How to bound the bounded accuracy in magic items for 1D&D?

[Horwath]

Bounded accuracy in 5E works very good. Most of the time.

Problems start with +X items for attacks, ACs, saves and DCs.

Sure, magic items are optional, but people do love them. And DMs like to design and hand them out.
Also every published adventure has them. So it is hard to keep them out of the game.


Instead of +X to attack and +X to damage, weapons should give +1d6 damage per X.
That is, a +2 weapon should add +2d6 damage per attack.

Magic armor should reduce all damage taken.
Damage reduction of 2 per +X of former AC bonus seems OK, too much DR and it would make small attacks non-issue.

for items that raise DC and spell attack, +1d6 per damage/healing roll of the spell could be enough. or scalable with spell levels:
+1d6 per former +X for cantrips and spell levels 1&2
+2d6 per former +X for spell level for spell levels 3,4&5
+3d6 per former +X for spell level for spell levels 6,7&8, and
+4d6 per former +X for spell level 9

I.E.
+2 bloodwell vial would give sorcerer +2d6 damage for firebolt cantrip or burning hands,
+4d6 for 3rd level fireball
+6d6 for 6th level upcasted fireball, and
+8d6 for 9th level upcasted fireball.


non damaging/healing spells could have their duration increased instead. If necessary at all.

1min spells would add 1 round per +X
10min spells would add 1 min per +X
1hr or longer spells would add 1hr per +X to max of 24hrs


all other items with +X AC or saves should be removed.


Cloak/ring of resistance/protection could be:
after a short rest pick a saving throw you are not proficient.
you gain proficiency in that save while you are attune to this item or you change type of save on next rest.

 

[rules.mechanic]

There's also a bit of an issue from the increasing number of abilities and effects that can give bonuses (usually a bonus die) to d20 tests. We've started playtesting reduced stacking:

• Attack rolls:
  • Only your own “always on” effects stack (e.g. Foe Slayer, Fighting style: archery +2, etc)
  • Other bonuses (from others, or limited use, or with durations) don't. Just use the highest roll/value (e.g. fixed bonuses like Sacred Weapon, Guided Strike, War God’s Blessing, Focused Aim, certain Epic Boons, etc; or dice rolls like Bless, Emboldening Bond, Bardic Inspiration, Precision Attack, Bend Luck, Favored by the Gods, certain Epic Boons, etc)
• Saves (same):
  • Only your own “always on” effects stack (e.g. Paladin's own Aura)
  • Other bonuses don't. Just use the highest roll/value (e.g. Resistance, Bardic Inspiration, Flash of Inspiration, Favored by the Gods, Paladin's aura on others, Bless, Bladesong, Emboldening Bond, etc)
• Ability check (same):
  • Only your own “always on” effects stack (e.g. Paladin's own Aura)
  • Other bonuses don't. Just use the highest roll/value (e.g. Guidance, Bardic Inspiration, Paladin's aura on others, Bless, Blade Song, Emboldening Bond, etc)
• Equipment:
  • Bonuses to d20 tests from equipment (yours or others) don't stack. Just use the highest roll/value.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Back in 2e someone had made a (homebrew or maybe early 3pp) rules for 'hackmaster' weapons. Each weapon had a +x to hit but delt damage equal to the plus as weapon dice... (I don't think I am explaining this well)

so a Longsword normal long sword deals 1d8/1d10 (small and medium/large+) and a +1 weapon gets +1 to hit but no additional damage... BUT a +2 would get a +2 to hit and deal 2d8/2d10 damage... meaning the big +5 hack master longsword would have +5 to hit and deal 5d8/5d10 damage.

In 3e we ported it over. and we didn't port that over to 4e or 5e... although I do think I should.

 

[Pauln6]

The game is not really balanced for magical items. Personally I would just make everything +0 or +1 with special abilities and then stand alone +1 or +2.

If you are going to allow bonuses from magical armour and shields to stack then shields should require attunement. The system needs to be balanced so that a permanent AC25 is only achievable with magic.

Rings of Protection should not stack with magic armour but I'm unconvinced that they are good enough to requireattunement (and bring back cloaks of protection for unarmored characters). Bracers of Defence need clarification as well. They should probably stack with Rings of Protection but not armour.

