Breaking Bounded Accuracy: Proposed Fix

dave2008 said:

From time to time I have pondered about what to do about the compounding effects of magic equipment and buffing spells. Basically I feel that these two together break bounded accuracy (typically in favor of the PCs). My current solution is to not give out + magic items. However, I was thinking about another option.

Here is my proposed solution: magic doesn't stack. Whatever magic gives you a bonus to a roll (not disadvantage or advantage) cannot stake with another type of magic that gives you a bonus to the same roll.

Example: Fighter Bob has a +3 longsword and Cleric Jane cast bless on him (rolling 2). Bob only gets his +3 bonus from the sword on his attack roll, but he still gets the +2 bonus to his saving throws from bless.

I can bet this breaks something else, but I am not sure what. Any thoughts?

EDIT: Break is to strong of a word, I think stacking magic bends BA further than I like.

EDIT 2: To clarify the bold part above, I am not looking for alternate solutions. I am asking if the proposed solution has ramifications I am not thinking about.

Click to expand...

Nerfing magic items won't break anything. It will reduce or nullify the pay off for some strategies. For instance, if Bob has a +2 Sword and a Ring of Protection, then Jane's Bless will read - ignore this spell unless you roll higher than existing bonuses. Unfortunately "higher" can differ between Attack and Saves, so it is a bit fiddlier than I think ideal. Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that the nerf is pretty broad, and a lot of player strategies will become marginal. Better surely not to give out a +3 sword?

Earthdawn had the stack three rule, and 3rd had the list of effect types that limited stacking. So your sense that buff stacking is an issue in RPG is justified, especially in the context of Bounded Accuracy. However, I think the control is care in giving out items.

5ekyu said:

Last part first - IDK what you consider experience or relevant experience but not knowing enough about 2 of the 12 classes to know how this affects them belies the value of your claimed years. I did not question your experience until you atarted claiming to not know the 5e classes that get impacted by this change in more significant ways.

Click to expand...

I have never claimed to know all 12 classes. I in fact stated that my group has never played a bard, monk, or barbarian (perhaps not in response to one of your posts though - I don't recall). And I conversely know little about those classes. I don't know why you thought otherwise.

5ekyu said:

First for last - no. Again you have that wrong. You might have known this if you had looked at the bard.

The impact and value of the bard dice when used in a non-item campaign with the same specs and assumptions is:
base +5 (no +2 for items) produces net outcome of +6 to +13 for the d8
Base +5 +1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8

So just like before the result is a gain of up to 8 and an average of 4.5 from the d8.
That matches the same thing when you have the +2 weapon and the normal rule

under your rule the gain of that ability is reduced in this example to a gain of 0 to +6 as shown above and a net gain of 2.62 - you have essentially taken the d8 down to just a smidge more than a d4 average gain of 2.5 and the total breadth of a d6 with some zero gains added in for fun.

That this would lead you to conclude no weight to this is telling.

Click to expand...

I understand your point. However, relative to what my group is currently doing (no + magic items), this proposal is still a buff for my group (if we had a bard).

Currently Bardic inspiration (d6) has a chance of buffing +1 to +6.
With proposed revision, Bardic inspiration (d6) has chance of buffing +2 to +6 , so a mild net gain for the Bard (again if we had one).

However, after all of that, I did just quickly skim the Bard and Bardic Inspiration isn't even a magic ability, so my proposed change would affect it at all! So why did you bring it up in the first place ?!

5ekyu said:

In my games, classes that are not the PCs can still come into play as adversaries and temporary allies sometimes sought out by the PCs - so should we take your claim they aren't involved in how you play i supposed thats not true of your games?

Interesting.

best of luck.

Click to expand...

Generally speaking I stat NPCs as monsters not PCs. In fact, I don't think I have stated an NPC like a PC since we made the switch to 4e and I continue to do the same in 5e.

5ekyu said:

Ok so, hit rate and stuff are not a problem you have encountered in your game but BA is...

"Basically I feel that these two together break bounded accuracy (typically in favor of the PCs)."

So, for us less experienced folks - can you tell us maybe three specific examples where broken BA occured in your game's actual play and caused a problem - preferably ones with magic items and bless and other such spells?

