D&D 5E Bounded accuracy and more mundane heroes

[Jfdlsjfd]

With bounded accuracy, low level opponents, in sufficient numbers, can still present a threat to even a high-level party, overwhelmed by the number of actions the crowd will have and not being nearly-immune to their attack. A high-level fighter can still be hit by a CR1 monster sometimes.

With bounded accuracy, and rare special expertise bonus nonwithstanding, a 20th level character should have 20 in his main ability and +6 proficiency bonus, so he'll roll at +11. Let's add a legendary item and it might be +14. But even on a 20, he won't be much above what a quite gifted but otherwise regular joe (+2 proficiency, +3 stat bonus, level 1) can sometimes do (max 34 against max 25). And the compressed spread makes it difficult to have a reduced overlap of the two ranges (newbie vs. superhero) given the large variation of the D20.

In most cases, I have played 5e adventures in the 1-10 range as my players tend to want to change games after some time, so I didn't notice it so much. In your experience of DM'ing at high level, have you noticed the endgame being "less superheroic" than in the 3.5 days (where you could engineer a acrobating run over liquid or semi-reliably fight on very narrow ledges)?

 

[Oofta]

I've run and played in games that went all the way to 20th, personally I didn't experience an issue. YMMV of course, but high level play felt suitably heroic to our group. We were fighting dragons and creatures of legend, handling region (if not necessarily world shaking*) threats.

When we did fight low-level monsters, we fought mobs with dozens if not hundreds of opponents. When our wizard called down tactical nukes (aka Meteor Storm) on our enemies it felt pretty cool. As a DM I just went a little over the top with some encounters and turned the dial up to 11 ... and then celebrated with my players when they stomped on multiple level 20+ monsters.

Throw in a handful of legendary magical items and we felt suitably heroic. Maybe not superhero powerful but that's just a matter of expectations and game feel.

*That's kind of a personal preference. How many times can you avert the end of the world?

 

[jayoungr]

I've run a campaign up to level 20. My players all seemed satisfied with the experience, and they were coming from 3.5. I never heard anyone complain about feeling weak.

Also, magic items make a big difference. I had a battlemaster do something like 140 points of damage to a dragon in one turn with action surge and two-weapon fighting, one of the weapons being a dragonslaying sword.

But don't forget that several previous editions assumed that players would have magic items in every slot by level 20 as well.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think the definition of heroic varies from person to person, so it’s hard to have a good comparison. For example, one person might view heroic as overcoming an opponent whose power was in relation to the game world, like a primordial. While others (such as myself), view heroism as overcoming an opponent whose power was in relation to the character. I.e, it feels just as heroic to me to have our level 2 party beat a shambling mound as it does for a level 20 party to beat an arch demon or something.

 

[GreyLord]

With bounded accuracy, low level opponents, in sufficient numbers, can still present a threat to even a high-level party, overwhelmed by the number of actions the crowd will have and not being nearly-immune to their attack. A high-level fighter can still be hit by a CR1 monster sometimes.

With bounded accuracy, and rare special expertise bonus nonwithstanding, a 20th level character should have 20 in his main ability and +6 proficiency bonus, so he'll roll at +11. Let's add a legendary item and it might be +14. But even on a 20, he won't be much above what a quite gifted but otherwise regular joe (+2 proficiency, +3 stat bonus, level 1) can sometimes do (max 34 against max 25). And the compressed spread makes it difficult to have a reduced overlap of the two ranges (newbie vs. superhero) given the large variation of the D20.

In most cases, I have played 5e adventures in the 1-10 range as my players tend to want to change games after some time, so I didn't notice it so much. In your experience of DM'ing at high level, have you noticed the endgame being "less superheroic" than in the 3.5 days (where you could engineer a acrobating run over liquid or semi-reliably fight on very narrow ledges)?

Yes.

It should be noted that even AD&D had a bigger differential range while the Monsters for the most part were in the AC of what you would call "Bounded Accuracy" in regards to difficulty to being hit. This meant in AD&D monsters were hit more often and had less HP in comparison to 5e. Most of the leveling was done by 9th-11th level as that was mostly the high level, but even than you had more of a 10 point spread rather than a 4 point spread, while monsters were mostly easier in general to hit, but deadlier in the way they punched at times (multiple death saves, magic resistance in addition to saves, paralyzations, level drains...etc).

