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

[billd91]

Also. If the Rogue's raison d'etre is to be super good at skill checks, why doesn't the Fighter get to double their proficiency bonus with attack rolls? Seems to me that the same logic would apply.

I'm not sure the same logic does apply. Most of the time, any particular challenge that's going to be handled by a rogue's skill check (with or without expertise) is going to be resolved with a single die roll. Pick a lock - single check. Bluff the guard - single check. Sneak past the mother-in-law - single check.
But fights are resolved with multiple checks, usually over multiple rounds. And the fighter gets multiple attacks per round to try to land those blows, most of which are likely to hit unless you're fighting opponents well above your weight class.

They're both looking for success, but in fairly different situations and under different pacing and resolution methods.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I agree. Would anyone consider it a difference between trad and neo-trad?

I want world consistence at almost any cost so I am definitely agreeing with you.

I don't know about the trad / neo-trad designations (as I don't tend to put much thought into them)... but I do think it's a difference between just how intricate and involved the "game" part of the roleplaying game is.

D&D Combat is a very intricate "game". All the numbers and all the dice rolls over and over over repeated rounds, numbers going up and down, it's a whole big thing. There's a lot of "strategy" and "tactics" needed to play that D&D Combat "game". And I think there are players out there who would like it if the Exploration and Social pillars had that same sort of intricacy.

But they don't. They usually just default to a die roll or two. That's it. There's no gameplay "tactics" in those pillars... the character just does the action they want or they don't. Follow the gnoll tracks? WIS (Survival) check. Convince the guard? CHA (Persuasion) check. Done and done.

And while I can understand wanting more involved mechanical expressions for those pillars (and goodness knows plenty of people have tried to make them)... I just don't think that's really what this specific game of Dungeons & Dragons 5E is about. It's not about the intricate and tactical dice game for Exploration or Social... it's about following the story. The story takes precedence. Yeah, we still have the intricate and tactical Combat pillar (since that's been the game's foundation from the beginning)... but that's where I think the designers want that intricacy to end.

 

[Emerikol]

I don't know about the trad / neo-trad designations (as I don't tend to put much thought into them)... but I do think it's a difference between just how intricate and involved the "game" part of the roleplaying game is.

D&D Combat is a very intricate "game". All the numbers and all the dice rolls over and over over repeated rounds, numbers going up and down, it's a whole big thing. There's a lot of "strategy" and "tactics" needed to play that D&D Combat "game". And I think there are players out there who would like it if the Exploration and Social pillars had that same sort of intricacy.

But they don't. They usually just default to a die roll or two. That's it. There's no gameplay "tactics" in those pillars... the character just does the action they want or they don't. Follow the gnoll tracks? WIS (Survival) check. Convince the guard? CHA (Persuasion) check. Done and done.

And while I can understand wanting more involved mechanical expressions for those pillars (and goodness knows plenty of people have tried to make them)... I just don't think that's really what this specific game of Dungeons & Dragons 5E is about. It's not about the intricate and tactical dice game for Exploration or Social... it's about following the story. The story takes precedence. Yeah, we still have the intricate and tactical Combat pillar (since that's been the game's foundation from the beginning)... but that's where I think the designers want that intricacy to end.

I think I like tactics but I don't want complicated. I think 1e had a lot of tactics. You had to know when to run, how to limit access to your squishies, and how to keep an escape route open to name just a few. Fields of fire were very important. You had limited heavy firepower so you preserved it like it was super precious.

 

[Remathilis]

Well, that seems counterproductive, since the game's balance math accounts for rolled stats.

Eh....

It accounts for average rolled stats. It's absolutely not for characters who roll exceptionally well or poorly. Which is to say it assumes stats on par with what default array/point buy gives you. I assure you that the math doesn't work as well when you have a mountain dwarf who rolls two 18s and gets a +1 sword.

 

[Parmandur]

Eh....

