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

[Xeviat]

Other game systems reward high skill ranks with the ability to take penalties to gain benefits. What if a lot of skills had a -5 penalty to do something faster? If picking a lock normally takes a minute, then someone who is an expert can take a -5 penalty and do it as an action.

 

[James Gasik]

Other game systems reward high skill ranks with the ability to take penalties to gain benefits. What if a lot of skills had a -5 penalty to do something faster? If picking a lock normally takes a minute, then someone who is an expert can take a -5 penalty and do it as an action.

Then there's the Thief who can pick a lock with a bonus action.

 

[PHATsakk43]

I think that there was a time when snap rule adjudication was expected.

I think that time is passed.

 

[Xeviat]

Then there's the Thief who can pick a lock with a bonus action.

Yeah, I wish there were dials in there.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

Because the fighter gets to make twice (or three times, or four times) as many attacks. And has more hit points. And better AC. And so on, and on, and on.

If all combats were settled by each player making one single d20 roll... then yeah, the fighter would and should get a much higher bonus than anyone else.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Building on this a bit, I think the "gameplay" for those pillars is different, and that difference is good for the game overall.

If everything had the mathematical complexity of combat, the game would grind, things would feel samey and monotone. The different pillars of gameplay are different styles of play, and leverage your bran in different ways. Trying to convince a goblin to surrender instead of fight or trying to navigate a dungeon or a forest should feel different from slaying a dragon or taking out a group of orcs (those should each feel different, too, I think, but that's not my main point here).

When I'm vibing on the Roleplaying part of the game, my brain is trying to figure out other characters, trying to understand motives, trying to uncover secrets, trying to pick the right thing to say to unlock the truth or to get the creature to relate to me or to influence them. That's a different kind of thinking than "get big number go up." And that diversity helps the combat breathe, helps keep the numerical complexity from overwhelming the game.

Similarly, when I'm vibing on the Exploration part of the game, my brain is thinking about resource management and allocation of time and clearing out the fog of war and asking probing questions about the items and rooms and areas we're finding and how we can arrange our skills as a party to each get something out of the environment (and one of those skills is "make sure nothing bad happens to us."). It's different from both of the other two.

It's been one of my issues with D&D's skill system for probably about half its lifetime. Roll a dice against a DC is a nice resolution mechanism, but it's not the kind of engagement I'm looking for out of Roleplaying or Exploration. Skills have always felt like a bit of a kludge to me, and admission that D&D can't think of any mechanic beyond rolling a dice and adding modifiers, and that everything else is basically off the table.

There are "mechanics" you can use on those pillars. Like, say, you can ask NPC's a number of questions equal to your Charisma bonus that they answer truthfully. That's a gameplay mechanic that would work in a Roleplaying context, when one of the goals of play can be to get intel out of a character. Or, on Exploration, if you use some supplies when you take a Long Rest, that is a mechanic that could add to the experience. But those mechanics don't really involve making skill checks, since d20 + mods is Combat Math, and the mechanics for those other pillars should be different things.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

It is an unfortunate pathology that many DMs default to "roll for it" when a PC attempts any task. In my experience, this results in a host of inappropriate outcomes, such as the skilled mountain climber randomly falling off a normal cliff face; or the brain damaged troll knowing more about the intricacies of undead than the well-educated cleric.

While I am glad that skill progression is no longer linear, like it was in 3e (as that resulted in a lot of silliness), I have zero desire to see bounded accuracy be followed to anywhere near the same strictness as with AC or saving throws. The fact of the matter is that even in a semi-realistic versimilitudinous world, some tasks SHOULD be beyond the scope of any but actual experts and specialists. Whereas many others should be essentially impossible to fail for those with a minimum of training.

I have no problem whatsoever with Expertise. And I personally don't really want to game with those who insist that every single possible skill challenge / range needs to be truncated to the point of significant randomness.

There IS a lot of variation in how skills are handled between tables. And it's worth discussing them. Speaking for myself as DM:

* Very high DCs can offer extra rewards. But the plot is NEVER gated by them. And there are always alternative ways to beat any particular obstacle.

* Sometimes I base the degree of success on how high a skill roll is. That is, a skill check that beats an adjudicated DC by 5 or less might succeed as normal but also incur some sort of complication. Very high knowledge checks might give more information.

