I tried to post a thread like this last night, but there was an error.
Anyway, the main question for you is: What do you think is the most important part of 5e's Bounded Accuracy system?
If you don't know, Bounded Accuracy is a design philosophy used when creating 5e. The point was to keep numbers small to speed up math and maintain easily understood DC's across all 20 levels of play. The highest DC in the game is 30. In prior editions there wasn't a cap (or at least not one so low). Having a low cap means that there is quickly diminishing returns on absurdly high modifiers. Alongside that, they've deliberately made it hard to collect as many bonuses as possible. Some things are restricted to specific classes, and lots of bonuses to ability checks are die related (like Bless).
Sure, it isn't THAT hard to max out a stat, get expertise, be level 17, get blessed and inspired and score a 20 when you roll a 1... but you don't need to spend that much effort to succeed. The smaller numbers used in Bounded Accuracy means that if you roll 13 to 17 you're asking if you succeed. If you roll 12 or lower you assume you failed. If you roll 18 or higher, you assume you succeed... unless it's something REALLY outside your wheelhouse, or you're up against something much tougher than you should be fighting.
So, again, I ask what is the most valuable part to Bounded Accuracy?
1) Adding single digit numbers together (9 max until level 13) with the die making the game more friendly to new players and younger players?
2) Making the path to +72 before rolling really, REALLY restrictive, thus not something most players will be willing to be bored by?
Personally, I don't find the mathematics particularly hard. I know that the AC is 18, they get +3, so they need to roll a 15 or better. However, I'm more comfortable with numbers than the average guy, and the average guy is who D&D is aimed towards, so maybe I'm just a bit too complacent in my judgement.
The major advantage I guess is that most rolls are possible for most characters. In my experience, most DCs are clustered around 15. In a normal party, this is a nice thing. It means you don't have to have the specialist or tool monkey do a given roll, all can be useful - the advantage to specialising is that you're useful more often. For me though, it's really useful - with a party of two, I have to buff my players already in order to have them stand up in combat. If you can boost your rolls to +25 say, then there will have to be DCs to make that worthwhile, which puts the DC outside of the reach of the +3s that my party will have in many if not most areas. I'd either have to insanely boost my party or make massive changes to the adventure for a two player party to even work. As it is, even a 15 or an 18 is possible. There is still a possibility that my party can succeed at any given task. That Venn diagram is a lot more separate if you can just pile on the bonuses.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It also links the numbers a lot more easily to the fiction imo. Like, if you describe a door as being reinforced and making no sound when struck, I know it's gonna be hard to break down, and I know that means a DC around 20. If I see a guy with plate mail, his AC is 18. There's no guesswork and there's no "well we're level 8 so the DC is probably..."
This makes things easier for the DM to improvise as well as for the players to keep memorized.
The die generates a value from 1-20. So if your mod is +10, you generate a range from 10-30 with 2/3rds of your max value coming from the die.
Suppose you make a mod of +40. Now your range is 40-60 and only 1/3rd of your max value comes from the die roll. This removes the die roll from relevance.
It also makes it nearly impossible for someone of high enough level to fail something "While Under Stress". Yes, they can take 10 (or 20) if they have time but under stress there should always be a risk of failure as it is failure that drives dramatic tension.
I find it’s not quite that it makes the math easier (though it does), as that there ends up being less math, and that’s what speeds things up. In 3e, for example, there were lots and lots of circumstantial bonuses of +\- 1 or 2. It wasn’t hard math, it was just remembering all the different little pluses and minuses, and then adding them in. And if pretty much anyone moved before your next turn, you basically had to do the whole calculation over again.
I find it’s not quite that it makes the math easier (though it does), as that there ends up being less math, and that’s what speeds things up. In 3e, for example, there were lots and lots of circumstantial bonuses of +\- 1 or 2. It wasn’t hard math, it was just remembering all the different little pluses and minuses, and then adding them in. And if pretty much anyone moved before your next turn, you basically had to do the whole calculation over again.
That sounds horrible. I just want to play, not exercise my mental arithmetic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I find it’s not quite that it makes the math easier (though it does), as that there ends up being less math, and that’s what speeds things up. In 3e, for example, there were lots and lots of circumstantial bonuses of +\- 1 or 2. It wasn’t hard math, it was just remembering all the different little pluses and minuses, and then adding them in. And if pretty much anyone moved before your next turn, you basically had to do the whole calculation over again.
That sounds horrible. I just want to play, not exercise my mental arithmetic.
From my 3.5e game yesterday: Our Ranger wanted to follow the trail of some giant ants. The DC for his check was adjusted thusly: -1 for every three ants; -2 because the ants are so big; +4 because it had rained for a couple of hours.
Later, when he wanted to shoot his bow at the giant ants, the attack roll got +1 from his masterwork bow (this bonus only applies to the attack roll, not the damage roll), -2 from using his Rapid Shot feat, +1 because the enemy was close enough for his Point Blank Shot feat, and then -4 I think for shooting into melee without having the Precise Shot feat. Add in his base attack bonus (+3?) and his Dex (+4?). But the damage rolls got +2 because it's a composite bow, +1 from Point Blank Shot, and +1 because I had cast Magic Weapon (this didn't add to the attack roll because Magic Weapon doesn't stack with the bonus from a masterwork weapon).
