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

[Maxperson]

I'm starting to wish I never created the golf analogy....

You got a double bogey.

 

[pemerton]

I didn't say they're good at everything, I said they're bad at nothing. And already by tenth level the level bonus catches up with the training bonus. A tenth level character is as good at everything than a first level character at their trained skills. A 30th level character is as good at everything than a 20th level character at their trained skills. By standards of normalish people the high or even medium level characters are insanely skilled, overwhelmingly better at literally any skill than mundane people who have trained that skill. That is just bizarre to me.

An untrained 10th level PC will not be as good as a first level PC in their trained skill unless they also have as good a stat bonus.

But anyway, a 10th level or low-Paragon PC is entering into Aragorn or Conan territory. And a 30th level PC is a demi-god, about to achieve their apotheosis (or similarly puissant, as befits the details of their Epic Destiny). It's not bizarre to me that a god, or character of that degree of power, is more capable than a mundane mortal. Mortals who rival the gods are, by definition, extraordinary.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

An untrained 10th level PC will not be as good as a first level PC in their trained skill unless they also have as good a stat bonus.

But anyway, a 10th level or low-Paragon PC is entering into Aragorn or Conan territory. And a 30th level PC is a demi-god, about to achieve their apotheosis (or similarly puissant, as befits the details of their Epic Destiny). It's not bizarre to me that a god, or character of that degree of power, is more capable than a mundane mortal. Mortals who rival the gods are, by definition, extraordinary.

No, I think it is weird. It would be weird if the mighty Thor, just by the virtue of being a godly superhero would also be a master chef, top tier computer programmer and a world class painter.

 

[pemerton]

But that isn't the argument. @Crimson Longinus is saying that a level 11 wizard who's never picked a lock before is still better at lockpicking than a level 1 rogue who's trained at lockpicking, assuming the same level 1 lock. The argument is on simulationist grounds about what leveling means in the fiction; the fact that a level 11 wizard wouldn't normally be in a situation to pick a level 1 lock isn't relevant for this use case.

This typically won't be the case, as the wizard will probably not have a DEX that is equal to the Rogue's.

But setting that aside, Paragon-tier PCs are "shining examples of heroism, set well apart from the masses" (PHB p 28). For these characters, "[d]eath becomes a surmountable obstacle, and the fate of a nation or even the world might hang in the balance" (ibid). There's no mystery, in the express fiction of the game, as to what is going on.

 

[pemerton]

No, I think it is weird. It would be weird if the mighty Thor, just by the virtue of being a godly superhero would also be a master chef, top tier computer programmer and a world class painter.

As it happens, none of those things is a skill in 4e.

 

[pemerton]

But in 4e amount of that passive learning is utterly insane, and overwhelms the actual training threefold. Like I said:

Well, I think it's pretty clear from the rules that it's not passive learning. It's becoming a mighty hero, a paragon of heroism, and epic being!

Gygax expressed it nicely in his DMG (pp 81, 111-12):

A character under magical attack is in a stress situation, and his or her own will force reacts instinctively to protect the character by slightly altering the effects of the magical assault. This protection takes a slightly different form for each class of character. Magic-users understand spells, even on an unconscious level, and are able to slightly tamper with one so as to render it ineffective. Fighters withstand them through sheer defiance, while clerics create a small island of faith. Thieves find they are able to avoid a spell's full effects by quickness . . .

[T]he accumulation of hit points and the ever-greater abilities and better saving throws of characters represents the aid supplied by supernatural forces.​

The abilities of 4e PCs don't represent their passive learning: they represent their will (as manifested in a fashion appropriate to their power source and class) and their connections to supernatural forces, which permeate the world of 4e D&D.

 

[pemerton]

To me, it feels fair to claim if game designers openly state design goals and let some design goals cause other design goals to not be met that the designers prioritized some goals over others.

But that can hardly be a criticism, can it? All design involves choosing what goals to prioritise. And when it comes to a RPG, which is pretty low-stakes (compare to, say, designing an aeroplane), those priorities can be selected on a pretty whimsical basis if that's what the designer feels like designing.

To give an example, Torchbearer 2e has 6 core classes: (Elven) Ranger, (Dwarven) Outcast, (Halfling) Burglar, (Human) Magician, (Human) Warrior and (Human) Theurge.

The Outcast and the Burglar are, respectively, very close to being Thorin Oakenshield and Bilbo Baggins clones. (My barely-teenage daughter recognised the Outcast as a Thorin clone as soon as I told her its starting skills.) That is clearly prioritising someone's passion for emulation, and perhaps sheer amusement, over (say) originality or even adaptability. It may or may not be to somone's tastes. But it's hardly a basis for criticising the designer, is it? (I mean, the classes work in the context of game play, and the Outcast in my campaign has been a lot of fun and ended up playing not all that much like Thorin.)

 

[Minigiant]

But that can hardly be a criticism, can it? All design involves choosing what goals to prioritise. And when it comes to a RPG, which is pretty low-stakes (compare to, say, designing an aeroplane), those priorities can be selected on a pretty whimsical basis if that's what the designer feels like designing.

To give an example, Torchbearer 2e has 6 core classes: (Elven) Ranger, (Dwarven) Outcast, (Halfling) Burglar, (Human) Magician, (Human) Warrior and (Human) Theurge.

The Outcast and the Burglar are, respectively, very close to being Thorin Oakenshield and Bilbo Baggins clones. (My barely-teenage daughter recognised the Outcast as a Thorin clone as soon as I told her its starting skills.) That is clearly prioritising someone's passion for emulation, and perhaps sheer amusement, over (say) originality or even adaptability. It may or may not be to somone's tastes. But it's hardly a basis for criticising the designer, is it? (I mean, the classes work in the context of game play, and the Outcast in my campaign has been a lot of fun and ended up playing not all that much like Thorin.)

Well the action itself isn't a criticism. All game design is based on an act of prioritization.

The criticism is not on the act but the reason for the order and how it is achieved.

 

[Gammadoodler]

This is why certain skill based games that actually care about such things have some form of early easy advancement with progressive diminishing returns build in, whether its baked into the core system (BRP) or advancement costs (GURPS).

Edit: Though that said, there's always the problem that only a few games address that some skills come very much naturally to humans, and others require a certain time to get the basics going before natural aptitude means much. That's well beyond anything D&D even vaguely cares about throughout most of its history, though.

The funny thing is that 5e already has a tool to emulate this, to a certain degree anyway.. Jack of all trades.

It's not like there's anything uniquely Bardic here. The ability entry doesn't even try to justify it.

So, instead of tying this exclusively to the Bard class, a full casting class btw ..with a d8 hit die..and armor proficiency), they could just call it 'Basic skills training' and give it to all classes..just at different levels.

Maybe Bard and Rogue get it early, Barbarian and Sorcerer get it late.

Ezpz.

 

[Gammadoodler]

You got a double bogey.

For an average person..this is not a bad result.