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

[Umbran]

and I sincerely hope you get the version of D&D that doesn't require you to take off your shoes that you so desperately need.

Mod Note:
Hey there!

Please don't insult people. It has just earned you a ticket out of this discussion.

Everyone, if you aren't planning on being respectful, please just don't post. Thanks.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I was running the Curse of the Crimson Throne and we were in the 5th book of the 6 book adventure path: Skeletons of Scarwall. The players' characters were 12th-13th level and one encounter involved...skeletons?!

I could only imagine that my players would giggle and laugh and then maybe have their characters roll around in the attacking skeletons complaining that it tickled when the skeletons tried to attack them. So, I covered the skeletons in rot grubs. Needless to say nobody was laughing after that.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

Me.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

How many people play in games where no PC gets magic items, just out of curiosity?

Me.

 

[ezo]

4. I'm not sure I agree. I haven't personally played 1E D&D, but isn't that game full of you-must-be-this-tall-to-enter stuff? I think golems are essentially immortal unless stuck with +X weapons, for example.

AD&D (1E or 2E) had typical AC's equivalent to 15 to 25 in terms of 5E. At higher levels, via magical items, you could easily have ACs down to -8 or lower (equal to AC 28+ in 5E). 5E does to this better than 3E certainly, and I expect better than 4E (which I never played).

Yes, AD&D, instead of resistance to non-magical weapons, had MANY monsters which required a +1 or better weapon to hit. They were invulnerable to anything else. Higher HD monsters could hit other monsters requiring a +1 or better weapon:

So, an Ogre (a 4 + 1 or more HD creature), could hit and injure creatures which required a +1 or better weapon to hit.

However, the game was built on the assumption that PCs would have items of magical power roughly equal to +1 per 4 or 5 levels of the PC. So, if you have a 13th level Fighter, you probably had a +3 weapon as your major weapon, +2 or +3 armor, other items of equal or lesser power.

 

[ezo]

How many people play in games where no PC gets magic items, just out of curiosity?

Since we are not including healing potions, yes. Although I think that was more simply because the game was mostly tier 1 and a bit into tier 2. I'm not sure if the DM was gunning for no magic. In lower-level campaigns in 1E and 2E, certainly yes, but not often.

 

[Micah Sweet]

AD&D (1E or 2E) had typical AC's equivalent to 15 to 25 in terms of 5E. At higher levels, via magical items, you could easily have ACs down to -8 or lower (equal to AC 28+ in 5E). 5E does to this better than 3E certainly, and I expect better than 4E (which I never played).

Yes, AD&D, instead of resistance to non-magical weapons, had MANY monsters which required a +1 or better weapon to hit. They were invulnerable to anything else. Higher HD monsters could hit other monsters requiring a +1 or better weapon:
View attachment 350583
So, an Ogre (a 4 + 1 or more HD creature), could hit and injure creatures which required a +1 or better weapon to hit.

However, the game was built on the assumption that PCs would have items of magical power roughly equal to +1 per 4 or 5 levels of the PC. So, if you have a 13th level Fighter, you probably had a +3 weapon as your major weapon, +2 or +3 armor, other items of equal or lesser power.

And I fail to see anything wrong with any of that.

 

[Ondath]

However, the game was built on the assumption that PCs would have items of magical power roughly equal to +1 per 4 or 5 levels of the PC. So, if you have a 13th level Fighter, you probably had a +3 weapon as your major weapon, +2 or +3 armor, other items of equal or lesser power.

Just out of curiosity, are there any official sources on the "expected magic item curve"? When trying to grok TSR eta D&D, people tend to say that characters are supposed to progress via magic items (because class features are more sparse), but they never mention what kind of items or in which order they're supposed to get. I know that "game balance" is less of a concern with Old-School D&D, but surely there were some guidelines, and the "+1 bonus every 4-5 levels" sounds pretty reasonable to me.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You actually had me with this argument (I also think the game is too swingy sometimes, and like the idea that not everyone should have a chance of success at every task) right up until you suggested that 4e's Grand Unified DC Table (tm) is the best solution. I prefer that different activities be looked at with different subsystems, as appropriate, to maintain verisimilitude.

And I find "we have seventeen different subsystems, all of which you need to learn in order to functionally use, let alone enjoy, the game" a waste of both development time and player time.

Unified resolution mechanics are almost always more useful than varying subsystems. And they tend to actually open up design space, as well, because (for example) if every offensive action is tied to an attack roll, then you can design support characters who boost attack rolls, and they'll be useful regardless of the party they're with. One of the (several) reasons why I wish we'd kill saving throws dead, dead, dead--they add almost nothing positive to the game beyond "it's what we did in the past," and I have no special affection for tradition when it comes to game design.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

How many people play in games where no PC gets magic items, just out of curiosity?

The current 5e game I am playing in is one of two, total, campaigns which have included any magic items of direct and tangible value (as opposed to merely humorous gimmicks with no actual utility.)

Since I usually prefer home campaigns over written adventures, this has been the choice of nearly every 5e DM I've ever played with. There is a significant anti-magic-item element in 5e's current culture of play. Much to my annoyance.