I find it’s not quite that it makes the math easier (though it does), as that there ends up being less math, and that’s what speeds things up. In 3e, for example, there were lots and lots of circumstantial bonuses of +\- 1 or 2. It wasn’t hard math, it was just remembering all the different little pluses and minuses, and then adding them in. And if pretty much anyone moved before your next turn, you basically had to do the whole calculation over again.
That sounds horrible. I just want to play, not exercise my mental arithmetic.
From my 3.5e game yesterday: Our Ranger wanted to follow the trail of some giant ants. The DC for his check was adjusted thusly: -1 for every three ants; -2 because the ants are so big; +4 because it had rained for a couple of hours.
Later, when he wanted to shoot his bow at the giant ants, the attack roll got +1 from his masterwork bow (this bonus only applies to the attack roll, not the damage roll), -2 from using his Rapid Shot feat, +1 because the enemy was close enough for his Point Blank Shot feat, and then -4 I think for shooting into melee without having the Precise Shot feat. Add in his base attack bonus (+3?) and his Dex (+4?). But the damage rolls got +2 because it's a composite bow, +1 from Point Blank Shot, and +1 because I had cast Magic Weapon (this didn't add to the attack roll because Magic Weapon doesn't stack with the bonus from a masterwork weapon).
We've come a long way.
And that's a level 3 character if their BAB (Base Attack Bonus) is only +3 on a Ranger as they (and other "primary martial" classes) get +1 per level, meaning a base bonus of +20 at level 20 as opposed to the +6 proficiency bonus of any level 20 PC in 5e. Wizards and Sorcerers get half that even for spell based attacks, which do not use their casting ability mod but rather strength or dexterity, meaning even with a scorching ray or such they're effectively at a -10 penalty on any attack roll at level 20 by comparison. And at level 20 you're regularly facing foes with ACs in the mid twenties to high thirties, with some going into the forties. I would wonder why a 3rd level archer doesn't have Precise Shot, but then I remembered the Rapid Shot in the same feat tree so you can't hit Precise Shot until 6th level without being a human or a fighter having taken it.
The lack of bounded accuracy combined with steadily progressing Base Attack Bonuses (BAB) means that at higher levels only Fighters, Rangers, Paladins, Barbarians, and the other primarily martial focused base classes from supplemental books (like Samurai or Swashbuckler) with the "full BAB progression" have a decent chance at hitting anything with a straight attack roll at high levels. But each target actually has three AC values to allow certain strengths and weaknesses; standard AC, flat footed AC that does not factor in dex or dodge bonuses, and touch AC that ignores armor and natural armor (this allows some arcane spells requiring attack rolls a "reasonable" chance of hitting targets with low dex mods and few or no deflection, dodge, or luck based bonuses to their AC (those are all different things).
It especially effects skill checks. Proficiency in a skill allows you to put one point into it per level + and you get quadruple total points at first level so, assuming you have proficiency in a skill with each of your classes if you're multiclassing (you can take any of myriad Prestige Classes, generally at minimum of level 5 if you are built specifically to have the prerequisites for it, these have been replaced with subclasses for 5e) you have a bonus to checks for that skill equal to your level +3. A fifth level character proficient with Spot (which is distinct from Listen) will have a +8 in addition to their wisdom mod; without proficiency you can put half as many points in (or specifically you need 2 points to get 1 skill rank) so that would be +4 and without proficiency that means you're at a base disadvantage of 40% on a check compared to somebody with "full" proficiency. DCs generally go up proportionally to max proficient bonuses so by tenth level if you don't have max points in a skill you may as well not even bother making the check. And spreading points around just means you're merely bad at a bunch of things as opposed to completely ineffective at all but a small few things.
Combine all this with more feats (every third level plus an extra at first, and Fighters' main class feature is literally "get an extra feat at every even numbered level) you end up with mid to high level characters being progressively hyperspecialized to do a very small number of things extremely well and functionally incompetent at everything else. Nobody is going to find a trap or secret door at level 10+ unless they have maxed Search, and they won't be able to sneak past guards or alert creatures of appropriate CR without max ranks in Hide and Move Silently. Saving throws progress similarly so you aren't going to pass a high level reflex save unless you're proficient in it, regardless of your Dex score. And if you want your fireball to reliably do full damage against anything with a decent reflex save you need multiple feats to crank up your save DC on that because of the rate at which proficient NPCs or comparable monsters scale. Good *$&%ing luck getting that CR 27 Great Wurm red dragon to fail any save (it's low save is +22 Reflex, it attacks at +49, and it has AC 41 but it's Touch AC is only 2 so that's the only way most non-frontline warrior types are going to hit it with anything).
I find it’s not quite that it makes the math easier (though it does), as that there ends up being less math, and that’s what speeds things up. In 3e, for example, there were lots and lots of circumstantial bonuses of +\- 1 or 2. It wasn’t hard math, it was just remembering all the different little pluses and minuses, and then adding them in. And if pretty much anyone moved before your next turn, you basically had to do the whole calculation over again.
That sounds horrible. I just want to play, not exercise my mental arithmetic.
It was horrible, but it was still better than THAC0, so it felt like an upgrade.
From my 3.5e game yesterday: Our Ranger wanted to follow the trail of some giant ants. The DC for his check was adjusted thusly: -1 for every three ants; -2 because the ants are so big; +4 because it had rained for a couple of hours.