D&D was similar, but the to hit spread was probably closer to 5e in the lower levels. BECMI went to 36 though (forget 11) so with that type of level difference, eventually monsters were dang easy to hit there as well.

Abilities didn't change as much in many games though (especially D&D BX or BECMI) so that was far more limiting, and as many things would go which we call skills were dependant on DM's call and ability scores, that was probably more restrictive...

Unless you are talking about Thief skills which went from really low and almost impossible to pull off to very high and almost impossible to fail.

My own experience is that 5e in general feels less epic at high levels. For starters, in some ways characters who are not spellcasters do not feel as if they've advanced that much in power between each level gain...and so by level 20 will feel more like one would have at 4th or 5th level in earlier editions in advancing (still powerful compared to 1st level...but not so much of a difference as 20th level used to be) in comparison to others.

Once you get to Epic Boons though, it still doesn't advance as quickly in power, but probably around twice as quickly as you do in the earlier 5e levels in comparison.

I've run epic games in almost all editions (or what one would call epic, even if epic didn't technically exist).

When I can kill 20th level characters easier in 5e with kobolds than I could in any other edition of the game...yes...it can feel less epic (and do not be mistaken, I've killed high level characters with kobolds in EVERY edition of the game I've played thus far, some editions are easier and others harder, depends on the rules).

Edit: Specifically...That does not mean it's not fun, that's not what I am answering. 5e is fun for players, but in regards to whether it is less epic in feel or action than other editions at super high levels, I would say that the answer to that can be yes.

 

[Stalker0]

I've also done a few games in the 15-20 level range. Honestly the game is still dominated by magic at those levels. Its not the buff fest of high level 3e, but I found the adventures were still focused on:

1) Lets use divination for x,y,z
2) Casting certain key buffs
3) Using teleports, plane shifts, etc to get where your going

Further, most area effects spells at that point will destroy any low level mobs you throw their way, so while the mob has a lot of offense, it doesn't usually last long enough to really be a threat.

 

[Celebrim]

I have no real experience with 5e, and with respect to combat I don't have a huge problem with the bounded accuracy mechanism and the smaller gaps in power. I think that what you are discussing was the intended goal of the bounded accuracy mechanism, and I understand what they were going for and why.

My problem with 5e, and one of the reasons I didn't adopt it, is something else that is in the implications of this statement:

"With bounded accuracy, and rare special expertise bonus nonwithstanding, a 20th level character should have 20 in his main ability and +6 proficiency bonus, so he'll roll at +11. Let's add a legendary item and it might be +14. But even on a 20, he won't be much above what a quite gifted but otherwise regular joe (+2 proficiency, +3 stat bonus, level 1) can sometimes do (max 34 against max 25)"

This range makes sense within the bounds of combat. What it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense (to me) with respect to is non-combat challenges. 3e introduced a very solid non-combat skill system, albeit one it was cautious with respect to and didn't push as central to play, but that solid non-combat skill system was one of the things that brought me back to D&D and something I consider essential to any modern rules set.

The problem with the 5e approach isn't just legendary skill in task completion isn't that much greater than everyman skill task completion, it's that neither legendary skill nor everyman skill is sufficient skill to be reliable at a task. Now, from a D&D perspective, not being reliable in the completion of the 'to hit' task in combat is a good thing, since D&D simplifies away active defense into an abstract but fast combat system. And D&D has other levers like hit points and damage to differentiate legendary skill in combat tasks from everyman skill (and everyman skill from unskilled). So none of that is a problem with combat, but it is a huge problem with non-combat tasks where reliability is both desirable for world building and often a desirable hidden class feature.

