D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[Raith5]

I am enjoying BA in 5e - it works really well in the main. I am finding saves to be bit random and I would like 'high' ACs to be a bit higher, but really it is nitpicking and quickly descends into Spinal Tap "it goes to 11" kind of argument. The benefits outweigh these small problems.

But I can see why some people have a problem with character progression, but the problem is not in BA. In particular some of the martial characters seem to not have the same sense of building their abilities as spell casters. I dont think martial classes are weak by any means but there development while not linear is somewhat dull and I think their abilities (even of 'complicated' martial classes like the Battlemaster) could have been structured with prerequisites or level requirements). If anything it could build in some stronger sense of building your character, some sense of anticipation of abilities to come.

 

[Minigiant]

No. That was what I thought first... but once we had the mindset not rolling at all when not being attacked or in immanent danger and the system became quite good. I strongly believe the first designers of the 3.0 basic rules did have in mind that you actually spread your skillpoints and not put everything in few skills and max them. I repeat myself when I say: 5 ranks of a skill got you an extra 2 points to another skill and a "master" smith just had to be a level 2 expert with a few masterwork tools and an apprentice, not someone level 20.
5 ranks +2 synergy, +3 skill focus, +2 int, +2 help actiom. That is a skillbonus of +14 without stretching reality. A smith of level 3 will get another +1 from ranks, and maybe even another feat. +15 is sufficient for a take 10 -> 25. Or take 20 -> 35
Also taking 20 on a lot of tasks makes sense in so far, that 2 minutes is a good time for usual tasks. 6 seconds to open a lock e.g. is just for master thiefs. But anyone suffiviently proficient can open a DC 25 lock in 2 minutes without a problem.

Now in 5e, it is the same: It just is not called take 20 and take 10 is just a passive check.

True.
But "This is what was intended" vs "this is what happened" was a whole different issue with 3rd edition.

But the point was true.
When there was no rush or stress, anyone can do the basics and only the experts can do the advanced.
When there was rush or stress, only the experts could reliably do the basics and only they can would ever attempt the advanced anyway.

5th put the takes in the DMs hands so they wouldn't need to ask for take 10, take 20 or roll. The DM could was told to look at the passives and go from there.

 

[CrusaderX]

I also make skill check difficulty dependent on who tries them. The dwarven cleric has a much easier time recalling lore about dwarven gods, no matter if he is proficient in religion or not. Likewise the urchin has an easier time getting along in the city.

I thought about using Advantage or Expertise to "fix" a situation where, for example, a Ranger with an ok (but not maxed out) Wisdom score is not as good at tracking as a Life Cleric with a maxed out Wisdom score.

But really, changing the Ability Check's Difficulty Class based upon who is trying the task seems like the best way to handle things. A Life Cleric with an Acolyte background might be looking at a Medium to Hard DC when attempting to track, whereas a Ranger who tries the same thing is looking at an Easy to Medium DC.

The DM simply taking into account a character's background and class when assigning DCs seems like the most overall elegant solution in situations like this.

 

[aramis erak]

I was quite fond of the word "Trained" in 4e. It felt like it represented a dedicated learning to the subject, as opposed to "proficiency" which literally just means you're good at a thing. I still run proficiency more like training where in some instances only people with specific training can accomplish a task.

But generally I agree, proficiency doesn't really seem to have much oomph, even at later levels; except for rogues who get double proficiency to several skills.

I can agree with the terminology complaint.

I've noticed that true proficiency is being able to routinely get advantage, not the +2 to +6 from the proficiency check.

It'd be interesting to swap the two mechanically and see how it played....
as in

House Rule idea:
Proficiency: Roll two dice and keep the higher; add 5 to passive.
Advantage: Add your proficiency bonus to the die roll
Disadvantage: subtract 5 from the die roll.​

 

[Sunseeker]

I can agree with the terminology complaint.

I've noticed that true proficiency is being able to routinely get advantage, not the +2 to +6 from the proficiency check.

It'd be interesting to swap the two mechanically and see how it played....
as in

House Rule idea:
Proficiency: Roll two dice and keep the higher; add 5 to passive.
Advantage: Add your proficiency bonus to the die roll
Disadvantage: subtract 5 from the die roll.​

It's not a bad idea, but I think it needs some work. I'd suggest disadvantage be negative proficiency, so it doesn't hit as hard at low levels. Still feels like it needs something though. Particularly for handling attacks. You're basically always proficient in attacking.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Hi everyone.

One of my players is not liking bounded accuracy. He doesn't feel like his character is improving when his numbers only go up about once every other level. His issue is that his skill bonus of +5 at 1st level, up to maybe +11 at 20th level, doesn't make much that he can do at 20th level that he couldn't do at 1st level.

I see stuff like this and to me it sounds like the player is saying, "I should be able to never fail when I get good at stuff. I should get so good I don't have to roll."

No, that's not how it works. If you're rolling a die -- if we're stopping the game to make you roll a die and determine a result -- then you have a chance to succeed or fail. If you're rolling a die, then it's because the DM is challenging the players. One of the first decisions we came to was that rolling dice when nobody cared or retries were unlimited was a complete waste of time. Just stop doing it. Just let the players do it. Rolling a die? Failure has consequences. Success has rewards.

