Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Explain Bounded Accuracy to Me (As if I Was Five)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 9284342" data-attributes="member: 15538"><p>In many ways, this is a return to form for D&D. If you look at, say, the Rules Cyclopedia, and other classic editions of D&D, Armor Class is presented as a matrix. Modifiers were relatively small and few. Fighters got an increase in their chance to-hit most levels (each level, when you get to AD&D), and by high level could hit the AC of most monsters. Only when you got into things like demons, angels, and very old dragons did you see AC comparable to plate mail +3 and a +1 or +2 shield. </p><p>Contrast that to D&D 3e, where a Dire Bear, being CR 7, had a "natural armor" bonus of +7, the same bonus granted by half-plate armor. An adult red dragon has an AC of 29, which is 12 points higher than average person wearing the best-nonmagical armor. It's AC reflects a value twice that of even magical plate armor. This is a cinch for the attacking fighter, who might have a to-hit bonus of +30 or more, but is much harder for the rogue or monk, whose base attack bonus doesn't grow as fast. If the wizard has to resort to a crossbow, they essentially can't hit. </p><p>So in 5e, pretty much every "tough" creature, until you hit Challenge ratings higher than 20, has an AC between 12 and 21. Likewise, the proficiency bonus for PCs goes from +2 to +6. Even someone with a flat +2 proficiency bonus can hit an AC of 21 (they need a 19), while someone with +6 bonus and +5 strength and a +3 weapon has a +14, and might still miss (they need a 5). So the two scales are both pretty "flat" already, but it also means that a fighter and a wizard have the same basic "to-hit." So in 5e, you become more powerful through an increasing emphasis, like Strength and special Fighter abilities for melee, or Intelligence for wizards. But the main differentiation between low and high level characters, and monsters, is hit points and raw damage output.</p><p>Arguably, while 3e got too unbalanced, 5e might be a little too flat. But the game is playable, balance is pretty easy to enforce, and almost all encounters involve at least some risk or danger. It's not as true in 5e as it was in classic D&D that a group of mid level characters could gang up on a powerful dragon, but it's more true in 5e than it was in 3e. This is especially important for set pieces, where you want a boss (more powerful than the PCs individually) and minions. The boss should be a higher grade of enemy than they usually face, but shouldn't be mathematically overwhelming; the minions are trivial, but shouldn't just be a fancier way of indicating "difficult terrain". </p><p></p><p>5e mostly addressed "bounded accuracy" by making hit points and damage output fairly linear, keeping base bonuses fairly flat and allowing specialized gear and traits to make the difference, and capping the game pretty firmly at 20th level PCs, with Challenge 21 to 30 representing truly extraordinary foes that would never be trivialized. </p><p></p><p>It doesn't entirely "work" but it keeps the game together, especially in those crucial levels from about 6th to 12th, when you want a wide variety of both mundane and monstrous foes. When I say it doesn't entirely work, I mean there are quirks, like how NPC warriors tend to have big piles of hit points for the beating they are about to take, very different than the traits of PCs.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pawsplay, post: 9284342, member: 15538"] In many ways, this is a return to form for D&D. If you look at, say, the Rules Cyclopedia, and other classic editions of D&D, Armor Class is presented as a matrix. Modifiers were relatively small and few. Fighters got an increase in their chance to-hit most levels (each level, when you get to AD&D), and by high level could hit the AC of most monsters. Only when you got into things like demons, angels, and very old dragons did you see AC comparable to plate mail +3 and a +1 or +2 shield. Contrast that to D&D 3e, where a Dire Bear, being CR 7, had a "natural armor" bonus of +7, the same bonus granted by half-plate armor. An adult red dragon has an AC of 29, which is 12 points higher than average person wearing the best-nonmagical armor. It's AC reflects a value twice that of even magical plate armor. This is a cinch for the attacking fighter, who might have a to-hit bonus of +30 or more, but is much harder for the rogue or monk, whose base attack bonus doesn't grow as fast. If the wizard has to resort to a crossbow, they essentially can't hit. So in 5e, pretty much every "tough" creature, until you hit Challenge ratings higher than 20, has an AC between 12 and 21. Likewise, the proficiency bonus for PCs goes from +2 to +6. Even someone with a flat +2 proficiency bonus can hit an AC of 21 (they need a 19), while someone with +6 bonus and +5 strength and a +3 weapon has a +14, and might still miss (they need a 5). So the two scales are both pretty "flat" already, but it also means that a fighter and a wizard have the same basic "to-hit." So in 5e, you become more powerful through an increasing emphasis, like Strength and special Fighter abilities for melee, or Intelligence for wizards. But the main differentiation between low and high level characters, and monsters, is hit points and raw damage output. Arguably, while 3e got too unbalanced, 5e might be a little too flat. But the game is playable, balance is pretty easy to enforce, and almost all encounters involve at least some risk or danger. It's not as true in 5e as it was in classic D&D that a group of mid level characters could gang up on a powerful dragon, but it's more true in 5e than it was in 3e. This is especially important for set pieces, where you want a boss (more powerful than the PCs individually) and minions. The boss should be a higher grade of enemy than they usually face, but shouldn't be mathematically overwhelming; the minions are trivial, but shouldn't just be a fancier way of indicating "difficult terrain". 5e mostly addressed "bounded accuracy" by making hit points and damage output fairly linear, keeping base bonuses fairly flat and allowing specialized gear and traits to make the difference, and capping the game pretty firmly at 20th level PCs, with Challenge 21 to 30 representing truly extraordinary foes that would never be trivialized. It doesn't entirely "work" but it keeps the game together, especially in those crucial levels from about 6th to 12th, when you want a wide variety of both mundane and monstrous foes. When I say it doesn't entirely work, I mean there are quirks, like how NPC warriors tend to have big piles of hit points for the beating they are about to take, very different than the traits of PCs. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Explain Bounded Accuracy to Me (As if I Was Five)
Top