Another problem with this idea is that it makes the higher DCs nigh impossible to achieve for most characters. Advantage makes you more likely to succeed at lower DC tasks, but doesn't enable you to succeed at very high DC tasks since it doesn't increase your maximum potential result.
But the thing is... the point of Bounded Accuracy is that you don't need to have "higher DCs". And the point of Advantage is granting a character a virtual +4 bonus to his roll without increasing the highest number possible that character can reach.
The wider apart the Haves and Have-nots are in their check modifiers... the more difficult it is for the DM to create DCs that are possible to be hit by the Have-nots... while still remaining a challenge for the Haves. The DM is worried about setting DCs party-wide. Now sure... some players LOVE the idea that they can build a PC with a +20 in Perception (while everyone else is down around +5)... but how do you think that makes the DM feel? Any normal DC he throws out there so that the party as a whole has a chance to spot something is rendered completely meaningless by the Super Perceptor. And if the DM sets up challenging opportunities for Super Perceptor to feel like he actually *is* Super Perceptor... those DCs are so inflated that it's virtually impossible for the rest of the party to succeed on them (if by some chance Super Perceptor isn't in the game that night or the character has just gone elsewhere at the time.)
In BOTH systems... the 3E/4E style of really high mods, and the BA system... there are still DCs the DM can assign that are impossible for the lower mod PCs to hit and which give the trained person the slightest chance to succeed (so that there's always that "miraculous" roll possibility for highest drama). But what BA gives you is that you won't have the loss of drama all other times... which is what happens in 3E/4E when one PCs mod is so much higher than everyone else's, that any reasonable DC the DM puts out there is virtually an automatic success.
Last edited: