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

[clearstream]

Let's see then, for 90% success rate, you need a roll of 3 or better. This translates into DCs:

Tier 1: +7 modifier vs. DC 10
Tier 2: +11 vs. DC 14
Tier 3: +15 vs. DC 18
Tier 4: +17 vs. DC 20

Sounds about right to me.

Focusing on rogues specifically, they have Reliable Talent from 7th, which gives

Tier 1: +7 > DC 10
Tier 2: +11 > DC 24
Tier 3: +15 > DC 28
Tier 4: +17 > DC 30

I took that to be @Parmandur's point in their #37

 

[clearstream]

But "bounded accuracy" shouldn't have been applied in the first place. Trying to avoid over-inflated numbers is fine. Trying to completely replace "number go up!" is a fool's errand because number-goes-up is one of the things that draws people to roleplaying games in the first place.

I agree with you, and the system as it is very often played follows a numbers-go-up pattern. It can be criticised on how well it avoids over-inflated numbers. Some common components are

d20 roll +1 to +20​

Proficiency +2 to +9 +6​

Expertise +2 to +9 +6​

Ability Score -5 to +5 (for player characters)​

Bardic Inspiration +d5 to +d11 (you must have failed by at least 1 in order to add it)​

Guidance +d4​

Reliable Talent +d20 roll will be +10 to +20​

Psi-bolstered Knack +d5 to d11 (as Bardic Inspiration)​

​

The full range that can be rolled* is something like -4 to 58 52.

​

*Assuming its either Bardic Inspiration or Psi-bolstered Knack seeing as if one makes you succeed you no longer qualify to use the other. Otherwise it's -4 to 70 64.

Cutting off an oft-valued thing almost entirely, especially when the replacement is widely considered to result in boring play (big fat sacks of HP), is perhaps not the golden panacea its boosters claimed it would be.

Bounded accuracy seemed to me a response to the ranges in 3rd edition. I take it to have been a principle for the design, rather than a principle of the design. Something the designers felt they needed to have in mind, but not a hard constraint: the published game text incorporates scaling.

As to whether the play is "boring" because of the idea that low level characters and creatures ought to be capable of damaging high level characters and creatures, it's certainly possible to choose single "fat sacks of HP" with one-dimensional abilities from the Monster Manual and set them against higher tier parties. Why one would is hard to fathom... but something I'm surprised groups don't make more use of is simply narrating fights that seem uninteresting.

Combat starts when—and only when—you [the DM] say it does.​

​

Nothing in the text obliges a group to go into formal combat where it would be uninteresting to do so.

EDITED to stop at 20th level! (Thanks @EzekielRaiden for noticing this.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I agree with you, and the system as it is very often played follows a numbers-go-up pattern. It can be criticised on how well it avoids over-inflated numbers. Some common components are

d20 roll +1 to +20​

Proficiency +2 to +9​

Expertise +2 to +9​

Ability Score -5 to +5 (for player characters)​

Bardic Inspiration +d5 to +d11 (you must have failed by at least 1 in order to add it)​

Guidance +d4​

Reliable Talent +d20 roll will be +10 to +20​

Psi-bolstered Knack +d5 to d11 (as Bardic Inspiration)​

​

The full range that can be rolled* is something like -4 to 58.

​

*Assuming its either Bardic Inspiration or Psi-bolstered Knack seeing as if one makes you succeed you no longer qualify to use the other. Otherwise it's -4 to 70.


Bounded accuracy seemed to me a response to the ranges in 3rd edition. I take it to have been a principle for the design, rather than a principle of the design. Something the designers felt they needed to have in mind, but not a hard constraint: the published game text incorporates scaling.

As to whether the play is "boring" because of the idea that low level characters and creatures ought to be capable of damaging high level characters and creatures, it's certainly possible to choose single "fat sacks of HP" with one-dimensional abilities from the Monster Manual and set them against higher tier parties. Why one would is hard to fathom... but something I'm surprised groups don't make more use of is simply narrating fights that seem uninteresting.

Combat starts when—and only when—you [the DM] say it does.​

​

Nothing in the text obliges a group to go into formal combat where it would be uninteresting to do so.

How are you getting +9 proficiency?

 

[clearstream]

How are you getting +9 proficiency?

Oh, that is the full range if one allows characters to continue advancing above 20th level*. But your implied point is correct, it makes much better sense to stop at +6... making the range that can be rolled -4 to 52.

*I feel like I read some text in core about granting a feat per n-thousand XP above 20th, but now I cannot find it... perhaps I was hallucinating? The Proficiency Bonus table on PHB 13 runs to "Level or CR" 30.

 

[PHATsakk43]

No.

But "bounded accuracy" shouldn't have been applied in the first place. Trying to avoid over-inflated numbers is fine. Trying to completely replace "number go up!" is a fool's errand because number-goes-up is one of the things that draws people to roleplaying games in the first place.

Cutting off an oft-valued thing almost entirely, especially when the replacement is widely considered to result in boring play (big fat sacks of HP), is perhaps not the golden panacea its boosters claimed it would be.

