D&D 5E I Think Bounded Accuracy Means..

[ren1999]

So a Storm Giant gets a Greatsword attack 1d20+11.
The strength is 29(+9), so he gets a +2 coming from somewhere. He is level 13, but that doesn't matter because other monsters that are level 2 get about a +2 bonus. I have noticed that no bonus in the Bestiary is over +11.

Stone Giants are Level 7 built monsters but they get +7 with a club. Strength is 23(+6) so that is a +1 arbitrary number not really accounted for either.

So Bounded Accuracy must be the traditional ability modifier + an arbitrary number.

Now I don't mind this so much but couldn't these numbers actually be based on something?

I posed this idea over at Wizards and was shot down in flames over it. But it isn't too terribly different than the total bonuses given in the Bestiary now.

Take the ability modifier and knock it down to the same level as a level modifier and other modifiers.

How many modifier sources can we come up with?

ability
level
feat
magic
and situation

Now if we kept the total of all the modifiers down to +11, it would lead to a very boring and difficult to accept modifier progression.

11/5 modifiers means that. 4 modifiers would grant a total of +2 and a 5th modifier would grant a +3.

So the difference between a strength 10 and a strength 30 would only be +2 or +3 -- boring.

But if we increased the bonus maximum to +20, that means we could have +4 coming from each of the 5 bonus sources. That would be more meaningful.
Str30(+4),
Level30(+4),
Feat Weapon Training+1,Proficiency+1,Expertise+1,Mastery+1=+4,
Magic +4 (just because the other bonuses max at +4 -- easier to remember)
Situation Modifier +4,

Even though there is only a 4 point spread between natural ability, and another 4 point spread between low and high level, they all add up to make for a more meaningful level progression.

Right now Bounded Accuracy only means not having a bonus over +11. But it is arbitrary how that number comes to be.

What do you think?

 

[Stormonu]

Just from your two examples, I think there may be a pattern: +1 base for 1st to 10th level, +2 for 11th to 20th.

 

[Stalker0]

So Bounded Accuracy must be the traditional ability modifier + an arbitrary number.

Now I don't mind this so much but couldn't these numbers actually be based on something?

They can, but you lose some design flexibility if you do.

If you force monsters to use the exact same math as pcs you limit how many combinations you can do, and it becomes harder to balance.

I personally prefer the 4e approach where monsters get the numbers they need for the challenge they present.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I posed this idea over at Wizards and was shot down in flames over it.

Yeah, the official boards are full of jerks.

What do you think?

[video=youtube;jG2KMkQLZmI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG2KMkQLZmI[/video]

Just kiddin'.

I think [MENTION=52734]Stormonu[/MENTION] is probably on the right trail. A bit of a bonus just from raw level sounds right.

 

[Stormonu]

Additional thoughts:

Requiring a magic bonus at certain levels gets troublesome; if you require NPCs of X level to have Y bonus, the party will start acquiring possibly a lot of excessive loot which they have no use for (how many +3 swords does a fighter really need?). This can get doubly difficult if the PCs routine face challenges above their level - they'll acqiure gear above their expected level.

Expected bonuses from feats just become a tax. Either you automatically grant everyone the feat or you lose a choice to the "tax".

In the end, the escalating numbers on both sides become a "why bother?" because they wash out. It was worth (to a point) doing in previous editions because different groups had varying rates of advancement (Fighter with 1/1, Wizard with 1/5, etc.) Once you start homoginizing it, it get questionable, especially when your scaling the acting and defending side at the same rates. Again this was something where older editions differed - up through 2E attack rates scaled upwards while AC barely moved, so a high-level fighter rarely missed an opponent (And was reversed with saves - you needed save or dies because really high level characters often only failed a save on a 1).

 

[ren1999]

The Weapon Feat itself is a tax, isn't it?
If you choose to spend your ability+1's on a stat that increases your hit, that would also be a tax.
A Level bonus or weapon attack bonus is something you would automatically get.
A magic bonus would only apply if the DM let you find a weapon with that bonus.
Thanks for the comments, everyone
!

 

[Snowbeard]

Having read many threads on this forum, IMHO, most problems with set numbers in the game stem from a need or want to make everything logical. Maybe I'm presenting my idea poorly or expressing it poorly but it seems to me that the basic system is laid out well and all works together until the ideas are examined theoretically. The monster stats and their bonuses don't need to follow a logical system in a fantasy game because the laws of the fantasy setting are governed by the GM. The theoretical ideas discussed through out this forum are fascinating but in the end the modular and open slant to the rules make most of the speculation pointless because the GM can change what they feel is broken or unneeded. From a Players point of view the weapon feat isn't a tax but a choice. If that choice, i.e. SS and Crossbow master, makes the player too over powered it's the GM's job to change the story so said player is challenged. In some cases this means that players is taken out of the fight or targeted in some way and possibly gets the rest of the party killed. Bounded Accuracy seems to be an idea that some people want to be a logical algorithm or formula that will make making an encounter plug and play. The GM is in control of how the story plays out with the Players telling the story. Bounded Accuracy is a logical system but it also lays the foundation for improvisation and customization for the GM to make adventures tailored to their wants and needs. After all who wants to play a game that hold no challenges ?

 

[Tony Vargas]

PC's attacks are typically stat + proficiency. That ranges from +4 or 5 at 1st level to a maximum (before feats, items, and other wierdness) of +11 even at 20th.

Seems like they're giving the monsters the same 'bounded' range, stats over 20 notwithstanding.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I think you are all reading far too much "formulaic process" into 5e monsters. I honestly and firmly believe that the folks writing out stats for monsters pretty much just used their imaginations based on what they thought the creature should be able to do. Then, someone eventually came out with a rough "Here's some number ranges for stuff for monsters". Next, they went back to their created monsters and tweaked the numbers to be more in line with the "number ranges for stuff for monsters". Done.

I don't think anyone ever actually tried to "work out all the numbers" in order to fit everything into some preconcieved "acceptable range". If a monster is X tough, and that gives a range of 20 to 30, but the designer has 38...they look at other stuff. Oh, hey, lookey here... seems that monster has a Y rating of 9 when it should be in the range of 11 - 14. *shrug* Yeah, I guess that balances out in the end.

That's how I think they designed monsters for 5e.

That's how I do it, and how I've been doing it for 35 years now (with earlier versions of the game, obviously). And you know the saying... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[UngeheuerLich]

the thread is so old. Back then there was no proficiency bonus or such. today monsters get proficiency bonus by CR. Not by hit dice or level. It's kind of circular that way, since CR is derived from attackbonus, but it more or less works well enough.