Later, when he wanted to shoot his bow at the giant ants, the attack roll got +1 from his masterwork bow (this bonus only applies to the attack roll, not the damage roll), -2 from using his Rapid Shot feat, +1 because the enemy was close enough for his Point Blank Shot feat, and then -4 I think for shooting into melee without having the Precise Shot feat. Add in his base attack bonus (+3?) and his Dex (+4?). But the damage rolls got +2 because it's a composite bow, +1 from Point Blank Shot, and +1 because I had cast Magic Weapon (this didn't add to the attack roll because Magic Weapon doesn't stack with the bonus from a masterwork weapon).
We've come a long way.
And that's a level 3 character if their BAB (Base Attack Bonus) is only +3 on a Ranger as they (and other "primary martial" classes) get +1 per level, meaning a base bonus of +20 at level 20 as opposed to the +6 proficiency bonus of any level 20 PC in 5e. Wizards and Sorcerers get half that even for spell based attacks, which do not use their casting ability mod but rather strength or dexterity, meaning even with a scorching ray or such they're effectively at a -10 penalty on any attack roll at level 20 by comparison. And at level 20 you're regularly facing foes with ACs in the mid twenties to high thirties, with some going into the forties. I would wonder why a 3rd level archer doesn't have Precise Shot, but then I remembered the Rapid Shot in the same feat tree so you can't hit Precise Shot until 6th level without being a human or a fighter having taken it.
The lack of bounded accuracy combined with steadily progressing Base Attack Bonuses (BAB) means that at higher levels only Fighters, Rangers, Paladins, Barbarians, and the other primarily martial focused base classes from supplemental books (like Samurai or Swashbuckler) with the "full BAB progression" have a decent chance at hitting anything with a straight attack roll at high levels. But each target actually has three AC values to allow certain strengths and weaknesses; standard AC, flat footed AC that does not factor in dex or dodge bonuses, and touch AC that ignores armor and natural armor (this allows some arcane spells requiring attack rolls a "reasonable" chance of hitting targets with low dex mods and few or no deflection, dodge, or luck based bonuses to their AC (those are all different things).
It especially effects skill checks. Proficiency in a skill allows you to put one point into it per level + and you get quadruple total points at first level so, assuming you have proficiency in a skill with each of your classes if you're multiclassing (you can take any of myriad Prestige Classes, generally at minimum of level 5 if you are built specifically to have the prerequisites for it, these have been replaced with subclasses for 5e) you have a bonus to checks for that skill equal to your level +3. A fifth level character proficient with Spot (which is distinct from Listen) will have a +8 in addition to their wisdom mod; without proficiency you can put half as many points in (or specifically you need 2 points to get 1 skill rank) so that would be +4 and without proficiency that means you're at a base disadvantage of 40% on a check compared to somebody with "full" proficiency. DCs generally go up proportionally to max proficient bonuses so by tenth level if you don't have max points in a skill you may as well not even bother making the check. And spreading points around just means you're merely bad at a bunch of things as opposed to completely ineffective at all but a small few things.
Combine all this with more feats (every third level plus an extra at first, and Fighters' main class feature is literally "get an extra feat at every even numbered level) you end up with mid to high level characters being progressively hyperspecialized to do a very small number of things extremely well and functionally incompetent at everything else. Nobody is going to find a trap or secret door at level 10+ unless they have maxed Search, and they won't be able to sneak past guards or alert creatures of appropriate CR without max ranks in Hide and Move Silently. Saving throws progress similarly so you aren't going to pass a high level reflex save unless you're proficient in it, regardless of your Dex score. And if you want your fireball to reliably do full damage against anything with a decent reflex save you need multiple feats to crank up your save DC on that because of the rate at which proficient NPCs or comparable monsters scale. Good *$&%ing luck getting that CR 27 Great Wurm red dragon to fail any save (it's low save is +22 Reflex, it attacks at +49, and it has AC 41 but it's Touch AC is only 2 so that's the only way most non-frontline warrior types are going to hit it with anything).
This kind of stuff is what I think of when people say characters in 3.x were so much more customizable. They were, but it was really an illusion of choice. There were definitely a lot more feats, and you got them more often, but there were really only 2 or 3 that were basically the "correct" choice, for the kind of character you were trying to make so everyone ended up taking the same ones.
The problem with talking about bounded accuracy is that a lot of the things people talk about as features of bounded accuracy are really not part of it.
Bounded accuracy is fundamentally just a contract that DCs will not automatically ramp up with level plus a cap of 30. The intent is that PCs don't have to keep chasing bonuses to keep up with the curve. In practice the first part doesn't really work, because there's nothing preventing PCs from chasing bonuses, and since PC autosuccess is boring, DMs increase DCs, so the end result is "DC automatically ramp up with level", but they did at least manage to slow down the DC escalation -- in 3.5e you were looking at 30 points over 20 levels, 4e was 30 points over 30 levels, 5e is only around 10 points over 20 levels.
Part of the way this was achieved was making a whole bunch of things that would have been stacking modifiers in previous editions just 'advantage' or 'disadvantage'; there's no point to hunting down multiple sources of advantage. Unfortunately, they were unable to resist the temptation to break their own rules and add either static bonuses (why isn't pass without trace just Advantage on Stealth and/or Disadvantage on Perception?), or, even worse, bonus dice (adding bless to a combat slows down die rolling by a lot).