It accounts for average rolled stats. It's absolutely not for characters who roll exceptionally well or poorly. Which is to say it assumes stats on par with what default array/point buy gives you. I assure you that the math doesn't work as well when you have a mountain dwarf who rolls two 18s and gets a +1 sword.

Sure it does: precisely because the math isn't finely turned and highly precise swingyness works fine.

 

[TwoSix]

I very much agree.

There is quite a difference between setting DCs in order to "challenge" the players in finding ways to overcome that mechanical obstacle because of whatever their character's stats are-- versus setting DCs based upon the actual fiction in the narrative and how easy or hard it would be for anyone to try and do it within the world. To me, the former is putting the gameplay on a pedestal and which to me is the opposite of using the RPG format to its fullest.

I think there's an excluded middle here.

Certainly, I'm not changing the DC of a particular situation simply based on the level of the characters. The DC of any situation is a property of the fictional situation, not the characters. A DC 5 lock is always a DC 5 lock. A DC 15 Athletics check to climb a wall is always a DC 15, unless the situation has changed.

The framing of the situation also matters. A poor, rundown city might be filled with cheap construction, most doors are unlocked or have locks of DC 5. A prosperous mercantile city might have better construction and better locks, and thus most doors are DC 10. Those numbers don't change if the 1st level party travels to the rich city, or the 6th level party travels to the poor city.

But that doesn't mean adventure hooks won't be framed into the situations that are roughly commiserate with their challenge. The tier 1 party can find challenge in the rundown city, but the Tier 2 party might need to move to the rich capital to find a more appropriate challenge. The Tier 3 party might have to move on to Sigil, and the Tier 4 party to the City of Brass. The party finds harder challenges because the frame of the setting changes.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

By itself +17 is in the d20 range. But it's not by itself. It's been previously gone over that additional bonuses are all over the place in 5e. Guidance d4s, Bardic Influence d6's, advantage is virtually +4.5, and that's not getting into luckstones, tomes, or that ioun stone of mastery.

Also, um, what level 20 Rogue doesn't have a 20 Dex or higher? You say the floor is 22, but isn't 27 more realistic?

For dex based stuff, yes.

Anyways. The fact of that matter is, +6 is a hefty bonus in 5e. Expertise, which is not Rogue-exclusive, basically means this:

Non-Expertise, max stat: +11. Can get DC 20 60% of the time, DC 25 35% of the time, and DC 30 10% of the time.*

Yes.

Expertise, max stat: +17. Can get DC 20 90% of the time, DC 25 65% of the time, and DC 30 40% of the time.

Yes.

Expertise, max stat: +17, with Reliable. Can get DC 20 100% of the time, DC 25 100% of the time, and DC 30 40% of the time.

Yes.

*Numbers may not be accurate, math brain still not fully awake.

Accurate enough.

My issue with this is, if the game has DC 20 and up checks, Expertise is basically a must-have.

No. I disagree. With help and other ways to t advantage and the occasional guidance and heroic inspiration, DC 20 is manageable for most characters if the specialists are unavailable.

I'm not including other forms of bonuses because whether or not they exist is equally up in the air based on party composition- even Help is not guaranteed since there are DM's who only allow proficient characters to take the Help action out there. And if you can afford a Feat to boost a skill check, you can have Expertise.

Ok. I should have read further. I basically agree. The question is, why do want to challenge the high level rogue all the time? They are no wizards that can cast spells nearly at will at those levels trivializing a lot.

IF utility spells would cost more than a low level slot or 10 minutes, why should the highest level rogue and specialist still fail at those tasks. Maybe reliable talent is not the best way, because it makes certain checks auto successes while it does not help for other checks with only a few DC points higher at all.
So replacing it with something else (maybe some extra dice to spend to boost their checks)

Reliable isn't really the problem here as much as Expertise is, but if your game has DC 25 checks, it's still equal to a +7 bonus, which again, is massive. It's not quite "have Rogue or go home" but it's close.

I disagree. I think expertise is spot on. Reliable talent is either boring or useless as explained above.

