Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Staffan" data-source="post: 9265767" data-attributes="member: 907">65-75% chance for things I'm supposed to be OK at, 90% or more at the stuff that's supposed to be my thing.I'm OK with lower probabilities if there are metacurrencies I can use to boost my chance to something like this with a moderate expenditure (and even better if I can spend it after the roll). That gives me a feeling of "I know I can do this if I really put some effort into it."That's not how things work out in most systems or most adventures, though.And yet many skills include penalties for doing things in what I'd call "normal" adventuring conditions. Or, as is the case with Piloting, explicitly calling for rolls in situations that should be routine.It definitely is.I think bounded accuracy is intended more for combat-related things. It is pretty hard to push your AC above 20 in 5e, which means that large numbers of weak foes will be relevant at least into the mid-levels. This is in comparison to 3e and 4e (and later PF2) where escalating attack values and ACs mean that generally only foes in a relatively narrow level band will work well in combat.The fact that it makes characters incompetent at their skills is, I believe, collateral damage. But then again I've seen people here complain that rogues with expertise pass too many skill checks so clearly some DMs like their PCs to bumble about.</blockquote>