* I generally set DCs higher for tasks that can be retried without consequence. For example: If the PCs are trying to follow tracks that lead off from a location, and time isn't much of an issue, then I'm likely to set the DC a few points higher than if they're trying to swiftly chase a fugitive before that individual can get away.

* I don't always allow retries if I feel that it's inappropriate. Maybe the PCs get only ONE attempt to find the almost entirely degraded trail leading from the bandit camp to where the leader stashed some jewels.

* I try to create situations where multiple PCs can or need to use their skills; not just the one who possesses the highest numbers. Maybe the vault door has three different locks that need to be disabled simultaneously in order to open it. And if desirable, one of those locks could be much more intricate / difficult to pick than the others.

Sometimes this can be accomplished by simply offering PCs non-combat turns; preferably with some sort of opportunity cost. For example: I describe an area; a couple PCs want to search or otherwise interact with it. I ask the others what they are doing - each rolls any appropriate skills if necessary. But those who choose to focus on something (other than standing watch or scrutinizing potential hiding places) get disadvantage on perception checks or on initiative checks when the goblin ambush strikes due to being distracted.

 

[Staffan]

If everything had the mathematical complexity of combat, the game would grind, things would feel samey and monotone.

See also: Exalted, 3rd edition.
In Exalted, the default character type is the Solar Exalted, whose theme is "excellence". Basically, they're people who are so awesome at what they do that the chief god of the setting looked at them, said "Dang, that's cool. Here, have a power upgrade." and had them go from just being skilled to being skilled to the point of doing supernatural stuff. This supernatural skill is reflected through special abilities called Charms, and for Solar Exalted these are linked to different skills.

One issue with the previous editions of the game is that since the combat rules (as in most games) are the most detailed, combat skills have a lot more room for mechanically meaningful Charms than other skills. For example, Melee had something like 30-40 charms for various things like parries, accuracy, counterattacks, damage, throwing your weapon and have it return, quickdrawing, multiattacks, and probably some other aspects I can't recall. Bureaucracy had like 5 or 6, because Bureaucracy didn't really have any rules associated with it even though it can be narratively fairly important for things like planning, logistics, running a merchant empire, making sure your army is fed and equipped, and so on.

So what they did in 3rd edition was add rules for a lot of non-combat stuff in order to get mechanical hooks from which you can hang Charms. And the result was, of course, that the game became a rules-heavy mess.

 

[rmcoen]

(Disclaimer: I only read page 1.)

My solution to this is simply that the party frequently has to split up. The rogue can't be in two places at once, but there are two locks that need to be opened (party has a rogue, a fighter/rogue, and the warlock can pick locks - poorly! - as well). The bard can't be in two places at once, but there are multiple social interactions that need to happen at once (party has a bard, a warlock, and a face-rogue). The party needs to scout/infiltrate a large location, but doesn't have time to do it slowly (warlock can use invisibility, rogue can stealth, bard can stealth; fighter/rogue can, but is in shiny armor). And so on.

It's a little odd right now in the campaign because they're in an ancient location where only the warlock can read the material (Eyes of the Keeper, I think?), so he's usually the only one who can try things. But even then, last session he wrote down careful instructions, and then the bard and rogue had to go off and attempt to follow the instructions and deal with the unexpected "bumps" not covered by the instructions.

So yeah, if I want to challenge the pure rogue with a stealth or lockpick check, it has to be really high; mostly, she breezes through even the DC 25 "dwarven puzzle locks". But the fighter/rogue can also handle quick lockpick checks during combat or timed situations, and the warlock can bypass "everyday" DC 12 and 15 locks found in most cities.

 

[Aldarc]

Because the fighter gets to make twice (or three times, or four times) as many attacks. And has more hit points. And better AC. And so on, and on, and on.

If all combats were settled by each player making one single d20 roll... then yeah, the fighter would and should get a much higher bonus than anyone else.

If it is about the number of rolls made, then wouldn't the potential solution be that Expertise doesn't confer bonus proficiency but, instead, Advantage? This is to say, that with Expertise you gain "twice as many rolls" for a chance of success with a skill?