Alternatively, maximum AC in 1e was -10. I'm not sure why they didn't officially cap AC at 25.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Alternatively, maximum AC in 1e was -10. I'm not sure why they didn't officially cap AC at 25.

TBH I think AC is not given enough range... 10- -10 is a 20pt range but we don't do 10-30 really (and in 2e some monsters went up to -12) I wish more monster had 23-26 ACs

 

[Charlaquin]

Just ditch +X bonuses and give magic items actually interesting features.

 

[Clint_L]

Yeah, AC in 5e is notorious for scaling poorly, being super powerful at low levels and almost a non-factor at higher levels.

 

[tetrasodium]

There have been damage reducing armor systems in the past & they never really caught on well. The only time I've seen damage reducing armor work well was in systems where you have opposed rolls with weapons & armor adding to each side with the amount of overflow being the ultimate damage taken. That is unlikely to work in d&d whiteout massive rewrites.

As to bounded accuracy itself... rm -rf on the concept would be a good start

 

[Pauln6]

TBH I think AC is not given enough range... 10- -10 is a 20pt range but we don't do 10-30 really (and in 2e some monsters went up to -12) I wish more monster had 23-26 ACs

The low AC of monsters is a feature, not a bug. It's not fun for players to keep missing and AC30 would be really difficult to hit. There is also potential for DMs to 'enhance' monsters by upping dex, adding potions or spell effects, lair effects, parrying, and legendary actions.

That said, I do think there is room for improvement. I thought the official write up of the quickling was really sloppy. They totally missed the mark for hard to hit and easy to kill if you do hit. They were simplified down to pointlessness for me.

If you want to expand the AC range to the point where every level 1 character needs a natural 20 to hit, you have gone too far. Just play a game without bounded accuracy instead.

 

[payn]

I dont have a problem with a bonus 1D6. Maybe it bumps to D12 on a crit even. I do not want to see 2D6, 3D6, 4D6, etc.. I think to keep it bounded you need to keep the power level within reach as well.

Just ditch +X bonuses and give magic items actually interesting features.

This. Make magic items do more interesting things and less numbers.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The low AC of monsters is a feature, not a bug.

do people not understand that this is not an answer to a complaint... like if it was a feature to my group why would I complain?

It's not fun for players to keep missing and AC30 would be really difficult to hit.

yes having a few hard to hit ACs would be the point... at level 17+ a bonus to hit can be a 20 (if it's str maybe higher) stat +6 and it can be as high as +3 magic but lets call it +1...so +12 you hit a 20 on an 8 and a 30 on a 18 and that is not min max

There is also potential for DMs to 'enhance' monsters by upping dex, adding potions or spell effects, lair effects, parrying, and legendary actions.

of course you can change things

That said, I do think there is room for improvement. I thought the official write up of the quickling was really sloppy. They totally missed the mark for hard to hit and easy to kill if you do hit. They were simplified down to pointlessness for me.

If you want to expand the AC range to the point where every level 1 character needs a natural 20 to hit, you have gone too far. Just play a game without bounded accuracy instead.

would every level 1 character need a 20 to hit everyone or only the absolut hight of AC?

if that same to hit was a 16 stat +2 prof and no magic you get +5 at first level meaning you already hit a 20 on a 15+ to start

 

[Shiroiken]

In general, I've not found magic items to break BA much, since they only go up to +3. However, one huge problem is +x shields, since they get to stack with magic armor, so I simply never use them. I overall agree that it's better to use smaller bonuses with more interesting abilities than just "moar power."

 

[DeviousQuail]

One other thing I would add to this is the lack of "Treat rolls <X as X" effects for a system using bounded accuracy. There are a few like Reliable Talent, Divine Portent, GWF, etc. but it seems like a really easy way to alter the numbers without changing the maximum. I know the advantage/disadvantage system does this to some extent already. It's one of the better things about 5e, but the cancelling and redundant nature of the system only lets you build it out so far. As an example, the Belt of the Olympian letting you treat all athletics die rolls of 1-6 as 7 wouldn't break anything. And if you demand a failure chance we can do 2-6 as 7 so that natural 1s are most likely still failures and halflings can make use of their Lucky trait.

