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

[Distracted DM]

I was reading an article by Justin Alexander roasting the 5e skill system, and arguing (among other things) that Expertise is bad because it breaks Bounded Accuracy, and Reliable Talent makes it worse. And with this, I disagree.

I think that Bounded Accuracy is excellent for combat's standard rolls: attack vs AC, and saving throw vs DC. That's when you need numbers that challenge the whole party: some characters may have a better chance than others, sure, but the d20 roll doesn't become irrelevant because this one is guaranteed to succeed and that one is doomed to fail.

But for otherwise interacting with the world, I actually don't think the numbers need to challenge the whole party. I think immersion and simulation (I like these!) are better served by making such challenges tricky. Occasionally they will be too easy for some, and/or too hard for others, depending on where the characters focused their training. And when that happens, it's up to the party to figure out ways to make up for it, to look for other, creative solutions rather than get stuck on a skill check that one or more of them are doomed to fail, and in the end to acknowledge that some tasks are suited for only some of them.

So maybe half the party auto-failing to scale that wall means they need to find another way in, or use their spells, or have the athletic ones climb up and throw down a knotted rope. That's good! It's a complication that requires a solution other than rolling a single check! Maybe only the Wizard (with 2024 rules) has a chance of making that extreme Arcana check about a long lost artifact. That's great! It makes sense and it's immersive, they should be the only one able to make it. And maybe, if your goal is to stealthily scout ahead, don't send forth the clanging armoured warriors, only send the sneaky rogues and rangers. That's fantastic! It's basic tactics! What's not to like?

[This technically applies both to 2014 and 2024 rules, though to my great chagrin 5.5 fully dropped the ball on the skill system. Honestly, I just picked the 2024 flair because I use an example from the new PHB.]

There's been some discussion with this regarding other 5e systems, specifically Level Up A5E.
A5E uses an "expertise die," detailed below:

Spoiler

Expertise Dice​

Some class features or traits grant you an expertise die for an attack roll or saving throw , or in a specific skill or tool proficiency. When you make a d20 roll with which you have gained an expertise die, roll 1d4 and add the number rolled to the result of your check.

You can never roll more than one expertise die on the same roll. If another class feature or situation grants an expertise die that applies to the same roll, you don’t gain another die; instead, the size of the expertise die increases for that check, from 1d4 to 1d6, or 1d6 to 1d8. If you have a 1d8 expertise die on a check, further expertise dice have no effect.

If you have advantage or disadvantage at the same time as an expertise die, only the d20 is rolled twice, not the expertise die.

While advantage is most commonly used to represent circumstantial factors affecting a situation, expertise dice typically represent the particular training a character takes into the adventure

The expertise die is great by itself (flanking or high ground grants it in combat, characters get skill specialties that grant it on very specific checks for a skill), but in A5E so many character features grant flat Expertise to a skill that (in an extreme example) by level 4 you can have a +1d8 to all Stealth checks. Rogues are kings of this, (they can actually get up to a +1d12) but other classes can reach the max +1d8 expertise die without much cajoling.

So the question becomes, how do you make "realistic" DCs without making them so high that no one besides this PC could succeed at such a check? The problem is less common in 5e since it's ?mostly rogues? that get expertise.. but expertise at tier2 means a possible +11 to checks, which jumps even higher at later tiers. Couple this with other characters helping or providing Guidance and you have some really wonky possible numbers.

I do agree that characters should be good at what they specialize in, but it's still reasonable to want to challenge them at it.

 

[Horwath]

Give everyone options to get expertise(or almost everyone) at 1st level.

I.E: Armor proficiency is a half-feat, Skill expert is a half feat.

allow all classes at 1st level that have armor proficiency to trade a level of armor proficiency for +1 skill and +1 expertise.
it does not solve the number issue, but it gives more options to have it.

 

[clearstream]

The issue I had with this is that in order to make skill checks interesting, you need to make them challenging to some degree. This isn't "ho ho ho, you failed the check, the adventure is over" thinking- failure can be interesting in it's own right, if characters are allowed to try again after dealing with a setback, or "failing forward".