Now, it's the DM's job to not make dice rolling excessive or for irrelevant events. Most things the players do should just succeed. If the players aren't earning rewards (XP, gold, treasure) then you really have to consider why you're making them roll dice. Certainly there are times when dice are rolled and there's no XP or treasure, but it's thinking along those lines that gets you to thinking about "Do my players need dice to adjudicate this action?" My rules of thumb:

1. What they're doing directly leads to XP
2. What they're doing directly leads to treasure
3. My first instinct was to say, "No, that will not work."

In these cases, I might want to say, "Hey, go ahead and roll."

I know bounded accuracy is one of the most popular things about the edition, based on the polls here. Is there anyone else who dislikes bounded accuracy? What do you not like about it, and why? Would you change it? How would you change it?

If you absolutely love bounded accuracy, why? What do you feel it adds to the game? Do you like not needing gamist things to allow low level threats to remain a threat (like minion rules)?

It's mostly what I hated about 3e/4e. In 3e, you quickly outstrip the DCs of anything you want to do. Skill DCs for the two skills you choose are irrelevant after level 8. You just always succeed (and always fail at nearly everything else). It's especially absurd with opposed checks. +30 vs +2? In 4e, you start out with like a 55% chance of success at everything. As you progress in levels, if you bust your ass and put everything you got into something, you might end up with a 45% chance of success at the things you're good at.

In 5e, every bonus is an *actual improvement*. You're *actually better*. You start out at 50% and end up at 75%. Maybe that's a slow progress, but it's real progress.

I also really like that in 5e, your bonus is about 50% from skill (proficiency bonus) and 50% from raw talent (ability scores). I never liked ability scores trumping everything else or vice-versa. Both are important.

 

[Maxperson]

When there is no pressure, when consequences of failure are low, or you can retry endlessly, its dull.

But when you have one chance.... It's not dull one bit.

That's the problem with looking at the cleric's +4 and the rogue's +8 on a DC 15 door. No context.

But if a rolling boulder or greater devil is heading you way, the Rogue who can (Action-Unlock door, Cunning Action -Unlock Door)... Two attempt and better numbers are big.

Everyone can attempt it but if everyone is here, Johnny does it.

___
Then there is the "bugbear issue".
You want everyone able to beat those bugbears' Dex (Stealth) check to hide.

Because if the scout rolls low and no one else can beat the gobliniods' roll, you are second breakfast.

The problem with that is attempts under pressure aren't that common. The DM can make it very common, but then it makes the game feel very contrived and unrealistic.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm still here, I'm just not as hear as I used to be.



See, a lot of what the pro bounded accuracy people are saying is what I was trying to say to my player, but more and more my player is convincing me that the 5E skill system is simply too simple to model characters especially well. There's little growth in skills; sure, your proficiency bonus goes up from 2 to 6, but it's difficult to get new skills (Spend a feat on skills? Yeah right). Expertise is linked to only 2 classes, and multiclassing into them to get better skills feels odd.

I'm beginning to wonder if the skill system could be expanded. Maybe to have 4 ranks of skills, instead of the binary of trained/untrained we have now. What if there was untrained, proficient, focused, specialized? Untrained is no bonus, proficient is proficiency bonus, focused is double proficiency bonus, and specialized is auto advantage (or switch focused and specialized?). At certain levels, you gain more skill "rank", either to gain proficiency in a new skill or to gain a new level of proficiency.

Yes, DCs would need to be adjusted a bit, or at least higher level characters would be going up against hard and very hard things more often. General checks that are going to be applied for everyone would be aimed at the proficiency level, but things that only one person needs to do could be aimed higher as the levels grow. This way, the characters will feel like they can accomplish things they couldn't accomplish before, instead of just being marginally better at what they could do before.

I don't know, I'm still looking at a massive overhaul, but I don't like relying upon Rule 0 to make me like a system. Oberoni Fallacy and all that.

I like those ideas. For some skills, you could say that they aren't even able to be attempted if you are untrained.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

against the idea that all prople try a check until someone passes it:
If there is plenty of time, and no risk, the best one could retry until he passes. Everything ok.
If there is not a lot of time and/or no retry possible and everyone tries to "help" it is now a group check.
So if less than half the party succeeds, it is a failure. The reasoining behind that is that you hinder each other in your attemt to help.
So if only one tries and another one tries to help, in most cases the better rolls with advatage which is usually better than needing 3 successes out of 5 tries.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

See, a lot of what the pro bounded accuracy people are saying is what I was trying to say to my player, but more and more my player is convincing me that the 5E skill system is simply too simple to model characters especially well. There's little growth in skills; sure, your proficiency bonus goes up from 2 to 6, but it's difficult to get new skills (Spend a feat on skills? Yeah right). Expertise is linked to only 2 classes, and multiclassing into them to get better skills feels odd.

I'm beginning to wonder if the skill system could be expanded. Mayb

I don't know, I'm still looking at a massive overhaul, but I don't like relying upon Rule 0 to make me like a system. Oberoni Fallacy and all that.

I also hope for an expanded skill system, and I was sad not to see one in the DMG.
There is however a nice little rule in the DMG that allows getting skill proficiencies without multiclassing or spending feats. It is hidden under special rewards.