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

[Fanaelialae]

I was really surprised by the tomes. The 100 year recharge limitation keeps most PCs from using the tome repeatedly, but it doesn't explain why some ancient lich that is 1,000 years old hasn't used its tome several times, and it doesn't prevent a PC from benefiting from more than one tome, should they acquire them. Instead of the 100 year rule, I think it would have been better if the tome is consumed after use and the character can never benefit from that kind of tome ever again.

That lich (or PC) not only has to acquire this very rare item, he also has to keep it for 1,000 years. A lot can happen in that time. He might be raided by adventurers or rivals, and forced to abandon the tome. His lair could be destroyed by a natural disaster, such as an earthquake or a volcanic eruption, and the tome lost along with it. Heck, he might start to lose his mind with the passage of so many years and simply forget about it. That's not to say that no lich could ever do this, but I'd expect it to be the exception rather than the rule.

I'm with those that say this is more a problem in theory than reality. Based on this analysis of the treasure tables:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...al-quot-Magic-Item-Distribution#ixzz3LsaAPCqb
a typical party is expected to find one very rare item and one legendary item per PC.

IF the DM is willing to allow the players to substitute a very rare item for a legendary one AND he allows them to choose their own magic items AND one PC can convince the rest of the party to use their picks to give him their treasure instead, you might have an issue. However, not only does that seem like an absurdly unlikely possibility, but that party is missing out of a whole bunch of great magic items in exchange for making one of their own superhuman. Personally, I don't think it's a good trade at all. I'd much rather have a Staff of Power/Magi than + 2 Intelligence.

 

[Paraxis]

The issue isn't just the tomes. It is belts of giant strength, arrows stacking with bows, shields stacking with armor, little things that stack with everything like rings of protection, there seem to be no bounds anymore, they had a design goal and they failed to achieve it.

 

[Cernor]

The issue isn't just the tomes. It is belts of giant strength, arrows stacking with bows, shields stacking with armor, little things that stack with everything like rings of protection, there seem to be no bounds anymore, they had a design goal and they failed to achieve it.

I'm not sure I understand your concern: For a character with maximized AC (+3 plate, +3 shield, Defense fighting style, a Defender giving +3 to AC, a Ring of Protection, and a Cloak of Protection) you're sitting at 32 AC. Yes, that's a high AC. However, anything that requires a save will still ignore that completely... And you'd be wielding a sword and shield so anything that can fly and attack at range would laugh at you. That also uses all your attunement slots, so you can't use many other magic items (the aforementioned belt of giant strength, for example).

As far as arrows stacking with bows, I also see that as a non-issue: They're found individually or in small groups, not quivers, and the chances are you can use each magic arrow once per fight (or only once), unless you take the time to fetch your arrow while the dragon's trying to eat you. Getting the extra +1-3 to hit is nice, but by no means does it break bounded accuracy.

Compare that to the thought experiment of Pun-Pun the kobold in 3.x (which ended up having every stat arbitrarily high so every attack was guaranteed to hit for effectively infinite damage), and it seems the designers have done a very good job of bounding accuracy if the maximum AC is 32 (and achievable only with a lot of help from the DM).

 

[abirdcall]

The issue isn't just the tomes. It is belts of giant strength, arrows stacking with bows, shields stacking with armor, little things that stack with everything like rings of protection, there seem to be no bounds anymore, they had a design goal and they failed to achieve it.

They did achieve it though, in both cases.

The goal of magic items is specifically to break the system to make them special. If they are included in the system then they aren't special.

Magic items aren't fair.

They make people superhuman.

That's the point.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The issue isn't just the tomes. It is belts of giant strength, arrows stacking with bows, shields stacking with armor, little things that stack with everything like rings of protection, there seem to be no bounds anymore, they had a design goal and they failed to achieve it.

The odds of getting those items in a combination where they stack to produce an unbeatable combination are exceedingly low if rolling treasure randomly.

A + 3 shield is very rare, whereas + 3 armor is legendary (and even then, there's no guarantee it will be plate mail). And you only get one of each meaning that, at best, you might have a Belt of Hill Giant Strength (the other belts are all very rare or legendary). You won't have a Holy Avenger or a Vorpal Sword.

If your DM is feeling generous and places those items for you to find, sure, your AC will be very hard to hit. But if your DM doesn't want you to have that kind of AC, he simply doesn't give you those items (there are plenty of great items with lower or no pluses, such as Armor of Invulnerability.

It's not that they failed to achieve their set design goal, but rather that the DM has the option to redefine what BA means in his game. This isn't a matter of rule zero but just basic sense. If you don't want to diverge from the bounds of bounded accuracy, don't give out much in the way of items with bonuses. There a plenty of other options to reward the players with. On the other hand, if you give the players the best of every AC boosting item in the game, don't complain that they're suddenly hard to hit. You specifically chose to make them hard to hit.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Plus, things like belts of giant strength don't stack with anything. They're not +x to Strength. They set the wearer's Strength at a specific amount unless it's already higher. Reading a Manual of "Bro, Do You Even Lift?" (or whatever it's called) while wearing a belt of munchkin giant strength isn't going to change anything of consequence on the character sheet.

 

[Quartz]

I'd just like to reiterate that it's not the +2 to the stat about which I'm concerned, but the +2 to the maximum.

 

[thalmin]

Then don't use them in your campaign.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm betting these types of discussions would be a lot shorter if everyone understood that "just because something has a chance something will happen, does not mean it will happen."

I have a chance of winning each lottery I play (if I played), but it seems like a huge waste of time for me to fret over what would happen if I win. And I certainly don't expect that I will win.

 

[Mistwell]

The solution to bad game design is not to let the individual DM's fix it.

It's not bad game design to say it's silly to claim PCs or monsters will acquire many many tomes like this, just as it's silly to claim the PCs or monsters will acquire most of the gold in the world (despite no cap on gold). You have not proved the premise that it's bad game design to begin with.

It's not DMs correcting it - it's acknowledging DMs are humans with brains who will, of course, not hand out dozens of tomes. That's not DM fiat - that's accurately working with a known quantity (DMs have brains capable of of course not handing out all the worlds gold or tomes to their players - we all know this so no reason to state it).