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

[Parmandur]

Oh, I do that all the time as well. "Normally, you wouldn't be able to know this (or do this), but as an expert..."

And I do "You can only roll this if you're proficient" on well over half of my skill check calls.

Gating is such a great way to provide a spotlight for characters: if the Paladin is the only member of the party with History Proficiency, then throwing in some solid 15 or 20 DC Hiatory checks will help the character contribute to the fiction and be more than a q dimensional meat shield.

 

[TwoSix]

Just make it all point buy and let the Adventurer delve into skills, spells and combat in whatever combo they want.

Woah, woah, woah, let's not get crazy!

But I do think, if we want to derive our class identities from the setting diegesis, there's definitely an argument to have 1-2 "mundane" classes, and then the rest be derived from magical traditions.

 

[TwoSix]

Gating is such a great way to provide a spotlight for characters: if the Paladin is the only member of the party with History Proficiency, then throwing in some solid 15 or 20 DC Hiatory checks will help the character contribute to the fiction and be more than a q dimensional meat shield.

That's exactly why I do it. It also encourages players to take skills for concept, even if they don't "match" what their best stats are.

 

[Guest 7037866]

Well, that rogue is also rocking a 20 Dex, 18 Wis, and 14 Int at level 7. I think the blessing of the dice fairy may also be playing a role here.

Started:
DEX 18 (+1 half-elf, +1 ASI at 4th)
WIS 16 (+1 half-elf, +1 ASI at 4th)
INT 14

Other rolls were a 12, 12, 9. Certainly good rolls, but no worse than our Fighter who ROLLED two 18's...

Since rolling is the default method, I go with it.

Regardless, even with point-buy or standard array, most of his bonuses would be only one worse generally. So, 60% to hit DC 15 on those bolded checks instead of 65%. Not a huge difference IMO.

A rogue who isn't any better with skills is a dexterity fighter. And if the rogue loses his edge over skills, you might as well give the fighter a few extra skills and let him subsume the Rogue.

But a rogue is better with skills. They have more of them and they have expertise by default.

 

[Emerikol]

I'd rather just have a generic "Adventurer" class for the guy with no magic abilities that just does stuff. Extra skills, good hit points, bonuses to attacks.

Well, if Ranger can be a fighter variant, and the difference is just some skills, then I think the Rogue could be done the same way. Now if you insist on magical rangers that argument wouldn't apply. I don't prefer magical rangers. They are just fighters with a different focus.

 

[Parmandur]

That's exactly why I do it. It also encourages players to take skills for concept, even if they don't "match" what their best stats are.

I swear that rhe 2014 DMG suggests it for that reason, but it is rather hard to parse that book.

I see a lot ofnpeople complaining how fast itbis...but it seems they treat Proficiency as 3E Skill tests where anyone can try anything, and evwrythingbiabjust gated by increasing numbers.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Please, if you think he hasn't already had that idea many hundreds of times, starting several years ago(at least)...

 

[TwoSix]

Started:
DEX 18 (+1 half-elf, +1 ASI at 4th)
WIS 16 (+1 half-elf, +1 ASI at 4th)
INT 14

Other rolls were a 12, 12, 9. Certainly good rolls, but no worse than our Fighter who ROLLED two 18's...

Since rolling is the default method, I go with it.

Which is fine. But a rolled character in a balance discussion is generally a poor example, since the focus becomes the rolled stats, not the class features.

Regardless, even with point-buy or standard array, most of his bonuses would be only one worse generally. So, 60% to hit DC 15 on those bolded checks instead of 65%. Not a huge difference IMO.

I would agree with that.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, if Ranger can be a fighter variant, and the difference is just some skills, then I think the Rogue could be done the same way. Now if you insist on magical rangers that argument wouldn't apply. I don't prefer magical rangers. They are just fighters with a different focus.

I certainly don't need magical rangers. If I had to put together a "stripped down class" framework to capture most D&D tropes, I'd do:
Adventurer
Priest
Psychic
Sage
Sorcerer

With a lot of subclasses, multiclassing, and PrCs.

 

[Guest 7037866]

Which is fine. But a rolled character in a balance discussion is generally a poor example, since the focus becomes the rolled stats, not the class features.

Since most of the time rolled stats which are higher will eventually be reached, even if at a higher level, than scores which begin via standard array or point-buy, I don't consider using rolled scores as being determental to the point.

I would agree with that.

Coupled with the idea in 5E of "not failure" but "failing to make progress" or "success at a cost", the problem is worse.

If a PC has a 60% chance, but can always just "try again" without issue, much of the time why even bother having the check??

I prefer the fail by 5 or more rule and you cannot try again barring a chance to the scenario.