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

[tetrasodium]

(Disclaimer: I only read page 1.)

My solution to this is simply that the party frequently has to split up. The rogue can't be in two places at once, but there are two locks that need to be opened (party has a rogue, a fighter/rogue, and the warlock can pick locks - poorly! - as well). The bard can't be in two places at once, but there are multiple social interactions that need to happen at once (party has a bard, a warlock, and a face-rogue). The party needs to scout/infiltrate a large location, but doesn't have time to do it slowly (warlock can use invisibility, rogue can stealth, bard can stealth; fighter/rogue can, but is in shiny armor). And so on.

It's a little odd right now in the campaign because they're in an ancient location where only the warlock can read the material (Eyes of the Keeper, I think?), so he's usually the only one who can try things. But even then, last session he wrote down careful instructions, and then the bard and rogue had to go off and attempt to follow the instructions and deal with the unexpected "bumps" not covered by the instructions.

So yeah, if I want to challenge the pure rogue with a stealth or lockpick check, it has to be really high; mostly, she breezes through even the DC 25 "dwarven puzzle locks". But the fighter/rogue can also handle quick lockpick checks during combat or timed situations, and the warlock can bypass "everyday" DC 12 and 15 locks found in most cities.

This kind of "split the party and..." lock scenario gets raised incredibly often but there's actually an eberron adventure that uses something similar (forgotten forge? whitehearth?). Every time I've run it or seen it run there is one of two scenarios that happens A: someone already knows exactly how to complete the lock & does so rainman style based on metagame knowledge so nobody cares... Then there is scenario B: the party tries a few things & shuts down till the GM bypasses it with a handwave. Interestingly though it's also used in the d&donline MMO in one of the raids, the same A or B happens there except the scenario B bypass is for someone to alt-tab out to lookup the trick.

It's really one of those scenarios that works fine in a novel or something but fails miserably in play.

 

[Remathilis]

If it is about the number of rolls made, then wouldn't the potential solution be that Expertise doesn't confer bonus proficiency but, instead, Advantage? This is to say, that with Expertise you gain "twice as many rolls" for a chance of success with a skill?

Advantage is an overused mechanic as is. It's given by a variety of factors like the help action, superior tools, advantageous circumstances. Further, it's easily negated by disadvantage, which only one disadvantageous element can negate a whole class feature. If expertise was only going to grant advantage, it becomes a non-feature (ribbon) since it doesn't make you any better with your skills than any other character in an advantageous situation.

Now, if you're willing to allow multiple advantages (and disadvantages) to stack and characters can build dice pools (I have one extra die from expertise, one from and ally helping, one from superior tools, but I have one disadvantage from darkness, so I roll 3d20 and take the highest) now your plan could work. But not under the current system.

 

[Aldarc]

Advantage is an overused mechanic as is. It's given by a variety of factors like the help action, superior tools, advantageous circumstances. Further, it's easily negated by disadvantage, which only one disadvantageous element can negate a whole class feature. If expertise was only going to grant advantage, it becomes a non-feature (ribbon) since it doesn't make you any better with your skills than any other character in an advantageous situation.

Now, if you're willing to allow multiple advantages (and disadvantages) to stack and characters can build dice pools (I have one extra die from expertise, one from and ally helping, one from superior tools, but I have one disadvantage from darkness, so I roll 3d20 and take the highest) now your plan could work. But not under the current system.

I agree; however, it's not really "[my] plan." It's more me musing that if the difference between Expertise and a fighter's attacks is the number of rolls, then Advantage - which essentially provides additional rolls - would be a more obvious answer than Expertise providing double proficiency.

 

[Gradine]

I think the biggest problem with bounded accuracy for ability/skill checks is that we've entirely lost the restriction on making untrained skill checks. While I think that setting hard and fast limits on whether a skill requires proficiency to use isn't the way to go (especially in an era of limited proficiencies, rather than numerous skill points to spread around), I think you can make a strong case for specific checks to require proficiency to succeed.

 

[TwoSix]

I agree; however, it's not really "[my] plan." It's more me musing that if the difference between Expertise and a fighter's attacks is the number of rolls, then Advantage - which essentially provides additional rolls - would be a more obvious answer than Expertise providing double proficiency.

I mean, you could make up an extended framework, sort of like a "combat" challenge, but instead you use "skills".

But I don't know what to call that.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think the biggest problem with bounded accuracy for ability/skill checks is that we've entirely lost the restriction on making untrained skill checks. While I think that setting hard and fast limits on whether a skill requires proficiency to use isn't the way to go (especially in an era of limited proficiencies, rather than numerous skill points to spread around), I think you can make a strong case for specific checks to require proficiency to succeed.

I do use following guideline for lore skills:
Is it is a check for something a dwarven cleric with proficiency in religion should usually know? DC 10 check. For the elven barbarian from a different region without proficiency? DC 20.

Which is within the guidelines for setting DCs on the fly.

 

[ezo]

I do use following guideline for lore skills:
Is it is a check for something a dwarven cleric with proficiency in religion should usually know? DC 10 check. For the elven barbarian from a different region without proficiency? DC 20.