The other way this was achieved was with the Attunement and Concentration mechanics, both of which dramatically limit how many bonuses it's possible to stack. Again, the devs have had trouble sticking to their principles, various non-concentration buffs have been introduced over time.
I suspect it would have been easier to stick to principles if they'd put in limited stacking (capped, or severe diminishing returns) instead of having no stacking at all.
It can be a bit of a slippery slope to increase DCs. If a rogue has a +13 lockpicking modifier for example, even with reliable talent there is a chance of failure on a 25 or even a 30. If they're always able to hit lower DC things, imo that's part of the reward for that investment. 30 or 30+ dcs where they make sense is fine, but I wouldn't say start making EVERY lock 30+. You want to challenge the players sure, but if you also bump up every DC to match their gains, then what was the point in them getting that bonus in the first place? The whole point of expertise and reliable talent is to make them REALLY GOOD at certain ability checks. I'd especially be careful of raising the DCs for anything where the whole party needs to contribute too, such as if you do group stealth checks or if a rogue has athletics expertise so you bump up athletics dcs for the full party etc.
It's like, say a wizard who really loves fireball, you may throw enemies resistant or immune to fire or with high dex saves now and then, but if you do that consistently it starts to them make their choice feel like a waste. Characters should be good at what they specialize in, and for rogues that includes certain skills and thieves tools depending on their expertise choices.
The problem with talking about bounded accuracy is that a lot of the things people talk about as features of bounded accuracy are really not part of it.
Bounded accuracy is fundamentally just a contract that DCs will not automatically ramp up with level plus a cap of 30. The intent is that PCs don't have to keep chasing bonuses to keep up with the curve. In practice the first part doesn't really work, because there's nothing preventing PCs from chasing bonuses, and since PC autosuccess is boring, DMs increase DCs, so the end result is "DC automatically ramp up with level", but they did at least manage to slow down the DC escalation -- in 3.5e you were looking at 30 points over 20 levels, 4e was 30 points over 30 levels, 5e is only around 10 points over 20 levels.
...
I suspect it would have been easier to stick to principles if they'd put in limited stacking (capped, or severe diminishing returns) instead of having no stacking at all.
You say bounded accuracy doesn't work because PCs just keep "chasing bonuses" then say it would work better with stacking. That's contradictory. And the entire point of using bounded accuracy is that those bonuses are few and far between compared to other systems (3.5/PF1 being a prime example but not the only one by any stretch). You can't "chase" bonuses if they aren't there. That's the point. Yes, an optimized PC will still have high chances of success but it's nothing compared with the level 20 fighter my then-girlfriend played in a 3.5 one shot that had +39 to attack, threatened crits on 14-20, and said crits would do a minimum of 100 damage. I don't even remember everything in that build because it was about 19 years ago but it was ridiculous. She put something like 300 damage on a great red wyrm in a single turn. It took a college student something like three minutes and half a sheet of scratch paper to calculate all that damage reading the long-ass formula off of the character sheet. That's what you get "chasing bonuses" and anything in 5e doesn't even come close to it.
People like to point at Rogues and Reliable Ralent, being good at skills is one of the main things Rogues do along with sneak attack piling all of their damage potential into a single all or nothing attack each round. They don't have spells, combat maneuvers, rage, or anything else. They have skills that they can reliably use in specific situations and the potential to hit like a truck if they don't whiff. Being better at skills than anybody else (except maybe certain Bard builds, who have a limited number of spells from a limited list instead of the sneak attack) is that classes primary raison d'etre. Yes, they get absolutely absurd when you slap pass without a trace on them but they already don't really need it because that spell is so other classes can have a chance at stealth because it sucks if your tank is incapable of sneaking past a half deaf guard that's passed out drunk. It's also a clear exception because almost nothing else gives a remotely similar flat bonus to anything in 5e.
You say bounded accuracy doesn't work because PCs just keep "chasing bonuses" then say it would work better with stacking. That's contradictory.
What I mean is "if the rules permitted limited stacking, the devs might actually follow the rules". Having some standard rule for limited stacking would be much better than the current situation with Guidance, and Bardic Inspiration, and Superiority Dice, and stacking untyped bonuses, and just how can you manage to get Expertise on your build, and ...
I find it’s not quite that it makes the math easier (though it does), as that there ends up being less math, and that’s what speeds things up. In 3e, for example, there were lots and lots of circumstantial bonuses of +\- 1 or 2. It wasn’t hard math, it was just remembering all the different little pluses and minuses, and then adding them in. And if pretty much anyone moved before your next turn, you basically had to do the whole calculation over again.
That sounds horrible. I just want to play, not exercise my mental arithmetic.
From my 3.5e game yesterday: Our Ranger wanted to follow the trail of some giant ants. The DC for his check was adjusted thusly: -1 for every three ants; -2 because the ants are so big; +4 because it had rained for a couple of hours.
