D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[ExploderWizard]

Given what he's presented to us, this world is pure homebrew, based on no prewritten material whatsoever.

Well then, I suppose just asking him if he intends for everything to super difficult is in order. He may be running a campaign in super hard mode, where failures are the norm and success is infrequent. That may simply not be the type of campaign you enjoy as a player. I have seen situations in which brand new DMs running a game for experienced players, crank the difficulty up to 11 because they think that the players may get bored with easier challenges.

In many cases, no matter what rules system is being used, a difference in expectations is more often the cause of these problems.

 

[Maxperson]

Bounded Accuracy mostly got rid of gatekeeper skills checks and those "don't ever try in combat/Take 10 only" checks.

You don't need a high number to make the check. Anyone can open that door or hit that hydra.

What BA does is put the reliability onto classes.

Anyone can open that door but the Rogue can usually do it in one try which helps when the dungeon guards are coming this way.

Anyone can hit the hydra. But the Fighter has 2-3 attacks and has 100% better chance to seal the hydra's neck stump.

When everyone can do everything, the game becomes a bit more dull. The chances of failure are greatly reduced because you have multiple rolls for everything that comes up. There's almost no reason to use any DC that isn't 20 or higher. Baring extreme bad luck, someone is going to succeed.

 

[ExploderWizard]

When everyone can do everything, the game becomes a bit more dull. The chances of failure are greatly reduced because you have multiple rolls for everything that comes up. There's almost no reason to use any DC that isn't 20 or higher. Baring extreme bad luck, someone is going to succeed.

For some things, this is true, and not a problem. When you only get one chance, not so much. " Aw crap, I think I just told chieftain Ragecrush to stick his scepter where the sun don't shine. Anyone else care to..AAARGGH!!"

 

[Merchant of Shadows]

Bounded accuracy is the best thing that has happened to the 5th edition. Proficiency, expertise, advantage and god forbid a magic item bonus are more than enough for a character to start being able to try much harder things and realiably achive things that were hard for him at the beggining. What it does not do is making other charcter and skills that are not pefectly optimised virtually pointless.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

I'm conflicted. At first I really loved the idea of bounded accuracy. However, they bounded it too tightly. At this point, as noted there isn't all that much difference between 1 and 20. Also, you necessarily end up with armors that have almost nothing to differentiate them except for fluff. The armor class difference between light, medium and heavy armors is practically nothing. Who cares if you get 12 +5 for dex, 15 +2 for dex, or 17 +0 for dex. You're still at 17.

3e was too excessive with bonuses, but in my opinion 5e is too weak with them. A middle ground would have been nice I think.

Unfortunately the problems with armor class is not bound to the bounded accuracy per se (no pun intended). At least i don't see it that way. Ever since 2E i've had my doubts about the whole Armor Class system, that i find it harder to rationalize then the Hit Points system. However, any attempt to solve the issue in a way that makes sense results in such a radical departure from the core DnD rules, that it becomes a whole different system altogether.

Aside from that, for different armors to make sense in a game system (without resulting to painful and for some boring realistic tropes), that system will have to provide both incentive and alternatives to use them. A lightly or non - armored character should be just as viable as a heavy armored one. What should be different is the context in which one would have advantages over the other, and no, i don't mean ranged combat by this. There needs to be a way to make light fast troops usable just as they would be (or had been) IRL, but not make the heavy armor guys obsolete or vice versa. Real life solves this on its own with heavier armor reducing damage better, while light armor allowing for more efficient stamina use. This can't be implemented as such in DnD. So we need another option.

 

[Minigiant]

When everyone can do everything, the game becomes a bit more dull. The chances of failure are greatly reduced because you have multiple rolls for everything that comes up. There's almost no reason to use any DC that isn't 20 or higher. Baring extreme bad luck, someone is going to succeed.

When there is no pressure, when consequences of failure are low, or you can retry endlessly, its dull.

But when you have one chance.... It's not dull one bit.

That's the problem with looking at the cleric's +4 and the rogue's +8 on a DC 15 door. No context.

But if a rolling boulder or greater devil is heading you way, the Rogue who can (Action-Unlock door, Cunning Action -Unlock Door)... Two attempt and better numbers are big.

Everyone can attempt it but if everyone is here, Johnny does it.

___
Then there is the "bugbear issue".
You want everyone able to beat those bugbears' Dex (Stealth) check to hide.

Because if the scout rolls low and no one else can beat the gobliniods' roll, you are second breakfast.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What BA does is put the reliability onto classes.

Anyone can open that door but the Rogue can usually do it in one try which helps when the dungeon guards are coming this way.

Actually that is no different than 3.x:
a rogue opening the door took 10. The other people took 20.

 

[Minigiant]

Actually that is no different than 3.x:
a rogue opening the door took 10. The other people took 20.

Take 20 took 20 times the time.
Take 10 could only be done when not distracted.
That's the point. In a rush, only the Rogue could even make the check.

In 5ee during rushed situations, anyone could try but the Rogue was the best choice and you missed not having one.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

20 times the time is only 2 minutes. And yes, I also prefer 5e checks (though I miss a skill point system).

 

[Xeviat]

I'm still here, I'm just not as hear as I used to be.

I'm conflicted. At first I really loved the idea of bounded accuracy. However, they bounded it too tightly. At this point, as noted there isn't all that much difference between 1 and 20. Also, you necessarily end up with armors that have almost nothing to differentiate them except for fluff. The armor class difference between light, medium and heavy armors is practically nothing. Who cares if you get 12 +5 for dex, 15 +2 for dex, or 17 +0 for dex. You're still at 17.

3e was too excessive with bonuses, but in my opinion 5e is too weak with them. A middle ground would have been nice I think.

See, a lot of what the pro bounded accuracy people are saying is what I was trying to say to my player, but more and more my player is convincing me that the 5E skill system is simply too simple to model characters especially well. There's little growth in skills; sure, your proficiency bonus goes up from 2 to 6, but it's difficult to get new skills (Spend a feat on skills? Yeah right). Expertise is linked to only 2 classes, and multiclassing into them to get better skills feels odd.

I'm beginning to wonder if the skill system could be expanded. Maybe to have 4 ranks of skills, instead of the binary of trained/untrained we have now. What if there was untrained, proficient, focused, specialized? Untrained is no bonus, proficient is proficiency bonus, focused is double proficiency bonus, and specialized is auto advantage (or switch focused and specialized?). At certain levels, you gain more skill "rank", either to gain proficiency in a new skill or to gain a new level of proficiency.

Yes, DCs would need to be adjusted a bit, or at least higher level characters would be going up against hard and very hard things more often. General checks that are going to be applied for everyone would be aimed at the proficiency level, but things that only one person needs to do could be aimed higher as the levels grow. This way, the characters will feel like they can accomplish things they couldn't accomplish before, instead of just being marginally better at what they could do before.

I don't know, I'm still looking at a massive overhaul, but I don't like relying upon Rule 0 to make me like a system. Oberoni Fallacy and all that.