Which is within the guidelines for setting DCs on the fly.

This is definitely one way in which we differ. Checks should have a set DC regardless of who is attempting the task. It is a failing of the 5E design that you should feel you have to alter the DC depending on who is doing the task IMO.

Do you do this just for lore or for other types of checks? Like Athletics?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This is definitely one way in which we differ. Checks should have a set DC regardless of who is attempting the task. It is a failing of the 5E design that you should feel you have to alter the DC depending on who is doing the task IMO.

No it is not.

Instead of varying the DC you can set DC as 15 and give advantage or disadvantage on the check.

If you consider it as check vs a passive score, advantage translates to +5, disadvantage to -5.

But things that are easy for some are hard for others which you can't possibly achieve with a useful skill system.

If you want the dwarf to spend skill points on thinks like "dwarven gods of the frozen mountains" and barbarians on "shaman lore of the jungle", more power to you.

Do you do this just for lore or for other types of checks? Like Athletics?

Usually for lore.

But if the task is running up a stair with steps made for ogres, I guess the elf will make a DC 15 check, the dwarf a DC 20 check. Because those tasks are not equally difficult.

Or a human, an ape or an elefant climbing up a tree. I guess only one has to do a check at all.

 

[ezo]

No it is not.

It is IMO.

Instead of varying the DC you can set DC as 15 and give advantage or disadvantage on the check.

But this isn't want proficiecy or lack of proficiency does.

Now, of course as DM you have disgression to grant advantage if dwarf is making an Intelligence (Religion) check about a Dwarven religion and disadvantage to non-dwarves.

But things that are easy for some are hard for others which you can't possibly achieve with a useful skill system.

Sure you can, just not 5E's.

If you want the dwarf to spend skill points on thinks like "dwarven gods of the frozen mountains" and barbarians on "shaman lore of the jungle", more power to you.

Except there are no "skill points" in 5E's skill system.

Usually for lore.

Fair enough. I think you could gate checks for all Intelligence checks in particular depending on likely exposure to the knowledge in question.

But if the task is running up a stair with steps made for ogres, I guess the elf will make a DC 15 check, the dwarf a DC 20 check. Because those tasks are not equally difficult.

Or, as you said above, impose disadvantage on the dwarf due to short legs and/or advantage to the elf for longer legs instead of adjusting the DC?

Or you don't adjust it at all... A "strong" dwarf with a better bonus making such a Strength ability check is more likely to be able to leap high enough for each step than the weak elf who can't make each leap as easily.

Or a human, an ape or an elefant climbing up a tree. I guess only one has to do a check at all.

Of course. As DM you get to make the call if a check has any chance of success or not. For the elephant? No check allowed, it can't climb it. For the ape? No check required as it has a climb speed so climbs. And the human? Make the check.

But you aren't setting different DCs for each one, right???

The point is you don't adjust the DC in 5E, you decide on the things like advantage or disadvantage, or if a check is even allowed, but that's it.

Which is within the guidelines for setting DCs on the fly.

Which guidelines are those? As far as I recall, you set a DC for a task, not for the individual attempting it. If you have an example in a WotC adventure or rulebook, etc. showing two different DCs for the same task attempted by different individuals, please share! I don't know of any, but I could easily have just not seen such a case.

 

[tetrasodium]

It is IMO.


But this isn't want proficiecy or lack of proficiency does.

Now, of course as DM you have disgression to grant advantage if dwarf is making an Intelligence (Religion) check about a Dwarven religion and disadvantage to non-dwarves.


Sure you can, just not 5E's.


Except there are no "skill points" in 5E's skill system.


Fair enough. I think you could gate checks for all Intelligence checks in particular depending on likely exposure to the knowledge in question.


Or, as you said above, impose disadvantage on the dwarf due to short legs and/or advantage to the elf for longer legs instead of adjusting the DC?

Or you don't adjust it at all... A "strong" dwarf with a better bonus making such a Strength ability check is more likely to be able to leap high enough for each step than the weak elf who can't make each leap as easily.


Of course. As DM you get to make the call if a check has any chance of success or not. For the elephant? No check allowed, it can't climb it. For the ape? No check required as it has a climb speed so climbs. And the human? Make the check.

But you aren't setting different DCs for each one, right???

The point is you don't adjust the DC in 5E, you decide on the things like advantage or disadvantage, or if a check is even allowed, but that's it.


Which guidelines are those? As far as I recall, you set a DC for a task, not for the individual attempting it. If you have an example in a WotC adventure or rulebook, etc. showing two different DCs for the same task attempted by different individuals, please share! I don't know of any, but I could easily have just not seen such a case.

This whole back & forth between you two perfectly illustrates why the GM & players having the option to lean on the functionality of bonus types/DM's best friend & a DC ladder tuned to "who could do it" or even the more varied skill challenges instead of the one size must fit all (dis)advantage & a crippled DC ladder. All of those other options as they allowed the players to bring a discussion over to the GM with more than "Oh I'm proficient in X" & a single thing that should help grant advantage.