As for +X weapons, the +X to attack rolls being treated as an expanded crit range works. For damage I just change their dice size. So d6 -> d8, d8 ->10, 2d6/1d12 -> 2d8, etc.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Low AC is a feature of 5e. When our forst time 5e DM started with adding 2 AC to many monsters, because with his 3e gut fealing it felt to low, combata just bogged down and were quite unfun.

Admittedly it was low to mid level, so I guess, removing +x weapons is not the worst idea. I'd really hesitate to mess with AC too much. Or you need to severely cut down HP.
Maybe cut down HP and don't lower AC. But increase damage output. I'd rather use larger numbers of foes.

 

[Pauln6]

do people not understand that this is not an answer to a complaint... like if it was a feature to my group why would I complain?

yes having a few hard to hit ACs would be the point... at level 17+ a bonus to hit can be a 20 (if it's str maybe higher) stat +6 and it can be as high as +3 magic but lets call it +1...so +12 you hit a 20 on an 8 and a 30 on a 18 and that is not min max


of course you can change things

would every level 1 character need a 20 to hit everyone or only the absolut hight of AC?

if that same to hit was a 16 stat +2 prof and no magic you get +5 at first level meaning you already hit a 20 on a 15+ to start

I do agree that AC20 as a general cap for monsters is sometimes too low. Lolth had AC-10 in 1e and low hp, so why doesn't she have AC25 in 5e? But there is more focus on damage dealing than hitting or missing in 5e. So the answer is that she has a lower AC bcause she has higher hp. It's justifiable to ask if that misses the point of Lolth as she was written originally.

At low levels a 75% miss chance is pretty high though, especially if the monster is hitting you more easily and is doing more damage. I think it's important not to try and do a side by side comparison with 1e, which was low damage, low hp. Even a 40% chance to miss is quite high against something with a lot of hit points.

Gauntlets of Ogre Power and Girdles of Giant Strength are appallingly written for a bounded system. They should just really add +2 and +4 respectively and just increase the ability cap to gigantic levels. The benefit to having giant strength should be to lift heavy objects and push larger monsters rather than break bounded accuracy.

I do also think that changing expoertise to + half your ability score bonus and treat rolls of 2-4 as 5 would fulfil the brief at lower levels and cap skills in your main stat at a more manageable level IMO, while preserving expertise as cool for skills with secondary stats.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I do agree that AC20 as a general cap for monsters is sometimes too low. Lolth had AC-10 in 1e and low hp, so why doesn't she have AC25 in 5e? But there is more focus on damage dealing than hitting or missing in 5e. So the answer is that she has a lower AC bcause she has higher hp. It's justifiable to ask if that misses the point of Lolth as she was written originally.

At low levels a 75% miss chance is pretty high though, especially if the monster is hitting you more easily and is doing more damage. I think it's important not to try and do a side by side comparison with 1e, which was low damage, low hp. Even a 40% chance to miss is quite high against something with a lot of hit points.

Gauntlets of Ogre Power and Girdles of Giant Strength are appallingly written for a bounded system. They should just really add +2 and +4 respectively and just increase the ability cap to gigantic levels. The benefit to having giant strength should be to lift heavy objects and push larger monsters rather than break bounded accuracy.

I do also think that changing expoertise to + half your ability score bonus and treat rolls of 2-4 as 5 would fulfil the brief at lower levels and cap skills in your main stat at a more manageable level IMO, while preserving expertise as cool for skills with secondary stats.

Low AC, high hp is very reliable, high AC, low hp is very volatile.
I think, there is a golden middle, but they have not found it already.
I'd say, maybe something of thw order prof bonus/2 more AC seems reasonable in exchange for 20% hp.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Generally in our 5e game magic items do not give a bonus to hit, just bonus damage or effects

 

[tetrasodium]

The low AC of monsters is a feature, not a bug. It's not fun for players to keep missing and AC30 would be really difficult to hit. There is also potential for DMs to 'enhance' monsters by upping dex, adding potions or spell effects, lair effects, parrying, and legendary actions.

That said, I do think there is room for improvement. I thought the official write up of the quickling was really sloppy. They totally missed the mark for hard to hit and easy to kill if you do hit. They were simplified down to pointlessness for me.

