D&D 5E DMG - breaking bounded accuracy already?

[Celtavian]

Bounded Accuracy was destroyed by the Bless spell and abilities that provide advantage for standing within five feet of a target. It's so easy to hit in 5th edition that hit points are far more valuable than AC unless you can get it really high.

 

[MasterTrancer]

[...] It's so easy to hit in 5th edition [...]

Wasn't this one of the selling points of bounded accuracy? The retained "hittability" at high levels?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Wasn't this one of the selling points of bounded accuracy? The retained "hittability" at high levels?

Yep. Scaling defenses just plain suck. Nothing says mediocre like whiffing about 50% of the time when you are 20th level.

 

[aramis erak]

Wasn't this one of the selling points of bounded accuracy? The retained "hittability" at high levels?

Yep. Scaling defenses just plain suck. Nothing says mediocre like whiffing about 50% of the time when you are 20th level.

And, indeed, it's counterpart is that even a kobold remains a threat to a big bad PC of 20th level. Especially if he's got 7d6 poison on his scimitar.

 

[Selkirk]

i think bounded accuracy should be broken. the idea that kobolds are a threat to a 20th level char appeals to no one and the general 'fix' to this is simply not having minions fight high level chars. but this isn't really acceptable either..so, what's happened is that since low level creatures remain a 'threat' characters end up seeing a ton of low level creatures . and it's just boring as hell to fight these dumb mobs just because they can still kill a 12th level char.

you have to have some degree of separation from the 12th level fighter and the mob of angry farmers (the farmers should know they will get decimated every time...instead of having a puncher's chance or maybe better odds than that depending on die rolls ^^; ). increasing stats with magic items is part of a fix to the flaws of bounded accuracy but i think a better fix is to increase character proficiency bonuses with level. i really wouldn't have a problem with giving level 4 characters +3 swords or shields..at least it makes the characters feel as if they have some power.

 

[aramis erak]

i think bounded accuracy should be broken. the idea that kobolds are a threat to a 20th level char appeals to no one and the general 'fix' to this is simply not having minions fight high level chars. but this isn't really acceptable either..

Speak for yourself, but not for me. That Kobs (in sufficient numbers) threaten 20th levels DOES appeal to me. And to a number of people I know. It's in fact been a "selling point"...

 

[MostlyDm]

i think bounded accuracy should be broken. the idea that kobolds are a threat to a 20th level char appeals to no one and the general 'fix' to this is simply not having minions fight high level chars. but this isn't really acceptable either..so, what's happened is that since low level creatures remain a 'threat' characters end up seeing a ton of low level creatures . and it's just boring as hell to fight these dumb mobs just because they can still kill a 12th level char.

you have to have some degree of separation from the 12th level fighter and the mob of angry farmers (the farmers should know they will get decimated every time...instead of having a puncher's chance or maybe better odds than that depending on die rolls ^^; ). increasing stats with magic items is part of a fix to the flaws of bounded accuracy but i think a better fix is to increase character proficiency bonuses with level. i really wouldn't have a problem with giving level 4 characters +3 swords or shields..at least it makes the characters feel as if they have some power.

I'm pretty sure 5e may not be the version for you.

Weak minions still being able to pose some threat to high level PCs is a feature, at least to many of us that find ourselves enamored with 5e. (and with unbounded HP, the threat is still relatively minor.)

 

[mach1.9pants]

I really love the idea of minions, in sufficient numbers, being a threat. Not so much a threat to a rounded party but to a singular PC, very much so. So no more one character stopping an army, they'll be a big help but not a war ender. Armies can defend against dragons, but at a terrible cost. PCs can be swarmed by a tribe of orcs. Love it. Danger is always there, you are awesome (especially as a group) but never a god/literal super hero.

 

[Selkirk]

bounded accuracy presents numerous problems. characters are more likely to run from fights (any fights) rather than tangle with low level mobs-what's the benefit of the fight? long drawn out hack and slash for no xp and no satisfaction (yes! we just beat another mob of goblins ).

the idea that bounded accuracy gives low level creatures more staying power actually ensures that the party will see more of the same low level creatures (how often does one need to face kobolds?...). lazy dm's of course delight in re using the same mobs over and over but players actually like challenge.. running from orcs because the party is too bored to fight them is the sort of humiliating(if logical) encounter bounded accuracy brings in spades.

but the biggest reason bounded accuracy fails is that it totally breaks immersion. if everything you can encounter can kill you why is the party being hired to go kill dangerous things? or in short if the ogre can be killed by 10 farmers why are the farmers hiring the party? or couldn't the party take the gold and pay some of the farmers to kill the ogre? bounded accuracy turns the idea of heroism on it's head and leads to farcical outcomes like the 10th level barbarian (who went toe to toe with a mighty giant) being killed by a group of pig farmers..

and to the point about 5e not being for me...at this point it definitely isn't. but we know the rules were written this conservatively and simply to guarantee another phb...and another dmg. the modularity they were speaking of with 5e is present only because the game at present is so limited.

 

[Sacrosanct]

bounded accuracy presents numerous problems. characters are more likely to run from fights (any fights) rather than tangle with low level mobs-what's the benefit of the fight? long drawn out hack and slash for no xp and no satisfaction (yes! we just beat another mob of goblins ).

the idea that bounded accuracy gives low level creatures more staying power actually ensures that the party will see more of the same low level creatures (how often does one need to face kobolds?...). lazy dm's of course delight in re using the same mobs over and over but players actually like challenge.. running from orcs because the party is too bored to fight them is the sort of humiliating(if logical) encounter bounded accuracy brings in spades.

As others have said in their reply to your earlier, post, I'll have to repeat them and say that my experience is way different from yours. What makes a monster exciting, or worth fighting has little to do with the stat block of the monster itself. It has much more to do with the environment they are in, how the DM utilizes it, and what they mean to the greater adventure itself. I can assure you, an encounter against a bunch of kobolds at 8th level was still fun when you find yourself in an underground tight series of caverns and ledges, and the little bastards were ambushing you left and right. Why need to create a higher level monster when an existing one already fit perfectly?

For the second part, I've never seen players run away from monsters because they were bored. They ran away if they felt it was too risky, or needed to get somewhere fast and couldn't take the time to fight, but never because they were bored.

but the biggest reason bounded accuracy fails is that it totally breaks immersion. if everything you can encounter can kill you why is the party being hired to go kill dangerous things? or in short if the ogre can be killed by 10 farmers why are the farmers hiring the party? or couldn't the party take the gold and pay some of the farmers to kill the ogre? bounded accuracy turns the idea of heroism on it's head and leads to farcical outcomes like the 10th level barbarian (who went toe to toe with a mighty giant) being killed by a group of pig farmers..
.

Hyperbole won't win you many arguments. Basic farmers are pretty darn weak, and wouldn't stand a chance against a 10th level barbarian. But even putting that aside, I guess the quickest answer that comes to mind is that the farmers don't want 2/3rd of them to die in the process when they can have someone else doing the fighting for them. Adventures, on the other hand, make their living that way. That's what drives them and gives them motivation. A PC who just hires out militia to do all the battles for them would be a pretty boring PC to play, IMO.