Bounded Accuracy L&L

[ZombieRoboNinja]

My question to all of you, how do you think they should flatten the math? Should we do away with level bonus altogether or just shrink it? If done away with, how would you handle the bonuses to attack rolls, saving throws and non-skill checks? If skills still have ranks or other bonuses, but no bonus from level, then how should attacks and such get bonuses without becoming mandatory feat or class feature taxes? What do you guys think is the best way to handle it?

It seems that level bonuses are just gone, as are level-derived bonuses to attack rolls, saving throws, and other checks. (That is to say, classes won't come with a BAB/saves table.) Skills don't necessarily have ranks, but I think someone from WOTC mentioned that the skill bumps from your background improve at higher level (so that +3 to Handle Animal and Folklore and stuff for the commoner goes up to +5 at level 5, let's say).

That said, I'm betting that class abilities will bump up various numerical values over time. My guess is that the bonuses will be wrapped into class abilities rather than put into tables, because (for example) a wizard may NEVER get a class bonus to hit. (He might get other numerical bonuses instead, like to Wis/Int saves for example, or to saves vs. spells, or to save DCs for his own spells.)

I'm guessing this falls under the category of "mandatory feat or class feature taxes," which I'm not sure is such a bad thing. Every fighter probably SHOULD get better at hitting things with weapons as he progresses. Every wizard probably SHOULD get better at resisting mental domination as part of his training. And having those improvements be class-specific makes them more special.

 

[Bagpuss]

No, they will be strength-challenged by it, not "knock"-challenged or "disintegrate"-challenged.

There go the wizards putting rogues out of a job again. What's wrong with starting with a pick boy? Why not start off with a nice little lockpick? You don't have to go leaping straight to disintegrate like a bull at a gate.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That was my understanding as well. Since stuff doesn't level with the PCs, and since PCs take and deal more damage the higher level they are, anything they struggled to kill/destroy at level 1 should be trivial at level 20. But some people seem to have issues with the "level up and get better" mechanic, and don't think things should get easier to kill/destroy "just because you slaughtered a few goblins".

I am not sure you understand what bounded accuracy means:

I understand it in this way:

1. Armor has a meaning: if you see someone in heavy armor, you know he is not easy to hit for a commoner, or a mage or a non combat character with his normal attack.

2. If someone has better armor, he is most surely protected by magic.

3. A fighter at higher level has means to overcome those magical protections and someone without them is not so hard to hit.

4. A high level fighter hits like a truck. Even when he is hit, he can suck up the damage without going down. His HP protect him from annoying status effects.

What it does not mean: a fighter does not hit better as he levels up.

The consequence of 4 is: Without magical protections, a swarm of lvl 1 orcs will get some hits in and over time will do enough damage to kill a level 20 fighter. But with all his resources, surges, cleaves, perhaps some multiattacks and some hp recovery abilities, a lot of orcs will fall against the single fighter. Most probably it will be ranged attacks that bring him down.

 

[Fenes]

What it does not mean: a fighter does not hit better as he levels up.

Since AC doesn't change, the only thing that changes as you raise in levels are damage and hitpoints. If the fighter does not deal more damage - a lot more - as he levels up - then the entire class is invalid at higher levels when dealing with higher level monsters (See 66 hp Ogre, 132 hp minotaur).

And in case anyone missed it, the Blog explicitely states that character do more damage as they level up (bolded by me):

The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game that the player's attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster's hit points; likewise, the character can now stand up to a few hits from that monster without being killed easily, thanks to the character's increased hit points. Furthermore, gaining levels grants the characters new capabilities, which go much farther toward making your character feel different than simple numerical increases.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Since AC doesn't change, the only thing that changes as you raise in levels are damage and hitpoints.

Wrong. Why? See below.

And in case anyone missed it, the Blog explicitely states that character do more damage as they level up (bolded by me):

You conveniently stopped bolding before "and the various new abilities they have gained." So damage and hit points are not the only thing that changes as you raise in levels. The various new abilities a fighter gets could be additional to-hit bonuses, damage mitigation, multiple attacks, superior mobility, etc. All things that make you better against those same orcs you faced at 1st level.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

It's not about grim and gritty, it's about progression. In every D&D edition characters at least could do and take more damage as they gained more levels. Which means that things that were hard to destroy or kill at level 1 ceased to be so at higher levels.

Who here really wants to have a level 1 and a level 20 party have the same difficulty in killing a level 1 orc?

