Everyone circlejerks over bounded accuracy in 5e

>where a magic item was a treasured and valuable item
This never happened if your DM bothered to use the treasure tables. You would be swimming in +1 swords.

I have a solution for you and your players. Take some cement pills and harden the fuck up.

Let the dice fall where they may and live with the consequences. If your players need to be hand held through everything, I guess it's best that you stick with D&D.

Look guy, I appreciate that some people want their games to be something akin to Darkest Dungeon or Souls, where it's intended to be harsh but fair in its own destiny-oriented way. Everyone knows exactly how everyone did, and they all get to appreciate the numbers in their raw mathematical purity.

But frankly speaking, I like to handle all the math myself. I notice as a GM that players do better in terms of getting in character and really telling a story together when they can just say "I want to do X or Y," and just let me handle the math and tell them what needs to be rolled.

Percentile systems effectively make every result of every roll--even the ones that, in the long run, aren't important--very public to the table and the center of attention every time; the narrative has a tendency to take a backseat when everyone's focusing on the numbers.

So yeah, I'm just going to handle the dice. Hell, if my players wanted to play a percentile game I'd say go for it, but with the caveat that I would personally handle all the rolling behind the screen for this very reason. Let them focus on getting into character and getting into the narrative; it's my job to handle the math and mechanical minutae.

Do you enjoy playing with children, Mr. Spacey?

...

>trying to justify fudging dice
Just play freeform at this point.

I'm gonna have my cake and eat it too, mate.

My group tends to prefer rules-lite stuff, so it's not like I'm trying to force my views on people playing GURPS or something.

Actually, if anyone has a good suggestion for dice-free stuff that uses resources instead, I'm genuinely curious to give that a shot.

user, you really ought to figure out how to do things in different ways for different games.
If you think something is easy or they ought to succeed, either don't have them roll, or give them a +20 and up.
Implying this isn't a bait post anyway

I do actually do this.

Contrary to what my earlier posts suggest, I don't fudge everything done. But I've been on the receiving end of a great scene that had a lot of good build-up and character-driven opportunity be worth nothing because a dice roll at the end wasn't quite enough. That really takes the wind of of some people's sails, you know?

I don't completely ignore the dice. If my players make a truly God-awful roll, I find a way to weave it in to what's going on, and I'm lucky enough to have players that know how to roll with the punches. But if something JUST fails, then I'm not above giving them their success at a cost.

The only thing I'm complaining about when it comes to percentile systems is that the choice to let the failure lie or give them success at a cost (either minor or substantial) doesn't really become my own anymore; as a GM I'd rather focus on that stuff so my players can focus on the story and in reacting to the world reacting to them.

Am I not making my point clear enough, or does this thread just have a majority of dice purists?

You're a DM after my own heart.

Appreciate the vote of confidence.

I haven't had any players complain, at least. So I assume they're fine with it. I trust these guys to point out plot holes in my settings that need patching, so I'd assume they'd complain if they thought I wasn't being fair about the dice.

Over your entire career from 1 to 20, your bonus to a roll might go from +5 to +11, meaning that at level 20 you'll still lose to an untrained peasant a good chunk of the time. This is supposed to be a good thing, because ???

>If you think something is easy or they ought to succeed, either don't have them roll, or give them a +20 and up.
This, this, this. If failure is going to mess up your story, or the build-up is too important to have it affected by a dice roll, just don't call for a roll. You're the DM, you're the one who arbitrates the action and narrative, if you want someone to succeed at an action because you think they deserve it, then they should. The dice are only there to determine actions that should have a chance of failure.

Because you don't know how the game actually works, so you strawman it.

If the players failing a roll means your story can't happen you're too on-rails. Learn how to improvise instead of making them play your novel.

Just like people bitching about 4e

I'm in full agreement with this as well, but I see far too many GMs calling for rolls for the most insignificant things and it makes the player characters look like they're all trainees in clown college.

See . Even at the important moments I'm not against making them roll with the punches if a roll was absolute garbage, but rolls that are close just cost them something to achieve. If the story has led to a point where it's either pass or fail, then the number they roll against isn't really pass/fail, it's more "what will it cost you to get this done?" with the option for true failure always possible on a truly, TRULY garbage roll.

By the time they get to that point in a story, PC modifiers tend to guarantee an honest-to-God TRUE FAILURE isn't likely, but a really bad roll can still cost them everything to achieve their goals.

The idea of bonded accuracy is to raise the floor and lower the ceiling compared to other systems like Pathfinder of 3.5. Lower numbers in general with the possibility that a peasant can always hit a champion; the difference is made in how tough that champion is and how likely they are to one-shot that peasant.

The numbers are all a lot closer than the past few D&D editions. It actually goes pretty smoothly, all things considered.

All the complaints about 4e were absolutely correct, stay butthurt 4rry.

So's all the complaints about bounded accuracy. Stay mad!

As much as I love d% systems just for simplicity, rolling under really sucks for things like opposed tests.

Also, d% has a hard cap, while bounded accuracy has a soft cap, which is a little more versatile.

