Bounded Accuracy L&L

[DEFCON 1]

For the most part, I also love it. However, the one issue about the flatter math / bounded accuracy that I know I would probably end up house-ruling out (if what is currently in the playtest stays in the playtest) is the "Multiple Checks" / Take 20 type rule within the doc. I think I'd probably remove it.

Because as the document says, DC 27 is supposed to be an Immortal DC... and yet a character with a +4 ability mod, +3 skill bonus and the time to do Multiple Checks can theoretically defeat an Immortal DC all the time (assuming no Hazards or penalties for failure, and the DM doesn't rule the lock aribitrarily "impossible".)

This is the one issue where I personally would make a ruling that every skill check is "one and done". You fail, that's it. You just don't have the skill or the patience or the conceptual intellect to complete the task. This particular instance is just too much for you. If you roll to pick a DC 20 lock and fail the roll... you just "don't get it" for the particular lock. Something just doesn't click for you (no pun intended). It doesn't matter if you have 20 minutes of uninterrupted and stress-free time to try... you just won't ever be able to pick this lock unless your situation changes in some way and I allow a second roll (like if you go up in level, or you get an ability buff or something.)

Thus... a 1st level Thief with a +7 (mod/skill) might find that Immortal lock that they can pick (rolling a 20, which shows off some bizarre almost supernatural insight into the inner-workings of this particular lock-- and that would be a HUGE deal for the character)... but not every Immortal lock will be that way.

(And yes, I also know that as DM I could just rule that the Immortal lock is impossible to the 1st level thief if I wanted... but if that was the case, then I wouldn't set a DC to it in the first place.)

 

[Dedekind]

Be wary - if damage/hit points are the primary indicator of what level monsters you can fight then a lower level character might have to be careful..

...

True, I don't think the game would ever really support a party with more than a couple of levels difference among the PCs. Unless it is really flat math and I don't think that would be much fun.

I don't think I really advocate level penalties for death, but bounded accuracy would handle XP/Level penalties for death neatly, however.

 

[billd91]

The ideas in this L&L have some potential. There are potential pitfalls.

1) There's risk of hit point attrition grind if the rate of improvement in damage is outstripped by the rate of improvement in hit points.

2) The d20 will tend to be a bigger determinant in EVERY combat than in previous editions, not just the ones against level-appropriate challenges. That's a potential issue with everything going on in 5e with reduced bonuses. The game may be swingier for important checks and combat.

3) High hit point monsters may encourage use of save or die/suck/sit encounter-ending powers because you get to bypass the massive hp sink the monster has. Basing these powers on damage or even hit point level, while a balancing mechanism, undermines the verisimilitude of the powers in the first place that may harm willing adoption of the system.

 

[mcintma]

I like this Bounded idea very much, but one red flag goes up for me: it seems HP leap to even greater importance under this system.

How will the low-HP glass-cannon classes (rogues and wizards) fare in such a system? Will the correlated damage inflation make them easy kills when hit? The starting HP bump is only a 1-time help... so the important thing will be to carefully playtest this at mid+ level.

But as long as they recognize the possibility of this problem, I'm sure they can address it with a tweak or 2.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Perhaps bounded accuracy is what leaves room to have magic items that grant attack bonuses, without breaking the math?

 

[Dedekind]

Another implication is using XP to make magic items isn't as big a deal... the PC may be a little behind, but will still be effective when adventuring.

(Barring the potential unbalancing effect of the magic items, of course.)

 

[Hawke]

I like the idea of controlling character progression numbers from a DM point of view. I found it challenging in 4E to have an idea of difficulty especially when we were leveling at a faster pace. Inherent bonuses helped a bunch, this seems to say apply inherent bonuses by simply removing the bonuses to the players and monsters.

I am concerned from both the playtest and this article that it seems to be a major goal of this edition to allow combats of 30 kobolds vs. the PCs. Really? I don't recall that being a major problem in 4E that needed fixing - between minions and swarms (including using angry mob swarms on players) I thought they could easily carry that forward as a positive lesson to be repeated with a few tweaks.

 

[Blackbrrd]

For the most part, I also love it. However, the one issue about the flatter math / bounded accuracy that I know I would probably end up house-ruling out (if what is currently in the playtest stays in the playtest) is the "Multiple Checks" / Take 20 type rule within the doc. I think I'd probably remove it.

Because as the document says, DC 27 is supposed to be an Immortal DC... and yet a character with a +4 ability mod, +3 skill bonus and the time to do Multiple Checks can theoretically defeat an Immortal DC all the time (assuming no Hazards or penalties for failure, and the DM doesn't rule the lock aribitrarily "impossible".)

This is the one issue where I personally would make a ruling that every skill check is "one and done". You fail, that's it. You just don't have the skill or the patience or the conceptual intellect to complete the task. This particular instance is just too much for you. If you roll to pick a DC 20 lock and fail the roll... you just "don't get it" for the particular lock. Something just doesn't click for you (no pun intended). It doesn't matter if you have 20 minutes of uninterrupted and stress-free time to try... you just won't ever be able to pick this lock unless your situation changes in some way and I allow a second roll (like if you go up in level, or you get an ability buff or something.)

Thus... a 1st level Thief with a +7 (mod/skill) might find that Immortal lock that they can pick (rolling a 20, which shows off some bizarre almost supernatural insight into the inner-workings of this particular lock-- and that would be a HUGE deal for the character)... but not every Immortal lock will be that way.

(And yes, I also know that as DM I could just rule that the Immortal lock is impossible to the 1st level thief if I wanted... but if that was the case, then I wouldn't set a DC to it in the first place.)

Picking a lock? Just give a -1 penalty for each failure. That's often how it works in real life. If you try something requiring manual dexterity and patience, the more times you try without a proper break, the harder it gets as you get more and more annoyed.

 

[grimslade]

The door example is silly, but the problem it addresses is not. Both 3.x and 4E began to get into bizarre ways to represent escalating skill DCs. Just like kobolds being a threat longer, iron bound doors are going to be a challenge longer. You don't need to bring out the adamantine bound astral diamond door to challenge the half Orc with a 26 Str and skill focus: Smash! Talk about the tail wagging the dog. You needed to come up with descriptive items to justify the math. Someone bothers to put up an adamantine door, the PC better be approaching a demigod of strength to break it down. Easier to break through the wall of stone at that point.

 

[pauljathome]

While I'm obviously in the minority (at least in this thread) I loathe this. I want my characters to become visibly more skilled as they advance in levels, I want creatures that used to be a threat to become irrelevant, I want there to be monsters that a village working together can NOT destroy.

At least, that is what I want in D&D. I've already got lots of other games with much, much flatter power curves. Power inflation is part of what makes D&D what it is.

3.x/Pathfinder mostly did this well IMO. Characters got more skilled. Difficulties also often improve but only when it makes sense in world. The locks in the palace are more difficult to pick than those in the cottage. The system had flaws (really twinking out a character for a particular skill) but basically worked. The characters DID visibly advance while remaining challenged.

I have no problem with flattening the power curve. I have huge problems with eliminating it.

Its also going to be hard to playtest this. My expectation is that I'd find it quite boring to play the same characters from Lvl1 to higher levels as they'd just not really grow. Finding out if that expectation is true or not would mean playing for several months.