If you want to expand the AC range to the point where every level 1 character needs a natural 20 to hit, you have gone too far. Just play a game without bounded accuracy instead.

No it's a design error and failure to math.

Look at the dmg pg274 chart, here are a few points on it (I'm not doing this 30+times.)

• cr1: 50-70hp ac13
• cr5: 131-135hp 15ac
• cr10: 106-220hp 17ac
• cr15: 226-280hp 18ac
• cr20: 356-400hp 19ac
• cr25: :581-625hp 19ac
• xr30: 806-850hp 19ac

Compare that to a hypothetical fighter at the same levels

• L1: 15str(+2) +2 prof, hits cr1 monsters on a roll of nine(9+2+2=13)
• L5: 17str(+3) +3 prof, hits cr5 monsters on a roll of ten or eleven (11+3+3 or 10+3+3+1)
• L10: 20str+5) +4 prof, hits cr10 monsters on a roll of seven or eight (8+5+4=17 or 7+5+4+1=17)
  • hits cr15 monsters on a roll of eight+ or seven+ ( 8+5+5=18 or 7+5+5+1=18
  • hits cr20 monster on a roll of nine+ or eight+ or seven+ (9+4+5+1=19 or 8+4+5+2=19)
  • hits cr25 monster on a roll of nine+ or eight+ or seven+ (9+4+5+1=19 or 8+4+5+2=19)
  • hits cr30 monster on a roll of nine+ or eight+ or seven+ (9+4+5+1=19 or 8+4+5+2=19)
• L15: 20str(+5) +5 prof, hits cr15 monsters on a roll of eight+ or seven+ or six+ (8+5+5=18 or 7+5+5+1=18 or 6+5+5+2=18)
  • hits cr20 monster on a roll of nine+ or eight+ (9+5+5=19 or 8+5+5+1=19)
  • hits cr25 monster on a roll of nine+ or eight+ (9+5+5+1=19 or 8+5+5+2=19)
  • hits cr30 on a roll on a roll of nine+ or eight+ (9+5+5+1=19 or 8+5+5+2=19)
• L20 20str(+5) +6prof, hits cr20 monster on a roll of eight+ or seven+ or si+x (8+6+5=19 or 7+6+5+1=19 or 6+6+5+2=19)
  • hits cr25 monster on a roll of eight or seven or six+ (8+6+5=19 or 7+6+5+1=19 or 6+6+5+2=19
  • hits cr30 monster on a roll of eight or seven or six+ (8+6+5=19 or 7+6+5+1=19 or 6+6+5+2=19)

This is completely broken. Removal of full/-5/-10 iterative/multi attack penalties made all attacks almost guaranteed & required monster hp values to explode because now every attack is almost guaranteed to hit & require time where everyone is bored watching bob roll damage on an almost guaranteed attack multiple times per round rather than once probably for certain then maybe be excited about more if luck is good/great depending on level to CR spread.

Spoiler: There was even a twilightzone episode about these type of odds

"It just ain't the same thing.... I belong in the other place"
"This is the other place.."

Tactics Strategy & good or bad luck no longer play a part in combat because it's just an illusion draped over what the twilight zone once described as fitting for "the other place"

 

[Pauln6]

No it's a design error and failure to math.

Look at the dmg pg274 chart, here are a few points on it (I'm not doing this 30+times.)

• cr1: 50-70hp ac13
• cr5: 131-135hp 15ac
• cr10: 106-220hp 17ac
• cr15: 226-280hp 18ac
• cr20: 356-400hp 19ac
• cr25: :581-625hp 19ac
• xr30: 806-850hp 19ac

Compare that to a hypothetical fighter at the same levels

• L1: 15str(+2) +2 prof, hits cr1 monsters on a roll of nine(9+2+2=13)
• L5: 17str(+3) +3 prof, hits cr5 monsters on a roll of ten or eleven (11+3+3 or 10+3+3+1)
• L10: 20str+5) +4 prof, hits cr10 monsters on a roll of seven or eight (8+5+4=17 or 7+5+4+1=17)
  • hits cr15 monsters on a roll of eight+ or seven+ ( 8+5+5=18 or 7+5+5+1=18
  • hits cr20 monster on a roll of nine+ or eight+ or seven+ (9+4+5+1=19 or 8+4+5+2=19)
  • hits cr25 monster on a roll of nine+ or eight+ or seven+ (9+4+5+1=19 or 8+4+5+2=19)
  • hits cr30 monster on a roll of nine+ or eight+ or seven+ (9+4+5+1=19 or 8+4+5+2=19)
• L15: 20str(+5) +5 prof, hits cr15 monsters on a roll of eight+ or seven+ or six+ (8+5+5=18 or 7+5+5+1=18 or 6+5+5+2=18)
  • hits cr20 monster on a roll of nine+ or eight+ (9+5+5=19 or 8+5+5+1=19)
  • hits cr25 monster on a roll of nine+ or eight+ (9+5+5+1=19 or 8+5+5+2=19)
  • hits cr30 on a roll on a roll of nine+ or eight+ (9+5+5+1=19 or 8+5+5+2=19)
• L20 20str(+5) +6prof, hits cr20 monster on a roll of eight+ or seven+ or si+x (8+6+5=19 or 7+6+5+1=19 or 6+6+5+2=19)
  • hits cr25 monster on a roll of eight or seven or six+ (8+6+5=19 or 7+6+5+1=19 or 6+6+5+2=19
  • hits cr30 monster on a roll of eight or seven or six+ (8+6+5=19 or 7+6+5+1=19 or 6+6+5+2=19)

This is completely broken. Removal of full/-5/-10 iterative/multi attack penalties made all attacks almost guaranteed & required monster hp values to explode because now every attack is almost guaranteed to hit & require time where everyone is bored watching bob roll damage on an almost guaranteed attack multiple times per round rather than once probably for certain then maybe be excited about more if luck is good/great depending on level to CR spread.

Spoiler: There was even a twilightzone episode about these type of odds

"It just ain't the same thing.... I belong in the other place"
"This is the other place.."

Tactics Strategy & good or bad luck no longer play a part in combat because it's just an illusion draped over what the twilight zone once described as fitting for "the other place"

Fighter damage is balanced by hitting more often. If you make it harder to hit, their damage dips compared to spells and to paladins who can boost damage significantly when they actually do hit. People complain about fighter damage appearing lacklustre as it is, even though it is top tier if you count damage that actually matters rather than overkill.

The game can never be perfectly balanced and I do think that there should be more top tier monsters with AC above 20. I couldn't understand why Quicklings weren't treated as if they are under a permanent haste spell.

 

[tetrasodium]

Fighter damage is balanced by hitting more often. If you make it harder to hit, their damage dips compared to spells and to paladins who can boost damage significantly when they actually do hit. People complain about fighter damage appearing lacklustre as it is, even though it is top tier if you count damage that actually matters rather than overkill.

The game can never be perfectly balanced and I do think that there should be more top tier monsters with AC above 20. I couldn't understand why Quicklings weren't treated as if they are under a permanent haste spell.

Yes it does but that's an oversimplification that avoids the point without addressing how deep the problem runs beyond that. Those fewer attacking options however are balanced by thing's like not adding attrib or adding fewer attrib mod instances to attacks that rest more on individual attack /save that become more unreliable. It does not end there though because monster hp is jacked dramatically to compensate for everyone hitting every time with near certainty& things like dr/sr were removed alongside things like crit range & crit multipliers on weapons so that the gm can no longer target a monster to (dis)favor a pc trying to deal many smaller attacks fewer big attacks or nukes over group enhancing/monster degrading abilities.

There is a bigger problem caused by having every attack treated the same though... That math swings both ways & now a large number of monsters are either almost totally harmless or rocks fall levels of deadly in ways that a gm is going to be hard pressed to adjust for large groups like they could by giving pcs better armor to make those later attacks much harder without totally defanging a monster as 5e causes.

From there it loops back to the twilight zone as noted because the gm lacks tools to adjust things in favor of the group they have if that group is stuck in the other place with Mister Valentine. This might work great for a very specific number of players of very specific class/archetype split at very specific levels but d&d is not in any way limited to that & the gm attempting to force it would be considered unreasonable.