Later, when he wanted to shoot his bow at the giant ants, the attack roll got +1 from his masterwork bow (this bonus only applies to the attack roll, not the damage roll), -2 from using his Rapid Shot feat, +1 because the enemy was close enough for his Point Blank Shot feat, and then -4 I think for shooting into melee without having the Precise Shot feat. Add in his base attack bonus (+3?) and his Dex (+4?). But the damage rolls got +2 because it's a composite bow, +1 from Point Blank Shot, and +1 because I had cast Magic Weapon (this didn't add to the attack roll because Magic Weapon doesn't stack with the bonus from a masterwork weapon).
We've come a long way.
And that's a level 3 character if their BAB (Base Attack Bonus) is only +3 on a Ranger as they (and other "primary martial" classes) get +1 per level, meaning a base bonus of +20 at level 20 as opposed to the +6 proficiency bonus of any level 20 PC in 5e. Wizards and Sorcerers get half that even for spell based attacks, which do not use their casting ability mod but rather strength or dexterity, meaning even with a scorching ray or such they're effectively at a -10 penalty on any attack roll at level 20 by comparison. And at level 20 you're regularly facing foes with ACs in the mid twenties to high thirties, with some going into the forties. I would wonder why a 3rd level archer doesn't have Precise Shot, but then I remembered the Rapid Shot in the same feat tree so you can't hit Precise Shot until 6th level without being a human or a fighter having taken it.
The lack of bounded accuracy combined with steadily progressing Base Attack Bonuses (BAB) means that at higher levels only Fighters, Rangers, Paladins, Barbarians, and the other primarily martial focused base classes from supplemental books (like Samurai or Swashbuckler) with the "full BAB progression" have a decent chance at hitting anything with a straight attack roll at high levels. But each target actually has three AC values to allow certain strengths and weaknesses; standard AC, flat footed AC that does not factor in dex or dodge bonuses, and touch AC that ignores armor and natural armor (this allows some arcane spells requiring attack rolls a "reasonable" chance of hitting targets with low dex mods and few or no deflection, dodge, or luck based bonuses to their AC (those are all different things).
It especially effects skill checks. Proficiency in a skill allows you to put one point into it per level + and you get quadruple total points at first level so, assuming you have proficiency in a skill with each of your classes if you're multiclassing (you can take any of myriad Prestige Classes, generally at minimum of level 5 if you are built specifically to have the prerequisites for it, these have been replaced with subclasses for 5e) you have a bonus to checks for that skill equal to your level +3. A fifth level character proficient with Spot (which is distinct from Listen) will have a +8 in addition to their wisdom mod; without proficiency you can put half as many points in (or specifically you need 2 points to get 1 skill rank) so that would be +4 and without proficiency that means you're at a base disadvantage of 40% on a check compared to somebody with "full" proficiency. DCs generally go up proportionally to max proficient bonuses so by tenth level if you don't have max points in a skill you may as well not even bother making the check. And spreading points around just means you're merely bad at a bunch of things as opposed to completely ineffective at all but a small few things.
Combine all this with more feats (every third level plus an extra at first, and Fighters' main class feature is literally "get an extra feat at every even numbered level) you end up with mid to high level characters being progressively hyperspecialized to do a very small number of things extremely well and functionally incompetent at everything else. Nobody is going to find a trap or secret door at level 10+ unless they have maxed Search, and they won't be able to sneak past guards or alert creatures of appropriate CR without max ranks in Hide and Move Silently. Saving throws progress similarly so you aren't going to pass a high level reflex save unless you're proficient in it, regardless of your Dex score. And if you want your fireball to reliably do full damage against anything with a decent reflex save you need multiple feats to crank up your save DC on that because of the rate at which proficient NPCs or comparable monsters scale. Good *$&%ing luck getting that CR 27 Great Wurm red dragon to fail any save (it's low save is +22 Reflex, it attacks at +49, and it has AC 41 but it's Touch AC is only 2 so that's the only way most non-frontline warrior types are going to hit it with anything).
And things got really bad once the Epic Level Handbook was released. They added epic-tier effects to skill checks, which let you do ridiculous things like squeezing through an opening smaller than the diameter of your head with an Escape Artist check, give a performance so magnificent that it would attract an extradimensional patron with a Perform check, or worst of all, a Diplomacy check that could instantly cause the greediest Red Wyrm in existence to donate their hoard to charity and become your fanatically loyal minion.
The problem was that like most 3E books, the ELH had obviously not gotten any significant playtesting. So these "epic" skill check results had been awarded DCs that, thanks to all the various skill synergies, class abilities, and magic items that stacked with each other, meant you could create a character that would reliable get "epic" successes on skill checks by 10th level.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
In almost 30 years of playing across several editions I have never found the math of D&D very challenging, personally speaking. However, many of my friends found it too mathy for their tastes. To me, the biggest advantage of bounded accuracy (among other things) is that 5e is the first edition of the game many of my friends don’t hate, so I get to play more D&D now.
In almost 30 years of playing across several editions I have never found the math of D&D very challenging, personally speaking. However, many of my friends found it too mathy for their tastes. To me, the biggest advantage of bounded accuracy (among other things) is that 5e is the first edition of the game many of my friends don’t hate, so I get to play more D&D now.
It's not difficult math, it's just that any math is more difficult than no math at all. And I usually feel that the math gets in the way of the other parts of the experience that I enjoy more. I might liken it to... needing to wear a different pair of shoes for every individual thing you might do in a day. (I don't mean to brag, but I'm pretty good at putting on shoes. Jealous?) Wash dishes? Not before you put on your dish washing shoes. If you're going to drive to work, you'll need your driving shoes, then your work shoes, and of course let's not forget your lunch shoes.
