D&D (2024) Should Bounded Accuracy apply to skill checks? Thoughts on an old Alexandrian article

[roguish]

I was reading an article by Justin Alexander roasting the 5e skill system, and arguing (among other things) that Expertise is bad because it breaks Bounded Accuracy, and Reliable Talent makes it worse. And with this, I disagree.

I think that Bounded Accuracy is excellent for combat's standard rolls: attack vs AC, and saving throw vs DC. That's when you need numbers that challenge the whole party: some characters may have a better chance than others, sure, but the d20 roll doesn't become irrelevant because this one is guaranteed to succeed and that one is doomed to fail.

But for otherwise interacting with the world, I actually don't think the numbers need to challenge the whole party. I think immersion and simulation (I like these!) are better served by making such challenges tricky. Occasionally they will be too easy for some, and/or too hard for others, depending on where the characters focused their training. And when that happens, it's up to the party to figure out ways to make up for it, to look for other, creative solutions rather than get stuck on a skill check that one or more of them are doomed to fail, and in the end to acknowledge that some tasks are suited for only some of them.

So maybe half the party auto-failing to scale that wall means they need to find another way in, or use their spells, or have the athletic ones climb up and throw down a knotted rope. That's good! It's a complication that requires a solution other than rolling a single check! Maybe only the Wizard (with 2024 rules) has a chance of making that extreme Arcana check about a long lost artifact. That's great! It makes sense and it's immersive, they should be the only one able to make it. And maybe, if your goal is to stealthily scout ahead, don't send forth the clanging armoured warriors, only send the sneaky rogues and rangers. That's fantastic! It's basic tactics! What's not to like?

[This technically applies both to 2014 and 2024 rules, though to my great chagrin 5.5 fully dropped the ball on the skill system. Honestly, I just picked the 2024 flair because I use an example from the new PHB.]

 

[James Gasik]

The issue I had with this is that in order to make skill checks interesting, you need to make them challenging to some degree. This isn't "ho ho ho, you failed the check, the adventure is over" thinking- failure can be interesting in it's own right, if characters are allowed to try again after dealing with a setback, or "failing forward".

It's more that, let's say we have two characters. One is an archer Fighter who favors Dexterity and has a Street Urchin background. The other is a Rogue who took expertise in Thieves' Tools.

Right off the bat, all things being equal, the Rogue has a +2 bonus over the Fighter. At this point, it's no big deal, because you would expect a Rogue to be better at picking locks than a Fighter.

By level 11, however, the Rogue now has a +4 bonus over the Fighter, and (assuming Dex 20), simply cannot roll worse than a 23. If the DM selects skill check DC's that the Fighter can reliably hit (say, DC 19-24), then the Rogue almost always succeeds at these tests, making the Fighter redundant save for those times the Rogue isn't able to make the check for some reason, and almost taking failure off the table, making these sorts of skill checks uninteresting and maybe even pointless!

If the DM instead raises the bar so that the Rogue occasionally fails, now we're talking about DC's of 28-30, the maximum DC the system allows for.

The Fighter might be able to hit these on a natural 20, or, in the case of DC 30, finds it impossible to do so. Which means that they might as well not even have proficiency in Thieves' Tools. Further, in those cases where the Rogue cannot make the check, they are almost certainly going to fail, meaning that the skill checks are again almost pointless and not interesting at all.

Yes, there are other ways you can go about this- forcing doors open, finding keys, hidden entrances, use of magic, but if these are viable alternatives, again, the Fighter's proficiency basically doesn't matter!

Expertise becomes back breaking when it means that either characters with it succeed all the time, or you need Expertise to be considered good at something.

Considering that 5e is a system that lets any character attempt most rolls (Thieves' Tools being the only standout), this is really bothersome.

Someone might say "well, the Fighter can Help the Rogue" to gain advantage, but that just exacerbates the situation- you either have it so one character always succeeds or that no one else but one character has a chance to.

Not exactly a great skill system, IMO.

 

[Staffan]

I strongly believe characters should be allowed to be highly competent in their fields of expertise, at least once they reach tier 2. I want players to look at a challenge that's in their character's wheelhouse and go "Don't worry, I got this." If you're a rogue with Thievery expertise and proficiency in Thief's Tools, there shouldn't be many locks that resist you. If you're a bard with expertise in Performance and proficiency in a number of musical instruments, you should be able to put on a really good show. A cleric with expertise in Religion should know obscure points of theology. In games where violence is a less common occurrence than in D&D, I could also see a dedicated fighter-type being able to take out pretty much anyone, but in D&D fighting is too much a part of the core loop for that to be reasonable.

