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

[ezo]

You got a double bogey.

Heck, I shooting double-PAR at this point.

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

It is actually pretty darn decent. When I get to actually play, I shoot for par --- to get to the green, and par --- to putt it in.

I've only ever had one eagle, on a dog-leg par 4. Managed to get to the edge of the green in one shot, and had a lucky putt for a 2.

Otherwise, I'm lucky to get par a couple times in 18 holes, maybe a few bogies, and lots of doubles, triples, or quads...

 

[ezo]

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.

Or make it a feat available to other classes. Perhaps Bards get it for free at 2nd level?

I mean, the skilled feat gives you three skill proficiencies, so having a feat whick provides half (round down?) proficiency (minimum +1) to all ability checks without already adding proficiency probably isn't too bad. But people just have to judge if getting a +1 or +2 (typically) to all those checks is worth a feat?

Otherwise, personally, I am not a fan of granting more class features, but for me feats are a good way to incorporate things like this.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Holy conflation Batman! Gygax is talking about hit points and saving throws, not skills.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Or make it a feat available to other classes. Perhaps Bards get it for free at 2nd level?

I mean, the skilled feat gives you three skill proficiencies, so having a feat whick provides half (round down?) proficiency (minimum +1) to all ability checks without already adding proficiency probably isn't too bad. But people just have to judge if getting a +1 or +2 (typically) to all those checks is worth a feat?

Otherwise, personally, I am not a fan of granting more class features, but for me feats are a good way to incorporate things like this.

In my experience, parties take a portfolio approach to skill coverage, since they typically will only need one person to be good enough at a skill in a given moment.

This is different from combat, where everyone needs to be contributing something during the encounter.

Players only have 4-7 opportunities to take a feat over the course of an adventuring career (and a 2-3 of those happen at levels most people will never get to play).

I've never seen nor heard of a player who has actually taken the Skilled feat, either in games I've participated in or watched on stream. Many of the 5e guides on this site and elsewhere recommend against it, or at least rate it as having very low value.

Is this something you've seen players take often?
Do you think an even more generalized numerically weaker version would have any more value?

More importantly, do you it would be harmful for all classes to get such a feat automatically say in tiers at 2nd, 5th, 9th, and 13th level (or something)?

 

[ezo]

Players only have 4-7 opportunities to take a feat over the course of an adventuring career (and a 2-3 of those happen at levels most people will never get to play).

Feats are rare, but since this is a general "blanket-coverage" concept, I don't mind it being a feat.

Fighting Styles, Manuevers, Invocations, and other class features are feats, so a "Jack-of-All-Trades" feat makes sense to me.

I've never seen nor heard of a player who has actually taken the Skilled feat, either in games I've participated in or watched on stream. Many of the 5e guides on this site and elsewhere recommend against it, or at least rate it as having very low value.

I've taken it twice, and I know of (at least) three other players who've taken it. It has always been for skill monkey PCs who want to have better skill coverage. I think most players shun it because way too many IMO focus more on combat-related feats, which I think is a pity. The combat feats are the least favourite for myself.

Is this something you've seen players take often?

See above.

Do you think an even more generalized numerically weaker version would have any more value?

Well, if it applies to all ability checks, and not just skill-related ones, than I could see value in it.

This would make it useful as it would help in combat situations as well, for the people who are hyper combat-focused. It would add to initiative, Strength (Athletics) for grappling or escaping (or Dexterity (Acrobatics) as well), and probably more if I think about it. Getting a +1 bonus (eventually better) to those things, without having to devote a skill proficiency to them all, is likely valuable to people who want it.

More importantly, do you it would be harmful for all classes to get such a feat automatically say in tiers at 2nd, 5th, 9th, and 13th level (or something)?

Again, for me, yes. In general, probably not.

I don't like giving classes even more features.
I don't like "stepping on toes" of other class's features, especially without a significant cost (such as a feat).

I think we can all certainly agree feats are a valuable commodity. So (again) for me, this would meet that requirement.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

More importantly, do you it would be harmful for all classes to get such a feat automatically say in tiers at 2nd, 5th, 9th, and 13th level (or something)?

Yes. It would diminish the impact of the skill choices and would not allow characters to remain bad at things.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Yes. It would diminish the impact of the skill choices and would not allow characters to remain bad at things.

So we should probably take it away from the Bard, no?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So we should probably take it away from the Bard, no?

No, because it is their special thing and it is part of the theme of the class that they're decent at everything.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yes. It would diminish the impact of the skill choices and would not allow characters to remain bad at things.

Perfect!

 

[Gammadoodler]

No, because it is their special thing and it is part of the theme of the class that they're decent at everything.

Is it though?

There's nothing elsewhere in the class or either of the two PHB subclasses that refers to Jack of all Trades. The ability itself has no narrative justification or flavor description at all.. and at various subsequent levels, they get additional skill proficiencies and/or expertise which supersede Jack of all Trades. And on top of all that, it's not like there's a bunch of support from the class writeup. It's so focused on magic and music, there's barely a mention of skills at all.

Near as I can tell it's a thing that they get, sure. But there's no real reason, outside of inertia, that they should have it or that it should be limited to just them.