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

[Krachek]

For a rapier or a short sword : You have advantage on attack rolls.
For a great axe, The 4ed Brutal 6, any roll under 6 is a 6.
Adding a single d6 to damage rolls is amazing for any weapons.

For a shield, allow an effect as the shield spell sometime per day.

Armor
allow multiple resistance to elemental damage type.
An effect similar to death ward once a day.

There is many way to avoid basic +x bonus.

 

[Pauln6]

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.

I am in the camp that players should not assume that just because there is a dragon in front of you that you are capable of fighting it. Sneaking, bluffing, or retreating should sometimes be the right approach.

That said, I do think that there are dials that can be turned up and down. Hit points are averaged. That means you can build a monster with above or below average hp. You can increase or decrease strength or constitution scores by 2 points. You can give armour, magic items (e.g. the red dragon Cirothe had swallowed a mud sorcerer tile that granted her magic resistance). You can build a lair with features for PCs or monsters to exploit.

I do think 5e needs a book of lairs with sample features or sample lairs to give examples of ways to move the dial.

We converted the Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl to 5e and my 10th -13th level PCs understood that they had no chance of trying to fight their way through. They bluffed and sneaked to the Jarl's lair, killed him, and did a deal with his wife's family for a transition of power based on some of the subplots from the 4e version.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

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"

Your mistake is looking at just the HP and AC in the DMG table, that is not how CR works. Those are baselines used for adjustments. For example, many monsters have AC higher than 19, but the DMG table only goes to 19. Similarly, no monster has 800HP, but the table goes that high. Using a tool incorrectly and calling it broken doesn’t make a lot of sense.

PS, they CR “tool” goes much deeper than just the DMG table too.

 

[tetrasodium]

Your mistake is looking at just the HP and AC in the DMG table, that is not how CR works. Those are baselines used for adjustments. For example, many monsters have AC higher than 19, but the DMG table only goes to 19. Similarly, no monster has 800HP, but the table goes that high. Using a tool incorrectly and calling it broken doesn’t make a lot of sense.

PS, they CR “tool” goes much deeper than just the DMG table too.

The mistake is yours because the existence of such monsters does not fix the problem itself. The fact that there are monsters that go higher does not change the fact that thanks to bounded accuracy the underlying math for all of it is hot garbage if the GM has a larger or higher leveled group than bounded accuracy assumes & the tools to provide that GM the ability to make finessed nuanced changes targeting the needs of their table have been removed. It does not help if monsters like tiamat exist that need a twelve or fourteen rather than a six or eight...

tiamat has a +19 to hit and a mere 615hp. A five player group will pulp her in a couple rounds. A high level group is going to have at least +1 weapons if not better. If they all 5 players hit it works out to just shy of 150-200damage per round with regular attacks & cantrips giving her a lifespan of three rounds if the party doesn't bother to nova. If the 5 players take the effort to nova she will be lucky to make it through the second round. Meanwhile her +19 tohit makes her likely to hit every round for a grand total of 76 average damage per round spread across 3 attacks(24 24 &28). A 12 con wizard will have 102hp leaving them with room that is almost certain to be able to take one or two more attacks from her before the third drops them to needing to make a death save on round 3. A warlock(d8)/5 paladin(d10)/6 fighter(d10) or barbarian(d12) will have 123 144 & 165 respectively at the same level 20. Level 20 is indeed higher than nearly anything but one shots will go but those numbers do not improve much as levels go down because she's probably only going to last one or two rounds at best.

• d6 at L10 & 12 con: 52 hp
  d8 at L10 & 12 con: 63hp
  d10 at L10 & 12 con: 74hp
  d12 at L10 & 12 con: 85hp
  • Tiamat is almost guaranteed to drop one PC every round & can choose to execute tha PC or drop a different PC. next round. With a +1 weapon a PC is going to need a 15 to hit on any attack & she is guaranteed to TPK the party if she does not allow them to flee or find herself on the receiving rend of shenanigans.
  • Even giving players +3 armor & +3 weapons is unlikely to change those results because her AC is pegged against all attacks rather than just the second or third onewhere being able to hit with the first or second with a much more reliable 10 or less depending on which attack is pegged to need the 15.
• d6 at L15 & 12 con: 77hp
  d8 at L15 & 12 con: 93hp
  d10 at L15 & 12 con: 109hp
  d12 at L15 & 12 con: 125 hp
  • These PCs would need a 14 to hit with a +1 weapon but have the HP to almost certainly soak one or two full rounds & can get advantage from flanking, bless, a helpful familiar, or whatever & things go back to one towards her lasting one to three rounds
• d6 at L20 & 12 con: 102hp
  d8 at L20 & 12 con: 123hp
  d10 at L20 & 12 con: 144hp
  d12 at L20 & 12 con: 165hp
  • Same as 15th level PCs