I feel that there is a lot of received wisdom in this that really doesn’t pan out.

I’m not sure “number go up” is an inherent draw of TTRPGs, in and of itself.

And 5E definitely has fat sacks of HP—as did 3E and PF.

Bounded accuracy isn’t something I personally care for, but only because it’s a solution to a problem that was avoidable. Within the paradigm that it exists, it’s fairly simple and elegant.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

DM ought not to call for a rogue to roll dice, when success is certain

When the outcome of an action is uncertain, the game uses a d20 roll to determine success or failure.​

​

(Emphasis mine.)

Running back for a couple quotes like this. My problem with this presentation is that it leaves out a really, really important element that (for example) Dungeon World makes explicit: uncertainty alone isn't enough. It needs to be uncertain and interesting. If you as DM simply cannot think of an interesting consequence for failure, don't roll. If you can't think of an interesting consequence for success, don't roll. Uncertainty is a necessary condition, but it's not sufficient.

As to whether the play is "boring" because of the idea that low level characters and creatures ought to be capable of damaging high level characters and creatures,

Except that that described thing isn't--and never was--what "bounded accuracy" was about. It was never about making the top end accessible even at low levels. It was about making the bottom end remain useful. The designers themselves were always very explicit about that. One of the very few actual design goals they clearly articulated and which could be demonstrably tested. And, on that subject, we can do the demonstration the other way. There are absolutely monsters that a 1st-level character is helpless to fight, with only a 5% or 10% chance to hit etc. So if the goal of "bounded accuracy" was to make it so low-level characters could meaningfully threaten high-level monsters, it failed miserably; but as that was never the goal, it's not really relevant.

it's certainly possible to choose single "fat sacks of HP" with one-dimensional abilities from the Monster Manual and set them against higher tier parties. Why one would is hard to fathom... but something I'm surprised groups don't make more use of is simply narrating fights that seem uninteresting.

Combat starts when—and only when—you [the DM] say it does.Nothing in the text obliges a group to go into formal combat where it would be uninteresting to do so.

See, here's your problem. You've assumed, IMO quite wrongly, that DMs would never do that because it would be boring. The actual practice couldn't be further from the truth at many tables. Doesn't matter that the text doesn't oblige it. Tons of DMs do.

And to be clear, it isn't just combat where this is a problem. Skills in 5e--which explicitly tell DMs NOT to run it like this!--are done in a similar fashion, run much more similarly to how they worked in 3e, despite having a skill system that is closest (not really THAT close, but certainly closest) to 4e's. Skills are treated as incredibly hyper-narrow things, the DCs are so frequently sky-high to do anything remotely useful or interesting, and the old scourges of things like iterative probability ("Roll for stealth....every single turn") and single-failure conditions ("if anyone fails this group check, the group fails") are back in full force. I consider myself profoundly lucky to have a 5e DM that uses reasonable DCs and takes a wide view on what skills are actually capable of.

Even in places where the books explicitly reject doing things in ways that are mostly just dull, frustrating, or boring for everyone involved including the DM, many DMs still choose to do it that way anyway. I genuinely cannot explain this phenomenon. I've tried, and always come up empty. I cannot fathom it.

Oh, that is the full range if one allows characters to continue advancing above 20th level. But your implied point is correct, it makes more sense to stop at +6... making the range that can be rolled -4 to 52.

Personally, I think the example is more than a little wrong due to stacking together many things that won't actually be available every game, let alone every check. You've also misconstrued Reliable Talent as +10 to +20, when it's actually +0 50% of the time (any roll higher than 9), and anywhere between +1 and +9 the remaining 50% (any roll from 9 down to 1.) Bardic Inspiration depends on specifically having a Bard; Psi-Boosted Knack depends on you yourself being not just a Rogue but a specific kind of Rogue.

Kicking those out as being too situational (at least guidance is a cantrip several classes/subclasses can learn) and fixing your incorrect statement regarding reliable talent drops the top end by a whopping ~22 points, down from allegedly +52 to "merely" +30. Which, I admit, is still extremely high! But let us not pretend it is that ridiculous in anything but the rarest of cases. I may be a vociferous critic of 5e, but I'm not going to build an argument against it on something like this.

I feel that there is a lot of received wisdom in this that really doesn’t pan out.

I’m not sure “number go up” is an inherent draw of TTRPGs, in and of itself.

Of course it is. That's why people love getting crits, for example, but hate getting snake-eyes crits. (One of the reasons why 4e's simpler, faster crit rules never should have been abandoned.) It's why it feels good to level up; you are literally making the number go up. That doesn't mean absolutely everyone is drawn into RPGs-in-general for this. But it is, unquestionably, the reason that RPGs have dominated numerous markets, both at the tabletop and on the computer. Lots and lots of people just really like seeing Number Go Up. Hell, this fact is openly exploited by mobile game developers to entrap people and get them to spend more money!

