I can see the benefits of both a steady progression like in 3rd and 4th, and the benefits of the slower progression of 5th.
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?
Bounded Accuracy is largely cosmetic compared to the 4e treadmill. In both cases, PCs of all classes advance in competence at about the same rate, and you can easily tailor challenges to the party. The d20 system the die gets overwhelmed by sufficiently large bonuses, so even though you don't 'seem to be getting better' under Bounded Accuracy, you're not really doing any worse than on the Treadmill vs 'appropriate' challenges (and inappropriate ones are just virtual auto-fail/success). One is 'numbers porn' and the other is 'numerically repressed,' you could say.
OTOH, compared to 3.5 BAB, 2e THAC0 or 1e attack matrices, 5e BA does mean that really don't 'seem to be getting better' relative to other PCs. In those editions, a fighter got better at attacking, rogues at skills, wizards at casting, and so forth faster than other classes (who might not improve at all), so you had not just nominal progress matched by ever-increasing challenges, but relatively greater progress in your area of specialization. 5e BA does leave out characters who lack proficiency so when it comes to skills and saves, a PC can 'seem to get better' relative to his peers, in those areas.
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)?
An advantage of BA is that the system needs fewer challenges designed & statted out, since the same monsters, traps, or whatever can be re-used over a wider range of levels. Another advantage (npi) is (Dis)Advantage, which works better the closer your natural roll to succeed is to 10 or 11, again, it's largely cosmetic, because you'll need the same range of natural rolls to succeed vs 'appropriate' challenges on the treadmill. And, like the treadmill, BA avoids the problem of needing to over-challenge the rest of the party just to modestly challenge the party specialists.
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.
Those both suggest fairly simple variants:
You can already use downtime to learn new languages or proficiencies, why not skills, as well?
Feats are supposed to be 'big' - you could have a feat grant a selection of skills & Expertise in one of them, or whatever upgrade seems appropriate for the cost.
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.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.
That'd undercut part of the point of bounded accuracy, which is that you don't need to overclock a DC just to minimally challenge the party specialist.
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.
Rulings-not-Rules goes beyond Rule 0. You don't need to re-write rules in detail, just make rulings that work at the time. For instance, a character who's proficient & high stat in a skill you could allow to succeed without needing a check more often, while requiring a do-able check for others. In theory, the specialist could fail that same DC, but you don't call for the roll.