Attack chains are all or nothing making a monster completely helpless against PCs or they are able to utterly dominate with only a razor's edge of probability spread across too few rounds to average out the highs & lows. Without no longer present subsystems like SR to encourage casters to engage in force multiplier abilities like buffs & debuffs that might turn the tides those spells are subject to the same +9 to +19 save mods as nukes leaving casters with little incentive to not go for max DPR too.

Tiamat might look like an extreme example & I'm sure that we could easily find monsters with each step along the 20-24ac spread but every single one of them will ride on that same unfun razor's edge where the GM is walking the line between a snooze of a combat with a giant bag of HP or a straight up slaughter the PCs never stood a chance on. This is entirely because the GM was robbed of system mechanics that expanded the wiggle room by providing a safety margin for good/bad luck & tactics to matter within the number of rolls likely to exist in a single combat. The razor's edge of bounded accuracy does not provide room for that margin once the group exceeds bounded accuracy.

The mere existence of monsters not bound to the table in question & other dials does not make them a solution for a problem they do not address. Bounded accuracy is too tightly bound for a specific groupsize of a specific level & it breaks down into major league champions vrs middle school playground pickup team or rodket tag with unlimited ammo

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

The mistake is yours because the existence of such monsters does not fix the problem itself. The fact that there are monsters that go higher does not change the fact that thanks to bounded accuracy the underlying math for all of it is hot garbage if the GM has a larger or higher leveled group than bounded accuracy assumes & the tools to provide that GM the ability to make finessed nuanced changes targeting the needs of their table have been removed. It does not help if monsters like tiamat exist that need a twelve or fourteen rather than a six or eight...

tiamat has a +19 to hit and a mere 615hp. A five player group will pulp her in a couple rounds. A high level group is going to have at least +1 weapons if not better. If they all 5 players hit it works out to just shy of 150-200damage per round with regular attacks & cantrips giving her a lifespan of three rounds if the party doesn't bother to nova. If the 5 players take the effort to nova she will be lucky to make it through the second round. Meanwhile her +19 tohit makes her likely to hit every round for a grand total of 76 average damage per round spread across 3 attacks(24 24 &28). A 12 con wizard will have 102hp leaving them with room that is almost certain to be able to take one or two more attacks from her before the third drops them to needing to make a death save on round 3. A warlock(d8)/5 paladin(d10)/6 fighter(d10) or barbarian(d12) will have 123 144 & 165 respectively at the same level 20. Level 20 is indeed higher than nearly anything but one shots will go but those numbers do not improve much as levels go down because she's probably only going to last one or two rounds at best.

• d6 at L10 & 12 con: 52 hp
  d8 at L10 & 12 con: 63hp
  d10 at L10 & 12 con: 74hp
  d12 at L10 & 12 con: 85hp
  • Tiamat is almost guaranteed to drop one PC every round & can choose to execute tha PC or drop a different PC. next round. With a +1 weapon a PC is going to need a 15 to hit on any attack & she is guaranteed to TPK the party if she does not allow them to flee or find herself on the receiving rend of shenanigans.
  • Even giving players +3 armor & +3 weapons is unlikely to change those results because her AC is pegged against all attacks rather than just the second or third onewhere being able to hit with the first or second with a much more reliable 10 or less depending on which attack is pegged to need the 15.
• d6 at L15 & 12 con: 77hp
  d8 at L15 & 12 con: 93hp
  d10 at L15 & 12 con: 109hp
  d12 at L15 & 12 con: 125 hp
  • These PCs would need a 14 to hit with a +1 weapon but have the HP to almost certainly soak one or two full rounds & can get advantage from flanking, bless, a helpful familiar, or whatever & things go back to one towards her lasting one to three rounds
• d6 at L20 & 12 con: 102hp
  d8 at L20 & 12 con: 123hp
  d10 at L20 & 12 con: 144hp
  d12 at L20 & 12 con: 165hp
  • Same as 15th level PCs

Attack chains are all or nothing making a monster completely helpless against PCs or they are able to utterly dominate with only a razor's edge of probability spread across too few rounds to average out the highs & lows. Without no longer present subsystems like SR to encourage casters to engage in force multiplier abilities like buffs & debuffs that might turn the tides those spells are subject to the same +9 to +19 save mods as nukes leaving casters with little incentive to not go for max DPR too.

