D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[FormerlyHemlock]

I like Bounded Accuracy, not so much on the PC side as on the world side. Having AC 15 means "my skin is as hard as rock, like a Gargoyle." Having AC 18 means "like a fighter in plate armor" and AC 20 is "like a fully armored fighter in plate mail with a shield."

AC 15 in 5E is basically like AC 5 in AD&D, AC 18 in 5E is akin to AC 1 or 2 in AD&D, and AC 20 is the new AC 0.

I skipped all the editions of (A)D&D that didn't use something like Bounded Accuracy (everything after 2nd and before 5th) and I wouldn't have started playing 5th if hadn't come back down to earth. I did play a couple of computer games from that era (Icewind Dale II is a 3rd edition game) but I can never figure out what AC 54 is supposed to mean or how it is different, in real terms, from AC 72 except that it is a known fact that most monsters in the game don't have a BAB over +52 so AC 72 is the target you need to hit for effective tanking. For a CRPG that kind of meaningless number-ism is tolerable but for an RPG it would be horrific.

 

[dmnqwk]

I like the concepts behind it, but I feel the number crunchers did a poor job of creating a fairer system.

For starters, I feel Expertise is severely unbalanced in numerical terms - why can a Rogue hit such high numbers when they stealth, or any skill they choose, when they could've simply given Advantage on the roll and kept the numbers more balanced (I know Advantage is a +5 effective bonus, which is better when you gain Expertise... but it prevents them rolling impossible numbers against someone trying to see them do their tricks).

I also dislike how bounded affects Armour Class. The idea of keeping numbers relevant and low means at 1st level you're looking at +5 versus AC 15, whereas at Level 11 you'll see closer to +11 (through magical weapons) versus AC 16 in the same circumstance. Rolling to hit becomes trivial as you go up in levels.

The concept of bounded accuracy is definitely a very positive affair but I can understand people's reluctance to enjoy the fact you can no longer put ranks into a skill and be good at it if your ability tied to it sucks balls (people with 20 ranks in persuasion and a charisma 3 are those who suffer greatly). I would recommend having a Variant rule, if the players are upset, wherein if you are not proficient in a skill either the DC is higher on some checks (such as trying to skin a bear) to being unable to try (picking a difficult lock)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

For starters, I feel Expertise is severely unbalanced in numerical terms - why can a Rogue hit such high numbers when they stealth, or any skill they choose, when they could've simply given Advantage on the roll and kept the numbers more balanced (I know Advantage is a +5 effective bonus, which is better when you gain Expertise... but it prevents them rolling impossible numbers against someone trying to see them do their tricks).

Expertise is pretty tame compared to the sickening +10 from Pass Without Trace. Functionally, it is party-wide invisibility for an hour.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

It's actually intra-party stuff that bothers me. Say a character has a skill in navigation (navigator's tools). In general he's only slightly more likely to be successful navigating than any other character.

I get where you are coming from, but I think you may be taking the idea a bit too far.

I mean, If you have dedicated some character building resource like a tool proficiency, it's because you want your character to be the one the party relies on to do that thing - which means you want your character to be good at that task, and you don't want other characters to be as good without some investment towards it too.

...but you've taken it so far as to be disappointed that a character that happens to have at least a 4 higher relevant ability score has the same chance as your character, not that that player is going to actually steal the spotlight from your character by insisting on their character doing the task at hand, or to feel like your character's 10-30 percentage point better chance of success than an equal abilty-scored but not proficient character is "only slightly better" when, again, the other player isn't necessarily going to steal your spotlight (by which I mean if you are the one with navigation tool proficiency, no one else should be saying "my character navigates" no matter what their ability score is because that is rude, unless your character is not available to "do their thing.")

And a wizard will generally be better than the "professional sailor" unless that sailor has a remarkably high Int. It underplays the importance having trained vs. raw ability IMO. An extra +2 bonus (or so) might work, but in general I just won't let someone without proficiency do certain things (admittedly usually only if one of the other PCs is proficient, but still...)

You've already hit on the real solution to the problem you describe: DM adjudication so that the rules of the game are not applied in a way that both doesn't make sense to the group and doesn't result in an enjoyable outcome.

Edit: and for the record, I really like bounded accuracy in the context of combat (other than wanting a tweek to saves).

Saves are, in my opinion, one of the places where the different style of 5th edition really shines. Proficient saves always have a good chance of success, non-proficient saves are a strong incentive to aim for more well-rounded ability scores instead of a "pump stat & dump stat" approach, and the only time that saves become anything near always successful or always failing is when there is a large disparity in level/cr or the player has over-focused on something while ignoring something else.

 

[bedir than]

I like the concepts behind it, but I feel the number crunchers did a poor job of creating a fairer system.

