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

[UngeheuerLich]

Having an ability on one class called "Reliable" isn't quite what I meant.

I meant maybe have somewhere in the DMG a section talking about how ability checks will eventually cease to matter as players get abilities to either circumvent them or get ways to make the chances of failure vanishingly small.

I am just before the adventure chapter. Maybe there is some advice in there.

 

[tetrasodium]

i'm really not seeing how that's happening.

The skill system obsoleting itself early into the game doesn't seem to be in dispute. It sounds more like you simply reject the idea that a game world could contain advanced highly skilled professionals other than the PCs or that those advanced individuals could have skills that run counter to the ones chosen by the PCs.

 

[CreamCloud0]

The skill system obsoleting itself early into the game doesn't seem to be in dispute. It sounds more like you simply reject the idea that a game world could contain advanced highly skilled professionals other than the PCs or that those advanced individuals could have skills that run counter to the ones chosen by the PCs.

what? how is this your read of my posts? how is this close to anything i said???

 

[tetrasodium]

what? how is this your read of my posts? how is this close to anything i said???

Provided that we view posts 222 223 225-227 & 228 in order as part of a discussion instead of completely disconnected statements with no relation, yes, it appears to be the root point of disagreement, that's why I noted it in 232.

Where do you see the root of disagreement if not there?

 

[CreamCloud0]

Provided that we view posts 222 223 225-227 & 228 in order as part of a discussion instead of completely disconnected statements with no relation, yes, it appears to be the root point of disagreement, that's why I noted it in 232.

Where do you see the root of disagreement if not there?

Okay I’m just going to restate my assumption of the base concept of the post chain: that by level 7 each class should have their own method of reliability passing certain skill checks, martials should have 2 (more for rogues) specialised skill that they can consistently pass moderately difficult checks for and casters are getting 3rd and 4th level spells which are more versatile for check coverage but also limited use

You apparently consider this the skill system obseleting itself that characters can have certain set skill checks that they don’t need to worry themselves about if they’re going to pass (in most instances)

In post 225 you seem to claim that it is bad that a class can have the bonuses to reliably pass checks of a moderate difficulty because it means other classes would not be able to pass the check DC, I cannot see why this would result as nothing is changing about the DCs, it remains the same, one class just requires lower rolls to succeed on checks of that difficulty now.

There are two hypothetical classes A and B with +3 proficiency and +4 stat mod and a DC 20 check, they both pass the check on a roll of 13 or more, class A picks up expertise and now passes on a roll of 10 or more, the check has not become less attainable for class B but A more reliably passes the check, i do not see an issue.

 

[seebs]

"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.

Okay, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but why don't you think this is an argument against bounded accuracy in full generality? "If you have an expert warrior, hitting armored enemies shouldn't pose a challenge to them. Armored foes are a challenge to other people, but that player has made the choice to be awesome at hitting foes, and they should be allowed to do that."
It seems to me that the argument is roughly the same for all the things. But if we concede that the game might have been right to add bounded accuracy at all, it's not obvious why these specific things should be exceptions, while other things shouldn't.

 

[billd91]

Okay, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but why don't you think this is an argument against bounded accuracy in full generality? "If you have an expert warrior, hitting armored enemies shouldn't pose a challenge to them. Armored foes are a challenge to other people, but that player has made the choice to be awesome at hitting foes, and they should be allowed to do that."
It seems to me that the argument is roughly the same for all the things. But if we concede that the game might have been right to add bounded accuracy at all, it's not obvious why these specific things should be exceptions, while other things shouldn't.

The difference between a fighter getting better at their schtick and a rogue is that a rogue's moment to shine is typically based on a single die roll while a fighter gets an increasing number of attacks as they go up in level. Both advancements, additional attacks and expertise, make the PC better at what they do - they just do it in different ways. The fighter gets multiple attempts to achieve (which increases his chances to succeed/win in a situation driven by multiple trials), the rogue gets a higher bonus (which increases his chances to succeed/win in a situation driven by a single trial).

 

[tetrasodium]

Okay I’m just going to restate my assumption of the base concept of the post chain: that by level 7 each class should have their own method of reliability passing certain skill checks, martials should have 2 (more for rogues) specialised skill that they can consistently pass moderately difficult checks for and casters are getting 3rd and 4th level spells which are more versatile for check coverage but also limited use

I don't disagree entirely, but how you define that bold bit is critical. If you define it as anything but something along the lines of "almost anything potentially under the umbrella of the relevant skill" then sure... I guess. But I don't think that it should be so broadly defined and that causes the skill system to collapse into something useless for me. I'll quote a bit from 3.5 phb pg65 to show why I think that.