Tiamat might look like an extreme example & I'm sure that we could easily find monsters with each step along the 20-24ac spread but every single one of them will ride on that same unfun razor's edge where the GM is walking the line between a snooze of a combat with a giant bag of HP or a straight up slaughter the PCs never stood a chance on. This is entirely because the GM was robbed of system mechanics that expanded the wiggle room by providing a safety margin for good/bad luck & tactics to matter within the number of rolls likely to exist in a single combat. The razor's edge of bounded accuracy does not provide room for that margin once the group exceeds bounded accuracy.

The mere existence of monsters not bound to the table in question & other dials does not make them a solution for a problem they do not address. Bounded accuracy is too tightly bound for a specific groupsize of a specific level & it breaks down into major league champions vrs middle school playground pickup team or rodket tag with unlimited ammo

Sorry, not invested enough in the debate to read all of this post. I stand by my statement, but for the purposes of this argument a will say “you win!”

 

[cbwjm]

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.

This was a problem I had when I sent hobgoblins against a low level party, AC 18 is quite hard to hit when the average party member has a +5 attack bonus. I ended up removing their shields to make things a bit easier and speed up combat.

 

[Pauln6]

The mistake is yours because the existence of such monsters does not fix the problem itself. The fact that there are monsters that go higher does not change the fact that thanks to bounded accuracy the underlying math for all of it is hot garbage if the GM has a larger or higher leveled group than bounded accuracy assumes & the tools to provide that GM the ability to make finessed nuanced changes targeting the needs of their table have been removed. It does not help if monsters like tiamat exist that need a twelve or fourteen rather than a six or eight...

tiamat has a +19 to hit and a mere 615hp. A five player group will pulp her in a couple rounds. A high level group is going to have at least +1 weapons if not better. If they all 5 players hit it works out to just shy of 150-200damage per round with regular attacks & cantrips giving her a lifespan of three rounds if the party doesn't bother to nova. If the 5 players take the effort to nova she will be lucky to make it through the second round. Meanwhile her +19 tohit makes her likely to hit every round for a grand total of 76 average damage per round spread across 3 attacks(24 24 &28). A 12 con wizard will have 102hp leaving them with room that is almost certain to be able to take one or two more attacks from her before the third drops them to needing to make a death save on round 3. A warlock(d8)/5 paladin(d10)/6 fighter(d10) or barbarian(d12) will have 123 144 & 165 respectively at the same level 20. Level 20 is indeed higher than nearly anything but one shots will go but those numbers do not improve much as levels go down because she's probably only going to last one or two rounds at best.

• d6 at L10 & 12 con: 52 hp
  d8 at L10 & 12 con: 63hp
  d10 at L10 & 12 con: 74hp
  d12 at L10 & 12 con: 85hp
  • Tiamat is almost guaranteed to drop one PC every round & can choose to execute tha PC or drop a different PC. next round. With a +1 weapon a PC is going to need a 15 to hit on any attack & she is guaranteed to TPK the party if she does not allow them to flee or find herself on the receiving rend of shenanigans.
  • Even giving players +3 armor & +3 weapons is unlikely to change those results because her AC is pegged against all attacks rather than just the second or third onewhere being able to hit with the first or second with a much more reliable 10 or less depending on which attack is pegged to need the 15.
• d6 at L15 & 12 con: 77hp
  d8 at L15 & 12 con: 93hp
  d10 at L15 & 12 con: 109hp
  d12 at L15 & 12 con: 125 hp
  • These PCs would need a 14 to hit with a +1 weapon but have the HP to almost certainly soak one or two full rounds & can get advantage from flanking, bless, a helpful familiar, or whatever & things go back to one towards her lasting one to three rounds
• d6 at L20 & 12 con: 102hp
  d8 at L20 & 12 con: 123hp
  d10 at L20 & 12 con: 144hp
  d12 at L20 & 12 con: 165hp
  • Same as 15th level PCs

Attack chains are all or nothing making a monster completely helpless against PCs or they are able to utterly dominate with only a razor's edge of probability spread across too few rounds to average out the highs & lows. Without no longer present subsystems like SR to encourage casters to engage in force multiplier abilities like buffs & debuffs that might turn the tides those spells are subject to the same +9 to +19 save mods as nukes leaving casters with little incentive to not go for max DPR too.

