Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How would you redo 4e?
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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8968246" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Plenty are. They talk about it on this very forum.</p><p></p><p>For a handful of examples:</p><p></p><p>Saving throws not scaling. (As I said, "bounded accuracy" <em>isn't actually about accuracy</em>.) Plenty of people consider this a pretty serious hole in the rules, to the point that it's one of the most common house-rules in 5e to either give people more saving throw proficiencies, or outright making it so you get half proficiency to all non-proficient saving throws (effectively, "Jack of All (Saving) Throws.")</p><p></p><p>Monster HP inflation. (Again: not an <em>accuracy</em> issue.) Lots of people complain about how 5e monsters are just huge bags of hit points you have to chew through and which don't really <em>do</em> anything other than that. But that's, very literally, <em>exactly</em> what WotC promised us when they proposed "bounded accuracy." They would give us monsters that scaled in difficulty primarily through how much HP they had and (to a lesser extent) how much damage they could deal, with little to no change in their hit rates and AC. That 5e monsters are kind of dull is a widely-held criticism <em>even by actual 5e fans</em>.</p><p></p><p>The "training doesn't matter" problem, that is, skills feeling incredibly arbitrary. Because, with "bounded accuracy," skill bonuses start small and rarely become very large. A character with Expertise <em>and</em> a maxed primary stat only gets +15, the maximum possible without magic items. That means they have a 20% chance to fail a DC20 check, something merely "hard," while a completely untrained rube with just a little bit of natural talent (say, +2 modifier) has a 15% chance to succeed at that very same task. The difference between the most talentless hack and the creme de la creme is only 16 points, and this cashes out as a shocking number of embarrassing failures and inexplicable successes. If 5e's designers had allowed more flexibility with their numbers and bonuses, this could have easily been avoided.</p><p></p><p>The flaws of the "magic items aren't required" claim. When AC is so static, sure, you don't "need" the items in the sense that they don't make the difference between being able to hit at all or not...but that was mostly not true in prior editions either, and 5e still has the "immune to non-magical weapons" thing so that aspect is false too. Instead, magic weapons become <em>incredibly sought after</em> because they're practically the only way to improve your chance to hit....which makes DMs <em>even more miserly</em> with items than they were before 5e, when it was supposed to be the "you can have items or not have items, it'll be fine either way!"</p><p></p><p>Bounded accuracy really did directly lead to a significant chunk of problems people complain about fairly regularly. These aren't one-off grumbles, they're commonly-encountered issues today, often requiring house-rule patches or strict DM policies to address. (And no, it is <em>not</em> the case that the problem isn't a problem if you can house-rule it away. The Oberoni fallacy remains a fallacy.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8968246, member: 6790260"] Plenty are. They talk about it on this very forum. For a handful of examples: Saving throws not scaling. (As I said, "bounded accuracy" [I]isn't actually about accuracy[/I].) Plenty of people consider this a pretty serious hole in the rules, to the point that it's one of the most common house-rules in 5e to either give people more saving throw proficiencies, or outright making it so you get half proficiency to all non-proficient saving throws (effectively, "Jack of All (Saving) Throws.") Monster HP inflation. (Again: not an [I]accuracy[/I] issue.) Lots of people complain about how 5e monsters are just huge bags of hit points you have to chew through and which don't really [I]do[/I] anything other than that. But that's, very literally, [I]exactly[/I] what WotC promised us when they proposed "bounded accuracy." They would give us monsters that scaled in difficulty primarily through how much HP they had and (to a lesser extent) how much damage they could deal, with little to no change in their hit rates and AC. That 5e monsters are kind of dull is a widely-held criticism [I]even by actual 5e fans[/I]. The "training doesn't matter" problem, that is, skills feeling incredibly arbitrary. Because, with "bounded accuracy," skill bonuses start small and rarely become very large. A character with Expertise [I]and[/I] a maxed primary stat only gets +15, the maximum possible without magic items. That means they have a 20% chance to fail a DC20 check, something merely "hard," while a completely untrained rube with just a little bit of natural talent (say, +2 modifier) has a 15% chance to succeed at that very same task. The difference between the most talentless hack and the creme de la creme is only 16 points, and this cashes out as a shocking number of embarrassing failures and inexplicable successes. If 5e's designers had allowed more flexibility with their numbers and bonuses, this could have easily been avoided. The flaws of the "magic items aren't required" claim. When AC is so static, sure, you don't "need" the items in the sense that they don't make the difference between being able to hit at all or not...but that was mostly not true in prior editions either, and 5e still has the "immune to non-magical weapons" thing so that aspect is false too. Instead, magic weapons become [I]incredibly sought after[/I] because they're practically the only way to improve your chance to hit....which makes DMs [I]even more miserly[/I] with items than they were before 5e, when it was supposed to be the "you can have items or not have items, it'll be fine either way!" Bounded accuracy really did directly lead to a significant chunk of problems people complain about fairly regularly. These aren't one-off grumbles, they're commonly-encountered issues today, often requiring house-rule patches or strict DM policies to address. (And no, it is [I]not[/I] the case that the problem isn't a problem if you can house-rule it away. The Oberoni fallacy remains a fallacy.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How would you redo 4e?
Top