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

[Minigiant]

To hit rolls increase (the rate varying by class), but even the fighter ones don't balloon in my estimation. And the random nature of magic items make that an unreliable metric.

A fighter gains 5 levels and gets 25% greater accuracy BEFORE you count magic gear.

 

[Maxperson]

To hit rolls
And magic items

Those did not balloon in AD&D unless you had a Monty Haul DM.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A fighter gains 5 levels and gets 25% greater accuracy BEFORE you count magic gear.

Yup, and at 9 or 10 they mostly stop advancing personally altogether, and move into a different phase of play. Sounds fair to me.

 

[ezo]

So, lots of replies since this morning, and although appreciated I can't see much point in replying or continuing those particular dicussions.

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.

In 5E, no, not quite.

When I first started 5E we had an encounter with our party versus orcs (yes, actually orcs LOL), and IIRC there was 84 of them in total. I don't think we ever faced more than 15 or so at once, as we killed some others moved in to fill the gaps (so to say). The combat lasted several hours, and in the end we had two PCs dead, two unconscious, and my dwarf still standing. He only survived due to a very good AC and having DR from heavy armor master. Now, RAW this wouldn't have worked since we were only 2nd or 3rd level, but we all got a feat at 1st level.

Needless to say, it was an epic fight I'll probably never forget.

In AD&D, I was running a high-level game at this point, about 14th or 15th maybe, and our ranger had a challenge by an Elven god to face 100 ogres. The ranger defeated them all.

i don't know why you'd ever do that in any system. that sounds awful.

For our games, both experiences were incredibly awesome.

To hit rolls
And magic items

To hit rolls for Fighters improved a lot (+15 or 16 IIRC), but the other classes not quite as much.

"Ballooning" is a subjective term, of course, so it makes such comparisons difficult (at best) to be valid.

 

[ECMO3]

20 always hits.

It has been a while but I am not sure that was true in 3E. As I recall a natural 20 (or 19 or 18 with some weapons) always gave you a chance at a critical hit, but you had to roll another one to confirm it if your natural 20 (or 19 or 18) was still lower than the AC.

So two 20s would always hit.

 

[ezo]

It has been quite a while, but IIRC a 20 would always hit, while a second 20 would confirm the hit as being critical (provided you need a 20 of course).

 

[Maxperson]

OK, that's fair.

And yet how do you explain that in the fiction?

Sure, one ogre might have become ill and weak over the intervening time, and seen its vitality (as measured by hit points) drop from 88 to 1 as it hovers on the point of natural death; but all ogres the PCs meet, everywhere? That's a bit much.

That those original 88 hit points might have been too much to handle at low level and yet have become a relative triviality at very high level is IMO more than enough to reflect the characters' growth. Shrinking the monsters as well is overkill.

I have to side with you on this one. If the ogre had 88 hit points at level 7 and could survive a fireball, then it should be able to survive a scroll with the same strength fireball read by a 17th level PC. Or does it go back and forth from 1 to 88 hit points, depending on the power level of the ability used? Further, what about mixed level games, which do happen. If the party has a 7th level PC mixed in with the 17th level PCs, does the ogre have both 1 and 88 hit points depending on who attacks it? Or will it have 1 hit point for the 7th level PC as well?

 

[Minigiant]

Those did not balloon in AD&D unless you had a Monty Haul DM.

To hit rolls for Fighters improved a lot (+15 or 16 IIRC), but the other classes not quite as much.

"Ballooning" is a subjective term, of course, so it makes such comparisons difficult (at best) to be valid.

Gaining +10 base to hit in 10 levels isn't a little. Going from 25% accuracy to 75% is a lot.

Even AD&D Priest and Rogue accuracy increases faster than 5e.

As for the casters, I thought I didn't have to remind the original "raiding increasing number": spell slots.

 

[ezo]

Gaining +10 base to hit in 10 levels isn't a little. Going from 25% accuracy to 75% is a lot.

Even AD&D Priest and Rogue accuracy increases faster than 5e.

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...)

As for the casters, I thought I didn't have to remind the original "raiding increasing number": spell slots.

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.

 

[Lanefan]

The question is if there is no in-universe explanations and we can bend the rules around the player characters experience...

Would it be okay that a level 12 fighter deals 88 damage per hit to match the ogre's static 88 HP in order to replicate the fiction of the Tier 3 warrior cleaving through foes while keeping the ogre as a threat with their greatclub that deals 16% of the fighters HP each hit.

First off, I prefer damage to be randomized; so let's say it's an average of 88 points per hit. That's hella powerful, but sure, OK.

That said,and assuming average damage each time, if the next ogre happens to have 90 hit points that 88-point hit ain't gonna kill it; while if the third one has only 75 hit points it's toast.

(I consider the use of average damage and average hit points to be a major flaw in 5e (and 4e?) design; both should always be randomized IMO)