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

[tetrasodium]

I've run several campaigns that have gone up into the mid-teen levels; I've never had combat become a slog.

I don't use official monsters very much, but as a basic rule of thumb, a mob of lower level monsters should collectively be able to do enough damage to drop a character with d6 HD of the party level from full HP to 0 in one turn, assuming an AC of 12 + party's proficiency bonus.

If the party doesn't spend a few actions clearing them out or keeping them CCed, then they're going to give the party a bad time. Especially since you spend a lot of combat at high levels at very low HP totals (thanks to death saves and healing word), it only takes a couple of mook hits at the wrong time to make you miss a turn.

I too "have run several campaigns", my suspicion is that makes for an utterly average baseline here rather than some standout pinnacle of experience to brag about.
Bounded accuracy contributes key linchpins & foundational cornerstones that directly contributes to the collapse of the system's math in late tier2 to early tier3. Generally by 7-8 PCs are so far above the curve that monsters and the overly bounded skill system fails to meet them in any way other than pointless encounters or frustrating slogs. If the GM uses higher CD monsters for a more difficult encounter to counter the collapse it just gets worse as different classes are impacted to different extents (or not at all) it both accelerates tge decline and creates new problems on top of the still present ones they were hoping to solve. The choices in that decline are to embrace the slof of endless pointless encounters or resist it with fewer absolute slogs of rockemsockemrobots with giant bags of hp.

 

[Ondath]

I didn't know about these rules. Upthread @Crimson Longinus was saying that 5e uses the same stat block and resolution process for a given creature in all cases, but from what you're saying here that's not the case!

Mind you it's an optional rule at the DMG - but I think it was obvious to the designers as well that having more than, say, 8-10 stat blocks of moderate complexity as minions and roll damage for each of them would be too much to ask for a DM. Level Up also has a similar thing where it transforms the group's attack into a Dexterity save, but I honestly think the math in that one is borked and deals too little damage for what it is supposed to do.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Fair, but your last sentence condemns those who wish to play high level but are unhappy with the system as is.
I've made it work with house-rules but I've also messed up sometimes. Our table is currently playing high-level.

True. But the game can't be everything to everyone. I will say though I'm glad to see you've been willing to just make high-level play work for you via house-ruling, rather than not play it but spend all your time bemoaning the fact that you aren't.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think you are boh missing what the conversation is about.

No, I understand that. Your statement still seemed inaccurate, even understanding that context.

 

[Shardstone]

I have never seen a positive affirmation about what D&D actually is unless it's a piece of minutia that very, very few people notice, let alone care about.

Oh! Dnd is about bronze to silver to gold coin transfers!

 

[Thomas Shey]

2e is quite slow in its progression, if played as written. The xp needed per level are much the same as 1e only there's no xp given for treasure; and as by RAW most of your xp in 1e come from your loot, 2e advances at a crawl* by comparison. Finding nifty magic items can change this, but that's more a DM-style thing.

Though I'll note someone using the standard treasure tables is going to give out a lot of magic, so they have to decide not to do that for it to be otherwise. In other words, I think its fair to say that the default is a lot of magic items over time.

 

[Maxperson]

Sorry, I don't feel that gaining +3 AC over the course of fifteen friggin' levels is "progress."

It just doesn't change often enough to feel like it matters, and the size of that change ensures that it effectively doesn't.

The same creatures that would be hitting me an awful lot 10 levels ago will still hit me an awful lot now.

I'm not sure where you are getting that from. I gave no specifics. The point I was making was that you don't have to balloon things like hit points in order for the game to function and progress to be made.

 

[Maxperson]

+10 to attack over 10 levels for a fighter is a lot.
+6 to attack over 10 levels for a clerics is a lot.

Especially since AC doesn't increase.

What do you mean it doesn't increase? In AD&D AC absolutely increased the more powerful monster became. Also, fighters needed that +10, because no spells or special abilities. So no, those bonuses, even for clerics, was not a lot.

Not only is the +10 not a lot, but if you drop the fighter to say +6, he's going to miss more often than not, even when using a +3 weapon and getting lucky and having a 17 strength. "Hear the mighty 10th level fighter roar with his inability to hit more often than not!" RAWR!!!

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not a hundred, but around 30-40. Tried to use gnolls against my high-level PCs. They needed 17+ to hit the heroes, and did negligible damage when they did. I can definitely see how theoretically they are a threat, but in reality they were just somewhat annoying; really the whole fight was a waste of (a lot of!) time. No PC had GWM, so they weren't quite dropping them with one hit either.

Tried it again with bugbears, same kind of result.

I like the idea of BA meaning monsters stay as a threat but that ends up being white-room theory; it feels very different when actually played out.

That's probably why games really committed to that idea don't vary hit points much from start to finish, and represent defense in other ways.

 

[TwoSix]

I too "have run several campaigns", my suspicion is that makes for an utterly average baseline here rather than some standout pinnacle of experience to brag about.

Actually, polls taken here, as well as the content of many threads over the past 10 years, indicates that play above the upper Tier 2 category (levels 8-10 or so) is relatively rare, even among the many experienced DMs that are the core posters here.

I in no way claim any particular expertise, other than having run a few dozen sessions in the Tier 3 range (11-16) and having some facility with the system math.

Bounded accuracy contributes key linchpins & foundational cornerstones that directly contributes to the collapse of the system's math in late tier2 to early tier3. Generally by 7-8 PCs are so far above the curve that monsters and the overly bounded skill system fails to meet them in any way other than pointless encounters or frustrating slogs. If the GM uses higher CD monsters for a more difficult encounter to counter the collapse it just gets worse as different classes are impacted to different extents (or not at all) it both accelerates tge decline and creates new problems on top of the still present ones they were hoping to solve. The choices in that decline are to embrace the slof of endless pointless encounters or resist it with fewer absolute slogs of rockemsockemrobots with giant bags of hp.

If you're arguing that the entire CR system, as well as the system of resource attrition, don't work well to provide a core game play loop of skill/challenge-based play, then I'd agree with you.

I just don't think BA is really the root cause of the issue. The opposite of BA is "Level makes all the modifiers go up really high"; I don't see a way in which that fixes the core issues. It just promotes a different type of fantasy.