D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[S'mon]

Hi everyone.

One of my players is not liking bounded accuracy. He doesn't feel like his character is improving when his numbers only go up about once every other level. His issue is that his skill bonus of +5 at 1st level, up to maybe +11 at 20th level, doesn't make much that he can do at 20th level that he couldn't
do at 1st level.

My solution has generally been to make the base skill DC 10 not 15 - but require training for many checks. That way the 1st level guy with +4 succeeds 75% of the time, but the 17th level guy with +9
succeeds 100% of the time. So there is real advancement but baseline high competence.

I guess I like bounded accuracy, especially with Expertise as a class ability; I also like Classic D&D d20 roll under fixed attribute though, where the chance of success is constant across all levels.

 

[S'mon]

The wizard with the high intelligence can just say that they have read all sorts of theory on physics, and that they are good at figuring out how the tools work on the spot with their great intelligence. And so they are just as good as the character who was once a sailor on a ship a long time ago so understands the basics but doesn't have the raw potential to apply it in a special way.

I would probably make Navigation be trained-only, but if it is something anyone can do
then I have no problem with the INT 16 Wizard getting +3 on the check and the INT 10
sailor getting +2. If anything that underrates the real advantage of a 3 standard deviation
superiority in intelligence, and I would expect a professional ship's navigator on an oceangoing vessel to have more like INT 14.

 

[S'mon]

And as an engineer, let me tell you that being smart is rarely a substitute for actual training. Anyone who has significant training in navigation is going to be able to actually use the tools of the trade.

LOL. No - not unless you're talking about a modern GPS system. Your problem here is constrained sample - any trained professional engineer these days is likely to be IQ 115+; I doubt you're dealing with many IQ 100 engineers.

Your PC's +3 to navigation makes him an ok navigator in 5e terms, not brilliant. An INT 16 wizard is near-genius and it's not surprising he can equal you, if the GM says he knows enough to even make the check.

 

[Celtavian]

So there is no reasonable way a PC navigator can be skilled at navigation? Or more skilled the the team wizard? If my background is that I'm a 30-year old who has been navigating a boat for years (and that was my last PC's background...), it makes sense that a random wizard in the party will be better at it than I am at first level (actually they'd have been tied as I had a +1 Int just for this purpose and that was the highest int in the party)? The game seems to require that PCs be not very good at much of anything other than their class. I was planning on playing someone who was a solid (if not extraordinary) navigator and only recently (like a week ago) become a mildly competent (level 1) fighter. 5e doesn't really support that. I was going to take a level in rogue for expertise (not clear it would apply to navigator's tools, but that's another issue), but we weren't using multi-classing. And I don't know why I _should_ need to take a level in rogue to be a better navigator than a random PC wizard.

And as an engineer, let me tell you that being smart is rarely a substitute for actual training. Anyone who has significant training in navigation is going to be able to actually use the tools of the trade. Someone without said training is going to be a disaster.

5E is like 1E or 2E. If the guy isn't skilled at navigating, he can't do it. You're still thinking like 3E where he gets to roll. If you deem the navigation check too difficult, he doesn't get to roll at all even if he has a 30 intelligence. The new edition specifically discusses skills as in the purview of the DM. He can choose which skill and which ability seems appropriate. For example, for using a rope you could use Dexterity (Water Vehicles) to know how to properly tie a sailor's rope. The idea with skills is that the DM decides according to his experience and/or whim what ability will be used and when it will be used for nearly everything that isn't combat related.

You don't need to take a level of rogue. In 5E if you want to say, "Hey, Mr. DM, I've been navigating since I was a kid, can I have double proficiency in navigation?" The DM either says yes or no. Backgrounds are open-ended and there is plenty of room to do things like that in 5E.

I think people are still stuck thinking like previous editions of 5E. They haven't quite embraced that 5E didn't codify every rule because it knew it couldn't handle corner cases like what you want to do. So it left it up to the DM to allow a player to come up with something that the DM can ok if he deems it is no real disruption to the balance of the game.

