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

[James Gasik]

The Rogue gets expertise in four skills over its career. So does the bard. The ranger gets three. The wizard gets it in one Intelligence skill. Anyone can get it in one skill of choice at fourth level with Skill Expert. Expertise is painfully easy to get. Much like weapon mastery, it's never more than one feat or one level dip away.

Sure, but if the ability is that important that you need to take a Feat or a class dip to get it, maybe it's too good?

Plus the main problem is that Expertise is limited, there's always going to be skills it's necessary for and ones that are pretty niche. I don't see people taking Expertise in Medicine, but Perception or Investigation? Absolutely.

If I told my group to make a DC 25 History check, I'm sure I'd get some hearty laughs in response, as none of their classes are Int based to begin with.

 

[Remathilis]

AD&D is a differnt beast. Let's not move goalposts, ok? Thanks.

Expertise and reliable talent exist because people complained that the skill class was bad at skills. I don't want to move back to a game where the skill class is as good or worse than the fighting class and caster class at the same skills. .

 

[James Gasik]

Imagine if DCs weren't something you, the GM, put down like locks/roadblocks and instead were the percentage chance of activation for specific player abilities. We generally don't consider parties without access to specific spells unable to engage.

Well yes, you design around them. If the party lacks spell X, you either give them a scroll of it or don't include challenges requiring spell X.

Which is what I'm saying- if the party lacks Expertise, you don't include challenges requiring it! Which basically gives the party virtual Expertise because they won't need it!

And saying "well, see, if you do have Expertise, you don't raise the DC's at all, you just throw them a bone every so often" is kind of ridiculous in it's own right.

"I'm sorry that the design of the game means that I can't really make your cool ability be all important, but here's a cookie!"

 

[ezo]

Why CAN'T you have checks in the game that non-Expertise players just fail? Why is that bad?

You can have checks even expertise players just fail. Nothing bad about it. Attack the challenge in a different way...

The high-level fighter should be an engine of destruction that hardly ever misses.

They already are without anything more. (at least it seems that way LOL!)

Expertise and reliable talent exist because people complained that the skill class was bad at skills. I don't want to move back to a game where the skill class is as good or worse than the fighting class and caster class at the same skills. .

Were these things in 3E? I don't recall, I never played it much?

I seem to recall Rogues having enough skill points and Skill Expertise feat (??) to be good even then.

But you missed my point, Expertise alone takes care of this. Reliable Talent (2014) never even came up in most games. But when it did (and does) the two together are overkill IMO.

 

[Staffan]

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

Now now, let's not give Snarf any ideas.

 

[TwoSix]

I disagree.

The question should be "The party needs X roll filled. How can the classes we have best fulfill that roll, as well as bring along other utility?"

Yes, but class balance has a major impact at the point of character decision making.

If a player says "I want to play a rogue," that's fine and dandy.

If a player says "I want to play a sneaky character who's good at traps," there are a lot of options I would point out to them that aren't rogue.

Again, I disagree. Most games don't even make it to tier 3 when Reliable Talent comes online (2014), but due to having more skills (4) and four expertises, Rogues can do a wide variety of taskes effectively even before then.

Bards are a whole other issue as full casters, which they should never be IMO, but even they will only have two expertises prior to 10th level, not the four a Rogue has by 6th (a more commonly played level). IMO, Bards should never have Expertise. The class should be more about the Jack-of-All-Trades, Master-of-None concept.

Are we discussing what the game IS, or what the game SHOULD BE? Those are two very distinct discussions, and it's important to thread sanity to not conflate them.

I would much prefer my Wizard party member or my Bard to focus on other things than have them deal the the things the Rogue can easily handle.

I'm not arguing this other classes can't do it, but given everything else, they really shouldn't be doing it.

I'm arguing from the perspective of "My party already has a Paladin, a Cleric, and a Wizard. What else could I add to that party?"

And if I'm arguing from the perspective of utility (as opposed to "what do I like to play", in those cases balance is immaterial), I would rather have a Bard or a 2nd Wizard over a Rogue.

Again, I have to disagree. Rogues excel at rogue tasks, even before Reliable Talent. That might not be your experience, but as someone who plays rogues a lot and has a rogue in nearly every single party I've run or played in, that is certainly not my experience!

We'll have to disagree. I've had quite a few rogues in my party over the years. Other than the occasional huge SA crit or some Cunning Action shenanigans, they generally get overshadowed once Tier 2 hits. They're actually more interesting in Tier 3, as spellcaster progression slows markedly and Reliable Talent is actually a very useful ability.

 

[Remathilis]

Sure, but if the ability is that important that you need to take a Feat or a class dip to get it, maybe it's too good?

Plus the main problem is that Expertise is limited, there's always going to be skills it's necessary for and ones that are pretty niche. I don't see people taking Expertise in Medicine, but Perception or Investigation? Absolutely.

If I told my group to make a DC 25 History check, I'm sure I'd get some hearty laughs in response, as none of their classes are Int based to begin with.

Weapon mastery is already in meeting that threshold. As has blade pact and the shield spell. There are lots of abilities worth poaching for a feat or a dip. Or are you suggesting those should be removed too?

 

[James Gasik]

You can have checks even expertise players just fail. Nothing bad about it. Attack the challenge in a different way...


They already are without anything more. (at least it seems that way LOL!)


Were these things in 3E? I don't recall, I never played it much?

I seem to recall Rogues having enough skill points and Skill Expertise feat (??) to be good even then.

But you missed my point, Expertise alone takes care of this. Reliable Talent (2014) never even came up in most games. But when it did (and does) the two together are overkill IMO.

Rogues could get the ability to always "take 10" on a skill which is equal to Reliable, but numbers were a lot bigger in 3e...

3e was filled with other ways to get bonuses. You had synergy bonuses (+2) for closely related skills, masterwork tools (+2), Feats that gave +2 to two different skills, Skill Focus for +3, and a wide array of items that granted Competence bonuses to skills which went up in increments of +5.

Oh and Trapfinding, which guaranteed that only a Rogue (at least in the PHB) could even attempt certain rolls higher than DC 20.

 

[James Gasik]

Weapon mastery is already in meeting that threshold. As has blade pact and the shield spell. There are lots of abilities worth poaching for a feat or a dip. Or are you suggesting those should be removed too?

I'm not saying it, but I've seen a lot of people complaining on this board about all of those things!

 

[TwoSix]

Wow. Even for groups without Expertise? How do your players react to these sorts of checks being common? Have they optimized to be able to make them or do they just get creative and circumvent them?

Honestly curious here!

Most of them are optional, as I mentioned. An Acrobatics 25 check to maintain your balance on a sniper perch high above the battlefield that gives cover. Athletics 25 to shove over a statue that does 10d6 bludgeoning damage to the area under it. A DC 30 Arcana check that unravels the ritual that's summoning the demon, thus sending it away. A DC 28 History check to identify ancient sigils carved into the walls, thus giving a major clue as to the identity of what exactly is haunting these catacombs.

I use very much the method BG3 does; if you make a difficult check, you can bypass an encounter or get a major bonus to it. But if you don't, the party just encounters the encounter.