The game isn't supposed to be built so that any given class is a must-have. But if very difficult checks are in the game, you must have an Expertise user, an optimized party, or some means (probably magic) to circumvent the skill check.

I don't think so. There seems to be only one class that is not that great at either magic or skills... the monk. But even they have ways to get around many obstacles.
Using skills is just the rogue's thing. As it always was.

Now the easy solution is not to have these kinds of skill checks if your party can't handle them. But that's basically giving the party a virtual Rogue lol!

Or you just have that challenge and the PCs find a way around that. As it is always possible in this game. Or it just takes more time.

And that's the crux of the issue for me. I can't punish a party for not playing a Rogue or not making sure they have Expertise for whatever kinds of super difficult checks may or may not exist in the game.

Then don't use super high DCs. The rogue does not see the difference between DC 15 and 25 anyway after getting reliable talent.

But if the game never has super difficult checks, then you don't need Expertise!

For everyone but the rogue expertise is great.

The ability is basically warping the game around it's existence, creating two wildly different scenarios if it's in play or not!

A +6 bonus at highest level is not a lot better than advantage. For most levels, it is just raising the chance by 30%. For most levels that are played, where skills are competing with magic (because slots are still limited) it is just a 15% higher chance to succeed...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I brought up "take 10" mostly because of this Rogue ability.

Skill Mastery​

The rogue becomes so certain in the use of certain skills that she can use them reliably even under adverse conditions.

Which is more or less what reliable talent does.

As I see, that was mentioned before.

 

[SteveC]

Basically 5E has no skill system. It’s just flavor attributes assigned to ability scores.

Which is fine, B/X has no skill system nor even the implied concept of one. B/X is thriving and well.

The problem is when you try to over define the 5E system into being an actual skill system. It is not.

A skill system has some level of player agency in the acquisition, the skills are specific and limited in scope, and there is some sort of economic value to skill purchase.

I think this very definitely falls into the "more than one thing can be true at once" category. By default, B/X doesn't have a skill system, which makes it a system I'm not interested in these days. At the same time Worlds Without Number and the related games do have a strong skill system that I think works well.

When I'm running a game in 2024 I want to have a well-defined set of mechanics for doing things outside of combat, and I don't think 5E does a good job of that. (Obligatory "your mileage may vary/not yucking anyone's yum" message at this point).

And heck, I have run and am playing 5E at the moment, so this isn't a dealbreaker for me.

I agree 100% on your last sentence about player agency and such. When I run 5E I do my best to construct such a system as best I can. It would be nice to have 5.5E give more options along this line. Of course, I haven't seen the DMG yet, so ... don't know if that's 100% the case.

 

[Pedantic]

I think there's an excluded middle here.

Certainly, I'm not changing the DC of a particular situation simply based on the level of the characters. The DC of any situation is a property of the fictional situation, not the characters. A DC 5 lock is always a DC 5 lock. A DC 15 Athletics check to climb a wall is always a DC 15, unless the situation has changed.

The framing of the situation also matters. A poor, rundown city might be filled with cheap construction, most doors are unlocked or have locks of DC 5. A prosperous mercantile city might have better construction and better locks, and thus most doors are DC 10. Those numbers don't change if the 1st level party travels to the rich city, or the 6th level party travels to the poor city.

But that doesn't mean adventure hooks won't be framed into the situations that are roughly commiserate with their challenge. The tier 1 party can find challenge in the rundown city, but the Tier 2 party might need to move to the rich capital to find a more appropriate challenge. The Tier 3 party might have to move on to Sigil, and the Tier 4 party to the City of Brass. The party finds harder challenges because the frame of the setting changes.

I think we can go a step further to an even more excluded middle: skill DCs tied to player facing abilities instead of external challenges. Once you can hit the "climb 1 handed at full speed" DC, that might influence the kinds of challenges that ought be framed for you, but it's not a property of the challenge to be a DC 25 climb.