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

[Staffan]

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

You were presenting skill DCs that would provide a 90% chance of success for an expert. The thing is, a "regular dude" at those levels would have about +3, +4, +5, and +6 (at the low end of each tier): +1 stat, plus proficiency bonus. So this character would need to roll a 7, a 10, a 13, or a 14 in each respective tier. If you build things to challenge experts, someone who is OK at the thing will be sort of OK at tiers 1 and 2, but incompetent at higher tiers.

Raw ability scores should be the default for any ability or skill check. Proficiency is a bonus, and should not be expected. A proficient character should expect to be good at that thing, and someone who is an expert should be expected to be awesome at it.

Seriously, go watch Leverage. Not only will it show you how hypercompetent characters can be awesome at the thing they are awesome at, but also how they can be challenged by things a bit outside their wheelhouse. Plus, it's good for the soul.

 

[tetrasodium]

You were presenting skill DCs that would provide a 90% chance of success for an expert. The thing is, a "regular dude" at those levels would have about +3, +4, +5, and +6 (at the low end of each tier): +1 stat, plus proficiency bonus. So this character would need to roll a 7, a 10, a 13, or a 14 in each respective tier. If you build things to challenge experts, someone who is OK at the thing will be sort of OK at tiers 1 and 2, but incompetent at higher tiers.

Raw ability scores should be the default for any ability or skill check. Proficiency is a bonus, and should not be expected. A proficient character should expect to be good at that thing, and someone who is an expert should be expected to be awesome at it.

Seriously, go watch Leverage. Not only will it show you how hypercompetent characters can be awesome at the thing they are awesome at, but also how they can be challenged by things a bit outside their wheelhouse. Plus, it's good for the soul.

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

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.

 

[CreamCloud0]

You were presenting skill DCs that would provide a 90% chance of success for an expert. The thing is, a "regular dude" at those levels would have about +3, +4, +5, and +6 (at the low end of each tier): +1 stat, plus proficiency bonus. So this character would need to roll a 7, a 10, a 13, or a 14 in each respective tier. If you build things to challenge experts, someone who is OK at the thing will be sort of OK at tiers 1 and 2, but incompetent at higher tiers.

Raw ability scores should be the default for any ability or skill check. Proficiency is a bonus, and should not be expected. A proficient character should expect to be good at that thing, and someone who is an expert should be expected to be awesome at it.

I would say a mere +1 and proficiency being considered ‘extra’ is quite lean assumptions, a character rolling with just straight modifiers i would consider unskilled in that area, if this character is specifically putting themselves forwards as someone meant to be at least moderately skilled then proficiency is a must and a assuming a +2 in T1 and +3 beyond, putting those DCs at 6, 8, 11 and 12 IMO?

 

[Clint_L]

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.

So why would we waste game time on that stuff, then? Parker can just mention that they stole the Mona Lisa for fun on the weekend, and then we'll get back to the adventure at hand.

 

[Guest 7037866]

You were presenting skill DCs that would provide a 90% chance of success for an expert.

Correct.

The thing is, a "regular dude" at those levels would have about +3, +4, +5, and +6 (at the low end of each tier): +1 stat, plus proficiency bonus.

No, a "regular dude" would be +0, +0, +0, +0 at those levels.

The fact you are including proficiency bonus (as you youself attribute later) is giving the "regular due" a bonus representing further training in that skill, etc.

So this character would need to roll a 7, a 10, a 13, or a 14 in each respective tier. If you build things to challenge experts, someone who is OK at the thing will be sort of OK at tiers 1 and 2, but incompetent at higher tiers.

Ignoring the above point of your "regular dude" not really being regular.... Those DCs at the (corrected) bonuses you list above:

Tier 1: +3 modifier vs. DC 10 needs 7 or better, so 70%
Tier 2: +4 vs. DC 14 needs 10 or better, so 55%
Tier 3: +6 vs. DC 18 needs 12 or better, so 45%
Tier 4: +7 vs. DC 20 needs 13 or better, so 40%

IMO 40-55% is hardly "incompetent" as you claim. I would say they are definitely competent in Tier 1, and even OK at that other tiers. Even at your numbers for tiers 3 and 4 the percentage only drops 5%, not a huge difference in likelihood of success.

Raw ability scores should be the default for any ability or skill check. Proficiency is a bonus, and should not be expected. A proficient character should expect to be good at that thing, and someone who is an expert should be expected to be awesome at it.

Most raw ability scores are +2 or less. Only the abilities a PC is expected to excel at tend to be above +2. Ability represents no formal or professional training--at best IMO any training attributed to ability is meant to represent the (casual) "hobby" level. That is why "proficiency" (as in actual formal training and/or experience, e.g. "focus") begins at +2. Your "hobby" abilities will be at this level or lower typically. Ability scores above +2 represent a combination of informal training, natural talent, etc.

Seriously, go watch Leverage. Not only will it show you how hypercompetent characters can be awesome at the thing they are awesome at, but also how they can be challenged by things a bit outside their wheelhouse. Plus, it's good for the soul.

Ok, while I love Leverage (I've seen every single episode), those are actually tier 3 and 4 types doing DC 20 "hard" things all the time...like the 90% my numbers above indicate. They do fail occasionally at that DC, and "fail to make progress" or "succeed at a cost" often at DC 25 or higher tasks as well. I mean, come on, if you've seen the show you know success at a cost is just about required at least 2-3 times per episode--the complications are what makes it fun.

 

[PHATsakk43]

It was amazing how this was never an issue prior to making D&D a single mechanic game.

“Roll under” skill checks are far better in this regard as they typically aren’t something that should really be class-level dependent—or at least not directly so.

There are some interesting articles discussing how this never really was an issue with the pre-3E game.

 

[Guest 7037866]

It was amazing how this was never an issue prior to making D&D a single mechanic game.

“Roll under” skill checks are far better in this regard as they typically aren’t something that should really be class-level dependent—or at least not directly so.

There are some interesting articles discussing how this never really was an issue with the pre-3E game.

Yep, they worked great IMO. Simple task? -4 to the roll. Difficult task? +4 to the roll. (or switch them around if you modified the score and not the roll...)

 

[PHATsakk43]

Yep, they worked great IMO. Simple task? -4 to the roll. Difficult task? +4 to the roll. (or switch them around if you modified the score and not the roll...)

It’s also extensible.

Moderately difficult task for a low skilled person, but reasonable for someone with high skills? Sub 1d8+12 for a d20. Extremely unlikely, unless highly skilled, 1d4+16.

Any schlub slightly above mouth breather, but still possible to have said mouth breather fail, sub a 1d12 for the d20.

Don’t think a flat 5% failure rate makes sense? Bell curve the roll. 5d4, 2d10, 1d8+1d12, ect. Failure is still possible, but starts to be become rapidly unlikely.

Opposed skill checks, Price is Right rules are built in.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

 

[clearstream]

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.

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.)