D&D General Explain Bounded Accuracy to Me (As if I Was Five)

[pemerton]

Right. Gygax wasn't talking about skills. Abilities =/= skills. You are conflating saves and hit points with skills when it doesn't apply.

When it comes down to it, both sides are correct in this. I makes sense and is correct for someone who is quasi-divine to have innate skill in everything if you want it to be that way. It also makes sense and is correct for someone, even divine someones to be poor at skills they wouldn't have. Thor disguised himself and could be stealthy, but he wasn't a thief or academic so sleight of hand and arcane knowledge were not things that he would have any skill at. You can go either way and have it make sense if that's how you want to structure the fiction.

I don't know what you think Gygax mean by "abilities". Given that ability scores in AD&D do not generally increase with level, I don't think that's what he mean. I think he mean the various class abilities that are gained with levels; and in 4e D&D these include a level-based skill bonus.

As far as "what makes sense", I am not making any claim about that. People can imagine whatever they want to. What I am saying is that, in 4e, it is not at all ambiguous why high level PCs have strong skill bonuses, and it is nothing to do with "passive learning". The PCs are capable because of their will, their power and their affiliation to supernatural forces. The whole structure of class build - Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies - as well as the description of the Tiers of Play, and the rest of the flavour text, makes this clear. And it gives effect to an idea that was first set forth, in the D&D context, by Gygax, in the passages I quoted.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok. So the full measure of their reason for acquiring more skills is that they

A. Wander the land, and
B. Go on adventures

If only the other classes could do these things?

..wait..hold on..that can't be right.

I think you missed the part where they learn and practice a variety of skills, which is more than the other classes say.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I think you missed the part where they learn and practice a variety of skills, which is more than the other classes say.

Technically, that paragraph expresses (amongst many many other things) that Bards "have a desire to learn and practice new skills" which leads them toward a life of adventure.

As many of us often learn the hard way, desire has no necessary correlation with results. Also, good luck telling players what their characters' motivations are for adventuring.

But besides that, a cursory look at other writeups, indicates that

• wizards go on adventures for knowledge and power,
• warlocks the same.
• rogues train in skills to go on adventures.
• monks have a whole rigorous training & self-perfection shtick

Like..there are plenty of other classes where such class proficiency is comparably justifiable.

 

[Lanefan]

Investigation is frankly just weird. Even the designers can't seem to settle on whether it's EXCLUSIVELY "take the information you already have and figure out what it means" (which...basically just means "skip the part where the player has to fit the clues together himself"), or whether it's "examine the environment from a logical-deductive standpoint rather than an observational one" (which...makes it really hard to distinguish from Perception.)

Perception is "do you see it?". Investigation is "can you make sense of what you're seeing?". Seems distinct enough to me.

 

[pemerton]

Perception is "do you see it?". Investigation is "can you make sense of what you're seeing?". Seems distinct enough to me.

But in that case, what is the player's job?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Perception is "do you see it?". Investigation is "can you make sense of what you're seeing?". Seems distinct enough to me.

But in that case, what is the player's job?

Precisely. Like, for me this is orders of magnitude worse than any complaints folks have about social skills eliminating the player participation in socializing. Many times, I've had players who knew what they wanted to achieve, and knew their characters would know how to say it, but they knew it would come out flat and awkward if they tried to act it out themselves. So they have explained their goals, we've talked it out, and iff a roll is triggered then we do that.

This doesn't even require having to think up and state the plan, even if the IRL player isn't able to execute the details of that plan personally. There's only so many ways you can say "I think about what the clues mean."

 

[CreamCloud0]

But in that case, what is the player's job?

To answer ‘How do you react to it.’

You noticed the scratched panelling with perception
You figured out how to open the hidden door with investigation
But now your players decide if they go down the passage, send a lone scout or familiar, leave it untouched, step back and keep an eye who enters and exits the room with the passage, jam the mechanism, lay in wait to ambush the next person to come through, and which side of the hidden door are they waiting on? Dust the trigger for fingerprints, detect magic to see there’s no enchantments on the door...

 

[ezo]

An option which I don't recall has been voiced before is that all the skills on a class skill list gets the half proficiency bonus, and then the two to four chosen for proficiency advanace at the normal rate. Bards, alone, get half-proficiency on all ability checks.

For example, Barbarians have Animal Handling, Athletics, Intimidation, Nature, Perception, and Survival as skill proficiency options. They choose two, say Athletics and Perception for full-proficiency, while all the others get half-proficiency.

This also makes sense given that Bards have no "class list" for skills, they have Any three. So, they get all the rest at half.

IMO, that would be a responsible compromise, show some improvement in skills reflected by class selection, etc. and could be added without having a cost, such as the feat option I mentioned above. It is something we've considered as a house-rule before, but never really saw making the distinction that important.

 

[Maxperson]

But besides that, a cursory look at other writeups, indicates that

• wizards go on adventures for knowledge and power,
• warlocks the same.
• rogues train in skills to go on adventures.
• monks have a whole rigorous training & self-perfection shtick

Like..there are plenty of other classes where such class proficiency is comparably justifiable.

Sure, if you ignore what those classes stand for. Wizards and warlocks are knowledge and power, not athletics, medicine and performance. Monks are rigorous training and self-perfection, which is physical and ki, not skills. Taken out of context, sure you could apply those things to skills. I don't take them out of context.

With rogues you would have a point, if they didn't get reliable talent instead as THEIR schtick. Only bards have the schtick of being decent at everything.

 

[Maxperson]

But in that case, what is the player's job?

Rolling the dice!!!