Tiamat might look like an extreme example & I'm sure that we could easily find monsters with each step along the 20-24ac spread but every single one of them will ride on that same unfun razor's edge where the GM is walking the line between a snooze of a combat with a giant bag of HP or a straight up slaughter the PCs never stood a chance on. This is entirely because the GM was robbed of system mechanics that expanded the wiggle room by providing a safety margin for good/bad luck & tactics to matter within the number of rolls likely to exist in a single combat. The razor's edge of bounded accuracy does not provide room for that margin once the group exceeds bounded accuracy.

The mere existence of monsters not bound to the table in question & other dials does not make them a solution for a problem they do not address. Bounded accuracy is too tightly bound for a specific groupsize of a specific level & it breaks down into major league champions vrs middle school playground pickup team or rodket tag with unlimited ammo

Was their ever an edition of D&D where these were not issues, among others? I just think that the bounded system makes it a bit easier to adjust for them. I do think that PCs dish out a bit too much damage for one on one boss flights but 3 rounds sounds typical for most 5e fights. This is just a variation on the 'kill the wizard first' tactics used in earlier editions where monsters that take the longest to build are the first to fall. Damage mitigation is as important as damage dealing for boss fights on both sides. Legendary actions can be used effectively even within the 3 rounds.

Of course, the other issue is the assumption that anyone would get to fight Tiamat on their full strength. How did they get to her? She has 5 dragon bodyguards for starters. Why would she hang around if faced by a group of powerful heroes? Villains are allowed to retreat too.

So, while I would not say that the system is perfect, I would challenge the assertion that the system is hot garbage. I have played every edition and this is my favourite.

I would be interested in hearing ideas to improve the system without reverting back to one of the systems that were inferior in my long experience.

 

[tetrasodium]

Was their ever an edition of D&D where these were not issues, among others? I just think that the bounded system makes it a bit easier to adjust for them. I do think that PCs dish out a bit too much damage for one on one boss flights but 3 rounds sounds typical for most 5e fights. This is just a variation on the 'kill the wizard first' tactics used in earlier editions where monsters that take the longest to build are the first to fall. Damage mitigation is as important as damage dealing for boss fights on both sides. Legendary actions can be used effectively even within the 3 rounds.

Of course, the other issue is the assumption that anyone would get to fight Tiamat on their full strength. How did they get to her? She has 5 dragon bodyguards for starters. Why would she hang around if faced by a group of powerful heroes? Villains are allowed to retreat too.

So, while I would not say that the system is perfect, I would challenge the assertion that the system is hot garbage. I have played every edition and this is my favourite.

I would be interested in hearing ideas to improve the system without reverting back to one of the systems that were inferior in my long experience.

Yes it did & kind of depending on edition. Back in early editions like 2e life as an adventurer was a much more dangerous thing to the point where anything much more than a papercut sometimes even those given rolled HP & 1hp* recovery/day of rest! It allowed the gm to use hit points and carrying capacity's meaningful impact as a yardstick to run attrition against even when throwing out combat as sportysport

In 3.x it was an objective fact.

Spoiler: as described

PHB Pg60 states:
Base Attack Bonus: Add the base attack bonuses acquired for each class to get the character’s base attack bonus. A resulting value of +6 or higher provides the character with multiple attacks. Find the character’s base attack bonus on Table 3–1: Base Save and Base Attack Bonuses (page 22) to see how many additional attacks the character gets and at what bonuses. For instance, a 6th-level rogue/4th-level wizard would have a base attack bonus of +6 (+4 for the rogue class and +2 for the wizard class). A base attack bonus of +6 allows a second attack with a bonus of +1 (given as +6/+1 on Table 3–1), even though neither the +4 from the rogue levels nor the +2 from the wizard levels normally allows an extra attack.