To understand what I mean by that, there are by my way of thinking two sorts of skill uses - reactive (or passive) and proactive (or active) uses. Reactive uses of a skill occur when within the story or scenario there is some non-combat challenge which requires a skill check. A good example of these is the common use of perception or lore checks in most systems (whether D20 or BRP) where if the PC has the right lore or notices the clue, they receive from the GM some intelligence about the story or scenario that is supposed to inform their choices and lead to better outcomes. Critically, though, the utility of a skill in this case - high though it may be - always really depends on the GM preparing a particular clue (either before or on the fly), and as such really is scenario dependent. Your 'Knowledge (Religion)' or 'Ancient Greek' skill is only going to be useful if the GM has crafted a scenario where that skill is useful.

But other skills open up choices for your character that you didn't have before. One of the most obvious sort is athletic skills that let you declare movement that you couldn't declare otherwise - climbing, swimming, jumping, tumbling, or whatever. These are 'proactive' skills, where quite often you can attempt things that the scenario doesn't explicitly plan for, and where the player initiates the skill usage by proposing some action. In my experience, the critical thing about a proactive skill that makes them really useful is that they achieve some level of reliability - you can always clear at least this much distance, you can always balance on a ledge of this sort, you can always climb walls of this sort, and so forth. If they don't become reliable, then really they tend to remain reactive - mere savings throws to be made to avoid some GM initiated trouble that is coming the party's way. If they aren't reliable, then the risks of the relying on them - of accepting more trouble - don't outweigh the benefits, and the player only uses them when they absolutely have to.

If you look at what can be faced reliably, the DC's are really quite low. Sooner or later, anyone is going to fail that DC 15 check. And yet a DC 15 represents something that even an unskilled person can do 25% of the time.

And to me it feels like inadvertently or deliberately, the 5e skill system was designed with the idea that skill checks are just a sort of saving throw in mind, and as such reliability wasn't a goal of the system.

 

[Oofta]

I have no real experience with 5e, and with respect to combat I don't have a huge problem with the bounded accuracy mechanism and the smaller gaps in power. I think that what you are discussing was the intended goal of the bounded accuracy mechanism, and I understand what they were going for and why.

My problem with 5e, and one of the reasons I didn't adopt it, is something else that is in the implications of this statement:

"With bounded accuracy, and rare special expertise bonus nonwithstanding, a 20th level character should have 20 in his main ability and +6 proficiency bonus, so he'll roll at +11. Let's add a legendary item and it might be +14. But even on a 20, he won't be much above what a quite gifted but otherwise regular joe (+2 proficiency, +3 stat bonus, level 1) can sometimes do (max 34 against max 25)"

This range makes sense within the bounds of combat. What it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense (to me) with respect to is non-combat challenges. 3e introduced a very solid non-combat skill system, albeit one it was cautious with respect to and didn't push as central to play, but that solid non-combat skill system was one of the things that brought me back to D&D and something I consider essential to any modern rules set.

The problem with the 5e approach isn't just legendary skill in task completion isn't that much greater than everyman skill task completion, it's that neither legendary skill nor everyman skill is sufficient skill to be reliable at a task. Now, from a D&D perspective, not being reliable in the completion of the 'to hit' task in combat is a good thing, since D&D simplifies away active defense into an abstract but fast combat system. And D&D has other levers like hit points and damage to differentiate legendary skill in combat tasks from everyman skill (and everyman skill from unskilled). So none of that is a problem with combat, but it is a huge problem with non-combat tasks where reliability is both desirable for world building and often a desirable hidden class feature.

To understand what I mean by that, there are by my way of thinking two sorts of skill uses - reactive (or passive) and proactive (or active) uses. Reactive uses of a skill occur when within the story or scenario there is some non-combat challenge which requires a skill check. A good example of these is the common use of perception or lore checks in most systems (whether D20 or BRP) where if the PC has the right lore or notices the clue, they receive from the GM some intelligence about the story or scenario that is supposed to inform their choices and lead to better outcomes. Critically, though, the utility of a skill in this case - high though it may be - always really depends on the GM preparing a particular clue (either before or on the fly), and as such really is scenario dependent. Your 'Knowledge (Religion)' or 'Ancient Greek' skill is only going to be useful if the GM has crafted a scenario where that skill is useful.

