Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="spinozajack" data-source="post: 6616171" data-attributes="member: 6794198">Bounded Accuracy makes a lot of sense, combined with proficiency. A very strong wizard who is proficient with swordfighting could very well make a single attack just as accurately as a similarly experienced fighter, but that fighter would follow it up with two more, and then another 3 if he wanted to. Something the wizard can't do.Although I disagree that it's very similar to what 4e did. It built on 4e's innovation, and went further. Instead of making to-hit rolls stay in the same range through 1/2 level bonuses, we do it through proficiency bonus. The big difference is on the enemy side. They don't have their defenses increase to float up to match your increases in accuracy. So rising in levels results in actual increases in hit rate (for both the fighter and the wizard) relative to a given enemy, rather than a mirage.So, superficially similar in one aspect (offense rises equally), but substantially different in effect (AC doesn't rise). This allows the wizard character, who still only has one attack to fall back on, to nonetheless still feel more powerful than he did at level 1 against a similarly armored opponent or monster. It's a contract that an RPG proposes a player of that game, if you play this character long enough and rise in rank, your character will actually become more powerful, and proficiency isn't a pass / fail, but actually increases in potency as it should. 4e doesn't actually increase accuracy. It breaks that contract between the player and his time spent playing the game and expecting to get better at swinging that sword. Only at specific levels is that contract renewed, like level 21. But aside from that, it is basically a time sink to rise in levels.It's a big improvement in play as you gain levels. Actually it's somewhat between the old BAB system with scaling attacks and the 4e system. It's clear 5e is a hybrid approach that's better than both its predecessors in every way.</blockquote>

Verification