D&D 5E Bounded Accuracy. Where can I find it referenced?

[Jester David]

Giving magic items is the de facto standard. A DM has to choose to REMOVE magic items from the game. Players who don't want magic items in OFFICIAL play with Adventurer's League, have to hand off or destroy the magic items they receive.

But only a small percentage of items affect accuracy, either by boosting AC or attack numbers.

Even if rolling entirely randomly, with a CR 0-4 monster's hoard there's only a 15% chance of even rolling on the table that provides an accuracy affecting item, 20% chance from a CR 5-10, and a 25% chance from a CR 11-16. And even if you hit the appropriate table, there's a significant chance the permanent magic item has no effect on accuracy.
If rolling randomly, there's good odds that not all PCs will have magic that affects their accuracy at all.

Assuming the DM rolls randomly and doesn't assign appropriate treasure, which the DM says they can do.


Plus, giving out magic items works WITH the philosophy of bounded accuracy.
From the definition provided:

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.

Magic items are not assumed for the math. The baseline is bounded. Magic items are out of those boundaries and thus provide a bonus. They make you better.

 

[DEFCON 1]

At this point it doesn't matter whether "Bounded Accuracy" as a concept does or doesn't exist. The game is the game. It's not changing. You either like how the game plays and the mechanics used to accomplish it, or you don't. If you find your game breaks down because of the way you play it... then don't play the game. No reason to argue whether the game plays how you thought it should play based upon comments from two years previous. It ain't changing.

 

[Trit One-Ear]

I feel it's also worth mentioning that large groups of monsters in 4E were a waste of time if they were notably lower than the heroes. Similarly, significantly higher-level monsters were devastating (nearly automatic hits, nearly impenetrable defenses). In that respect, 5E keeps most monsters a relevant threat, and a clever-thinking/lucky party of heroes can theoretically defeat a monster supposedly much more powerful than they are.

That, however, is starting to get into DM play styles, which math only lightly influences IMO.

Trit

 

[jodyjohnson]

It ain't changing.

Mine does.

DM: "You either like how the game plays and the mechanics used to accomplish it, or you don't. If you find your game breaks down because of the way you play it... then don't play the game. "

:: Show Mike Mearls with a tear running down his cheek looking sad.

After years of telling DMs to make the game their own, we still end up with One-True-Wayism.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Mine does.

DM: "You either like how the game plays and the mechanics used to accomplish it, or you don't. If you find your game breaks down because of the way you play it... then don't play the game. "

:: Show Mike Mearls with a tear running down his cheek looking sad.

After years of telling DMs to make the game their own, we still end up with One-True-Wayism.

I'm having a difficult time parsing what exactly you are saying.