And 5E definitely has fat sacks of HP—as did 3E and PF.

Yes...? I explicitly was arguing that not only is that the case, but 5e has doubled down on them, because the designers very intentionally made HP scaling the primary axis of character growth and monster threat potential. Monsters have to gain a lot more health to be scary, and players have to deal a lot more damage as they level in order to have any chance of victory. That environment is positively ideal for fostering the dull and disappointing "fat sack of HP" monster design problem that D&D has struggled with for years.

Bounded accuracy isn’t something I personally care for, but only because it’s a solution to a problem that was avoidable. Within the paradigm that it exists, it’s fairly simple and elegant.

Oh, I'll grant you that it's simple. Its simplicity is precisely what makes it inelegant. Like a sledgehammer.

 

[Staffan]

Please tell me that you aren't using a show that served as the reason for coining a term Competence porn for the genre it createdto represent normal d&d skill checks?

Competence Porn - TV Tropes

Competence porn is a term invented by Leverage writer John Rogers (see here) and used by a lot of critics since — read here, here, here, and here. It's the thrill of watching bright, talented people plan, banter, and work together to solve …

tvtropes.org

Of course I am. Like I said, characters are supposed to get to be awesome. Not at everything, but at some things. And they should be able to show off their awesomeness.

A 9th level wizard can warp time and space to teleport across a continent in the blink of an eye. It's OK if the rogue gets to open doors.

Leverage blows so far past even stuff like skill challenges, DM's best friend, & literally every skill check supporting subsystem/optional toolwritten for any d&d edition that all 14 of the USS enterprise to ever grace star trek are currently working closely with the Jedi & Sith councils investigating the hole that claim tore on its way past if you were.

 

[tetrasodium]

Of course I am. Like I said, characters are supposed to get to be awesome. Not at everything, but at some things. And they should be able to show off their awesomeness.

A 9th level wizard can warp time and space to teleport across a continent in the blink of an eye. It's OK if the rogue gets to open doors.

I feel like the difference between what you are calling for the GM to accomplish and how d&d actually works are so vast that it's important to clear this up before getting into those differences. Have you ever actually played d&d with others? Like in person or some other real time manner of play other than some form of asynchronous play by pos thing..

Your posts starting since mentioning the Leverage TV show are presenting completely unrealistic & frankly toxic expectations for the gm burdened with running a game to your skill system expectations. Each episode of Leverage is written & storyboarded over a period of hours days weeks or months by an entire team of writers who control both sides of any interaction and can adjust future as well as past story elements as needed throughout the entire process of storyboarding all the way up till some critical point in filming.

Please explain exactly now you think that one hunan gm in real time can juggle the job of writing estoryboarding competence porn like leverage for skill checks after gm accessable quantum tools like DM's best friend were removed when they do not have full control like the writing team of your target example show.

If no single GM can meet the expectations of a skill system within the constraints of actual play, that skill system is an obvious failure

 

[ezo]

No.

But "bounded accuracy" shouldn't have been applied in the first place. Trying to avoid over-inflated numbers is fine. Trying to completely replace "number go up!" is a fool's errand because number-goes-up is one of the things that draws people to roleplaying games in the first place.

Cutting off an oft-valued thing almost entirely, especially when the replacement is widely considered to result in boring play (big fat sacks of HP), is perhaps not the golden panacea its boosters claimed it would be.

It is even worse because, as they admit themselves, numbers still go up...

DM ought not to call for a rogue to roll dice, when success is certain

Unless a feature, such as Reliable Talent, or a situation, such as the DM allowing the player to "Take 10", is part of the equation, there is otherwise always a chance of failure making success uncertain.

Focusing on rogues specifically, they have Reliable Talent from 7th, which gives

Tier 1: +7 > DC 10
Tier 2: +11 > DC 24
Tier 3: +15 > DC 28
Tier 4: +17 > DC 30

I took that to be @Parmandur's point in their #37

OMG HA HA HA! (bolded)

Sorry, but this is hilarious! I didn't even know they moved it from 11th to 7th. Sigh... man, that is so wrong and another "power creep" bump! Yeah, 2024 D&D will NEVER see the light of day in my games....

Anyway, for Rogue specifically, sure, however @clearstream only specified expertise and max 20 stat, not a Rogue. FYI, @Parmandur has me blocked, so I cannot see their post anyway.

 

[PHATsakk43]

I think this discussion is missing that bounded accuracy isn’t just applicable to the “skill system” in 5E—a term that I’m putting in quotes, as it’s pretty far from being a skill system in the sense of its use in D&D from AD&D OE where it was introduced through 3E. It is, at best, is a semi codification of the B/X system of “how to adjudicate things not in the rules.”

Bounded accuracy also applies to AC and to hit modifiers. It also includes the HP bloat of foes to account for the cap on AC. It also capped ability scores.

Looking at the effects of bounded accuracy solely within the frame of skills is really missing the forest for the trees.

Failing to look at the system holistically isn’t a really useful way to judge its performance.