>tfw started with 4e
>moved to 5e and love how the numbers are typically much smaller

>play 4e as my introduction into table top roleplaying
>instantly hate it and feel my child like wonder for roleplaying get crushed under endless combat rules.

You are literally cancer.

That is half the editions of D&D you speak of.

Better turn to page 546 of your rulebook and roll on the butthurt table to figure out how butthurt you are over needing rules for noncombat shenangians

So you haven’t even talked to your players about this? You just arbitrarily decided to cheat?

That person said nothing about needing rules for noncombat shenanigans.

Are you implying that that's not exactly how the game works?

You literally complained about there being too many combat rules.
>nuh uh not me
lmao

Rather the opposite. Any time I do a roll where it's less pass/fail and more "what will it cost you?" I make it really clear to them.

And if they only just fail something and gain it at a cost I make sure they understand that they are actively gaining success by a hair's breadth, and it may well cost them something.

>at level 20 you'll still lose to an untrained peasant a good chunk of the time.

>lose to an untrained peasant

Just because Joe Farmer might be able to beat my AC, doesn't mean his 1d6+1 damage club is going to do fuck shit against my 200 hp and resistance to bludgeoning.

unless your using one of those retarded crit/fail tables where one of the results on a crit fail is you and adjacent target die, no save.

Yeah but crit fumble rules are a 100% legitimate reason to walk away from a gaming table.

It also means your basic bitch skellingtons or militiamen still have a high chance to hit a high level PC, or a Balor or something. That's why necromancers and other minion spam is so OP in 5th, and why Animate Object is far more effective on a bunch of pebbles than on a giant statue.

You mean, "a peasant will never beat your lvl 20 superhero, but at least he CAN hit you, and CAN do some damage, even if negligible, but at least it all means that 50 peasants can defeat you, rather than you just striding through their ranks as an untouchable god without even trying"

'too many combat rules' doesn't mean 'not enough roleplay rules'.
I don't even know why you'd think that.

>If the players failing a roll means your story can't happen you're too on-rails
Not that user, but that's not the problem.
Imagine you're at the highest point of the story, where the heroes are about to confront the villain and yadda-yadda. You've studied the encounter to make sure it's challenging but not unfair. Either they win or they lose, they're gonna have their moment of glory.
And then all the dice manage to shit all over the PCs and fuck them up, basically making them die in two turns.
Nobody can feel satisfied about that outcome. It's not simply that they lost, they lost in the most unsatisfying and unfair possible way: due to bad luck only.
That's something I've seen happen, not with absolute TPKs, but players using all their resources in the most efficient way just to keep getting the worst luck in their rolls so they still get fucked over hard.

In combat, it means the peasant can still hit you (thanks to AC being limited too, unless you're specifically going for super-AC build). Yes, you do have much better HP and damage, but big enough horde of commoners (or basic monsters) may still be a threat, especially to squishier characters. That *is* a good thing, it means the dragon you fight at level 20 may have bunch of ogres as minions, and still get some benefit from them, unlike 3.5e where you'd need bunch of storm giants to be threatening to high level PCs (which breaks versimilitude and doesn't make sense from worldbuilding perspective) or 4e, where you *can* have ogres, but they have to be superspecial "Meathshield Oges" or some such crap, specifically designed as an opponent for level 20 characters, instead of being the same ogres you fought 15 levels ago... which, again, doesn't make any sense. It also means dragon can't just decide to go burn some village like retard, because enough peasants with crossbows are a threat, again, unlike previous editions, where the defense against something like that is "PCs or GTFO"

What people have problem with are skills. Level 1 barbarian may get lucky and get better Arcana check than level 20, Int 20 wizard. Yet those people often fail to consider that yes, that stuff sometimes happen, but a) untrained barbarian with 8 Int can't hit Hard (20) DC, while the wizard with the same roll can succeed on Almost Impossible (30) DC, b) barbarian's minimum check is 0, while wizard's is 12, c) just because the rules don't technically forbid him from rolling, the GM can tell him to go fuck himself, his "literally grew amongst wolves" illiterate savage don't know what the glowing runes on 1000 year old artifact mean. Rolling is for when success or failure is possible at all.

"I roll to see if the king gives his kingdom to my retarded kobold. Lol, natural 20, hail to the new king!" Nope, go fuck yourself, your GM's an idiot if he allows it.

If a mob of 50 peasants killed you at level 20 you're either a complete noob or playing a martial class with no AOE attacks.

strictly speaking from a D&D/Pathfinder perspective, if the barb doesn't have a rank in arcana then he can't do the check?

5e skills don't work that way. In 5e your skill check is the relevant stat modifier plus something called a "proficiency bonus," that every PC has (the number ranges from +2 at level one to +6 at level 20) if you are proficient in the skill in question.

In fact, most things in 5e that before would have been decided by BAB or skill ranks or whatever simply add the relevant stat + proficiency if your character is proficient in that thing.

