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

[TwoSix]

Well, I guess I can try it. I like to keep DC's reasonable, and so far, the highest DC has been to try and open an Arcane Locked door (after which I realized that arcane lock is actually an insane spell- what's with all these spells that modify rolls and DC's by 10, anyways? Like say, the elephant in the room that I'm surprised hasn't come up yet, pass without trace).

For tier 2, I tend to gate encounter-changing checks behind a 25, and at tier 3, at a 30. (This is for checks I "plant" in the encounter, if the players do something I didn't account for, I rule for DC based on the fiction.)

DC 25 isn't particularly hard even at Tier 2; assuming the player has help to get advantage and guidance, a proficient character with an 18 in the relevant stat (so a +7 total) has a 47% chance to hit the check. Expertise bumps that up to a 66% chance.

 

[Maxperson]

My issue with this is, if the game has DC 20 and up checks, Expertise is basically a must-have. I'm not including other forms of bonuses because whether or not they exist is equally up in the air based on party composition- even Help is not guaranteed since there are DM's who only allow proficient characters to take the Help action out there. And if you can afford a Feat to boost a skill check, you can have Expertise.

I don't think so. If the DM is creating DCs based on player level and not what DCs actually are, then yes you are correct. However, if the DM is making moderate tasks DC 15 regardless of whether the PC is level 1 or level 20, then the overwhelming majority of DCs will be in the 10-15 range. 20 will be uncommon, 25 rare, and 30 very rare.

Expertise isn't a must have for games like that, since you aren't encountering those high DCs very often unless you the player are going out of your way to try and do really hard things for some reason.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Also. If the Rogue's raison d'etre is to be super good at skill checks, why doesn't the Fighter get to double their proficiency bonus with attack rolls? Seems to me that the same logic would apply.

But we know why it doesn't, because then people would look at any other class that isn't Fighter and say "welp, they obviously can't succeed in combat, look at this massive bonus they don't have!". And everyone who makes attack rolls would either be a Fighter or have a Fighter dip to whatever level is required to get that bonus!

Now obviously, there are vanishingly few enemies with AC's beyond 20, because there is no "expertise for attack" or even "reliable for attack" (my goodness, could you imagine the hair pulling if Fighters could never miss?!).

But if those things existed, would we have people saying "you can't take that away from Fighters, it's the only thing they got going for them in a world of magic!".

And would we have theory crafting to say that "by Tier 4, if you don't have Fighters in your party, you might as well stop playing, because once enemies start having AC of 25+, the chances of you hitting without constant and massive buffs becomes vanishingly small"?

Just a thought.

i've long thought now that fighters ought to get 'attack expertise', like this is the class with even their name dedicated to combat, and it's not like classes struggle to hit enemies as it is but if you really want to be certain that you're going to hit that guy the fighter's your man, ol' reliable!, make the bonus scale off fighter proficiency level specifically, but just cause the fighter's got that extra bonus doesn't actually raise the bar for what other characters need to hit the enemy.

 

[TwoSix]

Sorry for the confusion, this is my fault as I am still in 2014-mode and will remain so. Most of these issues which seem to be arising are 2024 issues. No wonder?

I'm primarily on 2014 as well (haven't bought the 2024 books). Most of these issues, to me, are endemic to 5e as a whole.

In the game I DM our Rogue recently hit 7th level and is insane at his expertise skills already without Reliable Talent. And I know it will continue to get "worse" when Reliable Talent kicks in. Currently his skill set is (*expertise):

Acrobatics +8
Athletics +7*
Insight +7
Investigation +5
Perception +10*
Sleight of Hand +8
Stealth +11*
Survival +7
Thieves tools +8
Disguise kit +3
Poisoner's kit +8*
...
power creep, power creep, gotta love the power creep... duh dum dum.

Well, that rogue is also rocking a 20 Dex, 18 Wis, and 14 Int at level 7. I think the blessing of the dice fairy may also be playing a role here.

 

[Staffan]

I think Rogues should have just been subclasses of Fighter. Or Rogue should have a lot more fighting prowess and be a "light fighter" or "archer" with a Thief subclass.

I have this vague idea for a D&D variant which separates "class", which is exclusively what you do in combat, from "job" which is what you do when there isn't fighting to be done.

 

[TwoSix]

I think Rogues should have just been subclasses of Fighter. Or Rogue should have a lot more fighting prowess and be a "light fighter" or "archer" with a Thief subclass.

I'd rather just have a generic "Adventurer" class for the guy with no magic abilities that just does stuff. Extra skills, good hit points, bonuses to attacks.

 

[Maxperson]

But here's my pushback. Why CAN'T you have checks in the game that non-Expertise players just fail? Why is that bad?

There should NEVER be a skill check in the game that actively precludes the adventure from continuing. So you seed special rewards and optional paths behind very high checks, so that the character with Expertise feels the value.

I agree with this sentiment, but I don't feel high DC numbers are the best way to go about it. In my games I often have skill checks that are gated behind proficiency. The DC might be 15, but it's only 15 if you are proficient. If you aren't, you don't have a chance to know that information as it's only moderately hard if you have been trained in that area of knowledge.

While I haven't done this yet, I can see some piece of information being so obscure that even trained individuals will likely not get a roll, but that Ph.D.(expertise) PC would have the chance and get a roll.

 

[TwoSix]

I agree with this sentiment, but I don't feel high DC numbers are the best way to go about it. In my games I often have skill checks that are gated behind proficiency. The DC might be 15, but it's only 15 if you are proficient. If you aren't, you don't have a chance to know that information as it's only moderately hard if you have been trained in that area of knowledge.

While I haven't done this yet, I can see some piece of information being so obscure that even trained individuals will likely not get a roll, but that Ph.D.(expertise) PC would have the chance and get a roll.

Oh, I do that all the time as well. "Normally, you wouldn't be able to know this (or do this), but as an expert..."

And I do "You can only roll this if you're proficient" on well over half of my skill check calls.

 

[Remathilis]

True, which still exists in 5E (at least in 2014)...

Fair enough, but you could always Take 10, right as @James Gasik pointed out?

You could take 10 if there was no penalty for failure. You could, for example, take 10 on an open lock roll because the penalty for failure was just that nothing changed (the lock remains locked) while you could not take it on a hide check because the penalty for failure is being spotted, or on a balance check because the penalty for failure was falling. Take 10 was only usable in non-adventuring scenarios or in ones where the idea was to speed up multiple rolls.

(Take 20 was similar, except it took longer and you had to be able to fail multiple times without penalty. It was essentially abstracting rolling 20 times until you got a Nat 20).

All this is important because it's what the rogue is built on when it comes to skills. A rogue who isn't any better with skills is a dexterity fighter. And if the rogue loses his edge over skills, you might as well give the fighter a few extra skills and let him subsume the Rogue.

 

[Remathilis]

I'd rather just have a generic "Adventurer" class for the guy with no magic abilities that just does stuff. Extra skills, good hit points, bonuses to attacks.

Just make it all point buy and let the Adventurer delve into skills, spells and combat in whatever combo they want.