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

[PHATsakk43]

That seems to be a highly idiosyncratic definition of a "skill system", and not one very useful foe actual analysis.

A better definition of a "skill system", IMO, ia a system thet helps differentiate the results of an action declaration from two characters using two or more factors. So, "roll under attribute" is not a "skill system" because the results are only differentiated in one dimension, Attribute score. Whereas in 5Ez the combination of Attribute, Proficiency, Expertise and certain Class abilities provide nuance and multiple shades of distinction between different characters declaring the same action.

What you’re describing—5E method which is mostly an afterthought of or consequence of a combination of class, species, and background, with a modicum of design in the way of ability score selection seems like it’s simply mechanical.

Sure, the method in either AD&D or 3E/3.5/PF is absolutely idiosyncratic—which is the reason for a defined system. Otherwise it’s simply another ability that is simply baked into the character creation process.

Skills systems are by their natures idiosyncratic. Or ought to be.

Again, I use the system provided in 5E—RAW—because it’s not idiosyncratic which simplifies things. Sometimes simplicity is just what is needed or wanted.

When I want a more developed game, but without the problems I think exist in the other D20 games—precisely because those don’t use a bounded accuracy basis—I run a well optioned 2E game.

 

[Parmandur]

What you’re describing—5E method which is mostly an afterthought of or consequence of a combination of class, species, and background, with a modicum of design in the way of ability score selection seems like it’s simply mechanical.

Yes, it is a mechanics system...?

 

[PHATsakk43]

Yes, it is a mechanics system...?

No, it’s nothing really.

It’s just a function of character build. It might as well be the same as hit points or numbers of spells per level. It’s not really a method to distinguish a character the way skill systems have typically been used. Then the skills themselves are poorly developed. There is extremely little agency involved in the actual mechanics to adjudicate success and failure.

 

[Maxperson]

Bounded Accuracy doesn't care about what numbers the PCs have or can get.

Bounded Accuracy never cared about what numbers the PCs have or can get.

The developers explicitly state this in their explanation of what Bounded Accuracy is.

By definition, things like Bardic Inspiration, Expertise, Guidance, Reliable Talents, etc. don't break Bounded Accuracy because Bounded Accuracy doesn't concern itself with player side abilities.

That DMs are having a problem with player numbers being too high, or with the possible vast disparity amongst players' numbers is an entirely different problem - and not necessarily one with the game.

This is exactly right. Though to be fair. Bounded Accuracy(which implies numbers) not having anything to do with numbers is counter intuitive and causes a lot of confusion. See the link in the OP where the person linked doesn't understand what bounded accuracy is, and he's supposed to be very knowledgeable.

 

[Pedantic]

Which to them, justified level 6 and higher characters being able to do impossible feats (which led up to things like a DC 20 Acrobatics check to balance on a cloud). Of course, as the many "Martial v Magical" threads on this very board show, there are people who absolutely do and absolutely do not want this sort of thing in their D&D games!

That puts me in kind of a different Alexandrian article. 3e's mistake was failure to extrapolate far enough above that well defined baseline, but the ultimate lesson seems to have been "wow we wasted a lot of time making that all make sense."

I want more design cycles calibrating jump checks to olympians.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I wonder why people conplain that reliable talent is reliable. It is the rogue's magic. It just works most of the time.

Does it trivialize challenges? Yes.

As does the sending spell whenever someone goes missing. The teleport spell when you want to get somewhere. The dimension door to go through closed doors. Spider climb when you want to get up somewhere.

Why is taking away what rogues excel at good sports?

 

[James Gasik]

I wonder why people conplain that reliable talent is reliable. It is the rogue's magic. It just works most of the time.

Does it trivialize challenges? Yes.

As does the sending spell whenever someone goes missing. The teleport spell when you want to get somewhere. The dimension door to go through closed doors. Spider climb when you want to get up somewhere.

Why is taking away what rogues excel at good sports?

It's not that I want to take anything away from the Rogue, but I'd prefer flatter numbers in the system that was supposed to care about flattening numbers and not pushing modifiers off the d20*, so I'm not stuck trying to figure out if a guy with a check of +5 is a village idiot compared to a guy with a check of +17 and beyond.

If all bets are truly off, and numberflation is just as real as it ever was, then have rules for epic skill check results for these phenoms who can routinely hit so-called "impossible" DC's.

Or hey, maybe we could just get rid of skills, go back to OD&D where the DM can decide if a character can do something with an ability check, and give the Rogue back their bespoke "super skills" (ie, Thieving abilities).

*At least, I think that's something someone at WotC claimed at some point. Maybe they never did and I just assumed that's what the point of this all was.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I wonder why people conplain that reliable talent is reliable. It is the rogue's magic. It just works most of the time.

Does it trivialize challenges? Yes.

As does the sending spell whenever someone goes missing. The teleport spell when you want to get somewhere. The dimension door to go through closed doors. Spider climb when you want to get up somewhere.

Why is taking away what rogues excel at good sports?

well those spells are actually called Magic, therefore they get special dispensation to be allowed to break the game, and the reason this is different to reliable talent is 'because'.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I want skills to provide players with lines of play, sets of actions they put together to try and get the outcome they want, tactical responses to failure, and so on. It's simply not interesting to roll a 65% chance of success repeatedly, and while all the narrative discussion of how to make something out of failure on that roll are fine, I'd rather have players who are empowered to try not to fail.

Unless I'm reading you incorrectly (which is entirely possible I will admit)... you make it sound like your reasons for these checks are to think up ways in the fiction to generate bonus methods to "win the dice roll". That "winning the dice roll" is actually the point of playing, and not whatever it is your character is actually doing and trying to accomplish "in-game" in the world of the campaign. If your PC has to "get over a wall" within the fiction (for example), then the point of the RPG is to leverage game mechanics and think up methods within the fiction that allow you to get mechanical bonuses to win the dice roll that lets you "get over the wall". And if you "get over the wall" then you've won this encounter... not because your character now gets to see what is on the other side, but merely because you rolled higher than the DC the DM gave you.

Now personally, I don't really see a point in that circle of gameplay for an RPG (playing a dice and puzzle game that dresses up the individual rolls with a fantasy veneer), so I'm wondering if perhaps I am misinterpreting what you are talking about (which is quite possible)? Or if I'm in fact correct in my interpretation of your reasoning, then it means your decisions for choosing to play an RPG are wildly different than mine (also quite possible). And while I can appreciate the difference, I can also understand why the designers might not design the game towards your direction if they feel the point of playing D&D (rather than some other dice game) is more in the direction of mine.

The game can absolutely play the way it seems like you are advocating for... and it very much feels reflective of late '70s style gameplay (where the challenge is to the players to outwit the DM by leveraging bits of fiction)... but that style has moved on quite a ways over the last 50 years and I don't foresee "official" D&D ever going back to it. Especially not now that there are plenty of RPGs that are being designed all the time to bring that style back for the players that want it.

 

[Remathilis]

Honestly, if you get rid of the Expertise and RT, you can delete the Rogue class right along with it. The Rogue is a two-bit fighter with mediocre DPS (especially in 5.24) whose selling point is skill use beyond all other classes. It's already been diluted by how many other ways there are to get expertise (ranger, bard, wizard, feats) and removing it would just leave them sneak attack, which is fairly inferior compared to the damage multiple attacks and riders give.

So yeah, nerf the rogue's ability to auto success skills and you can just get rid of the class and use the room to print more "I win" wizard spells I guess...

(You could probably delete the bard and ranger too at that point).