Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Definitions, please! What are Bounded Accuracy and RAW?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8205109" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>It was one of the major selling points of the edition during the open playtest process. One of the major complaints against both 3e and 4e was the “bonus treadmill,” where level-appropriate challenges increased in DC and AC at exactly the same rate that PCs bonuses increased, making it so that if you fell behind in terms of expected bonus progression, you were at a significant disadvantage. Furthermore, lower-level threats rapidly became completely non-threatening because they literally could not hit you and you could not miss them.</p><p></p><p>To address this, WotC proposed the idea of “bounded accuracy” in the new edition, which was really more like bounded target numbers. The idea being that difficulty of DCs and ACs would no longer scale based on the PC’s level. 10 is always easy, 15 is always moderate, 20 is always hard, etc. no matter what level you are. PCs would still gain bonus as they leveled up, but they would come much more slowly, so that your bonus never outstripped the d20. While a high-level character might have a <em>bit</em> of an easier time hitting a certain target number than a low-level character, the difference would be relatively small, and you would never reach the point where you couldn’t miss, or an opponent couldn’t hit you.</p><p></p><p>The primary intended effect of this change was to make it so that low-level monsters could remain a threat to high-level characters in enough numbers. In 3e, it doesn’t matter how many Kobolds you throw at a 15th level party. They just can’t hit the PCs, so they are not a threat. In 4e, they tried to address this by having different stats for different kobolds - so while standard Kobolds wouldn’t be able to hit a 15th-level PC, a special elite kobold soldier or whatever could. This was very unpopular with a certain crowd, so with 5e they decided to instead flatten the math. Now, one kobold may not be a threat to a 15th level party, but enough of them will be. This benefit also goes the other way - 5e characters can punch above their weight class by using numbers and clever tactics to their advantage, which 3e and 4e characters couldn’t because of how the math worked.</p><p></p><p>Finally, bounded accuracy was supposed to make it so that magic items with +X bonuses to hit or AC would be genuine bonuses. You wouldn’t “need” a weapon with a certain bonus by a certain level to keep up with the treadmill. In fact, magic bonuses would always put you <em>ahead</em> of the mathematical expectation. So those bonuses would feel like <em>true bonuses</em>, making things actually easier instead of keeping them from getting harder.</p><p></p><p>You don’t really hear about Bounded Accuracy much any more except from people who played a lot of 3e and/or 4e and participated in the 5e open playtest, because the concept isn’t really meaningful except in contrast to the math of those editions. The articles and blog posts on the subject have long been taken down, and I doubt WotC has much interest in talking about that stuff any more. The goal at the time was very much to win over people who disliked 4e. But these days, 5e doesn’t need to sell itself on being “not 4e,” so a lot of the design choices that specifically addressed common 4e grievances just don’t get talked about any more because they don’t need to be.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8205109, member: 6779196"] It was one of the major selling points of the edition during the open playtest process. One of the major complaints against both 3e and 4e was the “bonus treadmill,” where level-appropriate challenges increased in DC and AC at exactly the same rate that PCs bonuses increased, making it so that if you fell behind in terms of expected bonus progression, you were at a significant disadvantage. Furthermore, lower-level threats rapidly became completely non-threatening because they literally could not hit you and you could not miss them. To address this, WotC proposed the idea of “bounded accuracy” in the new edition, which was really more like bounded target numbers. The idea being that difficulty of DCs and ACs would no longer scale based on the PC’s level. 10 is always easy, 15 is always moderate, 20 is always hard, etc. no matter what level you are. PCs would still gain bonus as they leveled up, but they would come much more slowly, so that your bonus never outstripped the d20. While a high-level character might have a [I]bit[/I] of an easier time hitting a certain target number than a low-level character, the difference would be relatively small, and you would never reach the point where you couldn’t miss, or an opponent couldn’t hit you. The primary intended effect of this change was to make it so that low-level monsters could remain a threat to high-level characters in enough numbers. In 3e, it doesn’t matter how many Kobolds you throw at a 15th level party. They just can’t hit the PCs, so they are not a threat. In 4e, they tried to address this by having different stats for different kobolds - so while standard Kobolds wouldn’t be able to hit a 15th-level PC, a special elite kobold soldier or whatever could. This was very unpopular with a certain crowd, so with 5e they decided to instead flatten the math. Now, one kobold may not be a threat to a 15th level party, but enough of them will be. This benefit also goes the other way - 5e characters can punch above their weight class by using numbers and clever tactics to their advantage, which 3e and 4e characters couldn’t because of how the math worked. Finally, bounded accuracy was supposed to make it so that magic items with +X bonuses to hit or AC would be genuine bonuses. You wouldn’t “need” a weapon with a certain bonus by a certain level to keep up with the treadmill. In fact, magic bonuses would always put you [I]ahead[/I] of the mathematical expectation. So those bonuses would feel like [I]true bonuses[/I], making things actually easier instead of keeping them from getting harder. You don’t really hear about Bounded Accuracy much any more except from people who played a lot of 3e and/or 4e and participated in the 5e open playtest, because the concept isn’t really meaningful except in contrast to the math of those editions. The articles and blog posts on the subject have long been taken down, and I doubt WotC has much interest in talking about that stuff any more. The goal at the time was very much to win over people who disliked 4e. But these days, 5e doesn’t need to sell itself on being “not 4e,” so a lot of the design choices that specifically addressed common 4e grievances just don’t get talked about any more because they don’t need to be. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Definitions, please! What are Bounded Accuracy and RAW?
Top