Breaking Bounded Accuracy: Proposed Fix

[Pauln6]

I think it'll work ok. It will tend to hurt PCs and help monsters, especially at higher level. In particular it will make larger PC groups relatively less powerful and lessen the quadratic buff effect.

Personally I agree with others that stacking bonuses usually isn't really an issue in 5e because of the Concentration mechanic and because powerful monsters get very high to-hit bonuses, and often do enormous damage on a critical hit.

In my Saturday game the dwarven forgepriest Cleric-8 has AC 25 (+1 plate, +2 shield, +1 forge bonus, +1 ring or cloak bonus) so most foes are only hitting on a 20, maybe an 18. He still got taken to single digit hp by a single crit from a wraith.

I suppose even without magical stacking, they would still have AC23 which is still awesome.

 

[S'mon]

I suppose even without magical stacking, they would still have AC23 which is still awesome.

I get AC 22 (18 plate, +2 shield, +2 magic shield bonus) since the +1 forge bonus is also magical.

I think the rule would hurt magic/casting PCs and favour Barbarians, who can get a great AC in just a loincloth.

 

[MarkB]

For attack bonuses, you could change them to increasing weapons' critical range instead of providing a bonus to attacks. Then leave effects like Bless to operate as they already do.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

I haven't been into 5E long at all, but from what you're saying I would just reduce Bless to a +1 bonus instead of a roll anyway, maybe a static +2? It would speed up the game and it is a 1st-level spell so should not be very powerful IMO. You do need concentration, which limits it sometimes depending on the encounter, and boosting attack rolls is fine since hitting more often seems to be the intent of 5E.

I wouldn't let multiple spells stack, but I would be fine with spells and magic items (however rare you choose to make them) stacking. Also, at the level you are probably talking about if someone has a high +X weapons, Bless isn't likely the spell the Cleric will like want to spend every round concentrating on. I could easily be wrong about that, but that is my thought.

I can more see people arguing about magic and spells buffing AC since keeping AC lower in most cases is also a thing for 5E. If that is the case, I wouldn't let magic items stack, but again it depends on your own experiences and flavor of your game.

What I find interesting is how quickly 5E is to add damage instead of attack. For example, if a character deals 8 damage on average, gaining a +2 to attack raises his expected damage by 0.8. But, the game seems to be happier granting a +2 damage bonus instead, raising his expected damage to 10. Which is a more powerful boost?

 

[Harzel]

I would pass then on playing a bard in your game.

You are basically then as GM saying that you **will not** stop or reduce the bonus items you plan to introduce *and* that de facto every new one you add becomes another "bardic inspiration wont help you" finger in my character's essential class feature.

Thanks for "fixing" my bard, who will now curl up on the TV and sleep a lot.

Moving past the humor, you are really hitting any buff driven character type and driving them out of the market. This will shift the focus to more and more aggressive builds, excluding others.

If that is your intent, great for you.

But that wasn't a stated goal in your OP so, I am unclear. You goal seemed to be to weaken class abilities of a given type to preserve whatever you feel bounded accuracy is.

Personally, I doubt the bounded accuracy lobby will be as vocal as anyone who messes up and brings a bard into that game.

Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me that bardic inspiration is the buff that is most likely to be the biggest one and therefore be the one that is still useful under the OP's proposal. It starts out at d6 (ave=3.5; 4+ 50% of the time) and goes up from there. Pass Without Trace will be better than most BI rolls, but that only applies to Dex(Stealth) checks. BI will tend to dominate Bless and most magic weapon and armor bonuses. Are there other (common) things that I am forgetting?

 

[dave2008]

The other obvious solution would be to change what +X items do. For example, under my own set of house rules, +X weapons only deal extra damage, and +X armor increases your DR; but I also converted armor into DR as baseline, so it might be kind of weird outside of that context.

Yes, that is an option and I have tried something like that. I think I need to update the OP and clarify that I am not really looking for other options, but wondering if the option I am looking has ramifications that I am missing. The last sentence of the OP doesn't seem to resonate with anyone.

 

[dave2008]

I would pass then on playing a bard in your game.

You are basically then as GM saying that you **will not** stop or reduce the bonus items you plan to introduce *and* that de facto every new one you add becomes another "bardic inspiration wont help you" finger in my character's essential class feature.

Thanks for "fixing" my bard, who will now curl up on the TV and sleep a lot.

Moving past the humor, you are really hitting any buff driven character type and driving them out of the market. This will shift the focus to more and more aggressive builds, excluding others.

If that is your intent, great for you.

But that wasn't a stated goal in your OP so, I am unclear. You goal seemed to be to weaken class abilities of a given type to preserve whatever you feel bounded accuracy is.

Personally, I doubt the bounded accuracy lobby will be as vocal as anyone who messes up and brings a bard into that game.

Thank you, that is the type of information I am looking for. No one has ever played a bard in my groups, so I am not familiar with what they do / can do. I will have to review the class and take a look.

 

[dave2008]

I think it'll work ok. It will tend to hurt PCs and help monsters, especially at higher level. In particular it will make larger PC groups relatively less powerful and lessen the quadratic buff effect.

Personally I agree with others that stacking bonuses usually isn't really an issue in 5e because of the Concentration mechanic and because powerful monsters get very high to-hit bonuses, and often do enormous damage on a critical hit.

In my Saturday game the dwarven forgepriest Cleric-8 has AC 25 (+1 plate, +2 shield, +1 forge bonus, +1 ring or cloak bonus) so most foes are only hitting on a 20, maybe an 18. He still got taken to single digit hp by a single crit from a wraith.

Thank you for the input. So with my suggestion the AC would only be 22 (unless the forge bonus is non-magical, not sure what that is). Still as tough as an ancient red dragon

I don't know what I am doing wrong, but it seems like a rarely ever roll crits.

 

[dave2008]

I get AC 22 (18 plate, +2 shield, +2 magic shield bonus) since the +1 forge bonus is also magical.

I think the rule would hurt magic/casting PCs and favour Barbarians, who can get a great AC in just a loincloth.

I will have to look into barbarians, no one in my groups plays one so I am not familiar with the ins and outs of the class. From a glance I am not found of the resistance to damage mechanic.

 

[dave2008]

For attack bonuses, you could change them to increasing weapons' critical range instead of providing a bonus to attacks. Then leave effects like Bless to operate as they already do.

Possibly, but Bless is not the only issue. My proposed solution also works for magic items that stack, as noted by [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]