D&D (2024) Should Bounded Accuracy apply to skill checks? Thoughts on an old Alexandrian article

[FarBeyondC]

Bounded Accuracy doesn't care about what numbers the PCs have or can get.

Bounded Accuracy never cared about what numbers the PCs have or can get.

The developers explicitly state this in their explanation of what Bounded Accuracy is.

By definition, things like Bardic Inspiration, Expertise, Guidance, Reliable Talents, etc. don't break Bounded Accuracy because Bounded Accuracy doesn't concern itself with player side abilities.

That DMs are having a problem with player numbers being too high, or with the possible vast disparity amongst players' numbers is an entirely different problem - and not necessarily one with the game.

 

[roguish]

My issue with Advantage/Disadvantage is that it's becoming the proverbial hammer to every problem's nail.

I agree, and I find 5e's total aversion to flat bonuses/penalties unnecessary. Though I understand the need to rein in 3rd's exaggerations in that regard (it could get silly there, sometimes it took me a paragraph to write down all the little things I added to a roll).

I like Advantage better with a little houserule: I ignore the bit where ANY number of advantage sources cancels out ANY number of disadvantage sources and vice versa. I just count how many sources there are of both, and the highest number wins. It makes more sense that way, and it also gives the DM leeway to impose ad hoc advantage/disadvantage for verisimilitude's sake, without worrying it will summarily invalidate everything else that's going on. That way, it will simply add a complication.

 

[James Gasik]

That DMs are having a problem with player numbers being too high, or with the possible vast disparity amongst players' numbers is an entirely different problem - and not necessarily one with the game.

If disparity among player numbers isn't a problem with the game, who's to blame? The DM? The players?

What's the solution?

 

[ECMO3]

No because Rogues are already the weakest class in 2024.

 

[James Gasik]

No because Rogues are already the weakest class in 2024.

It's not just about Rogues. Other classes get Expertise, like Bards and Rangers...I think I heard Wizards get a bonus for Arcana checks now as well?

 

[ECMO3]

It's not just about Rogues. Other classes get Expertise, like Bards and Rangers...I think I heard Wizards get a bonus for Arcana checks now as well?

It is really only Rogues that easily break bounded accuracy on skill checks with the combination of reliable talent and expertise.

Rangers, Bards and Fighters can be built to beat it too, but it requires specific builds to do it and choices and tradoffs for a character to do that.

Wizards do get expertise in one skill, but that by itself can't break bounded accuracy.

 

[Minigiant]

If disparity among player numbers isn't a problem with the game, who's to blame? The DM? The players?

What's the solution?

The DM. Or the one teaching the DM.

The disparity doesn't matter.
The DM has to pick the right DC.

The problem is that D&D has a culture of not telling DMs what to do because many DMs hate being told what to do.
But many DMs actually do the wrong thing and make decisions that cause results they don't like.

Bounded Accuracy in skills is easy in D&D.

DCs under 20 are things anyone without a penalty can do. If they can roll, there is a chance of success.

DC between 21-24 are things that require some skill or talent but grandmasters rarely fail. You NEED a bonus to do them. Normal people will aways fail. Grandmasters with rarely fail.

DCs above 25 require mastery to succeed. You have to be exceptionally skilled or talented to have a chance. The masters might have trouble. The grandmasters find it tricky.

 

[Clint_L]

Natural 1s always fail in my campaign, even despite reliable talent. In general, I haven’t found that skill checks breaking bounded accuracy is a problem because I get to set the DCs, and meaningful ones are commensurate with party level.

 

[Distracted DM]

D&D has a culture of not telling DMs what to do because many DMs hate being told what to do.
But many DMs actually do the wrong thing and make decisions that cause results they don't like.

Laying the blame on DMs is... an interesting choice. It kind of feels like blaming the victim?
I'd think all those "how to be a better DM" videos wouldn't have so many views if DMs didn't want to be informed on how to improve.

However I would agree with your second point- there are things that DMs do that they think might help, but actually hurt. Lots of examples: from messing with mechanics before they understand the principles behind them, to trying to address player issues in-game (punishing them) instead of above table as people.

 

[Yaarel]

I prefer the checks used the exact same math as combat attacks and saves. There should be no "expertise".

But when I looked into the math some time ago, the differences werent as bad as I feared. The fact that expertise is incremental depending on the proficiency, by the time it becomes a big deal, the rest of the features of the high tiers make it workable.