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

[Minigiant]

I didn't say they're good at everything, I said they're bad at nothing. And already by tenth level the level bonus catches up with the training bonus. A tenth level character is as good at everything than a first level character at their trained skills. A 30th level character is as good at everything than a 20th level character at their trained skills. By standards of normalish people the high or even medium level characters are insanely skilled, overwhelmingly better at literally any skill than mundane people who have trained that skill. That is just bizarre to me.

If you don't have training, level appropriate DCs and ACs are too high for you.

 

[TwoSix]

If you don't have training, level appropriate DCs and ACs are too high for you.

But that isn't the argument. @Crimson Longinus is saying that a level 11 wizard who's never picked a lock before is still better at lockpicking than a level 1 rogue who's trained at lockpicking, assuming the same level 1 lock. The argument is on simulationist grounds about what leveling means in the fiction; the fact that a level 11 wizard wouldn't normally be in a situation to pick a level 1 lock isn't relevant for this use case.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Well, know how much Peter Paladin sucks at stealth, is he really trying that often, and how much is he really learning on the limited attempts he makes while adventuring? Since he doesn't dedicate anything to improving his stealth (either through proficiency or raising DEX), why should he really get better to any significant level?

How often does he try, who knows?

Is he in a party with one or more professional sneaks who could give him pointers (reasonably likely), who knows?

The point is it doesn't matter how much effort he puts into it in-game. It doesn't matter who his party members are or what he does with them. Without explicit investment of an ASI or character level(s), they stay just incapable at sneaking past a goblin scout from level 1 to 20.

I'm kind of ok with him remaining bad at stealth, but I see an argument for some kind of growth to reflect that hey, maybe they didn't train, but they at least picked up a couple tricks along the way.

I'd expect the same thing with every skill. Your barbarian may not be a lore master, but he has been in a disproportionate number of ancient temples compared to the broader population. Your wizard may not be ready to take the mat vs Royce Gracie, but they've had to wrestle to get away from creatures plenty of times. Your ranger is no diplomat, but they've often been a party to negotiations with royalty, bandits and dragons.

I don't know what the right size for such a bonus would be, maybe, just enough to keep the target die roll somewhere around consistent with scaling DCs.. but "more than nothing" seems like a reasonable start.

 

[Maxperson]

The entire subdiscussion of flattening stats was about progression which is the rate of growth.

Which has nothing to do with bounding. It was an idea to reduce the ballooning, which is a different problem from growth.

 

[ezo]

How often does he try, who knows?

Is he in a party with one or more professional sneaks who could give him pointers (reasonably likely), who knows?

Exactly. And if he's paying attention and trying to learn how to sneak effectively, in mechanics he should (somehow) gain proficiency in Stealth. More to such a point, things like using downtime activities to "gain training" in a skill should be part of the game--but all they give us is learning a language or tool (in general).

The point is it doesn't matter how much effort he puts into it in-game. It doesn't matter who his party members are or what he does with them. Without explicit investment of an ASI or character level(s), they stay just incapable at sneaking past a goblin scout from level 1 to 20.

Again, exactly.

For example, I've played golf on and off for over four decades. Frankly, I'm really not much better at it now than I was back in my teens. I'm probably better in some ways, worse in others. My point is I could never claim I've practiced or trained in golf in any consistant fashion--- I haven't invested into it. So, I don't expect to really be any better.

A paladin in heavy armor should rarely be trying to stealth (without serious help!). He should be like me with golf. Maybe slightly better, but probably not even to the point of getting a +1 bonus.

This is why, for example, if a group of PCs is trying to stealth, I prefer the group check mechanics. If half of them succeed, the party does. This is how I assume the skilled PCs are giving pointers and helping the unskilled.

I'm kind of ok with him remaining bad at stealth, but I see an argument for some kind of growth to reflect that hey, maybe they didn't train, but they at least picked up a couple tricks along the way.

I'd expect the same thing with every skill. Your barbarian may not be a lore master, but he has been in a disproportionate number of ancient temples compared to the broader population. Your wizard may not be ready to take the mat vs Royce Gracie, but they've had to wrestle to get away from creatures plenty of times. Your ranger is no diplomat, but they've often been a party to negotiations with royalty, bandits and dragons.

I don't know what the right size for such a bonus would be, maybe, just enough to keep the target die roll somewhere around consistent with scaling DCs.. but "more than nothing" seems like a reasonable start.

Oh, I see the argument for it as well. IMO and IME, usually the bonus is so minor it really has little impact (so why bother?) or is big enough that it makes too much of a difference, and makes high level PCs without proficiency just as good (or better) than a low-level PC with proficiency. For me, anyway, either is not an acceptable option.

Granted, I don't care if someone else does implement some sort of improvement system, it just isn't my thing in general.

 

[Minigiant]

Which has nothing to do with bounding. It was an idea to reduce the ballooning, which is a different problem from growth.

D&D went from a base 20 levels of warrior accuracy from +1 to +20 in one edition to +2 to +12 in the next edition to +2 to +6 today.

You and I just disagree if the increase in monster HP was correlated to this.

WOTC decided to have CR 5 monsters to have dang near 100 HP or more but expected you to use multiple of them at level 15 even through the resources in the HP gets few builds to damage that high.

 

[Maxperson]

D&D went from a base 20 levels of warrior accuracy from +1 to +20 in one edition to +2 to +12 in the next edition to +2 to +6 today.

You and I just disagree if the increase in monster HP was correlated to this.

It may correlate, but correlation does not equal causation. They may even have considered the increase in relation to the contraction of bonuses, but they didn't have to inflate hit points the way that they did. Ultimately, it was a balance decision that is not truly connected to the contraction of bonuses. You can inflate or contract either one independently.

 

[ezo]

D&D went from a base 20 levels of warrior accuracy from +1 to +20 in one edition to +2 to +12 in the next edition to +2 to +6 today.

Quick question: will you ever stop conflating "accuracy" to "attack bonus due to level"?

I mean, because if you won't, then I'll stop reading your responses.

Thanks.

 

[Vaalingrade]

For example, I've played golf on and off for over four decades. Frankly, I'm really not much better at it now than I was back in my teens. I'm probably better in some ways, worse in others. My point is I could never claim I've practiced or trained in golf in any consistant fashion--- I haven't invested into it. So, I don't expect to really be any better.

Are you a legendary warrior in a fantasy story though?

I'm not saying you aren't. I don't know you after all.

 

[Lanefan]

You can't overbound something like hit points. It's bounded ACCURACY. Hit points has nothing to do with how accurate you are.

No, but they do dictate how many times you have to be accurate in any given combat.

You are claiming that because accuracy is bounded, that they had to increase hit points and damage. That's incorrect. They could have left them lower, say cutting the damage and hit point increase in half. The number of goblins needed to challenge the 20th level party would remain the same. It would still feel like D&D, but would be balanced differently.

Hit points and damage are so high because of their choice to balance the game around resource attrition, not because of bounded accuracy.

Hit points and damage could be lowered in tandem, to keep the same feel yet also reduce the sheer size of the numbers.

Or you could go to a less-accurate setup with far fewer hit points: you only need to hit once or twice to get through them but that process of hitting once or twice might take a while, thus further randomizing the impact of any given combat in that you might get lucky and knock off a foe in one round but might get unlucky and have it take 6 or 8 rounds during which time the foes get to fight back.

Yes this means more whiffing. No I don't have any sympathy for those who will howl about such.