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

[TwoSix]

In order to compensate for accuracy and AC not increases much, they made HP and damage increase a lot.

I agree. I don't see anything wrong with that as a concept, even if there are places where the implementation is rough.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In order to compensate for accuracy and AC not increases much, they made HP and damage increase a lot.

And this now leads to folks complaining that HP and damage go up too fast, and should thus be radically reduced to avoid "bloat."

At which point we will have finally reached the utopian promised land where the difference between level 20 and level 1 is mostly cosmetic! Unless you're a caster, of course. Then the difference is phenomenal cosmic power, itty bitty working day.

 

[TwoSix]

What on earth does that have to do with the section of my post quoted immediately above it?

My apologies. Sometimes I forget that not everyone on the boards has English as a first language, so I'll try and be more clear in the future. Mea culpa.

BA is very much central to the breakdown because monsters that should be built for late tier 2 & beyond are bounded to work for lower level parties who lack the improved abilities & improved gear that is fairly standard in parties that have progressed beyond those lower levels.

Oh, maybe. I hardly touch the Monster Manual. Building my own encounters, to suit both the narrative and match up well with the party, is much easier.

I agree that 5e should have had some sort of assumed magic item progression, even if the baseline was relatively low.

 

[TwoSix]

And this now leads to folks complaining that HP and damage go up too fast, and should thus be radically reduced to avoid "bloat."

At which point we will have finally reached the utopian promised land where the difference between level 20 and level 1 is mostly cosmetic! Unless you're a caster, of course. Then the difference is phenomenal cosmic power, itty bitty working day.

Total tangent, but it would be a pretty cool game (albeit radically different) if fighter types got hit point and damage upgrades as they leveled, but mage-types just didn't. They would have to rely on their spells (like shield, or counterspell, or energy immunity, or some other spells that would have to be added) just to be able to take a hit, or contribute some damage.

 

[Gammadoodler]

But again, why not make that a property of the character alone, not the monster?

If you make it monster-side, you can pick and choose monsters you want to have this trait and monsters you don't.

It may make sense for an ogre to be a minion, where it might not make sense for, say, a gelatinous cube.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Except that one GM's 'overinflation' is another GM's 'grudging, miserly increase.' Which is why different people are fans of different systems with different rates of increase.

And why folks should perhaps be more objective about the terms they use on this discussions.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Total tangent, but it would be a pretty cool game (albeit radically different) if fighter types got hit point and damage upgrades as they leveled, but mage-types just didn't. They would have to rely on their spells (like shield, or counterspell, or energy immunity, or some other spells that would have to be added) just to be able to take a hit, or contribute some damage.

It's definitely an idea, but (despite my major antipathy for excessive caster power) I'm more than a little concerned that we'd just be creating a perverse incentive toward "rocket tag," coupled with a new version of the "who's playing Brother Bactine?" problem.

That is, if only Fighter-types get such benefits, we are left with a conundrum. Either fights are designed expecting that to a meaningful degree, or they aren't. If the former, then the instant a spellcaster actually gets threatened, they're toast; so spellcasters must prioritize personal defense (something they already do!) and then budget in as much Phenomenal Cosmic Power as they can afford. Conversely, if combats are designed without any such expectation, playing a Fighter-type would be awesome for a little while, and then become swiftly boring as nothing can actually hurt or even really inconvenience you.

This is one of the reasons why extensive, intensive playtesting is so important. I'm still chewing on the outline for a thread-essay on the subject of perverse incentives, because they're a really really big deal and it feels like nobody talks about them.

 

[billd91]

If you make it monster-side, you can pick and choose monsters you want to have this trait and monsters you don't.

It may make sense for an ogre to be a minion, where it might not make sense for, say, a gelatinous cube.

I can see where that could make some sense. A trait like "Minionable" that might be left off certain kinds of creatures or named NPCs. But the main rule process would be based on the PC's level rather than an actual shift in monster statistics.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And this now leads to folks complaining that HP and damage go up too fast, and should thus be radically reduced to avoid "bloat."

At which point we will have finally reached the utopian promised land where the difference between level 20 and level 1 is mostly cosmetic! Unless you're a caster, of course. Then the difference is phenomenal cosmic power, itty bitty working day.

This is where you get into class features, if spellcasters bother you that much.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's definitely an idea, but (despite my major antipathy for excessive caster power) I'm more than a little concerned that we'd just be creating a perverse incentive toward "rocket tag," coupled with a new version of the "who's playing Brother Bactine?" problem.

That is, if only Fighter-types get such benefits, we are left with a conundrum. Either fights are designed expecting that to a meaningful degree, or they aren't. If the former, then the instant a spellcaster actually gets threatened, they're toast; so spellcasters must prioritize personal defense (something they already do!) and then budget in as much Phenomenal Cosmic Power as they can afford. Conversely, if combats are designed without any such expectation, playing a Fighter-type would be awesome for a little while, and then become swiftly boring as nothing can actually hurt or even really inconvenience you.

This is one of the reasons why extensive, intensive playtesting is so important. I'm still chewing on the outline for a thread-essay on the subject of perverse incentives, because they're a really really big deal and it feels like nobody talks about them.

The former actually sounds like a pretty fun game to me.