In the general run of htings I would agree, but an orc that has found some wierd ritual that creates a null magic zone and a fantastic DR would be acceptable as a one off change of pace. Something to fighten the PC once in a while.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Since AC doesn't change, the only thing that changes as you raise in levels are damage and hitpoints. If the fighter does not deal more damage - a lot more - as he levels up - then the entire class is invalid at higher levels when dealing with higher level monsters (See 66 hp Ogre, 132 hp minotaur).

And in case anyone missed it, the Blog explicitely states that character do more damage as they level up (bolded by me):

And wrong, because of this (quoted from the actual article)

Getting better at something means actually getting better at something. Since target numbers (DCs for checks, AC, and so on) and monster accuracy don't scale with level, gaining a +1 bonus means you are actually 5% better at succeeding at that task, not simply hitting some basic competence level. When a fighter gets a +1 increase to his or her attack bonus, it means he or she hits monsters across the board 5% more often. This means that characters, as they gain levels, see a tangible increase in their competence, not just in being able to accomplish more amazing things, but also in how often they succeed at tasks they perform regularly.

Or I could be wrong and they are only hypothetically speaking...

No, The fighter will gain:

damage, accuracy, amazing things (like beeing able to attack twice or thrice several times per day)

And this is what makes him stand out against all other classes. True bonuses, that are simple and effective. No need to have a magic weapon.
If you have a magic weapon, great, but even without one, others can´t reach your ability, even with magic weapons, or special tactics (like the thief sneak attack)

 

[Fenes]

damage, accuracy, amazing things (like beeing able to attack twice or thrice several times per day)

And this is what makes him stand out against all other classes. True bonuses, that are simple and effective. No need to have a magic weapon.
If you have a magic weapon, great, but even without one, others can´t reach your ability, even with magic weapons, or special tactics (like the thief sneak attack)

So, instead of the fighter being useless, the paladin, barbarian and ranger are useless, since they cannot come close to the fighter? As long as a magic weapon makes you better at hitting things it is needed for characters who hit things as their main combat stick, or they are inadequate compared to those who have magic weapons.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So, instead of the fighter being useless, the paladin, barbarian and ranger are useless, since they cannot come close to the fighter? As long as a magic weapon makes you better at hitting things it is needed for characters who hit things as their main combat stick, or they are inadequate compared to those who have magic weapons.

No: Rangers and Paladins are fighters... But they gain some less general attack bonuses, but have other advantages...

here, another quote:

Nonspecialized characters can more easily participate in many scenes. While it's true that increases in accuracy are real and tangible, it also means that characters can achieve a basic level of competence just through how players assign their ability bonuses. Although a character who gains a +6 bonus to checks made to hide might do so with incredible ease, the character with only a naked ability bonus still has a chance to participate. We want to use the system to make it so that specialized characters find tasks increasingly trivial, while other characters can still make attempts without feeling they are wasting their time.

Which means: even characters who are not specialists are good enough, if you put your ability points right:

so, a paladin with fighter like strength will most probably be competent enough. Look at the moradin cleric. He has put a good score in strength and does contribute well to a fight. Even without an extra bonus. He also has a spell which he can use for one fight, which brings him close to the fighter power.

The rogue uses dexterity and does well in the fight, but with advantage on his attack, he will really do impressive damage.
So while everyone can participate within a bounded accuracy system, and more importantly noone falls behind, this does not mean the expert can´t get ahead.
Its just the contrary: an expert should get ahead, and not because of finding magic weapons.

Fighters are the best in combat. Period. Rangers, Barbarians, Paladins are great in combat, but not the best. Only in special cases: Paladin vs evil, fearsome things, Barbarians while raging, Rangers while in favourite terrain against favourite enemies.

But in a straight up fight, the fighter should, you know, be the guy who fights best.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

So, instead of the fighter being useless, the paladin, barbarian and ranger are useless, since they cannot come close to the fighter?

They might have their attack bonus a bit lower, but they'll make up for it in other ways. The barbarian will start raging and have a crazy Strength bonus, the ranger will have cool bonuses to mobility, ranged combat, and/or two-weapon fighting, and so on.

As long as a magic weapon makes you better at hitting things it is needed for characters who hit things as their main combat stick, or they are inadequate compared to those who have magic weapons.

I'm guessing that a either +2 longsword will no longer add +2 to hit, or the +x magic item system will go away altogether. At the very least, while I expect that SOME magic items will still give bonuses to attack rolls or AC, it won't be expected that a level 15 character have a +x weapon to stay competitive.