So yes, you can make a character that navigates better than the wizard. If the wizard doesn't know how to use navigation tools, he doesn't even get a roll if the DM deems it too difficult. If the DM feels like it, he can give you the equivalent of expertise in a skill as a reward for writing up an background as an extraordinary navigator if no class provides what you're looking for. So 5E does support that as long as you don't get suck in "rules lawyer" mode where you're thinking everything is set in stone. It isn't in 5E. You have a lot of latitude with skills. That was intended the way the skill system was designed.

If you like a hard coded skill system, 5E is not that system. If you like an open-ended skill system that lets you customize skills to fit a player's choices, then 5E works very well. It's when a person reads the skill rules and thinks, "That's it" forgetting all the caveats about DM decides when you can roll, what skills exist, and has very open ended control of the system to work with players that you get full use of the system to do something like make player that is a very good navigator and have it so no one else is even close.

 

[The Human Target]

How would you change it to better implement its purpose?

Tweak the numbers around.

Add in Bounded Accuracy to damage and hp too.

 

[Uchawi]

I believe the concept of bounded accuracy is valid for attempting to keep game mechanics more relevant over a greater span of levels, but it falls short when comparing the different sub-systems it touches when comparing AC versus skills or saves. That makes it a lot more difficult to add more complexity to the game (increase the bounds) and keep things balanced if you want more depth. You also run into everything is the same when comparing to hit, AC, damage or hit points. Only special abilities, legendary actions or magic keeps things interesting. And finally certain classes have abilities that effect all three areas (AC, saves, or skills) to a greater extent that others. That is where you see the biggest gap.

 

[Quartz]

With regard to the high-stat vs trained issue, you can just say that the task is easier time-wise for the trained person, so your high-Int character can make the same check, but it will take them much longer. Yes, they can figure it out, but they need the time to do so, whereas the person with the training can do it much more quickly. So with navigating, the wizard would be able to figure it out, but it would take a couple of hours, by which time the ship has moved, and is now in danger of foundering on the rocks...

 

[mflayermonk]

If you don't like Bounded Accuracy as is, maybe you can add double stat bonuses to the PCs abilities. You could also have them trade class special abilities for extra to-hit (or skill) bonuses-similar to how choosing between feats and a stat bump.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

I adore it. The 3.x/4E paradigm of zero to superhero in 3 months just got old for me. The shallower graduation suits me just fine.

This! I can't state how much i love it.
Only thing i might add would be some specialization/expertise options for most of the classes (like in the old 1E, 2E rules), just to ramp up the flavors. Aside from that i wouldn't trade BA for anything.

I love it for one reason: I hated the stratospheric rise of math that encompassed 3e and 4e. I mean, around 8th level a fighter was dealing with a staggered base attack bonus, strength mod, bonuses from items, spells, powers, feats, racial traits, and situational modifiers. A lot of times, those silly numbers were forgotten (did you add bless?) or miscalculated or you got the long stare of "which bonus do I use for this attack?" All so that the fighter would say "AC 33? I rolled a 7".

I'm gladly done with that. Viva la reasonable numbers.

Amen brother....

Late EDIT: to add the suspension of disbelief in 4E, which reminded me of ES4 Oblivion, when after a while the random goblins and bandits that roamed the land were better equipped and trained then the Imperial Legion....

 

[Al2O3]

The thing I like most with BA compared to 4e is that now an increase in a modifier increases the probability of succeeding on a task. In 4e my impression was that I needed to invest a lot of feats, items etc just to keep the probability where it was before. The chance of success became mostly a question of where in level span I was.

For those with players who dislike BA: make a table comparing skill modifier, DC and the number you actually need to roll on the d20 at various levels in 5e and relevant previous editions. A lower number needed on the d20 is the real sign of progress.