D&D 5E DMG - breaking bounded accuracy already?

[Rhenny]

I think if a DM or group wants a high magic game or just a more challenging game with few magic items, the old 3d6 for each attribute (or a lower point buy or array) would fit the bill (like 1e).

 

[aramis erak]

Your opinion isn't true just because you say so either. So your point is?



Is saying "myself and others" repeatedly supposed to add some form of credibility to your opinion? It doesn't you can prove you are in the majority any more than I can, so why don't you just speak for yourself.



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.



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.



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.

No, you're misconstruing the argument; essentially, you're ignoring the actual argument for a pair of strawmen.

Any GM who lets it happen by random rolls has opted to allow it, and deserves the munchkinism that ensues.
The odds that a random roll DM is going to have it happen are extraordinarily slim.

Let's actually work those odds:
+3 Plate - 1/12 on the subtable, subtable is 1%, table is 7% in CR 11-16, or 20% for CR 17+.... Expected is under 3 hoards per level...
So 1-{{(1-(0.07*0.01*0.8333))^6}*{(1-(0.2*0.01*0.8333))^4}) = 0.00699 or s, or 0.7%
The shield +3 is available earlier...
1-({(1-(0.02*0.02))^6}*{(1-(0.1*0.02))^6}*{(1-(0.08*0.02))^4})=0.0206... or 2%.
The odds of just those two happening in a 3 hoards per level campaign are 2%*0.7%... or 0.0144%... or 1 in 1.4 in 10000.
According to my calculator, thats about 1 in 6937... by the 1st epic boon.

The weapon is again only a few percent... but since that multiplies... we're now into 1 in 100,000 or worse. To Level 20 +1 Epic Boon.

The odds of it happening by random are less if the GM isn't giving CR-inside-tier hoards, or is giving less than 3 hoards per level.

 

[Sacrosanct]

they are actually smaller than that, assuming there is more than one PC in the group to distribute magic items too.

for someone who constantly touts math, I'd think they would realize the odds of what they are arguing for.

it's a non issue

 

[skotothalamos]

Cost to make: 1,060,000 gp, 4,2400 days (or 117 years)

As long as you're spending 117 years working on your gear, you might as well find time to read that tome twice.

 

[aramis erak]

As long as you're spending 117 years working on your gear, you might as well find time to read that tome twice.

If you can get a cult together, it's considerably less...

 

[Schmoe]

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.

I think you're taking the bounded accuracy argument to an extreme. Is there a creature in the MM with an attack bonus of +1? If so, then using your argument any AC of 21 or higher means the entire game is broken. While I think the design goals behind 5E were good, I never expected them to hold even in extreme cases. I'm willing to tolerate a few extreme cases in a game without decrying the game as broken.

 

[Hussar]

Plate = base AC 18, +3 magic bonus = 21
Shield = base AC +2, +3 magic bonus = +5
Defender Weapon = +3 magic bonus
Defensive fighting style = +1 bonus
Ring of protection = +1 bonus

Grand total AC = 31

In fact there are other items that could add another +1 to AC if you wanted for a grand total of 32, but I would save my last attunement slot for a cloak of displacement or one of the grant advantage on saves vs magic items.

Fair enough. You do realise that even at 31 or 32, you are still hittable by CR 15+ creatures right? At no point are you actually beyond being hittable.

Two legendary items and a very rare? Yeah, again, we're back to white room theory crafting. This just isn't going to happen.

 

[Pickles JG]

Only hit on a 20 is what bounded accuracy is supposed to avoid, though it's also supposed to extend the range viability of critters not make them all viable all the time.

The converse vulnerability of egs dragons to massed archery is more worrying to me though again D&D has always been poor at simulating anything outside PAS fighting oysters er monsters

 

[GMforPowergamers]

what are the 'bounds'? in 2e it was a 20pt spread most of the time with 5 or 6 exceptions that made it a 22pt spread... AC10 is the worst, and -10 was supposed to be the best but there were a couple -11 and 1 or 2 -12 ACs... Also to hit where lower, thac0 20-1 and bonuses to that ranged for neg mods to +15ish at max (+5 magic +3 mastery and +7 from str 24 if I remember right)

in 5e it is 14pts for monsters (I haven't seen any lower then 10, or higher then 24 but I also don't have tiamat stats) in this thread we have seen a 32 AC touted. and the best PC hit looks to me to be +18(+3 magic, +6 prof, +9 29 str)

I honestly think they were too conservative with bounded accuracy, but at the end of the day I don't think you can say it doesn't exsist.

lets look at the 2 es in between, in 3e there were 45 ACs, in 4e I think the same... in 4e you added 1/2 level so from +0-+15, could have +6 magic items... I mean just that no dex/int mod (witch I don't think default could happen 2 stats with no mod at 30th level) you would have a 31 AC in a magic tee shirt...


we have seen what the best AC in 5e can look like (32ish) but what do you think the average is at high level? I bet most people don't run into magic plate ever... and don't get +3 armor AND +3 shield, let alone that AND a defender... so what is a good AC most players will see? 27?

lets take a rogue with 20 Dex, and +3 studded leather, and another magic boost some how (ring cloak, what ever) 22, and that seems like it is resnoble...

lets take a fighter type without 'perfect storm items':

+1 plate, +1 shield, +1 ring... 23?

a wizard with my homebrew greater mage armor (3rd level spell set AC to 10+int mod+1 per spell level above 4th used) in a 9th level slot with a 22 INt (thanks to a book) has a 21 AC +1 ring makes it a 22... and spell masteyr shield says I can every round use my reaction to give +4... he could get up to 26.

yea game seems pretty bound to me

 

[SkidAce]

[MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] and I don't always see eye to eye, but when we do its posts like the one above.

Play well friends, play well.