Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
2024 needs to end 2014's passive aggressive efforts to remove magic items & other elements from d&d
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 9250957" data-attributes="member: 7006"><p>If I am inferring the correct thing from your statement... then I would agree with you to a certain extent. But the issue in my mind wouldn't be Bounded Accuracy as a concept, but rather WotC default assumption of expected player potential min-maxing and how their monster damage was undertuned.</p><p></p><p>What I mean by that is this: The way BA was originally meant to be designed... PCs and monsters were to have relatively low attack bonuses and ACs, so that low-level PCs/creatures could still hit higher-level creatures/PCs. But where the "level-appropriate" disparity would come in would be in the damage and hit points. Low-level creatures would have low damage and low HP so while they could all hit that high-level monster... their damage was so low that it would take hundreds of hits to finally down the creature's massive HP pool. Whereas a high-level creature would have such a high damage rating that a single attack on a low-level creature could essentially one-shot them and basically recreate the "minions" concept from 4E.</p><p></p><p>The problem that I think a lot of us have found with WotC's monster design paradigm though is that their beliefs of "level-appropriate" damage from monsters in the Monster Manual is too low to be a true threat against PC that have been built with a modicum of min-maxed intelligence. BA is designed for higher-level creatures to have higher damage... but WotC has undertuned that damage. Their numbers don't really work for a lot of tables. So while the concept of Bounded Accuracy is sound and should work... they just messed up one of the numbers in their design (in my opinion).</p><p></p><p>Personally, I have found that changing monster damage just by either doing max damage for monsters on their attacks, or by rolling double the damage dice listed for the monster (if I really want a randomized damage roll) it satisfies the BA standards the format is meant to have and it works fine. And quite frankly I still find it less ridiculous that what I have playing in my friend's Pathfinder campaign where my attack bonuses are +32 / +27 / +22 with all my iterative attacks. That's just numbers inflation for no real benefit in my mind.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 9250957, member: 7006"] If I am inferring the correct thing from your statement... then I would agree with you to a certain extent. But the issue in my mind wouldn't be Bounded Accuracy as a concept, but rather WotC default assumption of expected player potential min-maxing and how their monster damage was undertuned. What I mean by that is this: The way BA was originally meant to be designed... PCs and monsters were to have relatively low attack bonuses and ACs, so that low-level PCs/creatures could still hit higher-level creatures/PCs. But where the "level-appropriate" disparity would come in would be in the damage and hit points. Low-level creatures would have low damage and low HP so while they could all hit that high-level monster... their damage was so low that it would take hundreds of hits to finally down the creature's massive HP pool. Whereas a high-level creature would have such a high damage rating that a single attack on a low-level creature could essentially one-shot them and basically recreate the "minions" concept from 4E. The problem that I think a lot of us have found with WotC's monster design paradigm though is that their beliefs of "level-appropriate" damage from monsters in the Monster Manual is too low to be a true threat against PC that have been built with a modicum of min-maxed intelligence. BA is designed for higher-level creatures to have higher damage... but WotC has undertuned that damage. Their numbers don't really work for a lot of tables. So while the concept of Bounded Accuracy is sound and should work... they just messed up one of the numbers in their design (in my opinion). Personally, I have found that changing monster damage just by either doing max damage for monsters on their attacks, or by rolling double the damage dice listed for the monster (if I really want a randomized damage roll) it satisfies the BA standards the format is meant to have and it works fine. And quite frankly I still find it less ridiculous that what I have playing in my friend's Pathfinder campaign where my attack bonuses are +32 / +27 / +22 with all my iterative attacks. That's just numbers inflation for no real benefit in my mind. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
2024 needs to end 2014's passive aggressive efforts to remove magic items & other elements from d&d
Top