Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 9284737" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Well, yeah, with the right items and build choices, you can make your character impossible for some monsters to hit, but that doesn’t just happen automatically as a result of gaining enough levels, which is I think what they meant about bonuses “not being an assumed part of character advancement.” Also, while you can push your bonuses high enough that you can’t miss, you should never encounter a monster you can’t hit. As far as I’m aware, the highest AC on a WotC-published monster is 23, which any 1st level character&nbsp; can hit as long as they’re proficient with their weapon and don’t have a penalty to the relevant ability score. There’s a difference though between building a character that monsters struggle to hit, and the situation you had in 3e and 4e, where every character who lived long enough would get to the point where some monsters literally could not hit them ever. With bounded accuracy you can still achieve the fantasy of being nearly untouchable, but doing so requires a commitment of resources, and even if you do commit those resources, you still have to respect the fact that enough kobolds (or whatever) could still take you down.I think it’s pretty indisputable that WotC did a poor job of communicating what they were going for with the whole “bounded accuracy” thing. I do think they succeeded in what they were actually trying to do, but even at the time there was a lot of confusion about what that was. And it’s really only meaningful in contrast to 3e and 4e, so to newer players it’s got to be even more unclear what this “bounded accuracy” waffle is even about. PF2 is probably the more relevant point of comparison for players who started with 5e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 9284737, member: 6779196"] Well, yeah, with the right items and build choices, you can make your character impossible for some monsters to hit, but that doesn’t just happen automatically as a result of gaining enough levels, which is I [I]think[/I] what they meant about bonuses “not being an assumed part of character advancement.” Also, while you can push your bonuses high enough that you can’t [I]miss,[/I] you should never encounter a monster you can’t [I]hit[/I]. As far as I’m aware, the highest AC on a WotC-published monster is 23, which any 1st level character can hit as long as they’re proficient with their weapon and don’t have a penalty to the relevant ability score. There’s a difference though between building a character that monsters struggle to hit, and the situation you had in 3e and 4e, where every character who lived long enough would get to the point where some monsters literally could not hit them ever. With bounded accuracy you can still achieve the fantasy of being nearly untouchable, but doing so requires a commitment of resources, and even if you do commit those resources, you still have to respect the fact that enough kobolds (or whatever) [I]could[/I] still take you down. I think it’s pretty indisputable that WotC did a poor job of communicating what they were going for with the whole “bounded accuracy” thing. I do think they succeeded in what they were actually trying to do, but even at the time there was a lot of confusion about what that was. And it’s really only meaningful in contrast to 3e and 4e, so to newer players it’s got to be even more unclear what this “bounded accuracy” waffle is even about. PF2 is probably the more relevant point of comparison for players who started with 5e. [/QUOTE]

Verification