I would agree with your conclusion, basically. It's more palatable by a long shot. (I wonder, now that digital tools are so widespread, could we see a return to the more math-heavy ways? These tools could make it way less cumbersome to actually play with such rules.)
In almost 30 years of playing across several editions I have never found the math of D&D very challenging, personally speaking.
It's not hard math, but keeping track of a christmas tree of modifiers gets annoying (also an issue with status effects, which was one of the things that made higher level combat in 4e a real slog).
I agree. The math, while not difficult, did occasionally get a little tedious, which was what many of my friends objected to. That’s why they prefer this edition of D&D to any other. It’s more “accessible” for lack of a better term.
I tried to post a thread like this last night, but there was an error.
Anyway, the main question for you is: What do you think is the most important part of 5e's Bounded Accuracy system?
If you don't know, Bounded Accuracy is a design philosophy used when creating 5e. The point was to keep numbers small to speed up math and maintain easily understood DC's across all 20 levels of play. The highest DC in the game is 30. In prior editions there wasn't a cap (or at least not one so low). Having a low cap means that there is quickly diminishing returns on absurdly high modifiers. Alongside that, they've deliberately made it hard to collect as many bonuses as possible. Some things are restricted to specific classes, and lots of bonuses to ability checks are die related (like Bless).
Sure, it isn't THAT hard to max out a stat, get expertise, be level 17, get blessed and inspired and score a 20 when you roll a 1... but you don't need to spend that much effort to succeed. The smaller numbers used in Bounded Accuracy means that if you roll 13 to 17 you're asking if you succeed. If you roll 12 or lower you assume you failed. If you roll 18 or higher, you assume you succeed... unless it's something REALLY outside your wheelhouse, or you're up against something much tougher than you should be fighting.
So, again, I ask what is the most valuable part to Bounded Accuracy?
1) Adding single digit numbers together (9 max until level 13) with the die making the game more friendly to new players and younger players?
2) Making the path to +72 before rolling really, REALLY restrictive, thus not something most players will be willing to be bored by?
3) Giving bonuses diminishing returns, thus insentivising creativity?
Personally, I don't find the mathematics particularly hard. I know that the AC is 18, they get +3, so they need to roll a 15 or better. However, I'm more comfortable with numbers than the average guy, and the average guy is who D&D is aimed towards, so maybe I'm just a bit too complacent in my judgement.
The major advantage I guess is that most rolls are possible for most characters. In my experience, most DCs are clustered around 15. In a normal party, this is a nice thing. It means you don't have to have the specialist or tool monkey do a given roll, all can be useful - the advantage to specialising is that you're useful more often. For me though, it's really useful - with a party of two, I have to buff my players already in order to have them stand up in combat. If you can boost your rolls to +25 say, then there will have to be DCs to make that worthwhile, which puts the DC outside of the reach of the +3s that my party will have in many if not most areas. I'd either have to insanely boost my party or make massive changes to the adventure for a two player party to even work. As it is, even a 15 or an 18 is possible. There is still a possibility that my party can succeed at any given task. That Venn diagram is a lot more separate if you can just pile on the bonuses.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Bounded Accuracy means that all PCs have a chance to succeed.
There is less reason to min-max when the difference is a lot less than in earlier editions.
It also links the numbers a lot more easily to the fiction imo. Like, if you describe a door as being reinforced and making no sound when struck, I know it's gonna be hard to break down, and I know that means a DC around 20. If I see a guy with plate mail, his AC is 18. There's no guesswork and there's no "well we're level 8 so the DC is probably..."
This makes things easier for the DM to improvise as well as for the players to keep memorized.
It also keeps the relevance of the die.
The die generates a value from 1-20. So if your mod is +10, you generate a range from 10-30 with 2/3rds of your max value coming from the die.
Suppose you make a mod of +40. Now your range is 40-60 and only 1/3rd of your max value comes from the die roll. This removes the die roll from relevance.
It also makes it nearly impossible for someone of high enough level to fail something "While Under Stress". Yes, they can take 10 (or 20) if they have time but under stress there should always be a risk of failure as it is failure that drives dramatic tension.
"Teller of tales, dreamer of dreams"
Tips, Tricks, Maps: Lantern Noir Presents
**Streams hosted at at twitch.tv/LaternNoir
I find it’s not quite that it makes the math easier (though it does), as that there ends up being less math, and that’s what speeds things up. In 3e, for example, there were lots and lots of circumstantial bonuses of +\- 1 or 2. It wasn’t hard math, it was just remembering all the different little pluses and minuses, and then adding them in. And if pretty much anyone moved before your next turn, you basically had to do the whole calculation over again.
That sounds horrible. I just want to play, not exercise my mental arithmetic.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
From my 3.5e game yesterday: Our Ranger wanted to follow the trail of some giant ants. The DC for his check was adjusted thusly: -1 for every three ants; -2 because the ants are so big; +4 because it had rained for a couple of hours.