But other skills open up choices for your character that you didn't have before. One of the most obvious sort is athletic skills that let you declare movement that you couldn't declare otherwise - climbing, swimming, jumping, tumbling, or whatever. These are 'proactive' skills, where quite often you can attempt things that the scenario doesn't explicitly plan for, and where the player initiates the skill usage by proposing some action. In my experience, the critical thing about a proactive skill that makes them really useful is that they achieve some level of reliability - you can always clear at least this much distance, you can always balance on a ledge of this sort, you can always climb walls of this sort, and so forth. If they don't become reliable, then really they tend to remain reactive - mere savings throws to be made to avoid some GM initiated trouble that is coming the party's way. If they aren't reliable, then the risks of the relying on them - of accepting more trouble - don't outweigh the benefits, and the player only uses them when they absolutely have to.

If you look at what can be faced reliably, the DC's are really quite low. Sooner or later, anyone is going to fail that DC 15 check. And yet a DC 15 represents something that even an unskilled person can do 25% of the time.

And to me it feels like inadvertently or deliberately, the 5e skill system was designed with the idea that skill checks are just a sort of saving throw in mind, and as such reliability wasn't a goal of the system.

You're not completely wrong, in 5E if you want to be a skill monkey that never fails you need to play a rogue to get reliable talent. A bard comes close with their expertise feature and you can take a feat to basically get expertise (double your proficiency bonus).

But I had issues with 3.5 as well with the ludicrously high DCs that unless you were focused on those skills you had absolutely no chance of success. In 5E, the DCs even for higher level play should never be sky high by design.

It's a matter of personal taste and there's no perfect solution but I'm okay with the way 5E works. Honestly it's not something that I've ever heard anyone raise as an issue in the real world.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The problem with the 5e approach isn't just legendary skill in task completion isn't that much greater than everyman skill task completion, it's that neither legendary skill nor everyman skill is sufficient skill to be reliable at a task. ..

And to me it feels like inadvertently or deliberately, the 5e skill system was designed with the idea that skill checks are just a sort of saving throw in mind, and as such reliability wasn't a goal of the system.

Perhaps part of the reason was an expectation that the DM would narrate success in situations where a skilled character should be able perform some task that requires his level of skill, but is otherwise routine?

DM Empowerment was a big part of 5e's design philosophy, and that kind of thing popped up very early in playtesting (even before the open playtest) and seemed to stick around.

Yes, 3.5 let an expert become reliably good - unable to fail even on a 1 - at various tasks (in addition to take 10 and take 20 rules, btw) - but, it also...

But I had issues with 3.5 as well with the ludicrously high DCs that unless you were focused on those skills you had absolutely no chance of success.

...at high levels, the gulf between maxxed in-class ranks and no ranks, or even maxxed cross-class ranks, overwhelmed the d20, as well. Heck, you could have DCs that an in-class expert couldn't fail, that, the cross-class or untrained didn't have a chance at - overwhelming the d20, twice, in effect.
For that matter, the gulf between optimized and merely maxxed in-class ranks could overwhelm the d20.

So, it's easy to see the problem that 5e substituted it's own problems for.

have you noticed the endgame being "less superheroic" than in the 3.5 days (where you could engineer a acrobating run over liquid or semi-reliably fight on very narrow ledges)?

The thing is that while 5e my have overreacted to 3x/4e 'numbers porn' with ('numbers prude') BA, it hasn't taken the same machete to what you can actually do, especially with spells. Indeed, relative to 4e, 5e returned to presenting very powerful/spectacular/game-changing spell effects at higher levels. So, while it may not seem like your wild-and-wahoo acrobat can run on water or fight on a tightrope or whatever, with expertise 'virtually impossible' DCs (a mere 30) are in reach (for the running on liquid), and the DM can always narrate success and just let you fight on that narrow ledge or what-have-you, no check required, 'cause you're just that good, in the fiction, and bonuses (or the cosmetic lack thereof) make no difference to checks you don't have to make.

 

[Shiroiken]

I've run to 18th level on an epic Greyhawk AP style campaign. Getting to higher levels allows for some weird shenanigans, but nothing that seemed game breaking. Probably the most annoying thing that happened was them casting Heroes Feast the morning of a major battle against venomous enemies. Of course, my players are generally very good at not trying to break the system, so YMMV.