D&D General Explain Bounded Accuracy to Me (As if I Was Five)

[MGibster]

It was certainly the main draw for me, and the lack of such an approach is often the deal-breaker for me with other systems. I’m sure I’m not the only one.

I don't typically think about it, hence this thread, but I suppose I'd notice it's absence. In a game like World of Warcraft, my 80th level character could walk into a lower level zone, aggro all the enemies, and just sit there while I took a break from my computer to go eat dinner and come back to find my character unharmed. I prefer games where even a very experienced character can't just ignore lower level creatures even if defeating them isn't particularly challenging.

(Also thank you to the OP @MGibster for asking the question. It's true what they say - if you ask a question in a large group, no doubt someone else has the same question... That someone is me in this thread)

As I tell new employees at orientation, "If you have any questions please ask them. The only bad question is the one you don't ask."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It isn't actually very bounded, if you remain purely focused on accuracy, and it isn't actually about accuracy if you look at what parts actually did remain relatively bounded.

And they even broke at least half the principles presented in that page. Everyone does advance at the same rate (proficiency, ability score increases), and huge accuracy bonuses are not permitted—and any that appear get widely criticized for being inappropriate.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The majority of RPGs don't actually worry as much about "balance" as D&D does, because they recognize that RPGs are a game where balance is actually kind of unimportant.

Uh, okay. That doesn't actually reflect anything I've seen in game design.

 

[Charlaquin]

And they even broke at least half the principles presented in that page. Everyone does advance at the same rate (proficiency, ability score increases),

To be fair, different classes’ attack bonuses did increase at different rates for the majority of the playtest, only becoming unified when they decided to roll attack bonus and skill/tool proficiency bonus together into a singular proficiency bonus. Initially skill/tool proficiency had just been a flat +3.

and huge accuracy bonuses are not permitted—and any that appear get widely criticized for being inappropriate.

Yeah, turns out if you design your system not to expect big accuracy bonuses, big accuracy bonuses end up breaking your system in unexpected ways. It’s just that the early 5e design team was more comfortable with the idea of the system being breakable.

 

[Lanefan]

I also was never quite sure exactly what the term "bounded accuracy" was supposed to mean, but the explanations given above tell me it's just another term for the "flatter power curve" I noticed long ago that 5e has, in comparison to 4e and, more so, 3e.

 

[Rystefn]

"Bounded accuracy" is marketing speak for "the numbers are lower than other 3e clones." That's it. Pretending it's an actual design paradigm is hilarious. The phrase exists as an excuse for the lower numbers to try to mollify the 3e fans they were trying to lure back.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am not sure what edition(s) of D&D the OP is familiar with, but when anyone asks about why BA is good, I point back to mid-to high level 3.x D&D where attack bonuses, saving throw bonuses, skill bonuses, armor classes, and DCs would be in the 20s, 30s, or even 40s or higher. When you have a bonus to a d20 roll that is greater than the rolling range of the die itself, the die roll seems superfluous.

This sort of thing was rarely an issue in the TSR editions, and thus likely isn't an issue in the OSR games based on them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, they don't NEED to talk about it in the Core Books because it is not important for anyone to know about to PLAY the game. However, it's an interesting design philosophy, and SHOULD be talked about more openly, like all their design decisions.

I disagree. I think its helpful and much appreciated if some designer insight was included in the books. In particular, I'd love to know what the intended style of play is, and what the game is doing to facilitate it. Every game should do this.

 

[Maxperson]

For quite a while I've seen the term bounded accuracy thrown around but I don't think I ever saw someone explain exactly what that was. Fair enough. I decided I wanted to know, so I put on my big boy pants and Googled the heck out of it. There's even an entry on the D&D Wiki. But then the wiki says BA has nothing to do with skill checks even though other people totally say it has something to do with skill checks. Not sure what that means. What I can gather is that BA has something to do with how difficult it is to hit something in combat. Is that it? Someone explain it to me as if I recently suffered a head injury. What's good about it? What are the drawbacks?

I almost called it Bonded Accuracy in the thread title.

It's super easy. Monsters and NPCs are built within certain bounds that take nothing else into consideration. Magic items are not considered. PCs stats, abilities and items are not considered. It doesn't matter whether the PC has -10 to hit or +1000, a CR 9 creature's accuracy will fall within the boundaries established by the DMG. PCs on the other hand have no such bounds.

 

[Maxperson]

One thing that bothers me about bounded accuracy is that if it is such a major design philosophy of 5E D&D, as far as I remember it is not mentioned or at least briefly explained in the three 2014 core books, is it? I don't recall it being in them.

Bounded accuracy only applies to the DM side of things. If you look at the monster creation section of the DMG you can see the philosophy at work. When you create a monster everything you need to determine accuracy, damage, abilities, hit points, etc. are contained in that section, and it doesn't look at any other part of the game. It all falls within the established boundaries.