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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

You are welcome to feel that way, and to play and/or design games that subscribe to that philosophy. Certainly I don't have to agree with you, and I don't.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You are welcome to feel that way, and to play and/or design games that subscribe to that philosophy. Certainly I don't have to agree with you, and I don't.

Okay. Do you have anything actually productive to contribute to the conversation, beyond "Well that's, like, your opinion, man"?

 

[ezo]

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

There really isn't anything wrong with it. It was a great game in general, and part of the reason why it survived to be taken over by WotC.

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.

I don't recall any "offical sources", but from my experience and talking to others who played AD&D for decades, that progression of +1 per 4-5 levels seemed to be fairly typical. You could have sparse campaigns, or Monty Haul style where PCs walked around glowing like Christmas trees! I've played in both types and everything in between, really.

Another rule of thumb was one permanant magic item per 2 levels roughly. So, the Fighter 13 I mentioned before might look like this:

1. Longsword +3 Frostbrand (+6 vs. fire-using/dwelling creatures)
2. Axe (hand) +1
3. Crossbow of Speed (+1)
4. Plate mail +2
5. Shield +2
6. Gauntlets of Ogre Power (Str 18/00, or +3 attack, +6 damage)
7. Boots of Striding and Springing
8. Plus a few healing potions or other potions.

If you used material from Unearthed Arcana, so had access to weapon specialization, just a PC would probably be +3/+3 for attack/dmg with the longsword. Quick stat block summary would be:

AC: -3 (5E => AC 23) due to plate mail +2 (AC 1), shield +2 (+3 bonus to AC -2), and DEX 15 (+1 AC, so AC -3)
HP: 80 (9d10 + 30, assumcing CON 16 +2 hp bonus and given +3 hp/level after 9th without CON bonus)
THAC0: 8 (+12 5E)
Attack: Longsword +9 to hit (= +3 gauntlets, +3 sword, +3 specialization), +12 vs. fire-using/dwelling creatures
No. of Attacks: 5 / 2 (means 5 attacks every 2 rounds, so 2 then 3 then 2 then 3 etc.)
Damage: 1d8 / 1d12 (small and medium / large) +12 damage (= +6 gauntlets, +3 sword, +3 specialization), +15 vs. fire-using/dwelling creatures

Now, at 13th level, many foes would have AC 3 to AC -3 probably, but some worse and some better. Such a PC would hit all the time in general against most foes. Even an AC -10 (the best in game; 5E => AC 30!), the PC hits on a roll of 9 or higher on the d20!

Anyway, this is a more powerful example, but not that unusal for higher-level play in AD&D. I played in an epic campaign once where my PC (24th level Ranger) was insanely equiped:

1. Hammer of Thunderbolts (does double damage dice; +5 /+5 due to combining #2 and #3 below)
2. Gauntlets of Ogre Power +(3/+6)
3. Girdle of Storm Giant Strength (STR 24: +6/+12)
4. Specialization in Hammer (+3/+3)

Total attack bonus was +17 (with THAC0 4, means he couldn't miss really) and damage bonus +26. His weapon damage was only 2d4+2 vs. S/M and 2d4 vs. Large.

Magic items could make already powerful ultra-high level PCs feel like demi- or even lesser gods.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

Bounded Accuracy is a compact to prevent an arms race between bonuses and target numbers. Bonuses are kept few and small, while target numbers are kept low and escalate slow, and a lot of situational merits and penalties are routed into the Advantage/Disadvantage system.

All this keep the math easy to do, it means a small bonus is meaningful instead of just being added to a large stack, and it means encounters don't have to be within a tiny CR range to not be lopsided one way or the other. Of course, not everyone likes it that way. PF2E makes it a deliberate feature that PCs can mow through opponents they have a significant level advantage over.

I'm one of those who doesn't like it that way. I'm reasonably familiar with 3.5e and I haven't seen those dreaded mid-level characters with bonuses up in the 30s, 40s, or even higher.
I can see how very high (20th level) characters will have bonuses in the 20s and even low 30s, but more than that requires cheese sauce, in particular magical cheese sauce. So I'd blame those "30s or even 40s or higher" on the cheese sauce rather than on the basic structure of 3.X.

But I'm biased. I very much prefer 3.5e to 5e because I want high level characters to be legendary figures able to pull off legendary feats - able to take 10 with a penalty and still accomplish things that lesser mortals might not be able to pull off when taking 20 with a bonus. I admit that the problems that bounded accuracy is meant to solve are problems, but I don't care for the solution.

(Another factor is that I don't buy the "Gandalf was actually just an 8th level wizard, and Aragorn was actually just a 6th level ranger" arguments that are sometimes put forward. Or the old Gygaxian 1e claims that a 1st level fighter is a 'veteran' rather than a newbie, that a 4th level fighter is a 'hero' and that an 8th level fighter is a 'super hero'.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

You know what? That's fair. Saying it's preference isn't a valid rebuttal to criticism.

Yeah. Its valid to not share the set of preferences a criticism is based in, but the proper response then is to, well, just move on and ignore the post unless there's other issues that are relevant to react to.

I mean, to some extent I do this all the time; I consider Advantage/Disadvantage a dealbreaker in every game I've seen it in, but its obviously the bees knees to some people, and when they present their priorities its usually obvious why, so why respond to support of it with counters based on priorities they don't share? What's that going to do?

 

[Shardstone]

I dont think swinginess is a problem for me.

 

[Charlaquin]

How random should the skill rolls and such be is an interesting debate. It is true that 5e is very swingy; more so than I think it is realistic. However, I also understand why it is so. In my experience people seem to like this randomness. Everyone has a chance, and even an expert usually has the excitement of the die roll mattering. Guaranteed successes and failures are actually not that fun. I feel games where the character competence has more impact should be generally constructed so that there is usually a degree of success or failure that matters. Then it is still exiting to roll, as there is still uncertainty about the outcome even if you knew you probably get some sort of a success. This is harder to design well than a simple pass or fail system though.

I think the swingyness can be more or less of a problem depending on how a group approaches rolls. I’m on record as having pretty high standards for when to call for a roll, so to me the swing is desirable, but I could imagine it being a huge pain in games where rolls are called for to resolve most tasks and the result helps inform the DM’s narration of how well the PC executed the task.

 

[Gorck]

2. I sure hope people aren't playing with mixed-level parties... And in case henchmen are being used, and now admittedly I don't think 5e actually has rules for henchmen in the first place, you can just decide their to hit bonus arbitrarily.

Why not? Different DMs handle replacing dead characters differently. Some have the player create a new character at the same level, or one level lower, than the average party level. Others have the player create a first level character and work their way up. The latter approach would take advantage of lower level enemies so that the new level 1 character doesn't have to hide in the back and cower in fear.

 

[Shardstone]

Why not? Different DMs handle replacing dead characters differently. Some have the player create a new character at the same level, or one level lower, than the average party level. Others have the player create a first level character and work their way up. The latter approach would take advantage of lower level enemies so that the new level 1 character doesn't have to hide in the back and cower in fear.

Do you do this? I never once seem someone do this in person, online, or even bring it up in discussions.

 

[Kurotowa]

Do you do this? I never once seem someone do this in person, online, or even bring it up in discussions.

It's something that was done in the early days of D&D. It made sense when the game was a survival Roguelike that losing your character meant starting over. Also the XP progression curve was exponential, so if the group carried the fresh PC through a session or two they would likely be caught up to only a level behind everyone else.

These days it's very rarely done, partly because of the change in playstyles, partly because the game isn't designed for it anymore.