Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Don Durito" data-source="post: 7878130" data-attributes="member: 6687260">What bounded accuracy did was put skills, attacks and saving throws on the same progression.There's a cerain elegance in doing that - but it turns out doing so is problematic as attack roles and saving throws determine gradual steps toward success and failure in combat which balance out, whereas skills are more often a simple binary.There's a lot of attempts to impose elegance without really thinking through the consequences well in 5e.Like the use of saves for all the stats - there's a certain theoretical elegance which didn't translate all that well in practice.Another example is the use of Advantage/Disadvantage - it's a simple elegant mechanic which would be brilliant for a simpler game* - but it's so limited that when you look closely it's telling all the things it can't cover.&nbsp; It should be used for skills, but that would mean anyone who can get advantage from any source is as good as the skilled character - it should be granted by spells like Bless or by bardic inspiration - but again - that would make these abilities useless to anyone who already has a source of advantage.&nbsp; So the attempt to keep the mechanic simple leads to needless complication elsewhere&nbsp; (compare the iteration of the idea in Shadow of a Demon Lord - where Boons and Banes can stack, but with diminishing returns and therefore can cover all of the previously mentioned functions - and they can also be spent on maneuvers like superiority dice.&nbsp; In other words, a slightly more complicated appearing mechanic is actually much simpler in practice).*which is why it's so ripe for stealing for OSR games.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Don Durito, post: 7878130, member: 6687260"] What bounded accuracy did was put skills, attacks and saving throws on the same progression. There's a cerain elegance in doing that - but it turns out doing so is problematic as attack roles and saving throws determine gradual steps toward success and failure in combat which balance out, whereas skills are more often a simple binary. There's a lot of attempts to impose elegance without really thinking through the consequences well in 5e. Like the use of saves for all the stats - there's a certain theoretical elegance which didn't translate all that well in practice. Another example is the use of Advantage/Disadvantage - it's a simple elegant mechanic which would be brilliant for a simpler game* - but it's so limited that when you look closely it's telling all the things it [I]can't [/I]cover. It [I]should [/I]be used for skills, but that would mean anyone who can get advantage from any source is as good as the skilled character - it [I]should[/I] be granted by spells like Bless or by bardic inspiration - but again - that would make these abilities useless to anyone who already has a source of advantage. So the attempt to keep the mechanic simple leads to needless complication elsewhere (compare the iteration of the idea in Shadow of a Demon Lord - where Boons and Banes can stack, but with diminishing returns and therefore can cover all of the previously mentioned functions - and they can also be spent on maneuvers like superiority dice. In other words, a slightly more complicated appearing mechanic is actually much simpler in practice). *which is why it's so ripe for stealing for OSR games. [/QUOTE]

Verification