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

[Gammadoodler]

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.

5e Bards' schtick, as described by the game, is magic and music.

You've highlighted pretty much all the skills stuff in the class description and,

A. It's barely anything
B. It doesn't actually say that Bards are good at skills, just that they see using them as a reason to go adventuring, and
C. The experiences that they go through to learn skills are common to all adventurers.

I can accept that the Bard has a mechanical identity of 'skills person'. I don't accept that this is a well-justified core narrative identity.

Certainly not so core and singular to their identity that it should preclude other classes from having more options for skill progression.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

To decide what to do with the information?

 

[Gammadoodler]

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.

I can see how this makes sense. Not 100% sure on whether I'm good with zero advancement in other skills (especially high usage ones like stealth), but it is a reasonable compromise.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I really don't understand what the problem we are trying to solve even is. Like how is different characters being good at different things a problem? Why homogenising it so that everyone is good at everything a desirable state of affairs?

 

[Clint_L]

I really don't understand what the problem we are trying to solve even is. Like how is different characters being good at different things a problem? Why homogenising it so that everyone is good at everything a desirable state of affairs?

So much this. Having significant class distinctions is a strength, not a weakness, for D&D, and always has been. I've played plenty of games that allow players to heavily customize, and you wind up with a lot MORE homogeneity, not less, because everyone quickly figures out what the best options are. They land on a couple basic archetypes and just tinker at the edges.

 

[ezo]

I really don't understand what the problem we are trying to solve even is. Like how is different characters being good at different things a problem? Why homogenising it so that everyone is good at everything a desirable state of affairs?

It isn't a "problem" for most people IMO, but more a matter of character growth. Short of multiclassing or using an ASI/feat, the only way to learn a new skill, language, or tool is through downtime--if the DM works it into the game.

PCs without "proficiency", which represents the focus in that aspect of an ability score, can attempt a task because 5E assumes ability scores include a measure of training and competence:

So, the argument is why doesn't a character improve (at least to some extent) at a skill they perform at least once in a while, often in high-stress situations, especially if there are accomplished members of the party to help them learn the skill so they can do it better?

Although most groups use feats and often multiclassing, those are viable options to accomplish the goal, but they come at a high cost. The cost seems a bit extreme for what accounts to at most a +1 to +3 bonus.

For example, a Druid does not have Athletics (not even in their class list!), but with STR 12 can still make Strength (Athletics) checks for climbing or swimming, gaining only the +1 bonus from STR. Now, if they got to apply half their bonus, starting at level 5 (for instance), they would be +2 total on Strength (Athletics) checks. At 9th level they would be +3, and finally at 17th level they would be +4 (maximum).

Of course, you take a STR 12 PC at 17th level with proficiency, and they are +7, only 3 points better. Which means if the Druid and the other PC were grappling, the Druid would have about a 34% chance of winning a contested check. IMO, for a person with no proficiency, compared to one with proficiency, and both years of adventuring experiences (climbing, swimming, grappling in fights) fairly often, 34% is too high.

Also, as has been pointed out, not every PC is going to have the chance to attempt or practice every skill during their adventuring career, so it doesn't make sense for blanket improvement.

While I understand the desire to represent character growth, I'm not certain this is the way to do it.

 

[ezo]

ANOTHER OPTION
Another method I just thought of, but would require a bit more bookkeeping, would be whenever you gain a level you gain a +1 bonus to place in any skill or tool in which you do not add your proficiency bonus, to a maximum of your proficiency bonus. Once a skill or tool is raised to your proficiency bonus, you are considered proficient and can no longer increase that skill or tool.

So, Peter Paladin (without Stealth proficiency) could add +1 to Stealth at level 2, and another +1 at level 3, and have proficiency in Stealth. Then at 4th level, Peter might add +1 to Medicine (since he lack proficiency), adding another +1 at both 5th and 6th levels, gaining proficiency in Medicine at that point.

This would allow PCs to improve in skills, etc. at a slower pace and represent their focusing on learning those skills.

Just a thought.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

ANOTHER OPTION
Another method I just thought of, but would require a bit more bookkeeping, would be whenever you gain a level you gain a +1 bonus to place in any skill or tool in which you do not add your proficiency bonus, to a maximum of your proficiency bonus. Once a skill or tool is raised to your proficiency bonus, you are considered proficient and can no longer increase that skill or tool.

So, Peter Paladin (without Stealth proficiency) could add +1 to Stealth at level 2, and another +1 at level 3, and have proficiency in Stealth. Then at 4th level, Peter might add +1 to Medicine (since he lack proficiency), adding another +1 at both 5th and 6th levels, gaining proficiency in Medicine at that point.

This would allow PCs to improve in skills, etc. at a slower pace and represent their focusing on learning those skills.

Just a thought.

Hmm. Interesting. Let's explore some consequences here.

You would gain proficiencies in this way at levels 3, 6, 10, and 15. Your final 5 points would be kinda-sorta wasted, because you can't hit +6 in only levels 16-20. Potentially, you could just say level 20 gives 2 points to compensate for level 1 not giving any.