Attacking with a sword? If your character is proficient with swords, the attack roll is 1d20 + STR + PROF + whatever other modifiers might be added by feats or whatever.

Really simplified everything.

>You just arbitrarily decided to cheat?
>implying the DM fudging rolls and changing DCs on the fly to keep the narrative flowing is "cheating"

You're either retarded or trolling.

How many times are we going to move the goal post?

There are no skill rank in 5e, you're either proficient (and add your proficiency bonus, that goes from +2 at level 1 to +6 at level 17) or not. There are the edge cases of expertise (which doubles your proficiency bonus for certain skill, obtainable through various means, but mostly thanks to being a rogue or bard) and bard's jack of all trades, which gives half your proficiency bonus to all skills you're not proficient with. The proficiency bonus influences pretty much everything: attack bonus, saves, skills, spell DC's.

You don't have to be proficient to attempt any check by RAW, proficiency or lack of it only affects the possible results of a roll. Again, the GM is free to rule that some checks may success automatically (wizard answering a basic question about magic) and that other can't succeed at all (convincing the high priest to worship you as his new god). Unlike PF/3.5, there are few set DCs, mostly it's up to GM to decide how hard some task is (5 is very easy, 10 is easy, 15 is moderate, 20 is hard, 25 is very hard and 30 is almost impossible).

You'd be surprised how fast can horde of peasants with bows bring down a wizard that isn't specifically prepared for them. Martial is in better position thanks to better AC and more HP, though while he can tank the peasants for a long time, he's killing only about 3-5 per turn, depending on class. That's why you should have both martials and casters.

Percent and percentile are not the same thing, user.

>white boy
calm down nig nog

I could care less about the numbers. I continue to play pathfinder becuase it lets me create interesting mechanical character concepts that do not work in other systems, like a character with 6 pok-I mean animal companions.

my animal companion brother, I did a eldritch guardian fighter with a wasp companion because of this comic

are you the op?

You're fudging dice. You literally can't be fair about the rolls.

That's not quite what I mean by "fair." I'm implying more that they just don't like my particular fashion of fudging. I'm consistent about it, so I consider that "fair."

sadly no, I just like janky character ideas that most other systems can't do cause of their simplicity

Runequest 6 (the best % system) has luck points for this purpose and the game is generous with them (refresh every session). When a player is out of luck for a session, they can be eviscerated in a single blow with an unlucky roll-- so they don't get into those situations at that point, or get the fuck out of them.

Step up to 13th Age.

>sadly
I dont think its sad that you are more likely to not be racist against whites user.

Dont know of any 13th age build that would get me 6 animal companions.

I have mixed feelings about meta-currency. But I've tried RQ6 and it's a bit too crunchy for my group. I enjoyed it, but my group as a whole didn't feel too strongly.

>the game is generous with them (refresh every session)
Not my game. Those luckpoints are not to be wasted.

>I'm not against making them roll with the punches if a roll was absolute garbage,
Why don't you just sit around a campfire and tell stories. You clearly don't like playing a game.

Found the failed author.

>I'm consistent about my railroading so it's fair.

Because we like playing games, user. Just because we have a preference for a more cinematic, easy-rolling style doesn't mean we're doing it wrong.

Hell, some games go out of their way to point out alternate rules for making their games more cinematic (Shadowrun having an "action movie mode," that says successes are 4+ instead of 5+).

How is it railroading? If I make it slightly easier for my players to get results they want, but at a potential cost if they're too close to failure, does that really count as a railroad? Most of the time I let them choose the penalty to go with their success; they're good roleplayers and I trust their judgement. We've had some great stuff come of it.

I get not liking the way I make it a bit easier for them. That's fair. But calling it "railroading," is literally wrong.

It's not cheating if the players are having fun :)

You can only have one animal companion in Pathfinder, you mong.

RuneQuest 6 has like 6 degrees of difficulty that can be applied to the target number. I don't even know what system you can even be talking about.

The thing about the degrees of difficulty is that I can tell them what the degree is or hint at it all I want, but at the end of the day for them to know whether or not they failed I still have to tell them something like "-30 to your skill," or "+20 this time," and they still know exactly what number they're reaching for.

If I set the DC in private then they know what they rolled and what number they ended up with, but aside from my description of how easy or difficult it is there's nothing else they know about what number they're aiming for.

If we go by the way RQ6 does it, your problem isn't much of a problem. Most difficulties come from circumstances that are fairly obvious, like wounds, lighting and the like. There is no "-20 Perception to spot the expertly concealed trap". A trap difficult to spot would have a high rating, making it more likely to beat whatever you roll, it would do nothing to your skill value.
Using core BRP (like CoC) is not much hairier. You roll against your skill, 1/2 your skill (if it's really hard) or double the skill (if its really easy). Misc. modifiers are again obvious.

You don't need to tell your players what the exact or debuff is sometimes. Just tell them "Hey, you're doing this in a smart way, so I'm giving you a bonus to this roll."

I also sometimes tell them they're getting bonuses of numbers that aren't multiples of 5. Helps keep them on their toes.