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

[Lanefan]

I am stating overinflation because of what I said.

Many vocal people don't want a lot of stats to increase so lower level monsters and obstacles last longer.

If you turn down one knob, another knob has to be turned up.
If you turn down a bunch of knobs, that same knob that isn't turned down is turned up a bunch of times.

The fewer levers you give yourself to design, the more you must CRANK on the ones you do have.

Why?

Why can't you turn down some knobs while leaving the rest alone? The specific intent here, of course, would be to end up with a slower, more measured character progression arc along with flattening the curve such that any given monster remains a viable threat over a wider level range.

 

[Lanefan]

Suppose I'm playing Chainmail, with my PC being a hero or a wizard mopping up squads of Orcs. And then a NPC anti-hero comes and challenges me. And now, instead of using the Chainmail rules, we break out the alternative combat system from Book 1 Men & Magic.

Not only is this not ludicrous, I suspect it happened more than once in the early days of D&D play.

I've never played Chainmail, but this sounds analagous to switching from Battlesystem for army fights to normal D&D combat rules for small-group fights. It's a question of practicality: ideally I'd want to run the PC mopping up squads of Orcs just like any other combat (i.e. with each Orc as an independent NPC, with its own initiative, attacks, etc.) but practicality suggests I treat the Orcs as a troop or swarm in order to save myself a whole lot o' dice-rolling.

Then again, with a flatter power curve then even at high level PC is quite likely not mopping up squads of Orcs like that, but instead has to consider the threat posed by their sheer force of numbers.

 

[Minigiant]

I think you are overlooking some things...

• Ability bonuses were not nearly as common unless your group rolled dozens of set of scores. Most PCs had a +1 or maybe +2 on attacks vs. the +3 or better in 5E.
• Accuracy in AD&D started out much worse. "Proficiency bonus" began at +0 (THAC0 20 for all classes), not +2.
• Increases were needed more because ACs in AD&D at higher levels would be well into the 20's in 5E terms, as where in 5E you rarely see AC's for opponents above 20. (Granted, we're talking high levels...)

None of this matters.

My point was the increase.

AD&D bounds HP and AC, "to hit" grows like crazy with level.
4e bounds damage, "to hit", AC, and HP grow a lot.
5e bounds "to hit" and AC, damage and HP grows like crazy with level

3e is the anomaly. Everything grew like crazy in 3e.

 

[Minigiant]

Why?

Why can't you turn down some knobs while leaving the rest alone? The specific intent here, of course, would be to end up with a slower, more measured character progression arc along with flattening the curve such that any given monster remains a viable threat over a wider level range.

It's kinda boring

And more importantly.

It's not D&D.
D&D is a game about progression.

 

[Lanefan]

Anyone here actually throw a hundred enemies at their PC during 5E? I'm not counting swarms for the purposes of this question. I'm counting running a hundred enemies as a hundred enemies. I don't run 5E so I'll won't get that chance.

Not in 5e, but in 1e-adjacent I recently had a situation where a party (unintentionally, I think) activated a skeleton spawner and then left the area, closing doors behind them. By the time they got back the next day the spawning room had something like 750 skeletons in it...

Fortunately for the party they had available some AoE blast effects which mowed down hundreds in the back; but the front liners still had to deal with wave after wave of skeletons, and those I rolled for individually.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think you are overlooking some things...

• Ability bonuses were not nearly as common unless your group rolled dozens of set of scores.

I think you are forgetting (or unaware of) all the various ways that 2e added for attribute generation. Some of those iirc were like 5d6k3(or k4?) 4d6k3 etc. It was pretty openly accepted that the "rolls" made for attribute arrays were dubious at best. Nobody really cared because they had so little impact. It wasn't that long ago that there was a thread of people agreeing that 2e attribute rolls were sketchy AF because nobody really cared.

• Most PCs had a +1 or maybe +2 on attacks vs. the +3 or better in 5E.

That's because 5e uses the 3.x standardized attribute bonuses. Back during 2e it was like 15 &6 for +1/-1 strength went to +2 at 15/51-75 & +3 at 18/100 not because PCs had low attributes

• Accuracy in AD&D started out much worse. "Proficiency bonus" began at +0 (THAC0 20 for all classes), not +2.

