Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ezo" data-source="post: 9288180" data-attributes="member: 7037866">They were only addressing the attack tables/ THAC0, etc invovling attacks, so I didn't bring up "accuracy" in terms of skill checks.Yeah, I've never been happy with "bounded accuracy" in terms of skills.Yeah, such an insane expert (certainly possibly at 17+ levels) has about a 75% chance to do the "Nearly Impossible". But for many players, a tier 4 super expert with advantage should be able to hit DC 30 with the much loved 65+% chance of success which runs rampant through 5E from early on.And those same players prefer that a PC in heavy armor with DEX 8 and no stealth proficiency SHOULD fail at stealth most of the time. Level doesn't matter at that point. Now, if Peter Paladin wants to be better at stealth, proficiency goes a decent way to increasing the odds, especially at higher levels.Peter Paladin only has about a 6% chance to beat DC 15 without proficiency. Give him a +2 proficiency bonus and it doubles to over 12% (still crappy...).  Give him guidance and advantage, like Edgar Expert has, and now Peter Paladin has a 47% chance of beating DC 15. Make Peter Paladin tier 4 and he even has a 42.5% chance to beat DC 20.So, Peter Paladin in heavy armor, dumped DEX, and no proficiency in stealth will suck at DEX (Stealth) checks, regardless of level, because no resource has ever been put into it. But that's pretty much how it should be, shouldn't it???Well, we're dealing with extreme cases here. I didn't think bounded accuracy was really meant a super-focused expert from being really great at the stuff they are, well, supposed to be really great at. And of course the Paladin isn't getting worse, it is that his opponents are paying better attention. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />What I thought bounded accuracy was supposed to do with skills is make reasonably hard DCs still a bit of a challenge later on?Again, because in AD&D it sucks to begin with. In the end, you're about the same place you are in 5E. But in 5E you start there and stay there. Now, that assumes were are discussing level-appropriate opponents. In both cases, with lower level stuff, your chance of hitting increases. Which in AD&D is nice since before you were lucky to hit a low-level creature, but later on you are 50-50 or better. However, in 5E, you are going from already good (65% or so), to ludicrously good (80%+) when encountering low-level creatures at higher levels.</blockquote>

Verification