Spoiler: relevant bit of 3-1

The slashes indicate the attack bonus added to attribute mods for each attack.
Base attack Bonus (Good)
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6/+1
+7/+2
+8/+3
+9/+4
+10/+5 +7
+11/+6/+1 +8
+12/+7/+2 +9
+13/+8/+3 +9
+14/+9/+4 +10
+15/+10/+5 +11
+16/+11/+6/+1
+17/+12/+7/+2
+18/+13/+8/+3
+19/+14/+9/+4
+20/+15/+10/+5

Base Attack Bonus (Average)
+0
+1
+2
+3
+3
+4
+5
+6/+1
+6/+1
+7/+2
+8/+3
+9/+4 +6/+1
+9/+4 +6/+1
+10/+5 +7/+2
+11/+6/+1 +7/+2
+12/+7/+2 +8/+3
+12/+7/+2 +8/+3
+13/+8/+3 +9/+4
+14/+9/+4 +9/+4
+15/+10/+5 +10/+5



Base Attack Bonus (Poor)
Base
Attack
Bonus
Poor)
+0
+1
+1
+2
+2
+3
+3
+4
+4
+5
+5
+6/+1
+6/+1
+7/+2
+7/+2
+8/+3
+8/+3
+9/+4
+9/+4
+10/+5

The good/average/poor did have issues as levels scaled but is a different issue from how the GM could use these for setting a rough floor on how ineffective a monster(s) could be & a rough ceiling on how long it could take the they have party to handle that encounter. The GM could further choose to finesse things for their group by using DR&SR as described in the MM because low AC bags of hit points & zerg rush-like encounters of weak monsters favored PCs who make many attacks for a hypothetical 3N-4N over those who make one big all or nothing attack for 2N while high ac monsters favored the other way around with DR being able to target damage types to balance the scales a bit at times. 5e lacks all of those tools & just gives GMs flat 50% resistance that always favors the multiple slower attacks. Resting was somewhat faster than 2e it was positively glacial compared to 5e when not using wands that cost gold.

*Not 1+con. Not 1+level just one

 

[Pauln6]

Yes it did & kind of depending on edition. Back in early editions like 2e life as an adventurer was a much more dangerous thing to the point where anything much more than a papercut sometimes even those given rolled HP & 1hp* recovery/day of rest! It allowed the gm to use hit points and carrying capacity's meaningful impact as a yardstick to run attrition against even when throwing out combat as sportysport

In 3.x it was an objective fact.

Spoiler: as described

PHB Pg60 states:
Base Attack Bonus: Add the base attack bonuses acquired for each class to get the character’s base attack bonus. A resulting value of +6 or higher provides the character with multiple attacks. Find the character’s base attack bonus on Table 3–1: Base Save and Base Attack Bonuses (page 22) to see how many additional attacks the character gets and at what bonuses. For instance, a 6th-level rogue/4th-level wizard would have a base attack bonus of +6 (+4 for the rogue class and +2 for the wizard class). A base attack bonus of +6 allows a second attack with a bonus of +1 (given as +6/+1 on Table 3–1), even though neither the +4 from the rogue levels nor the +2 from the wizard levels normally allows an extra attack.

Spoiler: relevant bit of 3-1

The slashes indicate the attack bonus added to attribute mods for each attack.
Base attack Bonus (Good)
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6/+1
+7/+2
+8/+3
+9/+4
+10/+5 +7
+11/+6/+1 +8
+12/+7/+2 +9
+13/+8/+3 +9
+14/+9/+4 +10
+15/+10/+5 +11
+16/+11/+6/+1
+17/+12/+7/+2
+18/+13/+8/+3
+19/+14/+9/+4
+20/+15/+10/+5

Base Attack Bonus (Average)
+0
+1
+2
+3
+3
+4
+5
+6/+1
+6/+1
+7/+2
+8/+3
+9/+4 +6/+1
+9/+4 +6/+1
+10/+5 +7/+2
+11/+6/+1 +7/+2
+12/+7/+2 +8/+3
+12/+7/+2 +8/+3
+13/+8/+3 +9/+4
+14/+9/+4 +9/+4
+15/+10/+5 +10/+5



