Horwath
Legend
yes, but primary is about having more monsters available over levels to certain levels of PCs.
and having PCs more vulnerable to bunch of low level mooks.
I like PF2, but I like it more with no +1/level bonus.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D General Explain Bounded Accuracy to Me (As if I Was Five)
- Thread starter MGibster
- Start date
and having PCs more vulnerable to bunch of low level mooks.
I like PF2, but I like it more with no +1/level bonus.
The easiest way to understand Bounded Accuracy is that the game tries to make it that everyone has a chance of success or failure at most things. Bonuses generally range from +0 to +11, while the target number (DC/AC) is rarely above 20. This means that even with a +11, you have a chance of failure against the hardest difficulty, while a completely untrained person has a small chance of success. Monster math is designed to allow weaker monsters to be more relevant longer, so that the DM has a wider variety of options to use at each level.
Really? In al the RPGs you have played you have not noticed that most of them, in their mechanics design, are more interested in supporting a theme, tone, feel, or fiction than rigid wargame or board game style balance?
FrozenNorth
Hero
It means that people can meaningfully attempt a task and not just be shut down by the GM if it isn’t part of their build. The bard is still going to be better at persuading people than the barbarian, but the barbarian isn’t told to stand in the back and not open their mouth because they have no chance of contributing to social encounters.
MuhVerisimilitude
Hero
Some classes are reliant entirely on linear-growth. That is: They don't gain anything new as they level up: Only their numbers go up (a bit).
These classes are unfairly punished by bounded accuracy.
BA essentially asserts that a level 20 character is at most "this" much better than a level 1 character.
Which makes sense as long as all characters rely on the same subsystems, like the skill system. But a lot of characters (read every caster) bypasses the skill system.
This restricts high level martials to be barely more competent than low level martials, while casters become demigods at high levels.
A level 1 character likely has a +6 bonus in a good skill and at level 20 they might have a +11 bonus (5 from ability, 6 from prof). Now consider an obstacle with some given DC.
DC 10: Level 1 character must roll 4 or higher. Level 20 must roll 1 or higher.
DC 15: Level 1 character must roll 9 or higher. Level 20 must roll 4 or higher.
DC 20: Level 1 character must roll 14 or higher. Level 20 must roll 9 or higher.
DC 25: Level 1 character must roll 19 or higher. Level 20 must roll 14 or higher.
At extremely high DCs, where low level characters are very unlikely to succeed, the success rate for high level characters also start to fall off. There's no area where the check is impossible for a low level character and very likely to succeed (or certain) for a high level one.
This is in stark contrast to magic. Assuming that you have access to magic, then as soon as you have access to your key spell you go from 0% success to 100% success.
For example if the above problem was "get through a door" then the wizard can just spell that problem away.
These classes are unfairly punished by bounded accuracy.
BA essentially asserts that a level 20 character is at most "this" much better than a level 1 character.
Which makes sense as long as all characters rely on the same subsystems, like the skill system. But a lot of characters (read every caster) bypasses the skill system.
This restricts high level martials to be barely more competent than low level martials, while casters become demigods at high levels.
A level 1 character likely has a +6 bonus in a good skill and at level 20 they might have a +11 bonus (5 from ability, 6 from prof). Now consider an obstacle with some given DC.
DC 10: Level 1 character must roll 4 or higher. Level 20 must roll 1 or higher.
DC 15: Level 1 character must roll 9 or higher. Level 20 must roll 4 or higher.
DC 20: Level 1 character must roll 14 or higher. Level 20 must roll 9 or higher.
DC 25: Level 1 character must roll 19 or higher. Level 20 must roll 14 or higher.
At extremely high DCs, where low level characters are very unlikely to succeed, the success rate for high level characters also start to fall off. There's no area where the check is impossible for a low level character and very likely to succeed (or certain) for a high level one.
This is in stark contrast to magic. Assuming that you have access to magic, then as soon as you have access to your key spell you go from 0% success to 100% success.
For example if the above problem was "get through a door" then the wizard can just spell that problem away.
Going to try my hand at it without reading the other replies first...
A game having "bounded accuracy" is one in which the target numbers characters have to reach don't climb to great heights over the course of the campaign, whether it be to-hit rolls, saving throws, or skill checks (or their equivalents in non-D&D systems). This means as characters progress, they do not have to constantly make build choices to add bonuses to be effective, and the game design does not have to make loads of bonuses available.
It is not a bound accuracy at all!
First your bonus effectively increase. from +5 at first level to +11 and even +15 and more at level 20 with some magic help.
For making hit during game play, 5ed allow way more hit as you level than other edition.
the most bound accuracy edition was 4ed where you never make a hit if you roll below 9.
First your bonus effectively increase. from +5 at first level to +11 and even +15 and more at level 20 with some magic help.
For making hit during game play, 5ed allow way more hit as you level than other edition.
the most bound accuracy edition was 4ed where you never make a hit if you roll below 9.
ezo
Where is that Singe?
I've never been a big fan of bounded accuracy because all it does is move the goal posts.
Instead of missing a lot, but damage being more meaningful (due to no hit point bloat), you now hit more often, but damage means less.
For some people, "hitting and getting to roll low damage" (comparatively) makes them feel better, but IMO it just makes a lot more math for the DM and wastes time. To each there own I suppose.
I will say I'm glad they got rid of the treadmill effect, however. My friend likes to say the only problem with bounded accuracy is they bounded it too much.
Instead of missing a lot, but damage being more meaningful (due to no hit point bloat), you now hit more often, but damage means less.
For some people, "hitting and getting to roll low damage" (comparatively) makes them feel better, but IMO it just makes a lot more math for the DM and wastes time. To each there own I suppose.
I will say I'm glad they got rid of the treadmill effect, however. My friend likes to say the only problem with bounded accuracy is they bounded it too much.
Argyle King
Legend
Well here is how WotC described it:
In theory, it means:
As to if 5e broke any of those design principles, is an entirely different discussion.
- .......
In my opinion, part of the OP's confusion may come from a difference between what was stated as a design goal versus how the game works in play.
I said quite a while back that I understand "bounded accuracy" to mean something different than what that phrase appears to mean in 5e.
Which isn't to say that 5e is bad or wrong. It's more that I think there's a disconnect between what is said about how the game should work and how the game actually does work.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Can you support this with numbers? I think 5e is actually a bit too bounded in some places. I would not worry if proficiency bonus would increase slightly faster.
Last edited:
