Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8180134" data-attributes="member: 6987520">Sure, I have no problem agreeing to disagree. I value your feedback and discussion, as always, and respect your view even if I don't agree with it.Oh, honestly I wasn't even aware of that--I thought maybe it was something you used in your game.Sure, like I said they change some monsters (including more HP) to reflect what they want those monsters to represent in 5E (and 3E/ 4E as well). My point is, and continues to be, if you increase AC (which strains bounded accuracy and its design principle) you can decrease HP (remove bloat) and still have very good balance compared to the lower AC/higher HP motto of 5E.FWIW, since AD&amp;D, PCs have seen HP bloat as well due to no longer capping HD at name level (9-11ish). Compared to AD&amp;D, we have likewise seen (in general) a reduction of AC comparatively for PCs due to weaker magic items. It wasn't hard in AD&amp;D to get the equivalent 5E AC of 22 or higher, and by high levels (13+) you could easily be looking at an equal AC of 25-30.This all ties back to the mindset of 5E development: we want more hits and less whiffs! Let's have attacks succeed 65-70% of the time, and compensate with more HP (bloat). Since they didn't want the treadmill effect but wanted more hits, the answer was bounded accuracy. I'll close with this (because then I have to leave for work LOL) that this is not my preferred mindset and I like hitting less and making the game faster to play. I don't mind the concept of BA, but think it would have been better served by a limit closer to 40 in theory instead of the ideal 30 limit. shrug.Now, back to the actual topic of the thread.... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 8180134, member: 6987520"] Sure, I have no problem agreeing to disagree. I value your feedback and discussion, as always, and respect your view even if I don't agree with it. Oh, honestly I wasn't even aware of that--I thought maybe it was something you used in your game. Sure, like I said they change some monsters (including more HP) to reflect what they want those monsters to represent in 5E (and 3E/ 4E as well). My point is, and continues to be, if you increase AC (which strains bounded accuracy and its design principle) you can decrease HP (remove bloat) and still have very good balance compared to the lower AC/higher HP motto of 5E. FWIW, since AD&D, PCs have seen HP bloat as well due to no longer capping HD at name level (9-11ish). Compared to AD&D, we have likewise seen (in general) a reduction of AC comparatively for PCs due to weaker magic items. It wasn't hard in AD&D to get the equivalent 5E AC of 22 or higher, and by high levels (13+) you could easily be looking at an equal AC of 25-30. This all ties back to the mindset of 5E development: we want more hits and less whiffs! Let's have attacks succeed 65-70% of the time, and compensate with more HP (bloat). Since they didn't want the treadmill effect but wanted more hits, the answer was bounded accuracy. I'll close with this (because then I have to leave for work LOL) that this is not my preferred mindset and I like hitting less and making the game faster to play. I don't [I]mind[/I] the concept of BA, but think it would have been better served by a limit closer to 40 in theory instead of the ideal 30 limit. [I]shrug[/I]. Now, back to the actual topic of the thread.... :D [/QUOTE]

Verification