I think the comment was about progression not base

Spoiler: Table54:

THAC0 Advancement
Improvement Rate
Group Points/Level
Priest 2/3
Rogue 1/2
Warrior 1/1
Wizard 1/3

• Increases were needed more because ACs in AD&D at higher levels would be well into the 20's in 5E terms, as where in 5E you rarely see AC's for opponents above 20. (Granted, we're talking high levels...)

LOL, sure. Except spell slots had to be dedicated to individual spells per use. Don't have the right spell? Tough. And, of course, you could have an 18th-level Magic-User with easily sub-50 hp (11d4 + 18 if you're lucky). Meanwhile, 5E Wizards can use spell slots willy-nilly as long as they have the spell prepared. Oh, and your 18th-level 5E Wizard is probably totting 110 hp or so, with an AC likely better than what the AD&D Magic-User could boast.

Now, a better argument for spells is that in AD&D spells auto-increased in power with caster level, not spell level. Of course, even that wasn't "ballooning" since saves against spells also improved automatically...

So, subjective.

Don't forget the way spell slots were recovered either or the prevakence of low to mid level spell scrolls that 5e pretty much removes from being a reasonable small to moderate reward that the gm could give out

 

[Lanefan]

It's kinda boring

And more importantly.

It's not D&D.
D&D is a game about progression.

D&D is a game about adventuring.

Progression is, when you boil it right down, purely optional. The rules just tell you how it works if-when you use it, and assume that you will.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's not D&D.

Nothing is D&D if you ask D&D fans.

 

[ezo]

None of this matters.

Of course it matters!

My point was the increase.

AD&D bounds HP and AC, "to hit" grows like crazy with level.
...
5e bounds "to hit" and AC, damage and HP grows like crazy with level

AD&D doesn't bound AC. True, it doesn't increase with level, but uses magic-items instead. But that is the trade-off. AD&D uses accuracy and defense, not damage and hit points, as the metric.

3e is the anomaly. Everything grew like crazy in 3e.

Very true!

It's kinda boring

And more importantly.

It's not D&D.
D&D is a game about progression.

Well, it certainly can be a game about progression... I always thought it was a game about adventure. A fair number of groups play at the same (or close) levels for months and months before "progressing" if at all. Many more play one-shots or short campaigns where "progression" doesn't happen at all.

I think you are forgetting (or unaware of) all the various ways that 2e added for attribute generation. Some of those iirc were like 5d6k3(or k4?) 4d6k3 etc. It was pretty openly accepted that the "rolls" made for attribute arrays were dubious at best. Nobody really cared because they had so little impact. It wasn't that long ago that there was a thread of people agreeing that 2e attribute rolls were sketchy AF because nobody really cared.

Actually, many options were available in 1E DMG, and more in UA. But by and large most players used the 4d6k3 standard, which is the current standard for 5E of course.

And yes, most ability scores between 7 and 14 had no or very little impact on the game at all.

That's because 5e uses the 3.x standardized attribute bonuses. Back during 2e it was like 15 &6 for +1/-1 strength went to +2 at 15/51-75 & +3 at 18/100 not because PCs had low attributes

Oh, I know why, but that's the point. PCs often had low ability scores. You put your 16 in whatever for that 10% bonus, but after that you were lucky if you had more than one other ability which actually gave a bonus. (Again, unless you rolled several sets of ability scores...)

I think the comment was about progression not base

True, but the base is where it all starts. If the base for 5E is already 2 points above the base for AD&D, you don't need as much progression in 5E because you already start ahead.

Don't forget the way spell slots were recovered either or the prevakence of low to mid level spell scrolls that 5e pretty much removes from being a reasonable small to moderate reward that the gm could give out

Huh? Sorry, I'm not seeing your point on this comment. Could you clarify? Thanks!

Nothing is D&D if you ask D&D fans.

LOL, or it is everything... or, there is no spoon?

 

[Vaalingrade]

LOL, or it is everything... or, there is no spoon?

I have never seen a positive affirmation about what D&D actually is unless it's a piece of minutia that very, very few people notice, let alone care about.