D&D General Explain Bounded Accuracy to Me (As if I Was Five)

[Maxperson]

The easiest way to understand Bounded Accuracy is that the game tries to make it that everyone has a chance of success or failure at most things. Bonuses generally range from +0 to +11, while the target number (DC/AC) is rarely above 20. This means that even with a +11, you have a chance of failure against the hardest difficulty, while a completely untrained person has a small chance of success. Monster math is designed to allow weaker monsters to be more relevant longer, so that the DM has a wider variety of options to use at each level.

That's not bounded accuracy. Yes, they lowered proficiency in order to keep the rogue from being able to pretty much always see the super stealthy widget hiding in the brush, and the wizard from never being able to see it, but that has nothing to do with bounded accuracy. Bounded accuracy is about the monster math for each CR. It's only on the DM side of things, not the player side of things.

I think the term "bounded accuracy" confuses things. People think that everything that was changed to reduce any sort of accuracy is a part of it, when really it's only the monster building math. When you make a monster, the math doesn't care whether you have +7 perception(5 for stat and 2 proficiency) or -4 perception(-4 for stat and no proficiency). It will have the same stealth regardless.

 

[Maxperson]

Can you support this with numbers? I think 5e is actually a bit too bounded in some places. I would not worry if proficiency bonus would increase slightly faster.

Yes. I've been saying since almost day 1 that I think proficiency should have gone to +10. +6 reduced the number too much.

 

[billd91]

That's not bounded accuracy. Yes, they lowered proficiency in order to keep the rogue from being able to pretty much always see the super stealthy widget hiding in the brush, and the wizard from never being able to see it, but that has nothing to do with bounded accuracy. Bounded accuracy is about the monster math for each CR. It's only on the DM side of things, not the player side of things.

I think the term "bounded accuracy" confuses things. People think that everything that was changed to reduce any sort of accuracy is a part of it, when really it's only the monster building math. When you make a monster, the math doesn't care whether you have +7 perception(5 for stat and 2 proficiency) or -4 perception(-4 for stat and no proficiency). It will have the same stealth regardless.

Maybe you should go back and read the design article linked earlier in this thread.

 

[Maxperson]

This is a different discussion thought, isn't it? If the PCs and monsters don't have interesting maneuvers to do during combat, fights could be incredibly boring regardless of how many hit points everyone has.

Yes, that's true. 5e does need more interesting things to do.

Creatures that hit more often but have to go through more hit points (the BA model) can equal itself out to creatures that hit less often but have less hit points to go through (the non-BA model). But the total number of rounds of combat will end up being relatively the same.

But in either case... if those rounds of combat are nothing more than standing in front of an enemy merely swinging swords to knock down HP... the boredom will set in regardless. It's only if the game gives us more things to do and try that could spice things up, but that can happen (and hopefully would) whether the BA model is used or not. Keeping or removing BA won't solve the "boring combat" problem, only adding new combat options can do that.

That's not the 5e design, though. 5e's BA monsters are balanced for attrition over 5-8 encounters, where the non-BA monsters weren't. the length of encounters is not the only issue. In fact, the length of a 5e combat is close to prior editions. The problems are that 1) monsters are mostly large bags of hit points to slog through, and 2) the adventuring day means that the first 4-7 encounters are no real threat, it's the last encounter when the group is low on resources(hit points being only one of those) that has real risk attached to it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes. I've been saying since almost day 1 that I think proficiency should have gone to +10. +6 reduced the number too much.

I think +8 is the magic number.
I would reduce expertise to *1.5
And half would be *.5

Half starts at 1, +1 at level 6,12,18
So normal starts at 2, +1 at level 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18.
Expertise starts at 3 and increases at 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19.

 

[mellored]

A level 1 creature should have a chance at hitting a level 20 creature.

So the numbers have to be not too big.

 

[Maxperson]

Maybe you should go back and read the design article linked earlier in this thread.

You're still making the same error. This paragraph is about monsters being built within their bounds, not proficiency being part of bounded accuracy.

"Nonspecialized characters can more easily participate in many scenes. While it's true that increases in accuracy are real and tangible, it also means that characters can achieve a basic level of competence just through how players assign their ability bonuses. Although a character who gains a +6 bonus to checks made to hide might do so with incredible ease, the character with only a naked ability bonus still has a chance to participate. We want to use the system to make it so that specialized characters find tasks increasingly trivial, while other characters can still make attempts without feeling they are wasting their time."

So a CR X creature will only be able to stealth Y amount, regardless of what the PC's bonuses are. That monster doesn't care whether you have +2 for proficiency, 0 for proficiency, have a 20 stat or a 3 stat, nor does it care if you have feats to make you better. It's bounds will never change.

This is the premier paragraph to explain bounded accuracy.

"The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game that the player's attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster's hit points; likewise, the character can now stand up to a few hits from that monster without being killed easily, thanks to the character's increased hit points. Furthermore, gaining levels grants the characters new capabilities, which go much farther toward making your character feel different than simple numerical increases"

Only monsters are bounded. Not PCs. DM's side of the game. Proficiency, gained as a result of gaining levels, is not considered.

 

[Maxperson]

I think +8 is the magic number.
I would reduce expertise to *1.5
And half would be *.5

Half starts at 1, +1 at level 6,12,18
So normal starts at 2, +1 at level 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18.
Expertise starts at 3 and increases at 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19.

That's better than +6, but the reason I say +10 is that people like to feel like they are advancing at a decent rate. +1 every other level(approximately) is a good rate of increase. +8 will mean that there will still be times when you don't get an increase for 3 levels, which is a very long time.

 

[Umbran]

Only monsters are bounded. Not PCs. DM's side of the game. Proficiency, gained as a result of gaining levels, is not considered.

So, in some ways you are correct, but your emphasis obscures part of the point.

Strictly speaking, the limit is on the monsters, yes. The characters can rise in bonuses. But they don't have to.

The monsters are bounded, but the point of bounding them is character-side.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I mean, name the class?

Fighters aren't it. They gain accuracy (bounded to linear), attribute points and number of attacks. They are explicitly quadratic, not linear.

Paladins aren't it. They gain accuracy (bounded to linear), and smite damage that scales with level (plus increasingly good spells). Again, explicitly quadratic, not linear.

Rogues aren't it. They gain accuracy (bounded to linear), and sneak attack damage, plus increasing numbers of utility fiat abilities.

I guess Barbarians? Past level 5, they gain accuracy. Their extra rage damage and critical damage boosts are trivial in impact.

OTOH, maybe you are talking about out of combat. It is true: Fighters don't get out-of-combat features other than feats and subclasses worth mentioning.

Rogues get decent out of combat features - reliable talent is very solid, and together with expertise breaks bounded accuracy in things they are good at. Stroke of Luck is another case where bounded accuracy goes out the window.

These could definitely be upgraded from their current state.

I mean all martial classes mostly out of combat, even though in combat is actually a bit of a problem too, though to a lesser degree.

Rogues are something of an exception since they have expertise so they do get really good at their schtick.

The problem pops up in combat too. For example a fighter gains some white room efficiency as they level up. They go from X dpr to X+Y dpr. But a wizard goes from not being able to shut down a single opponent with Forcecage to being able to shut down a single opponent with Forcecage. The growth here is infinite. And there is no chance of failure.