For starters, I feel Expertise is severely unbalanced in numerical terms - why can a Rogue hit such high numbers when they stealth, or any skill they choose, when they could've simply given Advantage on the roll and kept the numbers more balanced (I know Advantage is a +5 effective bonus, which is better when you gain Expertise... but it prevents them rolling impossible numbers against someone trying to see them do their tricks).

Except that advantage can be removed rather easily. Once a single disadvantage is applied all ad/disads disappear. Bonuses are relatively "permanent" while advantage can go away in various circumstances. Also advantage and bonuses stack in ways that multiple advantages can not.

 

[Horwath]

I like bounded accuracy very much.

It keeps low level mobs a threat at higher levels with large numbers.

As for skills I would add that in any trained ability check minimum roll on d20 would be 5. That way you would not fail at common tasks and lvl11 rogue would still be ahead with minimum roll of 10.

As for armor scaling you can add proficiency bonus to AC while you are wearing armor that you are proficient with. But that would mess with the game mechanics and would make low level mobs irrelevant pretty quickly as they would soon get to the point that they can only hit with natural 20. while they are hitting with 17 or 18 they are still big threat in a horde.

 

[Celtavian]

I like bounded accuracy because it makes for more interesting and varied adventures and story elements.

In combat I like that lower level creatures remain a threat on their own or in combination with a more powerful creature. This allows you have orcs with a high level demon and still have the orcs do some damage. This allows me as a DM to have a wider range of enemies to play with when developing encounters at all levels. Bounded Accuracy better mirrors the type of fantasy I enjoy. 3E made high level characters into superheroes. I've always been of the mind that Aragorn and Launcelot were level 20 characters, yet even they had very real limitions on their capabilities. I find Bounded Accuracy keeps everything within a range that does a better job imitating fictional fantasy than previous editions ever did.

 

[Li Shenron]

I like the principle of bounded accuracy a lot, and so far I also like the implementation, although perhaps the range of proficiency bonus could have been higher.

I do think that skills are in a different league when it comes to bounded accuracy, and in fact Expertise was IMO added to the game exactly because the skill bonuses needed to scale faster. I want the best PCs to be able to take on more amazing challenges while I want the worst PCs not to be able to.

They could have made Expertise more common (I might be wrong but I don't think there is e.g. a feat which grants Expertise), but apparently they decide for 'niche protection' of the most skill-oriented classes, and gave it only to Rogues, Bards and Rangers. As a fan of niche protection, I like the current situation, but I also think it would be a piece of cake to just add a feat that grants for example Expertise in a single skill (or if this is too small, then prof+expertise in a single skill OR expertise in two skills you're already proficient).

 

[Psikerlord#]

Yeah I think BA is a major improvement over 3e and 4e's relentless treadmill. I like that it keeps a wider range of enemies relevant for longer and as DM I can pick a DC between 10 and 20 and be done with it.

I think they should have taken it further and also bound damage and hit points. But then perhaps we would have gone too far in the direction of OSR. Perhaps that would have scared off too many potential customers!

 

[brehobit]

I think this is a great example of the skill system working well.

I like that skilled NPCs have a place in the world. And that PCs have a reason to enlist their help.

If a PC really wants to be an expert in a skill they can make it a background feature or apply the class ability expertise to it. Or both if it is that important to them.

The wizard with the high intelligence can just say that they have read all sorts of theory on physics, and that they are good at figuring out how the tools work on the spot with their great intelligence. And so they are just as good as the character who was once a sailor on a ship a long time ago so understands the basics but doesn't have the raw potential to apply it in a special way.

In actual game play what will end up happening is that one character will help the other which makes perfect sense. Or they will, you know, hire an actual sea captain.

So there is no reasonable way a PC navigator can be skilled at navigation? Or more skilled the the team wizard? If my background is that I'm a 30-year old who has been navigating a boat for years (and that was my last PC's background...), it makes sense that a random wizard in the party will be better at it than I am at first level (actually they'd have been tied as I had a +1 Int just for this purpose and that was the highest int in the party)? The game seems to require that PCs be not very good at much of anything other than their class. I was planning on playing someone who was a solid (if not extraordinary) navigator and only recently (like a week ago) become a mildly competent (level 1) fighter. 5e doesn't really support that. I was going to take a level in rogue for expertise (not clear it would apply to navigator's tools, but that's another issue), but we weren't using multi-classing. And I don't know why I _should_ need to take a level in rogue to be a better navigator than a random PC wizard.

And as an engineer, let me tell you that being smart is rarely a substitute for actual training. Anyone who has significant training in navigation is going to be able to actually use the tools of the trade. Someone without said training is going to be a disaster.