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

[Staffan]

This is Completely mistaken in how it tries to paper over a badly designed skill system with a secondary clause in that same skill system as if they are the same. It's ignoring the fact that 5e already addresses that sort of nonrolled skillcheck by telling GMs not to call for a roll when the outcome is not in doubt. Topping that off by ensuring the outcome can't be in doubt when a roll is actually called undercuts the purpose of even having a skill system that also sometimes relies on rolls & DCs

A skill system designed around conflicting logic like "Don't ask for a roll if the results are not in doubt and the results can't be in doubt when you do ask for one" is automatically a failure in how it presents a catch22 damned if you do damned if you don't design embodied by wargames where the only winning move is not to play [with either option]. GM's need far more function in a skill system than that.

My point is that PCs should be able to become competent enough that they ensure the outcome isn't in doubt. That urchin fighter with proficiency in Sleight of Hand? Sure, they probably aren't good enough to make automatically pick a lock. But the mid-level rogue who has, at every opportunity, made the choice "I want to be good at opening locks"? There shouldn't be many locks that person can't pick.

Similarly, there shouldn't be any natural terrain (and not many unnatural terrains) a mid-level character with expertise in Survival can't get by in, or tracks they couldn't follow. Or a wall the mid-level character with Athletics expertise can't climb.

 

[Clint_L]

My point is that PCs should be able to become competent enough that they ensure the outcome isn't in doubt.

That should never be the case with anything that is meaningful in the story, unless the players have come up with an amazing plan or something. Sure, if the players want their characters to wander around doing level 1 challenges at level 10, they can go for it and never have to take another risk. With another DM, though, because that seems super boring.

 

[Staffan]

That should never be the case with anything that is meaningful in the story, unless the players have come up with an amazing plan or something. Sure, if the players want their characters to wander around doing level 1 challenges at level 10, they can go for it and never have to take another risk. With another DM, though, because that seems super boring.

You can challenge them in other ways. Parker breaks into the Louvre and steals art for fun. Aragorn can look at the tracks of a fight that took place hours ago and figure out exactly what happened. MacGyver can build a blowtorch from a bicycle. That doesn't mean they can't be challenged, just that they can't be challenged in that particular area, at least not from anything less than legendary stature.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That should never be the case with anything that is meaningful in the story, unless the players have come up with an amazing plan or something. Sure, if the players want their characters to wander around doing level 1 challenges at level 10, they can go for it and never have to take another risk. With another DM, though, because that seems super boring.

Hmmh. Having a high level rogue(thief) probably without multiclass or optimized for fighting is a commitment in itself. Denying rogues their (near) autosuccesses in those cases is taking away what they excell at and is just secretly asking: why are you no high level wizard casing spells instead...

 

[CreamCloud0]

personally i think a character with skill expertise and max 20 stat should be succeding on an apropriate adventuring challenge like, 85~90% of the time, not factoring advantage or other modifiers like bless, making them very consistently reliable but not infalible.

 

[tetrasodium]

My point is that PCs should be able to become competent enough that they ensure the outcome isn't in doubt. That urchin fighter with proficiency in Sleight of Hand? Sure, they probably aren't good enough to make automatically pick a lock. But the mid-level rogue who has, at every opportunity, made the choice "I want to be good at opening locks"? There shouldn't be many locks that person can't pick.

Similarly, there shouldn't be any natural terrain (and not many unnatural terrains) a mid-level character with expertise in Survival can't get by in, or tracks they couldn't follow. Or a wall the mid-level character with Athletics expertise can't climb.

PCs go on to tackle more difficult challenges as they advance, The locks that a high level rogue faces are not the same ones faced by a low level rogue. Your point was understood, that doesn't solve the problem with using it to avoid prefacing it by saying that the skill system should not exist or that it should eventually be explicit about the gm needing to replace it with something with a functional purpose. Once the semantics get pushed aside with that kind of admission it opens the discussion to a broader one of if there should be a skill system at all.

 

[ezo]

personally i think a character with skill expertise and max 20 stat should be succeding on an apropriate adventuring challenge like, 85~90% of the time, not factoring advantage or other modifiers like bless, making them very consistently reliable but not infalible.

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.

 

[tetrasodium]

personally i think a character with skill expertise and max 20 stat should be succeding on an apropriate adventuring challenge like, 85~90% of the time, not factoring advantage or other modifiers like bless, making them very consistently reliable but not infalible.

That's not a role for the DC ladder to decide though. 5e has multiple★ tools dedicated to providing the GM options to make those challenges matter & all of them are rendered useless by bounded accuracy failing to keep up with PC growth.


★Success at cost/fail forward, don't require rolls when not in doubt, automatic success, etc

 

[Staffan]

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.

The thing is that either the regular guy (fighter with Sleight of Hand proficiency and not much more) falls behind, or the expert (rogue with Sleight expertise, Thieves' Tools proficiency, and Reliable Talent) gets ahead. I'd much rather want the expert to get ahead. Heck, I want the regular guy to get ahead too on just proficiency bonus, and experts getting much better than that.

 

[ezo]

The thing is that either the regular guy (fighter with Sleight of Hand proficiency and not much more) falls behind, or the expert (rogue with Sleight expertise, Thieves' Tools proficiency, and Reliable Talent) gets ahead. I'd much rather want the expert to get ahead. Heck, I want the regular guy to get ahead too on just proficiency bonus, and experts getting much better than that.

Huh? What does that have to do with my post?