Spoiler: Practically impossible checks

Practically Impossible Tasks
Sometimes you want to do something that seems practically
impossible. In general, a task considered practically impossible has a
DC of 40, 60, or even higher (or it carries a modifier of +20 or more
to the DC).

Practically impossible tasks are hard to delineate ahead of time.
They’re the accomplishments that represent incredible, almost
logic-defying skill and luck. Picking a lock by giving it a single, swift
kick might entail a +20 modifier to the DC; swimming up a waterfall
could require a Swim check against DC 80; and balancing on a
fragile tree branch might have a DC of 90.

The DM decides what is actually impossible and what is merely
practically impossible. Characters with very high skill modifiers are
capable of accomplishing incredible, almost unbelievable tasks, just
as characters with very high combat bonuses are.

The 5e skill system robs me of that as an option both as player & GM because of how players so quickly & easily exceed the DC ladder to the result in a situation where very hard & nearly impossible areboth mundane & almost entirely predictable.

You apparently consider this the skill system obseleting itself that characters can have certain set skill checks that they don’t need to worry themselves about if they’re going to pass (in most instances)

Yes

In post 225 you seem to claim that it is bad that a class can have the bonuses to reliably pass checks of a moderate difficulty because it means other classes would not be able to pass the check DC, I cannot see why this would result as nothing is changing about the DCs, it remains the same, one class just requires lower rolls to succeed on checks of that difficulty now.

Yes for reasons described in more detail above

There are two hypothetical classes A and B with +3 proficiency and +4 stat mod and a DC 20 check, they both pass the check on a roll of 13 or more, class A picks up expertise and now passes on a roll of 10 or more, the check has not become less attainable for class B but A more reliably passes the check, i do not see an issue.

DC20 is "hard"... Hard for who? PC's blow pas DC20 hard, dc25 very hard and dc30 nearly impossible leaving nothing but the mundane & flatly impossible by brick wall of the GM saying "no" in all scenarios. That's a big problem because players at those levels should have the option to do things like see how close to almost they come for fail forward & similar, but the gm saying "no you just can't do it because that check is impossible" as the only option doesn't really allow that.

 

[Staffan]

Okay, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but why don't you think this is an argument against bounded accuracy in full generality? "If you have an expert warrior, hitting armored enemies shouldn't pose a challenge to them. Armored foes are a challenge to other people, but that player has made the choice to be awesome at hitting foes, and they should be allowed to do that."
It seems to me that the argument is roughly the same for all the things. But if we concede that the game might have been right to add bounded accuracy at all, it's not obvious why these specific things should be exceptions, while other things shouldn't.

The main reason is that for better or worse, D&D is a combat-focused game. So things that allow you to "cheat" at combat should be harder to get than things that let you cheat at skills.

And since I've already mentioned Leverage as the appropriate model for high-level competent PCs, in a game that isn't combat-focused I'm totally OK with someone like Eliot Spencer who is pretty close to invincible in a fight, to the point where when he's surrounded by thugs, he tells them exactly how he's going to beat them, what moves he'll make in what order, and then proceeds to do precisely that.

In addition, combat is a far more incremental and multi-dimensional process than most skill checks. If I'm trying to pick a lock, everything hinges on my one roll against the lock's DC. In combat, I'm likely making multiple rolls per round trying to wear down the opponent's hit points, and I as a player have various tactical options available to me about where to attack, whether to help a friend of mine or attack this particular target, likely a choice about expending resources, and so on. So there are more angles for my character to get good at fighting than with a skill, where the only option is Number Go Up.

 

[Tessarael]

One of the things I somewhat liked in 3E D&D was how the Epic Level Handbook had epic skill challenge DCs. I don't think it worked that well practically for us (we made it up to level 27), as most of the DCs were so high that they couldn't be achieved.

However, the point I would take from epic DCs is to allow skill checks at DC 30+ to do something that could otherwise not be done with the skill. For example, you could pick a lock or disarm a trap as a bonus action, instead of action, for +5 DC; or the character with high Perception/Investigation can find traps at a glance without actively searching, at say their passive DC, or passive DC -10 when running.

There's ways to let those characters with very high skills shine, but still allow those with decent skill levels to be effective, if the high skill characters are otherwise occupied.