Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
That has nothing to do with bounded accuracy but 1 and 20 being criticals.
Pretty sure that's part of bounded accuracy.
No, the fighter ALWAYS has a chance of missing. You cannot excise a core part of the mechanics that purport to follow bounded accuracy and say 'well, surely they didn't mean this part, too.'The best archer in the world may have rolled an 18 for his dex, meaning (Ranger or Fighter in this case) he only needs his first ASI (LvL4) to always hit a commoner unless he failed critically.
As for the best Wizard, he will be impossible to resists for a commoner for the best Wizard in the World certainly gets something like the Robe. Given there is no critical for Saves the Commoner has NO chance to ever succeed.
As for the wizard, I'm totally right. The wizard needs help outside of his ability to achieve 100%. But you're splitting inconsequential hairs -- the wizard, at no tier, receives class abilities that obviate bounded accuracy. To even get the lowest levels of such, he must seek help outside of his class abilities.
I disagree, as those require cooperation between multiple game rule niches to get to just the lowest levels of floor, and they're gradual and hard earned. No other class receives benefits that obviate bounded accuracy anywhere near the same level. And, when those do, they obviate the lowest DCs, not the middle of the pack. The Wizard's DC and the archer's attack role never suddenly turn every number the bottom half of the d20 into a 10, for instance. Reliable talent does.As you see: There is plenty of precedence where bounded accuracy is worth nothing for it is completely ignored as being relevant for trash encounters.
Again, this isn't sufficient to make reliable talent bad. I roll with it just fine, even as I dislike the design elements it embodies. I can point out what I consider the very flawed design behind reliable talent and still say that it doesn't break the game. This is part of why I suggest an alternative path that achieves the same design goals while not making a sudden jump that tosses bounded accuracy for all of the rogue's proficient skills (which is sizeable). It's a disruptive design element because it radically shifts the necessary thought process behind adventure design and doesn't offer a significant benefit to the game that cannot be achieved through other means. I find design elements that run directly counter to core conceits to be bad, especially when mechanics already exist that suffice for the design goal, like offering advantage instead of an arbitrary floor. This is a holdover from previous editions I find unsuited to the core mechanics of 5e. It's further exacerbated by it's pairing with expertise, suddenly shifting DCs that were in questions (DC 20, for instance, has a 35% chance of failure at 10th level. At 11th, it shifts to 0%. A DC 23 has a 45% chance of failure at 10th. At 11th, it's 0%. No other class ability makes as big a shift, and those that are even remotely close don't do so for such a wide range of checks. Instead offering advantage still works, as it dramatically reduces failure chances for easy checks to near zero, but not to zero, and would change the failure chance for that DC 23 to ~20%, The chance to make a DC 30 check goes from 20% to ~32%. That's a benefit across the board while maintaining a small chance of failure and not just autosuccess for the vast majority of DCs encountered.