Click to expand...

No I cannot because we currently handle the issue by removing all + items from the game. I have mentioned this several times throuhout this thread, I apologize I assumed i had mentioned that to you already. This also solves the issue, but I am looking for a different method.

Also, BA is not a problem. Things bending it to far are.

dave2008 said:

I have never claimed to know all 12 classes. I in fact stated that my group has never played a bard, monk, or barbarian (perhaps not in response to one of your posts though - I don't recall). And I conversely know little about those classes. I don't know why you thought otherwise.



I understand your point. However, relative to what my group is currently doing (no + magic items), this proposal is still a buff for my group (if we had a bard).

Currently Bardic inspiration (d6) has a chance of buffing +1 to +6.
With proposed revision, Bardic inspiration (d6) has chance of buffing +2 to +6 , so a mild net gain for the Bard (again if we had one).

However, after all of that, I did just quickly skim the Bard and Bardic Inspiration isn't even a magic ability, so my proposed change would affect it at all! So why did you bring it up in the first place ?!

Click to expand...

Now it seems to be oddly just trolling... you really dont get that a lack of knowledge of now 3 of the 12 classes kind brings into question your experience? OK, well, so much for getting anywhere on that.

So, let me get this straight now, the story, your current game does not have magic items with bonuses so you currently have not had issues with it breaking BA? So, is this literally as case of fixing a problem that doesn't exist? I mean you keep referring back to not caring about how it works anywhere but the elements in play in your game so... seems odd.

Finally, let me get this straight now... bardic inspiration dice would not be included in your worry about breaking bounded accuracy and would play full power but bless and "other spells" would be a problem for bounded accuracy - you think since you currently dont have any plus items - and your concern is only with bounded accuracy and not to hit chances or rate?

Do i have that straight?

If so it seems your problem is not really with breaking BA unless that break has the tagline "magic" as well?

If so then we seem to have an issue then with again hitting certain classes ...

battlemaster dice impact BA and the top levels to reach - hey not a problem and not changed.
bards (if ruled non-magic) dice impact BA and the top levels to reach - hey not a problem and not changed.
Classes that use spells or have magic abilities to add smaller dice are a problem and are affected by the change.

No idea where divine power would qualify - is that magic or not for this "problem"?

Again i come back to can you point to any examples in play from your game of the problem of broken BA from combos of spells and items??

EDIT since you cannot give examples from actual play, can you give a theoretical case where there would be a problem with BLESS boosting a BA threshold but where bardic dice or battlemaster dice would not - since at least one of thos is open and unaffected it seems?

Saelorn said:

What counts as magic, though? Spells and magic items, sure, but what about class features? Does it depend on how the class feature is described, or is it just a "class" bonus either way?

From a practical, administrative standpoint, I'm not sure how to make sure that everyone is on the same page with what stacks and what doesn't, unless you go back to naming bonuses.

Click to expand...

If a class feature is magic it would be affected. If the feature is described as magical specifically or it is (and here is the issue) easily , and universally (by our group) inferred to be magical. I have come to realize that a lot of issues people have with this concept are because you (general - not you specifically) are worried about how anyone would view the rule change with respect to all possible combinations. However, we only worry about how we view the change and how it affects our characters.

As a DM I am interested in the broader perspective, but I really only have to concern myself with the narrow perspective of my group. I should have put up my groups composition to get more constructive feedback.

5ekyu said:

Now it seems to be oddly just trolling... you really dont get that a lack of knowledge of now 3 of the 12 classes kind brings into question your experience? OK, well, so much for getting anywhere on that.

Click to expand...

First I am speaking about experience of playing D&D with my group 1st, D&D second, and 5e D&D last. If I only have 5 years of experience with 66% of the 5e classes I still deem that as experienced. If you do not, fine my group is not experienced.

5ekyu said:

So, let me get this straight now, the story, your current game does not have magic items with bonuses so you currently have not had issues with it breaking BA? So, is this literally as case of fixing a problem that doesn't exist? I mean you keep referring back to not caring about how it works anywhere but the elements in play in your game so... seems odd.

Click to expand...