Base Attack Bonus (Poor)
Base
Attack
Bonus
Poor)
+0
+1
+1
+2
+2
+3
+3
+4
+4
+5
+5
+6/+1
+6/+1
+7/+2
+7/+2
+8/+3
+8/+3
+9/+4
+9/+4
+10/+5

The good/average/poor did have issues as levels scaled but is a different issue from how the GM could use these for setting a rough floor on how ineffective a monster(s) could be & a rough ceiling on how long it could take the they have party to handle that encounter. The GM could further choose to finesse things for their group by using DR&SR as described in the MM because low AC bags of hit points & zerg rush-like encounters of weak monsters favored PCs who make many attacks for a hypothetical 3N-4N over those who make one big all or nothing attack for 2N while high ac monsters favored the other way around with DR being able to target damage types to balance the scales a bit at times. 5e lacks all of those tools & just gives GMs flat 50% resistance that always favors the multiple slower attacks. Resting was somewhat faster than 2e it was positively glacial compared to 5e when not using wands that cost gold.

*Not 1+con. Not 1+level just one

I think you are looking at things in isolation. Fighters were popular in 1e and 2e, quite unpopular in 3e, and very different as defenders in 4e. Regardless of monster math, in 1e to 3e, the cleric or druid had to spend most of their resources topping up hit points. Healing 1hp per day was only relevant if you had no cleric, otherwise they just burned all their spellls to heal everyone and re-revised them the next day. The newer systems are working to make all the classes fun to play more of the time.

We use the lowest tier of natural healing in 5e, so my experience may differ to some, albeit I do struggle to dent the hp of the barbarian/fighter/ranger in our group.

I don't really understand what it is that you are trying to achieve let alone how you are trying to achieve it. If you are suggesting that monster AC should be spread out up to AC25, then we agree. If you are suggesting that PC damage should be lowered or that multiple attacks should have penalties to hit, then we don't agree. Cantrips and sneak attacks do lot of damage in one hit. Nerfing multiple attacks would only impact on the characters who are not major problems. Paladins need a slight nerf to bring their damage spikes down and rangers need a slight nerf to bring their damage spikes up. Fighters seem to be working just fine IMO.

With th example earlier of hobgoblins who are too hard to hit (presumably using chain mail and shields), I would say that PCs need to think more outside the box when fighting them. Work out ways to gain advantage, scare them off, hypnotise them, bribe them, or bluff them. II think that suggesting that there is something wrong with the fundamental maths of the game might be more of a personal opinion than a widely held critical flaw?

That said, there are ways to push the system too far if players are given access to those resources. Barbarians with 20 Dex, 20 Con, Shield
+3, Defensinve fighting style, Bracers of Defence, and a Ring of Protection (albeit it's not clear if the latter items are intended to stack with the AC from the class feature) could have AC29. Ok you only have one attunement slot left but even so, an AC that high breaks bounded accuracy. A cap at AC25 is probably sensible, which is where you end up if the AC from the class feature stacks with nothing other than a shield.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think you are looking at things in isolation. Fighters were popular in 1e and 2e, quite unpopular in 3e, and very different as defenders in 4e. Regardless of monster math, in 1e to 3e, the cleric or druid had to spend most of their resources topping up hit points. Healing 1hp per day was only relevant if you had no cleric, otherwise they just burned all their spellls to heal everyone and re-revised them the next day. The newer systems are working to make all the classes fun to play more of the time.

We use the lowest tier of natural healing in 5e, so my experience may differ to some, albeit I do struggle to dent the hp of the barbarian/fighter/ranger in our group.

I don't really understand what it is that you are trying to achieve let alone how you are trying to achieve it. If you are suggesting that monster AC should be spread out up to AC25, then we agree. If you are suggesting that PC damage should be lowered or that multiple attacks should have penalties to hit, then we don't agree. Cantrips and sneak attacks do lot of damage in one hit. Nerfing multiple attacks would only impact on the characters who are not major problems. Paladins need a slight nerf to bring their damage spikes down and rangers need a slight nerf to bring their damage spikes up. Fighters seem to be working just fine IMO.

With th example earlier of hobgoblins who are too hard to hit (presumably using chain mail and shields), I would say that PCs need to think more outside the box when fighting them. Work out ways to gain advantage, scare them off, hypnotise them, bribe them, or bluff them. II think that suggesting that there is something wrong with the fundamental maths of the game might be more of a personal opinion than a widely held critical flaw?