"So how do you challenge PCs?" Well, for one thing you should realize that if you have an expert thief, locks shouldn't pose a challenge to them. Locks are a challenge to other people, but that player has made the choice to be awesome at opening locks, and they should be allowed to do that. Instead, you challenge them in other ways. Perhaps the lock isn't easily accessible, and the rogue has to either talk their way into the place where it is, or physically infiltrate the location. Or maybe the door is not just locked but also guarded physically, so the rogue or some other party member has to lure the guards away. Or maybe there are patrols, so you have a limited time to do whatever you were planning to do in the locked room.

 

[TiQuinn]

My thought is that by the time players are reaching Tier 3, they should be amongst the best of the best in something. For the wizards and clerics, that’s going to probably be some knowledge checks. For the rogue, it’s fast taking people and picking locks. I don’t expect the PCs at that level to fail those kinds of things. Their challenges need to be bigger than that. You’re no longer picking the lock to a door in some wizard’s tower; you’re picking the lock to the Efreeti Lord’s inner sanctum and the door is made out of flowing molten stone radiating heat and occasionally the door flares as the lava bubbles.

 

[ezo]

If the DM instead raises the bar so that the Rogue occasionally fails, now we're talking about DC's of 28-30, the maximum DC the system allows for.

You don't have to go this high. Even DC 25 will require the Rogue to roll a 12 or better, so just under 50/50. IMO that would certainly qualify as "occasionally".

At the same DC 25, even the Urchin-Ranger with +9 will make it on 16 or better, so 25% of the time.

Anyway, the system more falls apart because of a feature like Reliable Talent, than anything else IMO. Expertise will give you at most a 30% bump, which is signifcant in its own right. Reliable Talent should function like Indomitable Might. Instead of raising the roll to a minimum 10, treat the entire result as equal to your DEX or whatever. This way, for most rogues, it means you reliably get a 20, not 20+... (generally).

This sort of change would still make Reliable Talent helpful on occasion. The above rogue with +13 rolling a 6 or lower (30% chance) will benefit from the feature. It makes it useful without making skill challenges nearly immaterial IMO.

IME this is the only sort of thing that screws things up. Otherwise, I find keeping DCs between 10-20 works well most of the time. Also, using group checks for team efforts (like the PCs climbing a wall or cliff) where half the PCs making it enable them to help the half that might have failed.

 

[Quartz]

How about simplifying Expertise? Expertise just means that you roll the d20 with Advantage. That's it.

You could further this by having expert locks / whatever which apply Disadvantage to the roll, so those with Expertise roll normally.

 

[Staffan]

How about simplifying Expertise? Expertise just means that you roll the d20 with Advantage. That's it.

You could further this by having expert locks / whatever which apply Disadvantage to the roll, so those with Expertise roll normally.

Not a fan. Advantage/disadvantage should generally speaking be circumstantial, and not denote exceptional skill or a task's inherent difficulty. If something is difficult, that should be reflected in its difficulty class.

Let characters be awesome. Don't put a lock in Parker's way and expect it to slow her down.

 

[TiQuinn]

How about simplifying Expertise? Expertise just means that you roll the d20 with Advantage. That's it.

You could further this by having expert locks / whatever which apply Disadvantage to the roll, so those with Expertise roll normally.

My issue with Advantage/Disadvantage is that it's becoming the proverbial hammer to every problem's nail.

 

[Pedantic]

Sure would help if we actually had tasks appropriate to each DC laid out, so we'd know exactly how competent a rogue is supposed to be....and putting down my "everything since the 3.x era skill system has been backsliding" drum, more broadly anything that can be resolved in a single skill check isn't a challenge, it's at best part of a broader challenge. Your expert rogue at some point not only should be able to pick any lock, but should be actively looking for locks to pick to resolve whatever is actually at stake in the situation, much like your barbarian should be looking for a way to fix the situation by climbing.

The interesting bit isn't the rolling dice to see if the character gets what they want, it's the player stringing together the set of actions/reactions they think will best get them what they want.

 

[Minigiant]

The issue with skill has always been than some actions should be impossible to all but the best people at them.

However many DMs use these checks as Gates instead of Optional Paths.

The gmomish lock might have a DC of 30 that a level 11 master thief rogue can easily beat but be impossible for the criminal dabbling fighter to unlock.

But behind the door is only optional +1 daggers that the evil warlord locked up. If that door is mandatory, the key should be offered or the door breakable.