I believe a stated this is a proposal. Something we are considering (we as a group, not just me). So what we are looking at is adding + magic items back to our game and removing magical stacking instead. It seemed clear to me when I wrote it, but I am notorious for thinking things and not writing / saying them. So yes, this doesn't exist, but we are think of making a change.

5ekyu said:

Finally, let me get this straight now... bardic inspiration dice would not be included in your worry about breaking bounded accuracy and would play full power but bless and "other spells" would be a problem for bounded accuracy - you think since you currently dont have any plus items - and your concern is only with bounded accuracy and not to hit chances or rate?

Do i have that straight?

Click to expand...

Not exactly, but generally. Bardic inspiration would be an issue because we don't have a bard. If we did have a bard we would have to decided if it was magical or not. My vote would be that it is note, but I am one of 7.

Unfortunately I can't speak for everyone, but my concern is to limit non-class features that stretch the range. I generally want classes to have their special sauce.

5ekyu said:

If so it seems your problem is not really with breaking BA unless that break has the tagline "magic" as well?

Click to expand...

generally yes - or it could be at least. This whole process is to investigate were the issues are.

5ekyu said:

If so then we seem to have an issue then with again hitting certain classes ...

battlemaster dice impact BA and the top levels to reach - hey not a problem and not changed.
bards (if ruled non-magic) dice impact BA and the top levels to reach - hey not a problem and not changed.
Classes that use spells or have magic abilities to add smaller dice are a problem and are affected by the change.

Click to expand...

Yes, magic classes would generally be more affected, which is an issue in general. Not so much for my current group. A strike against the concept I would say.

5ekyu said:

No idea where divine power would qualify - is that magic or not for this "problem"?

Click to expand...

Generally magic. This would be an issue except we don't currently have a cleric or paladin. This is definitely another strike against the concept.

5ekyu said:

Again i come back to can you point to any examples in play from your game of the problem of broken BA from combos of spells and items??

EDIT since you cannot give examples from actual play, can you give a theoretical case where there would be a problem with BLESS boosting a BA threshold but where bardic dice or battlemaster dice would not - since at least one of thos is open and unaffected it seems?

Click to expand...

I will think about and get back to you.

[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] I play in Dave's group. And I think he's not doing a good job of explaining the overall theme we are going for. The idea is that magic has a universal attunement (not to be confused with the game term).

So if your magic is tuned to +3 enhancement, it can't then be tuned higher. Damn, this is hard to explain that I realized!

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:

[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] I play in Dave's group. And I think he's not doing a good job of explaining the overall theme we are going for. The idea is that magic has a universal attunement (not to be confused with the game term).

So if your magic is tuned to +3 enhancement, it can't then be tuned higher. Damn, this is hard to explain that I realized!

Click to expand...

theme's, settings, flavors are one thing - but they are very distinct and different things from broken mechanics and the claim of broken BA that magic items and spells cause.

can you give us some examples of things broken BA by magic but not other things would cause for your game that you yourself are trying to ban?

or is this nothing to do with broken or mechanics and just a flavor thing where you want in your games only certain things to be able to get to the highest values of BA and so you outlaw others?

I can get and understand "in this campaign, gear and items take a backseat to character abilities so we limit their stacking" as a thematic goal but it has nothing to do with them breaking BA.

i mean, if this had been presented as flavor, style, theme not breaking bounded accuracy i bet the responses would have been different.

5ekyu said:

theme's, settings, flavors are one thing - but they are very distinct and different things from broken mechanics and the claim of broken BA that magic items and spells cause.

can you give us some examples of things broken BA by magic but not other things would cause for your game that you yourself are trying to ban?

or is this nothing to do with broken or mechanics and just a flavor thing where you want in your games only certain things to be able to get to the highest values of BA and so you outlaw others?

I can get and understand "in this campaign, gear and items take a backseat to character abilities so we limit their stacking" as a thematic goal but it has nothing to do with them breaking BA.

i mean, if this had been presented as flavor, style, theme not breaking bounded accuracy i bet the responses would have been different.

Click to expand...

Sorry! My general sense was that it was a flavor thing. That is how I recall discussing it. Dave is the DM, so maybe he looked at it a different way. Regardless, it is thing we want to do, I'm guessing Dave wants to explore the mechanical ramifications of that decision.