Bounded Accuracy L&L

[Tortoise]

I am still afraid.

Skills are stripped from class and made into Backgrounds
Styles are stripped from class and made into Themes
Accuracy is now stripped from class and bound to abilities.

Class Features Have To Have Major Impacts Now.

There has to be very big reasons to pick one class over another or there will be major overshadowing. There has to be a good reason to be a soldier dwarf slayer FIGHTER with 16 Strength and Wisdom over a soldier dwarf slayer CLERIC with 16 Strength and Wisdom or a a soldier dwarf slayer ROGUE with 16 Strength and Wisdom.

Have you playtested yet? Things you say have to be there ARE there, and class can and in some cases does have an effect on accuracy. Playtest it.

 

[Remathilis]

That is my preference as well. Everything goes up... slowly. I like people who at better than others at something to actually be much better and to continue to make a gap as they level... just slowly.

But some people hate big numbers.

Well, somethings gotta give. If attacks, HP, AC AND damage all aren't going up, nothing stopping first level PCs from picking fights with balors...

 

[Minigiant]

Have you playtested yet? Things you say have to be there ARE there, and class can and in some cases does have an effect on accuracy. Playtest it.

I did playtest it.

But without the creation rules I cannot playtest two characters that are identical except for class.

 

[B.T.]

Actually, there's a huge difference.

The main difference is that it is possible, however unlikely, that the villagers can kill the first dragon in the first round.

They are completely incapable of doing that to Dragon #2.

Also, the other benefit to low-AC, high-HP combat vs. the reverse is that you can more easily track the "flow" of the combat. One of the problems with high-AC, low-HP combat is that it's very hard to look at the current status of the participants and determine how things are going - and how much longer things will take.

Ferinstance, three rounds of high-AC, low-HP combat might very well look like "Miss, miss, miss." Are you winning? Are you losing? How much longer until you're defeated? You don't know and, really, have no way to even estimate, because you have no real information to base your estimate on.

On the other hand, with low-AC, high-HP combat, you're more likely to see something like "Miss, hit, hit," and you can compare the damage from those two hits to your current HP totals and say, "You know, I think this monster will kill me in about 3 more rounds; I should probably run away," or "Hah! Those two hits did a tiny fraction of my hit points; I can stand up to these creatures all day!" You might be wrong - things like critical hits could make the combat more swingy than you're anticipating - but at least you have an idea.

All good points. I'm still not sure how I feel about the "flat math" thus far, but your observations are accurate.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

"Everything goes up slowly" is the same as "Things don't go up as slowly as they would if only some things went up slowly." At least that's true if you want to take into account that we probably are not going to have things like +0.25 to attack. So given integer math, a set of bounds imposed somewhat by the desire to keep a d20 in a certain range of relevant, and wanting to keep the numbers down--there's only so much attack/defense bonus you can afford.

 

[Tortoise]

And how on earth can any developer think this should be a challenge, even a minor one, for a level 20 party?

What's with all the people fixated on giving doors hit points? It's simple, they have a break DC. It doesn't matter how you describe the method, Nodwick's head, Conan's shoulder, etc, it just has a target number to roll to enter "status - broken".

Unless of course the door is actually a mimic . . .

 

[Tortoise]

One of the implications I love is that the party no longer needs to be all the same level for everybody to contribute. Long ago, we houseruled that everybody gets the same XP so that everybody levels up at the same time.

In 2e, we made Resurrection easier to get so you wouldn't lose a level.

In 3e, we houseruled that death imposed a negative level until you received Y amount of XP.

In 4e, it was impossible to kill anyone so it didn't matter.

Death penalties (where you lose a level) were seen as way too harsh, so we always avoided it. With bounded accuracy, I think it is much more feasible to have a party of characters with multiple different levels where everybody contributes significantly.

(I recognize that it never was unworkable to have a multi-level party... but our group never liked it.)

I've always liked mixed level parties both as a player and DM. With the flatter math it won't be a bad thing to have new characters join the party with a lower level for a wider stetch of play.

 

[Walker N. Waistz]

My favorite Legend & Lore thus far. Bravo. I am significantly more excited for D&D Next than I was before I read this.

 

[Zaukrie]

Love the concept, really do.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Since damage increases with level, my only worry is how many damage dice will we have to roll and add up, not to mention static damage bonuses we may get to help with increased damage?

Might as well skip the rolls and deal % for damage. Fighting lower level creatures, you deal a higher percentage of HP damage.

Just seems like they are replacing multiple d20 to hit rolls with extra damage die as you level. Still a lot of math involved. The kind of math that slows down combat.