D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[Xeviat]

I also really miss "Take 10" and "Take 20" in the game; those are definitely things I want to bring back.

 

[Celtavian]

I also really miss "Take 10" and "Take 20" in the game; those are definitely things I want to bring back.

Passive checks are Take 10. You are told to allow a check to succeed if there is no reason to believe it wouldn't. That is Take 20. That concept is already present.

You can allow players to train skills using the same rules for training tools and new languages with their downtime.

 

[Xeviat]

You can allow players to train skills using the same rules for training tools and new languages with their downtime.

Where are those rules? I saw them once and have been hunting for them ever since.

 

[abirdcall]

ISee, a lot of what the pro bounded accuracy people are saying is what I was trying to say to my player, but more and more my player is convincing me that the 5E skill system is simply too simple to model characters especially well. There's little growth in skills; sure, your proficiency bonus goes up from 2 to 6, but it's difficult to get new skills (Spend a feat on skills? Yeah right). Expertise is linked to only 2 classes, and multiclassing into them to get better skills feels odd.

I'm beginning to wonder if the skill system could be expanded. Maybe to have 4 ranks of skills, instead of the binary of trained/untrained we have now. What if there was untrained, proficient, focused, specialized? Untrained is no bonus, proficient is proficiency bonus, focused is double proficiency bonus, and specialized is auto advantage (or switch focused and specialized?). At certain levels, you gain more skill "rank", either to gain proficiency in a new skill or to gain a new level of proficiency.

It depends on what you see as the role of skills. They just aren't that important for most characters. For most, being an expert in a skill is the realm of the NPC. If you really want to focus on the minutia of differences in skill, D&D seems like a weird place to do it.

Take the navigation example. In most games you would look at whether there was a consequence to failure, and if so, if there were special circumstances making navigating difficult. If no to either of those questions then the characters get to their destination. If yes, then make a check, then move on with the game.

It is such a small part that it isn't worth spending a lot of time on. If you want to model it in your backstory that is what backgrounds are for.

I also really miss "Take 10" and "Take 20" in the game; those are definitely things I want to bring back.

Similar mechanics are in 5e and I think they are done much better than take 10 and take 20.

Instead of take 20 there is 'if there is no consequence for failure, it just succeeds' which makes for a better narrative flow and is less fiddly.

Instead of take 10 there is the passive check.

In both cases the onus is off of the player to say that their character 'takes 10' or 'takes 20'. Instead they can just describe what their character is doing. The DM then describes what happens. Only if the outcome is in doubt and it matters will the DM call for a roll.

So the player doesn't have to describe their character as performing game terminology. It's great.

 

[77IM]

Bounded accuracy works great for combat because characters are differentiated by consequences: Everyone's got the same bonus to hit, but getting hit by the Fighter's greatsword is different than getting hit by the Rogue's arrow is different than getting hit by the Wizard's ray of frost.

It doesn't work so great for skills because there are few formally defined different consequences for skill success, so characters wind up feeling "samey:" The Rogue's proficient in Wisdom (Perception) but is worse at it than the Cleric who just has a high Wisdom; and at higher levels, the Rogue's bonus has gone up a few points but he doesn't get any cooler Perception-based tricks.

 

[Sacrosanct]

See, a lot of what the pro bounded accuracy people are saying is what I was trying to say to my player, but more and more my player is convincing me that the 5E skill system is simply too simple to model characters especially well. There's little growth in skills; sure, your proficiency bonus goes up from 2 to 6, but it's difficult to get new skills (Spend a feat on skills? Yeah right). Expertise is linked to only 2 classes, and multiclassing into them to get better skills feels odd.

Sounds like just a preference issue. For perspective, if they are complaining about lack of enough increased power in 5e, you can have them play AD&D or B/X, which makes 5e look like it's on the fast track of player improvement by comparison

 

[Celtavian]

Where are those rules? I saw them once and have been hunting for them ever since.

Somewhere in the PHB. I think at the end of the customization section. There are more downtime options in the DMG.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm still here, I'm just not as hear as I used to be.



See, a lot of what the pro bounded accuracy people are saying is what I was trying to say to my player, but more and more my player is convincing me that the 5E skill system is simply too simple to model characters especially well. There's little growth in skills; sure, your proficiency bonus goes up from 2 to 6, but it's difficult to get new skills (Spend a feat on skills? Yeah right). Expertise is linked to only 2 classes, and multiclassing into them to get better skills feels odd.

I'm beginning to wonder if the skill system could be expanded. Maybe to have 4 ranks of skills, instead of the binary of trained/untrained we have now. What if there was untrained, proficient, focused, specialized? Untrained is no bonus, proficient is proficiency bonus, focused is double proficiency bonus, and specialized is auto advantage (or switch focused and specialized?). At certain levels, you gain more skill "rank", either to gain proficiency in a new skill or to gain a new level of proficiency.

Yes, DCs would need to be adjusted a bit, or at least higher level characters would be going up against hard and very hard things more often. General checks that are going to be applied for everyone would be aimed at the proficiency level, but things that only one person needs to do could be aimed higher as the levels grow. This way, the characters will feel like they can accomplish things they couldn't accomplish before, instead of just being marginally better at what they could do before.

I don't know, I'm still looking at a massive overhaul, but I don't like relying upon Rule 0 to make me like a system. Oberoni Fallacy and all that.

D&D is a class based system. Skills are little whatnots added on for color. If you really enjoy games that make skills front and center, there are several good classless games that feature skills, and handle them better. Most character progress is done via class abilities instead of skill bumps.

The main reason I like BA for skills is that bonuses DON'T scale up hugely between levels 1 and 20. Scaling bonuses mean scaling DCs and numbers getting ridiculous because the adventure needs to offer a challenge to the hyper-specialized. All that means is that the poor sap who put all those points into a single skill gets to feel barely competent and anyone else is utterly useless. No thanks.

I have enough of the keeping up with Jones' editions. I like that any character can be actually somewhat competent if trained in a skill.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Minigiant]

Taking 10 was just make a check at your own pace with no stress, threat, or distraction.

5e already does that via DM empowerment. If 10+ the player character's bonus beats the DC, it would be fine for a DM to not even call for a check. If the PC can do this repeatedly with no consequence of failure, the DM can claim success on of 20 + bonuses.

The issue is "Take 10 and Take 20" were for unimportant or routine matters mostly.

The rogue has Take 10 and Take 20 any time as class features. Reliable Talent and Stroke of Luck respectively.

And that's the point. It doesn't matter that the Rogue goes only from +2 to +6. He CANNOT roll less than a 10 on 6+ skills at level 11. Reliable talent is "crazy."