That said, there are ways to push the system too far if players are given access to those resources. Barbarians with 20 Dex, 20 Con, Shield
+3, Defensinve fighting style, Bracers of Defence, and a Ring of Protection (albeit it's not clear if the latter items are intended to stack with the AC from the class feature) could have AC29. Ok you only have one attunement slot left but even so, an AC that high breaks bounded accuracy. A cap at AC25 is probably sensible, which is where you end up if the AC from the class feature stacks with nothing other than a shield.

Trying to touch some of your points in the most logical order I'll start with your fighter popularity. in 3.x the base classes were just that & pretty much everyone jumped off to some PrC by 5 or so, trying to compare the popularity of any one base class to the 75654754344654 PrCs & claim it as a meaningful data point is a bit odd. In the context of my being asked if "any edition of d&d avoided these issues" though there were plenty of 1/1 & 2/3 BaB classes & PrCs that got multiple attacks during the span of a normal campaign.

That common occurrence of +6/+1 BaB & better on PCs makes how the iterative attack penalty played out & interacts with system math relevant. The way that played out is very different from your initial asserrtion of "it's not fun for players to keep missing" because it served a very different function of making later attacks that roll well an exciting rather than mundane thing. Now 5e swings the other way with the odds stacked & narrowed so far in favor of success that even getting lucky on on rolls tends to be squarely in the same realm of that twilight zone episode I referenced earlier.

That stacking of the odds & narrowing of chance has direct negative effects limiting the GM's ability to tune the game for the group they have if that group differs too much from bounded accuracy's expected 2-3 player tier1 to low-mid tier2 group of PCs.

I agree that most groups would heal up using spells but doing that left the group a bit vulnerable & wasn't something the group felt comfortable trying to dare the gm when told that taking a rest "here" seems like a bad idea. System differences came into play at that point. I do not however think that the problems with 5e's math are a personal opinion though because it's an objective fact that bounded accuracy was designed primarily for a certain groupsize & level range. From there it's easy to show how other design changes make it more difficult for a GM to adjust the core math to slide back into being bounded for the group of players & PCs. If 5e came with a very narrow band of levels & said that a GM should never have more than X players because of BA then we'd be talking about ways for the GM to stay within it rather than the problems that arise & needless problems that arise in shifting the bounds... but it doesn't say that for obvious reasons & the GM is left attempting to correct it in a system hostile to correction

.

 

[Pauln6]

Trying to touch some of your points in the most logical order I'll start with your fighter popularity. in 3.x the base classes were just that & pretty much everyone jumped off to some PrC by 5 or so, trying to compare the popularity of any one base class to the 75654754344654 PrCs & claim it as a meaningful data point is a bit odd. In the context of my being asked if "any edition of d&d avoided these issues" though there were plenty of 1/1 & 2/3 BaB classes & PrCs that got multiple attacks during the span of a normal campaign.

That common occurrence of +6/+1 BaB & better on PCs makes how the iterative attack penalty played out & interacts with system math relevant. The way that played out is very different from your initial asserrtion of "it's not fun for players to keep missing" because it served a very different function of making later attacks that roll well an exciting rather than mundane thing. Now 5e swings the other way with the odds stacked & narrowed so far in favor of success that even getting lucky on on rolls tends to be squarely in the same realm of that twilight zone episode I referenced earlier.

That stacking of the odds & narrowing of chance has direct negative effects limiting the GM's ability to tune the game for the group they have if that group differs too much from bounded accuracy's expected 2-3 player tier1 to low-mid tier2 group of PCs.

I agree that most groups would heal up using spells but doing that left the group a bit vulnerable & wasn't something the group felt comfortable trying to dare the gm when told that taking a rest "here" seems like a bad idea. System differences came into play at that point. I do not however think that the problems with 5e's math are a personal opinion though because it's an objective fact that bounded accuracy was designed primarily for a certain groupsize & level range. From there it's easy to show how other design changes make it more difficult for a GM to adjust the core math to slide back into being bounded for the group of players & PCs. If 5e came with a very narrow band of levels & said that a GM should never have more than X players because of BA then we'd be talking about ways for the GM to stay within it rather than the problems that arise & needless problems that arise in shifting the bounds... but it doesn't say that for obvious reasons & the GM is left attempting to correct it in a system hostile to correction

.

