You may think so, but that doesn't make it true.
Your opinion isn't true just because you say so either. So your point is?
You think it's broken, myself and others think it's working great. Myself and others feel that the design goals were met on this. Whatever your personal bias is against it is, it works for us.
Is saying "myself and others" repeatedly supposed to add some form of credibility to your opinion? It doesn't you can't prove you are in the majority any more than I can, so why don't you just speak for yourself.
And saying that they don't care is quite frankly utter crap in my opinion and does nothing to help convince anyone that your point of view has any validity.
Using words like "utter crap" doesn't help your credibility or convince people your point of view is valid.
In fact they didn't care about the math, if you were there through the entire playtest process and watched all the videos you would know they saved the "math" parts till last, as they wanted to get the "feel" of the game right first, a huge mistake and backwards thinking in my opinion.
You're posts are coming off as more about griping about something that you personally don't like rather than points to back up your opinion. That's fine if that's what you want to do, we won't stop you. Just don't pretend your showing us how there is a problem.
I am griping about something so yeah good for you for catching on to that, here is a cookie. There is a problem, bounded accuracy doesn't exist when it was something the game was supposed to be built around, it is a good idea they just failed to implement it.
If you think there is a problem try showing us an example that doesn't involve DM fiat or a .00001%* chance of actually happening. *unverified number
I was using an extreme example sure but the game should work at the extremes, that is kind of the point of bounded accuracy.
So sure here are other ways bounded accuracy is broken.
Any AC higher than 24, if you look at the monsters this is the cap, if you look at the monsters you will notice many of the lowest level monsters have a +5 or so to hit. One of the stated, if not the key stated goal of bounded accuracy was that monsters of all challenge rating could be used at all levels and would not need a natural 20 to hit. So yes a 31 or 32 AC as the extreme example drives the point home, the problem is bounded accuracy breaks after AC 24.
Ability scores were supposed to be capped, so that the game fell within bounds and did not break, with magic items like belts of giant strength and the tomes of ability enhancement these bounds are meaningless. Again the DMG breaks bounded accuracy, the point of the thread.
All the points of view against my issues seem to fall under two categories.
First, the DM is in charge and can control this issue, he can fix it, it is always a bad sign when that is the solution. The game is supposed to work without the DM needing to fix things. Thats why we pay money to companies with game designers to make a good quality game.
Second, following rules as written random treasure charts the magic items and combinations of them will never show up in a game. This is an issue because it is never called out to new DM's that these issues can happen, you and I know the game gets broke when you hand out powerful magic items so we don't do it, but shouldn't that advice be in the DMG? Shouldn't the game just not allow for it in the first place?
In my games, I don't hand out magic items with bonuses of +2 or higher, I will never give out any of the tomes, I will never use belts of giant strength as written. I know how to "fix" the game for my table, I am just saying I shouldn't have to, I wouldn't have to if the game wasn't broken to begin with.
