commoner fits the bill.

That has been proven wrong.

>>52851472
>At a DC 15 task you're still 30% likely to fail, while the commoner has a 70% chance to succeed at a "medium" task

I mean the commoner has a 70% chance to fail at a medium task

typo

>>52851472
But it proves the OP assumption ineffectual and wrong.
The expertise proficiency is inherent in the bard and fits the criteria of a skilled character with solid training.

30% to 70%, this is with the commoner rolling stupidly well, is a great variance in 5e compared to other systems because of how DCs are set in the system.
This is also not taking into account dis/advantage.

>>52851488
>Assumes a high failure rate for competent characters.
They're published skill DCs from adventures. I guess the "assumption" that has been proven wrong is that the GM isn't houseruling the DCs in adventures to something else?

The specific task difficulty is also tangential to the main core of the complaints, that the small gap between chumps and trained characters (without expertise) leads to goofy scenarios where the trained character fails at tasks the chump succeeds at, and that it happens more often than is considered desirable.

>>52851524
I concur that the commoner chances are fine, but I disagree that the bards chances are fine. Advantage is something I considered.
I'd say a +2 increase to proficiency would make for a better differentiation between your average person proficient with the skill, the expert, and the non-trained.

>>52851472
You can't disingenuously claim it has extenuating circumstances when it's how normal character progression works.

>>52851556
>You can't disingenuously claim it has extenuating circumstances

I'm not sure what you mean by that

>>52851548
If you want to be picky and claim expertise wasn't actually the issue, you should've said so instead of moving goalposts.
My example in a vaccum is taking the OP's assumption of a 5th level character.

>>52851555
You realize advantage can give a +5 advantage?

>>52851524
So only bards and rogues can be skilled, then?

Proficiency with a skill means you're just an amateur?

So druids are amateurs at nature, unless they dip rogue?

I thought "expertise" was supposed to make you over the top awesome at something, not be a requirement for competence. Was that also an incorrect assumption?

>>52851565
That the example doesn't fulfil criteria because it is reliant on mechanics that give it an unnecessary edge. This is effectively what you are claiming.

>>52851585
I was giving one example where it showed the op to have false assumptions. If you want to actually contribute by all means provide an example.

If you want to put words in my mouth, that's your problem.

>>52851581
>>52851590
Sorry, I mean "advantage is something I considered, but I don't think it should be part of the base math. because the commoner would then have to be considered to have advantage."

I'm fine with mathing it out but I'm a fraind I'm not sure how advantage changes the percentages, for both parties.

>>52851581
Expertise is not the issue. That's why none of the complaints about characters not being skilled include expertise. The problem is you can't be *competent* without expertise. It's that proficiency is woefully underwhelming until late game. At low levels, proficiency (without expertise) barely matters.

>>52851615
The massive swinginess is from advantage.

>>52851621
Then the op and you shouldn't disingenuously claim a skilled character does include one with expertise.

Because you guys actually are autistic, let's go with the Paladin, this Paladin bought a 15 but this time in Cha, with fallen aasimar because the fucker isn't nice, this means a Cha of 19 because this bastard took Menancing as well.

The paladin doesn't have expertise, I made sure of that, but does get a +10 on Intimidate compared to the commoner's +0.

>>52851694
Sorry Cha 18 and +10 Intimidate.

>>52851694
>>52851705
>Cha of 18
>fuckers is one of the most fucking personable people ever
>still has a 1 in 4 chance of failing to intimidate a "medium" difficulty target (needs a 5 or more on a d20)

The problem is that proficiency bonus is too low.

>>52851694
>>52851705
Wait, Cha 17 and Intimidate +9, whew we finally got it right.

>>52851715
It's too low if you keep assuming another game system's presumptions in mind.
Also he's only 5th level.

>>52851614
The OP is pretty clearly talking about the math for the 90% of classes that don't have expertise, being too low.

Lv 5 character that's not a weird outlier: +3 stat(maybe +4), +3 proficiency.
Another level 5 PC attempting the same task: +2 (say it's a secondary stat), no proficiency.

Both attempt the same dc15 task.

Mr. Skilled fails it 45% of the time.
Amateur hour fails it 70% of the time.

Professional training only makes you 25% better than an untrained amateur with a modicum of talent.

45% x 30% = 13.5% of the time, Mr. Skilled flubs it *while* Amateur Hour shoves it in his face.

If proficiency is a flat +6 (as mentioned above, because that's where proficiency caps out at L17)

Mr. Skilled fails 30% of the time.
Amateur Hour still fails 70% of the time.
Insult to injury happens 30% x 30% = 0.9% of the time. Now it's a weird fluke instead of a common occurrence.

>>52851715
Is a 1 in 4 chance in failing and needing a 5 or more really a quibble of the system?

>>52851724
>It's too low if you keep assuming another game system's presumptions in mind.

I am doing nothing but looking at math. Is the games presumptions is that everybody is gonna have advantage?
Cause that's not how many games I've been part of and I've seen run online have been doing.

>>52851736
Apparently wanting characters with "proficiency" to actually be good at stuff is based on wishing you were playing another game.

>>52851730
Your mistake was thinking one is skilled and the other is amateur hour with those proficiencies, especially since both are heroes. You're better off making the comparison with the commoner, who is the actual amateur. He is talking about useless vs expert.

Clearly the skilled in this case should be the one with expertise.

>>52851731
it is when you consider this is a guy trained in the skill, with very high charisma.
Being merely trained should give you a 50% chance to succed at would be caled a medium difficulty test.

There are to ways to solve this: Easier, decrease DCs in general. But that makes regular non-trained people too competent. Increase prof bonus. Simple, not too much trouble, and doesn't fuck with the system that much.

I mean you can also just make auto-success for some skills, but my personal issue with the system is different than OP. It's with the medium difficulty tests, not the easy ones.

>>52851736
I too am looking only at the maths and it's nothing too low, what does a PF char get at 5th level?
I haven't said anything about everyone having presumed advantage, that's all you.

>>52851744
Who's being the autistic retard?