I don't think this pans out. If your math is bounded, you have a very limited range of acceptable bonuses you can apply to a d20 roll. We can see that with class-based attack bonuses - they crawl upwards very slowly, and with good reason. If your target numbers vary around an 11 or so on the roll, each + or - means you hit (or miss) 10% more often than before.
Sorry, not following you. Each +1 or -1 to hit a static target number means a 5% swing either way. Or do you mean that the goal is to consistently hit with a d20 roll of 11 or better? 'Cause that's still 5%, assuming the AC stays the same.
And, if the AC is scaling with the attack bonuses, that's not bounded accuracy, it's
scaling accuracy.
That's a pretty major shift. Each +1 becomes really precious, and if you're not hoarding those +1's at every opportunity, you're missing out.
As shown above, I believe each bonus is exactly half as precious as you do. Mathematically, speaking. Philosophically, I disagree that the game is improved by having all characters always succeed on the same d20 roll.
Bounded accuracy doesn't let a DM ignore the math - it makes the d20 probabilities intensely touchy and sensitive to small deviations, and easier to break if you're not careful. I speak from experience here - it might not seem like it, but 4e uses bounded accuracy, already. The difference in 4e is that the level scale gives you a wider margin of possible outcomes over the span of a character's career, as opposed to Next where the scale hardly moves at all with level.
I don't think you and I mean the same thing by "bounded accuracy." It's not about scaling defenses with attacks, it's about eliminating (or de-emphasizing) the need for such scaling in the first place.
Also, one of the significant reasons that 4e
had to scale defenses with AC was because the system was built on the assumption that, in order to diversify attack options, most attacks would have riders attached that (mostly) only triggered on hits. Since the purpose of using a particular attack was often to trigger the rider, it became much more important from a player's point of view to hit than it otherwise would be. This (in my view) simultaneously sums up everything that was right with 4e and everything that was wrong with it.
I could see them dropping iron hide long term. A barb can wear light armor and with the half damage while raging ability plus his naturally high HP I think that might give barbs enough toughness.
Personally, I hope not. I love the idea of a barbarian who girds himself (or herself!) in nothing more than warpaint and/or with various non-magical fetishes before wading into battle.
It's a serious boost at lower levels, but it's not like the barbarian is actually falling behind at any point - they'll just wear whatever's best, like D&D characters have done for ages.