Later, when he wanted to shoot his bow at the giant ants, the attack roll got +1 from his masterwork bow (this bonus only applies to the attack roll, not the damage roll), -2 from using his Rapid Shot feat, +1 because the enemy was close enough for his Point Blank Shot feat, and then -4 I think for shooting into melee without having the Precise Shot feat. Add in his base attack bonus (+3?) and his Dex (+4?). But the damage rolls got +2 because it's a composite bow, +1 from Point Blank Shot, and +1 because I had cast Magic Weapon (this didn't add to the attack roll because Magic Weapon doesn't stack with the bonus from a masterwork weapon).
We've come a long way.
And that's a level 3 character if their BAB (Base Attack Bonus) is only +3 on a Ranger as they (and other "primary martial" classes) get +1 per level, meaning a base bonus of +20 at level 20 as opposed to the +6 proficiency bonus of any level 20 PC in 5e. Wizards and Sorcerers get half that even for spell based attacks, which do not use their casting ability mod but rather strength or dexterity, meaning even with a scorching ray or such they're effectively at a -10 penalty on any attack roll at level 20 by comparison. And at level 20 you're regularly facing foes with ACs in the mid twenties to high thirties, with some going into the forties. I would wonder why a 3rd level archer doesn't have Precise Shot, but then I remembered the Rapid Shot in the same feat tree so you can't hit Precise Shot until 6th level without being a human or a fighter having taken it.
The lack of bounded accuracy combined with steadily progressing Base Attack Bonuses (BAB) means that at higher levels only Fighters, Rangers, Paladins, Barbarians, and the other primarily martial focused base classes from supplemental books (like Samurai or Swashbuckler) with the "full BAB progression" have a decent chance at hitting anything with a straight attack roll at high levels. But each target actually has three AC values to allow certain strengths and weaknesses; standard AC, flat footed AC that does not factor in dex or dodge bonuses, and touch AC that ignores armor and natural armor (this allows some arcane spells requiring attack rolls a "reasonable" chance of hitting targets with low dex mods and few or no deflection, dodge, or luck based bonuses to their AC (those are all different things).
It especially effects skill checks. Proficiency in a skill allows you to put one point into it per level + and you get quadruple total points at first level so, assuming you have proficiency in a skill with each of your classes if you're multiclassing (you can take any of myriad Prestige Classes, generally at minimum of level 5 if you are built specifically to have the prerequisites for it, these have been replaced with subclasses for 5e) you have a bonus to checks for that skill equal to your level +3. A fifth level character proficient with Spot (which is distinct from Listen) will have a +8 in addition to their wisdom mod; without proficiency you can put half as many points in (or specifically you need 2 points to get 1 skill rank) so that would be +4 and without proficiency that means you're at a base disadvantage of 40% on a check compared to somebody with "full" proficiency. DCs generally go up proportionally to max proficient bonuses so by tenth level if you don't have max points in a skill you may as well not even bother making the check. And spreading points around just means you're merely bad at a bunch of things as opposed to completely ineffective at all but a small few things.
Combine all this with more feats (every third level plus an extra at first, and Fighters' main class feature is literally "get an extra feat at every even numbered level) you end up with mid to high level characters being progressively hyperspecialized to do a very small number of things extremely well and functionally incompetent at everything else. Nobody is going to find a trap or secret door at level 10+ unless they have maxed Search, and they won't be able to sneak past guards or alert creatures of appropriate CR without max ranks in Hide and Move Silently. Saving throws progress similarly so you aren't going to pass a high level reflex save unless you're proficient in it, regardless of your Dex score. And if you want your fireball to reliably do full damage against anything with a decent reflex save you need multiple feats to crank up your save DC on that because of the rate at which proficient NPCs or comparable monsters scale. Good *$&%ing luck getting that CR 27 Great Wurm red dragon to fail any save (it's low save is +22 Reflex, it attacks at +49, and it has AC 41 but it's Touch AC is only 2 so that's the only way most non-frontline warrior types are going to hit it with anything).
It was horrible, but it was still better than THAC0, so it felt like an upgrade.
This kind of stuff is what I think of when people say characters in 3.x were so much more customizable. They were, but it was really an illusion of choice. There were definitely a lot more feats, and you got them more often, but there were really only 2 or 3 that were basically the "correct" choice, for the kind of character you were trying to make so everyone ended up taking the same ones.
The problem with talking about bounded accuracy is that a lot of the things people talk about as features of bounded accuracy are really not part of it.
Bounded accuracy is fundamentally just a contract that DCs will not automatically ramp up with level plus a cap of 30. The intent is that PCs don't have to keep chasing bonuses to keep up with the curve. In practice the first part doesn't really work, because there's nothing preventing PCs from chasing bonuses, and since PC autosuccess is boring, DMs increase DCs, so the end result is "DC automatically ramp up with level", but they did at least manage to slow down the DC escalation -- in 3.5e you were looking at 30 points over 20 levels, 4e was 30 points over 30 levels, 5e is only around 10 points over 20 levels.
Part of the way this was achieved was making a whole bunch of things that would have been stacking modifiers in previous editions just 'advantage' or 'disadvantage'; there's no point to hunting down multiple sources of advantage. Unfortunately, they were unable to resist the temptation to break their own rules and add either static bonuses (why isn't pass without trace just Advantage on Stealth and/or Disadvantage on Perception?), or, even worse, bonus dice (adding bless to a combat slows down die rolling by a lot).