This means that, over the course of a character's career, they'll have gained 4 additional proficiencies (doubling the baseline everyone gets). Skills are pretty obviously a lot more powerful than tools, so I imagine most points would be put there. Might be wise to consider whether that's an issue. (E.g., perhaps you must take at least one tool before you can take any skills.)

It's slightly worse than getting two feats, but due to the slow trickle nature I'm fairly willing to say it's closer to about one and a half feats (since you only gain the full equivalent of one extra feat at level 10).

I am less than thrilled about the idea of (effectively) reviving 3.x skill points, which I strenuously dislike. But on the flipside, you're strongly encouraged to focus, and no other systems would be hinging on it, so it's not nearly as bad as 3.x skill points were.

Have you any notion of limits on what the character can learn? I can think of a few simple ones, that wouldn't require much bookkeeping. E.g., if you want to learn a skill this way, you either need to have it on your class skill list, or you need to have someone else in the party who knows the skill, or you need to invest in education in some way (e.g. buying a book, hiring a tutor once or twice, something like that, just to get started on the road as it were.) Since everyone can do this, you'd have most skills available eventually--and suddenly the Bard gains a major role as a teacher, not just a skillful trickster, which is rather nice.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I really don't understand what the problem we are trying to solve even is. Like how is different characters being good at different things a problem? Why homogenising it so that everyone is good at everything a desirable state of affairs?

I'll take a bit of a stab at this, though I'm actually kind of two minds here.

The new edition of Alternity has a design feature where every character has to have at least one skill in each of six categories of skills. (I want to say its vehicles, tech, social interaction, knowledge, ranged combat, and melee combat). Why is that?

So you can be sure no one is entirely left out when the game moves into a certain kind of situation, a situation that may be time consuming, they have at least some potential ability to participate.

There were serious objections to this. But I think part of it was the same issue of people not looking at it kind of the wrong way (though I think you've mentioned both in the past). The purpose is not to make everyone good at everything; its to make sure no one is really bad at anything.

Now, that can bother you too, on a character representation/simulation grounds. As the Alternity 2e people said, why should a scientist or engineer automatically have combat skills? The answer is, on those grounds, there's no reason they should. You can rationalize it easily enough if you want to, but it isn't a default given.

But, and I know this sort of thing bothers some people a lot, a large number of games really don't care about those grounds. They're making design decisions on gameplay grounds, and on those grounds, most people don't find it fun to feel useless, even if they're the boss in other contexts. They'd rather be able to at least contribute in almost everything.

But you also have games that are kind of not committed to either approach, and that can end up being kind of a problem for everyone.

Edit: And of course Ezo has an important point above; the limitations of class games can produce results that seem, bluntly, irrational in terms of channelling growth in very narrow ways that don't necessarily serve either the fiction nor the game all that well.

 

[ezo]

Hmm. Interesting. Let's explore some consequences here.

You would gain proficiencies in this way at levels 3, 6, 10, and 15. Your final 5 points would be kinda-sorta wasted, because you can't hit +6 in only levels 16-20. Potentially, you could just say level 20 gives 2 points to compensate for level 1 not giving any.

Yeah, that's the general idea. Instead of just suddenly gaining a full proficiency at levels A,B,C, and D, you gradually gain them. Additionally, nothing specifies you have to go until you are proficient. So, if you want just a +1 to offset a -1 ability modifier.

This means that, over the course of a character's career, they'll have gained 4 additional proficiencies (doubling the baseline everyone gets). Skills are pretty obviously a lot more powerful than tools, so I imagine most points would be put there. Might be wise to consider whether that's an issue. (E.g., perhaps you must take at least one tool before you can take any skills.)

I thought about this as well. An option would be selecting a language or tool might just be "1 point"? Of course, tools can be very useful, and can be +x proficiency bonus when used, so this might be too much. Perhaps a language is 1 point, a tool is 2 (gained over two levels?).

I'm not sure, I'm certain there'd be someway to iron it out.

I am less than thrilled about the idea of (effectively) reviving 3.x skill points, which I strenuously dislike. But on the flipside, you're strongly encouraged to focus, and no other systems would be hinging on it, so it's not nearly as bad as 3.x skill points were.

I'm not thrilled about that aspect either, which to me makes it a bit of a bookkeeping issue. Not huge, but annoying personally.

Have you any notion of limits on what the character can learn? I can think of a few simple ones, that wouldn't require much bookkeeping. E.g., if you want to learn a skill this way, you either need to have it on your class skill list, or you need to have someone else in the party who knows the skill, or you need to invest in education in some way (e.g. buying a book, hiring a tutor once or twice, something like that, just to get started on the road as it were.) Since everyone can do this, you'd have most skills available eventually--and suddenly the Bard gains a major role as a teacher, not just a skillful trickster, which is rather nice.

I was thinking pretty much the same: class skills or access to someone who can "teach" it (party member, NPC, book, etc.).