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

[Maxperson]

I think you are boh missing what the conversation is about.

This is a discussion about making orcs and ogres into interesting threats to mid level parties
WHILE
making prgression interesting
WHILE
not increasing the PCs stats greatly
WHILE
not having orcs and ogres not having different stat blocks for different level PCs.


And my response is "It is impossible". You MUST compromise on something.

And my response is that you are wrong. AD&D had no such "ballooning." Even the attack tables you mentioned weren't anywhere close to excessive.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's just your opinion, mate. A lot of people find it quite satisfying.

Then show your data.

Of course they don't know about 4e. Because 4e swiftly tanked as people didn't like it, so WotC had to replace it with 5e that became overwhelmingly the most popular edition ever.

Except that--as many have said, even former WotC employees--it DID NOT tank. It just didn't reach the sky-high expectations set for it.

And, as usual, we get the "because 5e sold, absolutely everything in it must be the best thing ever" argument, which is a load of bull.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Right. This restatting is the kludge for avoiding the implications of escalating maths.

It's not a kludge. It's actually an extremely elegant design.

You just demand that absolutely everything always have one, and only one, mechanical representation no matter what, 100% of the time. A demand that has serious deleterious effects on the entirety of the system.

20th level standard is not a foe you would actually use against a heroic tier characters in any case in 4e. What would happen if you would doesn't matter, because it doesn't happen!

How is it not relevant? It's literally what one would do if one were applying your enforced, problematic "things ABSOLUTELY MUST have ONE AND ONLY ONE mechanical representation, no matter what!" rule. This is showing how that rule causes problems, and why not using that rule is in fact much more efficacious, and produces better, more useful results.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No. You simply progress in smaller increments is all. It's not balloon or no increase at all.

Sorry, I don't feel that gaining +3 AC over the course of fifteen friggin' levels is "progress."

It just doesn't change often enough to feel like it matters, and the size of that change ensures that it effectively doesn't.

The same creatures that would be hitting me an awful lot 10 levels ago will still hit me an awful lot now.

 

[Lanefan]

Loot and power is progression.

There are 5 editions of D&D and at least a dozen major D&D-likes. None o the official editions are slow or flat in progression in every PC metric. And I can't think of any D&D cone that is as well.

2e is quite slow in its progression, if played as written. The xp needed per level are much the same as 1e only there's no xp given for treasure; and as by RAW most of your xp in 1e come from your loot, 2e advances at a crawl* by comparison. Finding nifty magic items can change this, but that's more a DM-style thing.

* - which is just the way I like it.

 

[Lanefan]

Sorry, I don't feel that gaining +3 AC over the course of fifteen friggin' levels is "progress."

It just doesn't change often enough to feel like it matters, and the size of that change ensures that it effectively doesn't.

The same creatures that would be hitting me an awful lot 10 levels ago will still hit me an awful lot now.

Sure they will, only now you've got 10x the amount of hit points and thus can withstand those hits far better than 10 levels ago.

End result: you're far more likely* to win that fight now than 10 levels ago.

* - but still not guaranteed, and that's the whole point here.

 

[Ondath]

Then show your data.

As much as I respect your view on this conversation, you can't first say something obviously subjective like "My argument is why many people don't really enjoy 5e's combat even in games like Baldur's Gate 3" and then ask for raw data. You're also working with vibes. Personally I greatly enjoy 5e's combat system, so I just don't share your intuition.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As much as I respect your view on this conversation, you can't first say something obviously subjective like "My argument is why many people don't really enjoy 5e's combat even in games like Baldur's Gate 3" and then ask for raw data. You're also working with vibes. Personally I greatly enjoy 5e's combat system, so I just don't share your intuition.

I'm not the one claiming that I definitely have a majority of current people supporting a specific position.

I'm simply saying that there are flaws with the current situation (something no one denies) and that things could be different, if we bothered actually trying to design better, rather than presuming that sales = quality.

 

[Minigiant]

And my response is that you are wrong. AD&D had no such "ballooning." Even the attack tables you mentioned weren't anywhere close to excessive.

+10 to attack over 10 levels for a fighter is a lot.
+6 to attack over 10 levels for a clerics is a lot.

Especially since AC doesn't increase.

 

[Ondath]

+10 to attack over 10 levels for a fighter is a lot.
+6 to attack over 10 levels for a clerics is a lot.

Especially since AC doesn't increase.

My understanding of TSR-era progression is that it's a growth from someone who fumbles a lot to someone who almost always hits. This is in direct opposition to 5e's design philosophy, where you're expected to succeed at what you're doing 65% of the time at any level (as a general measure), provided that you're dealing with something level appropriate. So a 1st-level AD&D Fighter feels crappier than a 1st-level 5E Fighter because they can only hit even a basic monster like a Goblin 35% of the time (assuming no ability score bonuses, THAC0 20 and the Goblin has 7 AC), while the 5E Fighter could hit a similar Goblin 55% of the. time (assuming +5 attack bonus, and the Goblin has 15 AC). But a 15th level AD&D 1E Fighter probably hits everything without issue with, like THAC0 5 (I don't have the exact numbers in front of me), while the 15th-level 5E fighter still fits level-appropriate enemies 65% of the time. Similarly, saves in TSR-era D&D start with success probabilities of around 20-30%, but then go as high as 95% at later levels. So it's definitely not bounded, but the expected game feel is different as well. You're not supposed to feel challenged to the same degree at every level, but feel like an unerring killing machine at later levels.

Whether bounded accuracy or increasing accuracy design is better, I don't know. I don't have enough experience with high-level Old School D&D to make a judgement. But it sure looks like an interesting beast.