But again, every edition runs into problems based on group size, increasing PC levels, and caster versatility compared to Martial classes to one degree or another. The thread discussion is meant to be about prevention of breaking bounded accuracy with stacking magic items. Simplest solution there is to put a hard cap on AC and don't double additional damage from magic items on a crit.

I think I understand that the problem you are highlighting is that increasing damage dealing makes combat very swingy, especially for low con characters at higher levels. My counterpoint to that is wizards in 1e to 3e had d4 hp and rogues had d6 both with terrible ACs. It's not a new problem, it just appears magnified as the numbers have scaled up.

Similarly, if your solution is to make it harder to hit with multiple attacks, how do you balance that against single attack damage for other classes? Reduce or remove cantrip scaling? Remove or reduce Divine Smite? Reduce sneak attack damage? Would you also look to balance spell damage by reducing save DCs?

It looks like a lot of effort which will probably run into mathematical problems of its own. Options include limiting damage spikes from crits (maybe giving a choice of status effects instead), lowering damage from paladin smites, sorting Eldritch Bolt spamming (maybe +2 damage or half ability score bonus rounded up instead of ability score bonus from the invocation).

Better guidance on subtle ways to tweak monsters to deal with variable group dynamics might also help.

I cannot see them veering left and changing the underlying mathematics on attacks so the discussion is probably moot.

 

[tetrasodium]

But again, every edition runs into problems based on group size, increasing PC levels, and caster versatility compared to Martial classes to one degree or another. The thread discussion is meant to be about prevention of breaking bounded accuracy with stacking magic items. Simplest solution there is to put a hard cap on AC and don't double additional damage from magic items on a crit.

I think I understand that the problem you are highlighting is that increasing damage dealing makes combat very swingy, especially for low con characters at higher levels. My counterpoint to that is wizards in 1e to 3e had d4 hp and rogues had d6 both with terrible ACs. It's not a new problem, it just appears magnified as the numbers have scaled up.

Similarly, if your solution is to make it harder to hit with multiple attacks, how do you balance that against single attack damage for other classes? Reduce or remove cantrip scaling? Remove or reduce Divine Smite? Reduce sneak attack damage? Would you also look to balance spell damage by reducing save DCs?

It looks like a lot of effort which will probably run into mathematical problems of its own. Options include limiting damage spikes from crits (maybe giving a choice of status effects instead), lowering damage from paladin smites, sorting Eldritch Bolt spamming (maybe +2 damage or half ability score bonus rounded up instead of ability score bonus from the invocation).

Better guidance on subtle ways to tweak monsters to deal with variable group dynamics might also help.

I cannot see them veering left and changing the underlying mathematics on attacks so the discussion is probably moot.

.


Instead of repeatedly trying to "understand" it while defending bounded accuracy by claiming they it's not a problem specific to the only edition to use bounded accuracy so far can you maybe show the math supporting your claims when a group exceeds the bounds that BA was designed to fit for a change of gears?

 

[Pauln6]

.


Instead of repeatedly trying to "understand" it while defending bounded accuracy by claiming they it's not a problem specific to the only edition to use bounded accuracy so far can you maybe show the math supporting your claims when a group exceeds the bounds that BA was designed to fit for a change of gears?

Oh hell no. I'm not someone who judges the game in a mathematical sand box.

Maths will tell you the fighter crit does 16 damage and the paladin crit does 72 damage but if the balrog has 7 hp, they can only do 7 damage.

I base my views on whether the players are having fun. This version of the game is extremely popular, so clearly a lot of people are having fun. Ergo, the system is not broken. Fix crazy combo corner cases and it will make even more people happy.

 

[Gadget]

5e was designed around HP & damage scaling higher with level, with the other factors (AC, Attack, Saves, etc.) scaling more slowly. As opposed to previous editions, where all of them tended to scale quite heavily such that any opponent more than a level or two below you was a veritable peon in many cases. That was the idea behind Bounded Accuracy.

Has it succeeded? Somewhat. More could be done to perhaps reduce stacking in some cases, and I've found the +x to AC items more disruptive than +x to attack & damage.