Bounded Accuracy L&L

[Keldryn]

If hit points and damage are going to be where most of the vertical scaling exists, then I think that those numbers need to be reigned in at first level, or we're going to be back to 4e's inflated hit point totals. When a level 1 fighter with 16 Strength has a +7 static bonus on top of the die roll, I have cause for concern. Larger numbers take more time to add and subtract during the game, and I don't really want to see 456 HP creatures being common, with the fighter doing 1d10 + 24 damage.

 

[mlund]

An excellent article with excellent ideas. It'll probably further irritate the folks that refuse to concede the concept of HP and HP Damage being abstractions instead of physical blood-and-guts, but they'd apparently rather complain about D&D than play GURPS so whatever.

Not having to re-scale a recurring monster or monster type from Solo to Elite to Standard to Minion to keep to-hit rolls relevant really appeals to me.

I'm also enthused with the idea that getting a +1 Magical Sword is actually an advantage, not an expectation. If my PCs lose their equipment I don't have to contrive some way to replace or restore it in order to let them continue to operate as Level X characters and meet encounter and challenge levels without being slaughtered.

Larger numbers take more time to add and subtract during the game, and I don't really want to see 456 HP creatures being common, with the fighter doing 1d10 + 24 damage.

Is it any worse than 3E with the Wizard tossing his 10d6 Fireball and 15d6 Cone of Cold with a Reflex save DC of 17 plus or minus feats (everybody inside a 20' radius start throwing saves!) and the fighter attacking at +21/+16/+11/+6 with his +2 Greatsword for 2d6 + 9 plus or minus Power Attack?

Seriously, though, it looks like in the play-test they are working on the default d8 hit die for monsters using 4HP per die as the basic template. A "normal" 20th level monster is getting what, 80 HP?

- Marty Lund

 

[Incenjucar]

So I guess this means that they have to key almost every non-HP ability to HP to prevent Charm from taking over the game?

 

[RangerWickett]

I am extremely happy to hear that DCs don't scale with level, as that never made any sense to me at all. Why should a door be DC 10 to break down at 1st level but DC 25 to break down at 30th level? That makes absolutely no sense and means that all the level up bonuses the character gained don't really mean anything since he's not actually any more likely to succeed at something than he was when he was lower level.

I like the article, but I feel like a lot of people bring up this sort of complaint against 4e DCs, and it's just completely against how I interpreted the rules.

The game wasn't saying "At 30th level, it's DC 25 to break down a door." It was saying, "If you want a somewhat challenging obstacle at 30th level, it should be DC 25." Now, to me, it was obvious that the obstacle needs to be something that matches the DC.

So if you want the party to kick open a normal door, it's still DC 10. It's inconsequential. But if you want the door to be a challenge, well, figure out what makes sense as DC 25. It's a door possessed by a vestige of a dead god of strength. It's a wall of force enchanted to look like wood. It's a three-foot-thick plate of adamantium. It's a veil dipped in the river Styx.

Anyway, good article.

 

[grimslade]

Ok accuracy is bounded, and damage and hit points will scale. Cool. A regular goblin can't get any deader with increased damage, but a dragon can go from "Are you trying to tickle me?" to "Frackity-frack! Those scales took a century to grow, Meat!".

Hopefully, new playtest materials will show us how this works in practice. I wonder if we will see amplifying dice for melee damage like spell damage. A fire ball does 5d6 damage and a 5th level halfling fighter is sporting a 5d6 dagger throw? Time will tell.

 

[ren1999]

Only more information on higher level play in the play-tests will really confirm how good this will work out.

We're only guessing at how a character is progressing.
In principle, keeping all unique bonuses +10 or lower is really good.

I'm really hoping that characters will see a +1 to an ability score per level. That means that while a wizard may not be able to hit with his dagger any better because he did not chose to improve his strength or dexterity, he'll be a better spell caster if his intelligence and wisdom increases.

This will also keep AC down, if the dex modifier to AC is no greater than +10 and that includes magic.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Well, it looks like they're using HP to determine depth, in a way. AC and attack bonus don't scale, but HP and damage does, so that's how you determine how challenging something is. That's all fine and good, but how do you determine depth with non-combat DCs? Seemingly, those DCs just go up. And that's where I get iffy. If "the adamantine door's DC is too high for you to hit" is in the game, why isn't "the master swordsman's AC is too high for you to hit"?

I think that combat might be getting a depth mechanic that offsets a few things, but I'm afraid for "skills", "saves", and the like, since they're seemingly mostly ability checks. But, I'll wait and see. Wait and see. As always, play what you like

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is the one idea I absolutely love about the next edition of D&D. I feel tempted to hack 4E to do the same, really.

 

[Serendipity]

I can't say how much it would please me if they followed through with this. Lots, with a side of hell yes at least.
We'll see how it gets implemented.

 

[jadrax]

This is the one idea I absolutely love about the next edition of D&D. I feel tempted to hack 4E to do the same, really.

I have seen quite a few people say that now.