It's more that, let's say we have two characters. One is an archer Fighter who favors Dexterity and has a Street Urchin background. The other is a Rogue who took expertise in Thieves' Tools.

2024 Expertise applies only to skills. Here I think you'd apply it to Sleight of Hand... which as we've discussed in another thread seems like it should often be relevant but isn't guaranteed to cover all locks and traps.

Right off the bat, all things being equal, the Rogue has a +2 bonus over the Fighter. At this point, it's no big deal, because you would expect a Rogue to be better at picking locks than a Fighter.

By level 11, however, the Rogue now has a +4 bonus over the Fighter, and (assuming Dex 20), simply cannot roll worse than a 23. If the DM selects skill check DC's that the Fighter can reliably hit (say, DC 19-24), then the Rogue almost always succeeds at these tests, making the Fighter redundant save for those times the Rogue isn't able to make the check for some reason, and almost taking failure off the table, making these sorts of skill checks uninteresting and maybe even pointless!

I'm not sure the fighter necessarily ought to not need the rogue to overcome the lock you're describing. What makes it interesting for both of them is what it cost to get here and what's at stake.

 

[jeffh]

Mostly I want to know what "whole bunch of weird, nit-picky rules about which specific types of attacks and which specific types of character can get critical hits in combat"he's talking about.

Overall the article seems typical of Justin's stuff, not without its useful insights, but also one-sided to the point of dishonesty when it talks about anything that might not unequivocally favour the view he's trying to push.

 

[Minigiant]

Laying the blame on DMs is... an interesting choice. It kind of feels like blaming the victim?
I'd think all those "how to be a better DM" videos wouldn't have so many views if DMs didn't want to be informed on how to improve.

However I would agree with your second point- there are things that DMs do that they think might help, but actually hurt. Lots of examples: from messing with mechanics before they understand the principles behind them, to trying to address player issues in-game (punishing them) instead of above table as people.

It's old DMs that told TSR and WOTC to not educate completely new DMs why the mechanics are the way.

This created a whole generation of DMs who learn to DM without no learning the design of the game.

I mean look at the new DMG. They're putting rules on how to DM in the revision of a D&D that is 10 years old. So you mean that 10 years past and you never thought to teach new DM?

That's the mentality The DM community had four three whole editions. 4e pop the math from under the hood and "everybody" didn't like it because his presentation and that it showed how the sausage was made.

 

[Guest 7037866]

Bounded Accuracy doesn't care about what numbers the PCs have or can get.

Bounded Accuracy never cared about what numbers the PCs have or can get.

That isn't quite correct. Bounded accuracy cares very much about the PC numbers.

The idea is by keeping the range within 20 (for the most part), a PC with a +2 ability score, for instance, has a chance to participate as opposed to prior editions where DC easily ranged above 20 making it impossible for non-specialized characters to participate in such tasks. Even at the more common DC 15, a highly-skilled PC could fail while a PC with no ability could succeed.

The larger issue IMO is when such things happen it rarely make sense in the narrative. The classic example is the strong fighter tries to break down the door, but the player rolls a 3, failing against the DC 15, even with a +11 modifier. Then the weak wizard puts their shoulder to the door, rolls an 16, and with the -1 penalty still break the door down. Such things don't happen often, but they can (the above scenario can happen about 1 in 25 times) and are comical when the do IME. It can be light-hearted, of course, and leads to the fighter turning to the wizard with a "I weakened it for you."

The developers explicitly state this in their explanation of what Bounded Accuracy is.

No, they really didn't. Unless you have a different article on it than I do?

By definition, things like Bardic Inspiration, Expertise, Guidance, Reliable Talents, etc. don't break Bounded Accuracy because Bounded Accuracy doesn't concern itself with player side abilities.

It does concern itself, but those are instances when it is meant to be broken... or at least bent severely. See the high-lighted text above.

That DMs are having a problem with player numbers being too high, or with the possible vast disparity amongst players' numbers is an entirely different problem - and not necessarily one with the game.

Agreed. It isn't a problem with the game... if you accept that bounded accuracy is meant to be unbounded to a degree by such features. If those features rub you the wrong way... it might seem like the concept, itself, is flawed.