The other way this was achieved was with the Attunement and Concentration mechanics, both of which dramatically limit how many bonuses it's possible to stack. Again, the devs have had trouble sticking to their principles, various non-concentration buffs have been introduced over time.
I suspect it would have been easier to stick to principles if they'd put in limited stacking (capped, or severe diminishing returns) instead of having no stacking at all.
It can be a bit of a slippery slope to increase DCs. If a rogue has a +13 lockpicking modifier for example, even with reliable talent there is a chance of failure on a 25 or even a 30. If they're always able to hit lower DC things, imo that's part of the reward for that investment. 30 or 30+ dcs where they make sense is fine, but I wouldn't say start making EVERY lock 30+. You want to challenge the players sure, but if you also bump up every DC to match their gains, then what was the point in them getting that bonus in the first place? The whole point of expertise and reliable talent is to make them REALLY GOOD at certain ability checks. I'd especially be careful of raising the DCs for anything where the whole party needs to contribute too, such as if you do group stealth checks or if a rogue has athletics expertise so you bump up athletics dcs for the full party etc.
It's like, say a wizard who really loves fireball, you may throw enemies resistant or immune to fire or with high dex saves now and then, but if you do that consistently it starts to them make their choice feel like a waste. Characters should be good at what they specialize in, and for rogues that includes certain skills and thieves tools depending on their expertise choices.
You say bounded accuracy doesn't work because PCs just keep "chasing bonuses" then say it would work better with stacking. That's contradictory. And the entire point of using bounded accuracy is that those bonuses are few and far between compared to other systems (3.5/PF1 being a prime example but not the only one by any stretch). You can't "chase" bonuses if they aren't there. That's the point. Yes, an optimized PC will still have high chances of success but it's nothing compared with the level 20 fighter my then-girlfriend played in a 3.5 one shot that had +39 to attack, threatened crits on 14-20, and said crits would do a minimum of 100 damage. I don't even remember everything in that build because it was about 19 years ago but it was ridiculous. She put something like 300 damage on a great red wyrm in a single turn. It took a college student something like three minutes and half a sheet of scratch paper to calculate all that damage reading the long-ass formula off of the character sheet. That's what you get "chasing bonuses" and anything in 5e doesn't even come close to it.
People like to point at Rogues and Reliable Ralent, being good at skills is one of the main things Rogues do along with sneak attack piling all of their damage potential into a single all or nothing attack each round. They don't have spells, combat maneuvers, rage, or anything else. They have skills that they can reliably use in specific situations and the potential to hit like a truck if they don't whiff. Being better at skills than anybody else (except maybe certain Bard builds, who have a limited number of spells from a limited list instead of the sneak attack) is that classes primary raison d'etre. Yes, they get absolutely absurd when you slap pass without a trace on them but they already don't really need it because that spell is so other classes can have a chance at stealth because it sucks if your tank is incapable of sneaking past a half deaf guard that's passed out drunk. It's also a clear exception because almost nothing else gives a remotely similar flat bonus to anything in 5e.
What I mean is "if the rules permitted limited stacking, the devs might actually follow the rules". Having some standard rule for limited stacking would be much better than the current situation with Guidance, and Bardic Inspiration, and Superiority Dice, and stacking untyped bonuses, and just how can you manage to get Expertise on your build, and ...
And things got really bad once the Epic Level Handbook was released. They added epic-tier effects to skill checks, which let you do ridiculous things like squeezing through an opening smaller than the diameter of your head with an Escape Artist check, give a performance so magnificent that it would attract an extradimensional patron with a Perform check, or worst of all, a Diplomacy check that could instantly cause the greediest Red Wyrm in existence to donate their hoard to charity and become your fanatically loyal minion.
The problem was that like most 3E books, the ELH had obviously not gotten any significant playtesting. So these "epic" skill check results had been awarded DCs that, thanks to all the various skill synergies, class abilities, and magic items that stacked with each other, meant you could create a character that would reliable get "epic" successes on skill checks by 10th level.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
In almost 30 years of playing across several editions I have never found the math of D&D very challenging, personally speaking. However, many of my friends found it too mathy for their tastes. To me, the biggest advantage of bounded accuracy (among other things) is that 5e is the first edition of the game many of my friends don’t hate, so I get to play more D&D now.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It's not difficult math, it's just that any math is more difficult than no math at all. And I usually feel that the math gets in the way of the other parts of the experience that I enjoy more. I might liken it to... needing to wear a different pair of shoes for every individual thing you might do in a day. (I don't mean to brag, but I'm pretty good at putting on shoes. Jealous?) Wash dishes? Not before you put on your dish washing shoes. If you're going to drive to work, you'll need your driving shoes, then your work shoes, and of course let's not forget your lunch shoes.
I would agree with your conclusion, basically. It's more palatable by a long shot. (I wonder, now that digital tools are so widespread, could we see a return to the more math-heavy ways? These tools could make it way less cumbersome to actually play with such rules.)
It's not hard math, but keeping track of a christmas tree of modifiers gets annoying (also an issue with status effects, which was one of the things that made higher level combat in 4e a real slog).
I agree. The math, while not difficult, did occasionally get a little tedious, which was what many of my friends objected to. That’s why they prefer this edition of D&D to any other. It’s more “accessible” for lack of a better term.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting