D&D General Explain Bounded Accuracy to Me (As if I Was Five)

[Crimson Longinus]

You could, for example, get rid of them entirely?

Get rid of spells? I really don't think that's an option.

(I think) bounded accuracy is a bad fit for the system because it empowers spells.

It doesn't though. In fact bounded accuracy means that even low or moderately skilled character has a chance to succeed at relatively difficult tasks, so the spells are not the only tool in the box.

D&D 5E would be better without bounded accuracy is what I am saying (because they would obviously never get rid of the spell casting system).

Why is massively limiting the usability range of enemies a desirable outcome?

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm not sure that I fully agree that, even by that criteria, the goal was absolutely met. It's not that difficult to make a character who is difficult to hit -even for creatures at your level.

Well, yeah, with the right items and build choices, you can make your character impossible for some monsters to hit, but that doesn’t just happen automatically as a result of gaining enough levels, which is I think what they meant about bonuses “not being an assumed part of character advancement.” Also, while you can push your bonuses high enough that you can’t miss, you should never encounter a monster you can’t hit. As far as I’m aware, the highest AC on a WotC-published monster is 23, which any 1st level character can hit as long as they’re proficient with their weapon and don’t have a penalty to the relevant ability score.

It may be the case that has been addressed by newer books. Admittedly, I wouldn't know. I'm a few years behind on keeping up with 5e. However, I would guess that floating ability scores and more species with inherent defenses makes it easier to build a character that monsters struggle to hit.

There’s a difference though between building a character that monsters struggle to hit, and the situation you had in 3e and 4e, where every character who lived long enough would get to the point where some monsters literally could not hit them ever. With bounded accuracy you can still achieve the fantasy of being nearly untouchable, but doing so requires a commitment of resources, and even if you do commit those resources, you still have to respect the fact that enough kobolds (or whatever) could still take you down.

By no means is it anywhere near some issues that 3E had (or even 4E had due to early monster math being wonky,) but I think there's still a gap between what was stated as a goal and what was produced.
Perhaps it does just boil down to miscommunication of design goals. I can't say. But the OP isn't alone it having a bit of disconnect.

I think it’s pretty indisputable that WotC did a poor job of communicating what they were going for with the whole “bounded accuracy” thing. I do think they succeeded in what they were actually trying to do, but even at the time there was a lot of confusion about what that was. And it’s really only meaningful in contrast to 3e and 4e, so to newer players it’s got to be even more unclear what this “bounded accuracy” waffle is even about. PF2 is probably the more relevant point of comparison for players who started with 5e.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Why is massively limiting the usability range of enemies a desirable outcome?

TO prevent 20th level legends from having to suffer through the boring wolf and goblin swarms BA enthusiastically promises.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Get rid of spells? I really don't think that's an option.


It doesn't though. In fact bounded accuracy means that even low or moderately skilled character has a chance to succeed at relatively difficult tasks, so the spells are not the only tool in the box.


Why is massively limiting the usability range of enemies a desirable outcome?

1: I never said it was practical, but I said I don't feel like BA is compatible with the way spellcasting works in D&D.

2: I'm saying that spells are sidestepping the issue of numbers entirely because spells are explicitly not limited by bounded accuracy.

Knock, Forcecage, Forcewall, Teleport, Dimension Door, Misty Step, Shield. They all allow you to do X with no regard for bounded accuracy at all.

3: It's an already solved problem. You can just do like what 4E did it and use minions.

 

[Charlaquin]

And no one ever stopped to ask if 'stationary bike' was actually an improvement over treadmill.

Plenty of people did, it’s just that most of them bounced off the 5e playtest right away. Bounded accuracy and modular design were the two key selling points of 5e, and since modular design never really panned out like they claimed, bounded accuracy pretty much makes or breaks 5e for folks. Given its enormous popularity, I would say it seems to make it for a lot more folks than it breaks it for.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Plenty of people did, it’s just that most of them bounced off the 5e playtest right away. Bounded accuracy and modular design were the two key selling points of 5e, and since modular design never really panned out like they claimed, bounded accuracy pretty much makes or breaks 5e for folks. Given its enormous popularity, I would say it seems to make it for a lot more folks than it breaks it for.

Why is it that the popularity of 5e can justify literally every design choice and no exterior factors ever matter?

Like, I'm surprised that when people crack on the terrible halfling art, people don't slidetackle their way in saying that specific image is exactly why 5e is popular.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

2: I'm saying that spells are sidestepping the issue of numbers entirely because spells are explicitly not limited by bounded accuracy.

Knock, Forcecage, Forcewall, Teleport, Dimension Door, Misty Step, Shield. They all allow you to do X with no regard for bounded accuracy at all.

Yes, some spells sidesteps the numbers, and this is powerful in non-bounded context as well. Bounded accuracy means that you usually have chance to fail and succeed with most rolls, with non-bounded you more easily get situations where roll can autofail or autosucceed. But these things balance each other out. With bounded skill is usually always an option, but might fail, so you might want to use a spell, with non-bounded you sometimes autosucceed so no spell is needed, but you sometimes also autofail, so spell is mandatory.

To me the former is preferable to the latter. You might burn a spell resource to guarantee a success, but that is usually a choice, and not something that is dictated to you by the circumstances.

3: It's an already solved problem. You can just do like what 4E did it and use minions.

Eww, no. That is basically the admission that the math doesn't work so you need this sort of awkward kludge.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why is it that the popularity of 5e can justify literally every design choice and no exterior factors ever matter?

Like, I'm surprised that when people crack on the terrible halfling art, people don't slidetackle their way in saying that specific image is exactly why 5e is popular.

I rather feel that it would be quite evident to most observers that the bounded accuracy is a core design feature of 5e, permeating the whole play experience, whilst the halfling art isn't.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why is it that the popularity of 5e can justify literally every design choice and no exterior factors ever matter?

Like, I'm surprised that when people crack on the terrible halfling art, people don't slidetackle their way in saying that specific image is exactly why 5e is popular.

External factors absolutely matter. But I certainly don’t think 5e would have had as much broad appeal without bounded accuracy. The constantly-inflating bonuses of 3e and 4e turned off a significant number of dedicated RPG fans. The game was never going to win over a more casual crowd with that kind of math.

Never underestimate the average person’s aversion to math above a 3rd grade level.

 

[DEFCON 1]

TO prevent 20th level legends from having to suffer through the boring wolf and goblin swarms BA enthusiastically promises.

That's not the game's issue... that's your DM's. Just because the game allows your DM to make your life boring by having goblin swarms attack your 20th level PC... doesn't mean your DM HAS to do it. You might have a better shot talking about your issue with your DM, rather than hope WotC will fix your issue for you.