 

[CreamCloud0]

the world shouldn't be shaped around the abilities of an adventuring party, of course the bank's vault is going to have a lockpicking DC that's not achieveable by 95% of characters, sometimes if you didn't bring the specialist then that path isn't accessible to you, you gotta find alternate methods to open that vault or take another path entirely.

i will say though, i don't think the issue with expertise is that it's used, it's that it's not used enough, more characters ought to be able to get levels of bonues that makes them consistently competent at the things they want to be skilled at, the fighter can be as competent as the rogue at lockpicking if they desire, they just need to dedicate a few extra assignable resources due to their class not inherently being inclined in that direction.

 

[Guest 7037866]

the world shouldn't be shaped around the abilities of an adventuring party, of course the bank's vault is going to have a lockpicking DC that's not achieveable by 95% of characters, sometimes if you didn't bring the specialist then that path isn't accessible to you, you gotta find alternate methods to open that vault or take another path entirely.

One thing bounded accuracy does address is this concept and stresses that DC should be set by the world, not by the bonuses PCs get. A DC 20 lock is a DC 20 lock is a DC 20 lock... it doesn't matter who is trying to pick it.

 

[clearstream]

If the DM instead raises the bar so that the Rogue occasionally fails, now we're talking about DC's of 28-30, the maximum DC the system allows for.

I've been reflecting on this in the context of the further discussion on page three of this thread.

Thus, our expected DCs do not scale automatically with level, and instead a DC is left to represent the fixed value of the difficulty of some task, not the difficulty of the task relative to level.​

It seems like the approach that "the DM instead raises the bar so that the [11th level] Rogue occasionally fails" conflicts with what bounded accuracy was going for.

There's no need to constantly escalate the in-world descriptions to match a growing DC; an iron-banded door is just as tough to break down at 20th level as it was at 1st, and it might still be a challenge for a party consisting of heroes without great Strength scores. There's no need to make it a solid adamantine door encrusted with ancient runes just to make it a moderate challenge for the high-level characters. Instead, we let that adamantine door encrusted with ancient runes have its own high DC as a reflection of its difficulty in the world. If players have the means of breaking down the super difficult adamantine door, it's because they pursued player options that make that so, and it is not simply a side effect of continuing to adventure.​

 

[James Gasik]

I've been reflecting on this in the context of the further discussion on page three of this thread.

Thus, our expected DCs do not scale automatically with level, and instead a DC is left to represent the fixed value of the difficulty of some task, not the difficulty of the task relative to level.​

It seems like the approach that "the DM instead raises the bar so that the [11th level] Rogue occasionally fails" conflicts with what bounded accuracy was going for.

There's no need to constantly escalate the in-world descriptions to match a growing DC; an iron-banded door is just as tough to break down at 20th level as it was at 1st, and it might still be a challenge for a party consisting of heroes without great Strength scores. There's no need to make it a solid adamantine door encrusted with ancient runes just to make it a moderate challenge for the high-level characters. Instead, we let that adamantine door encrusted with ancient runes have its own high DC as a reflection of its difficulty in the world. If players have the means of breaking down the super difficult adamantine door, it's because they pursued player options that make that so, and it is not simply a side effect of continuing to adventure.​

If the point of the Rogue is to just have a character who automatically succeeds at certain skill checks, it occurs to me that they are overtuned in this regard. By the final Tier of play, Expertise could allow for a +17(!) bonus to a check (or higher, in theory- you could get a Dexterity above 20, or the ioun stone that increases your proficiency bonus by 1, which would become another +2), which, combined with guidance, help action, bardic inspiration, advantage, and so forth, would allow the Rogue to make checks beyond impossible.

You could be succeeding at DC 30 checks long before this point, of course. One of the frequent complaints about 5e is that the exploration and social pillars of play are basically vestigial, and a lot of these sorts of challenges are based on checks (in my experience). Can you open the door, climb the wall, avoid the trap, decipher arcane runes of power, survive on an outer plane, or convince the king to lend you his army?

The ability to just automatically succeed at these tasks potentially does more to harm the non-combat portion of play than things like goodberry.