Bounded Accuracy L&L

[Connorsrpg]

If everything goes up, then nothing really changes...as defenses of foes do to?

I am loving this idea. Tougher creatures are, well, tougher, not harder to hit. Always wondered why lumbering oafs were still hard to hit in 4E (and other editions), but even braindead ogres had high Will scores, simply b/c of level.

I am much more in favour of the numbers reflecting the world. When i couldn't determine ACs etc, based on the creature's traits and armor, I was lost. Everything going by level seemed very backward to me.

This is one of THE key core design philosophies that has me interested.

As a DM I like to describe what the PCs see and they act on that. Monsters certainly did not work that way in 4E. (Though I hope they keep the monster format and cool abilities...just not numbers based purely on level).

 

[Danzauker]

This is a good system, and I can see that it solves a lot of problems.

One difficulty I have, is that I don't think I like worlds where the most powerful BBEGs, such as the Tarrasque or its equivalent, can be defeated by armies. I want only heroes to be able to fight these things. Cuz that's cool.

There are a lot of other things, most of them I guess we still don't know, that can be used to "insulate" BBEGs from low level heroes.

For example, judging solely what was written in the article, they could give epic monsters high damage resistance, so that only high level heroes have a chance to actually damage them.

 

[Steely_Dan]

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.

in 4th Ed I removed 1/2 level from all character's and monster's attacks, defences and skills quite a while ago, and it really helps.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I like the idea of a +1 longsword now being huge.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think this may prove to be the single biggest conceptual Improvement in D&D since its inception. It is odd that something that seems so obvious now has never really been discussed before, but it neatly handles a whole range of issues.

I'm delighted!

It was discussed before this article, certainly, but it may have come up only with Next. (Though I am certain it was discussed also as house rule for 4E, and Steely_Dan's post seems to confirm that).

It may be seen as a continual evolution starting in response to 3E, if not earlier
1) Bonus stacking to insane levels (pre 3E)
2) 3E introduces "named" bonuses limiting the number of stuff that stacks.
3) named bonuses from magic items lead to the magic item Christmas Tree. 4E cuts this down to a very sparse tree of 3 items for every character to get "mandatory expected items per level", later introduces a variant rule to take even tha tout.
4) D&D Next questions the existence of all the other bonuses gained by level and tries to reduce them.

I wonder if 6E will rmove all bonuses gained by character generation and only gives players new options as they level (e.g. powers, spells, feats)? That would probably go too far...

 

[I'm A Banana]

For masses of creatures, you may see an (optional) return to something like the minion rules: you can just assume the average for most of them, roll for a few lucky ones, and get on with yer life.

For noncombat elements, let me say that HP roughly equals "Number of Successes," so picking a lock or convincing a guard might require now a QUANTITY of successful checks, rather than just one or two really high rolls. A better-quality lock might not just be a tougher DC, it might also require 3 or 4 successful checks to unlock. A stubborn guard isn't a higher DC, he's just going to withstand more checks. You could call this a "threshold," and let the whole party contribute to solving the problem, especially if there's a hazard for failure (or even just some shotclock mechanic, like after failing a check (or STATMOD checks), you can't try again until after your next extended rest).

It's not too shabby.

Though I never had much of a problem with the escalating DC's, I am also not particularly attached to them. This mechanic shows great promise, and I'm eager to see more.

 

[dmccoy1693]

I am really liking what I am reading. This fixes EXACTLY what I have been complaining about for years. D&DNext just might be the game I've been looking for for a long time.

 

[IronWolf]

This is an interesting concept and it looks quite promising. Anxious to see how some of the higher level play looks now!

 

[Balesir]

I like this article, too. It describes a game that could be unlike 4e but still good (as opposed to the last L&L which described a game unlike 4e but bad).

I still have some concerns: it doesn't sound like it will handle Epic play well (if getting enough bonus to barely succeed in busting down that Adamantine door on a 20 is a major undertaking, getting to any state where it's a reasonable thing to actually try is going to be impossible - repeat for climbing rainbows, stealing prisons and balancing on clouds). The "hordes of low level monsters" needing a "to hit" roll each is also going to get really old, really fast. And I still think much, much better definition of character powers will be beyond helpful.

But still - reasons to be cheerful!

For noncombat elements, let me say that HP roughly equals "Number of Successes," so picking a lock or convincing a guard might require now a QUANTITY of successful checks, rather than just one or two really high rolls. A better-quality lock might not just be a tougher DC, it might also require 3 or 4 successful checks to unlock. A stubborn guard isn't a higher DC, he's just going to withstand more checks. You could call this a "threshold," and let the whole party contribute to solving the problem, especially if there's a hazard for failure (or even just some shotclock mechanic, like after failing a check (or STATMOD checks), you can't try again until after your next extended rest).

Yeah - we could call it a "Skill Challenge", maybe?

As a DM I like to describe what the PCs see and they act on that. Monsters certainly did not work that way in 4E. (Though I hope they keep the monster format and cool abilities...just not numbers based purely on level).

Isn't that just the equivalent of telling the players the information in code, and if they are on the same "wavelength" as you they 'get' the code and are well set, while if their model of "reality" differs from yours they mistranslate the code and get screwed?

 

[Doug McCrae]

I like the idea of a +1 longsword now being huge.

Provided it grants +1 to hit. Maybe it only provides a bonus to damage?

Though I think you're right. The article seemed to me to be hinting at game elements that provide bonuses to the d20 roll but which are not assumed or necessary. Presumably magic items.