D&D 5E New playtest packet available.

[FireLance]

That's what I mean by "compensating measures."

I was just making the point that what you consider to be "compensating measures" are what a DM has to do by default in 2e and earlier editions. It's like saying that having to walk is a "compensating measure" for when your car runs out of gas. (And to continue the analogy, the 4e vehicle is like a car that can also be pedalled like a bicycle - even if you run out of gas, you're moving faster and more comfortably than if you were walking.)

That's exactly the point of bounded accuracy! If you have managed to rack up such an unnaturally high hit bonus, you simply don't have to worry about missing.

And this is why I don't like bounded accuracy. My DMing philosophy is that I should be able to scale the level of challenge to the ability of the PCs. To me, the answer to "What should I do when the PCs have high attack bonuses?" should be "I make the challenges tougher", not "I let them breeze through fights". I do take the point that you can still keep things challenging - e.g. when the PCs have a 95% chance of hitting, just increase the number of enemies. However, bounded accuracy pretty much requries me to do that. If I ignore bounded accuracy, I also have the option of using really tough opponents that the PCs would have no reasonable chance of defeating without their magical gear.

There are no creatures in the Bestiary with an AC higher than 18.

I was referring to the value of AC bonuses to the PCs.

 

[FireLance]

My view is that the game should be robust enough that it's fun even when the battles aren't built with the engineering tolerance of rocket components.

No problem. You simply have to ensure that the difference between a "standard" character and the most heavily powergamed character is relatively small through a combination of:

1. Keeping each individual bonus low; and
2. Stacking rules that ensure that the individual bonuses cannot add up to more than the above-mentioned tolerable difference.

Math happens, whether you like it or not, and ignoring it is about as useful as sticking your head in the sand and hoping that the lion won't notice you.

 

[Obryn]

Math happens, whether you like it or not, and ignoring it is about as useful as sticking your head in the sand and hoping that the lion won't notice you.

Sadly, I must spread around before... etc. This is a game I'm supposed to be paying actual money for, and there's a certain minimum level of design I think it's fair to expect. This includes stuff like doing the homework on how magic items change the challenge of the game.

-O

 

[Ahnehnois]

So.... 4e was wrong because it had daily martial powers which broke verisimilitude...

Among many, many other things...

Not a peep about how the Barbarian has x/rages per day, because 3e did it.

Really? I think there were a few peeps, if one listened. If the barbarian had been a better class and people had actually played it more often, there would have been more. There was also, say, the 3.0 Power Critical feat that was changed to non-daily in 3.5, or the controversial PHBII knight with daily proto-CaGI, or the ToB which inspired more loathing than any other 3e book.

You're welcome to disagree, but let's not pretend that this issue came out of thin air.

 

[Obryn]

Really? I think there were a few peeps, if one listened. If the barbarian had been a better class and people had actually played it more often, there would have been more. There was also, say, the 3.0 Power Critical feat that was changed to non-daily in 3.5, or the controversial PHBII knight with daily proto-CaGI, or the ToB which inspired more loathing than any other 3e book.

You're welcome to disagree, but let's not pretend that this issue came out of thin air.

And yet, I never heard, "When the Barbarian cast his Rage spell to attack my Rogue, I cast my Defensive Roll spell to dodge out of the way." I hardly saw anything about it at all, in fact; it seems to have only become problematic in retrospect.

Also - I know ToB was controversial, but as I recall, it was controversial mostly because (1) people were worried it was overpowered [it wasn't, compared to your primary spellcasters], (2) people were worried it rendered the Fighter obsolete [the Fighter was already obsolete; ToB gave you alternatives], and (3) people thought the flavor was "too anime." The encounter refresh didn't seem to be a big deal at all.

-O

 

[Ahnehnois]

And yet, I never heard, "When the Barbarian cast his Rage spell to attack my Rogue, I cast my Defensive Roll spell to dodge out of the way." I hardly saw anything about it at all, in fact; it seems to have only become problematic in retrospect.

Clearly you never listened to any of my games. I've heard a lot more complaints about nonmagical abilities that seem too magical than I ever heard about interclass balance. I only learned that primary spellcasters are supposedly "too good" by reading these boards.

In general, almost all the criticisms I've heard in person (not online) about D&D rules have been about realism/verisimilitude/plausibility/etc.

No doubt both of these issues are talked about more now than they were then.

 

[FireLance]

the ToB which inspired more loathing than any other 3e book.

And (from my own, possibly observationally biased, perspective) more love.

In that respect, it was an excellent preview of 4e.

 

[Obryn]

Clearly you never listened to any of my games. I've heard a lot more complaints about nonmagical abilities that seem too magical than I ever heard about interclass balance. I only learned that primary spellcasters are supposedly "too good" by reading these boards.

In general, almost all the criticisms I've heard in person (not online) about D&D rules have been about realism/verisimilitude/plausibility/etc.

No doubt both of these issues are talked about more now than they were then.

As expected, we have had very different experiences. I mentioned here or elsewhere that my Arcana Evolved game was crushed under two ubercasters - it was among the last straws of 3.x for me, though I gave it a few more short campaigns before moving on to Star Wars Saga and other systems like WFRP2. I think the oft-mentioned tier ranking system predates 4e, though, as does CoDzilla.

On the other hand, the realism debate was never much important for my group.

-O

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I like the part where you can only rage again after you take a rest. That should be enough limitation, so I say get rid of rages/day and just make it an "encounter" power (or rather, a 1/rest power).

Only downside then is players abusing this out of combat ("I rage before jumping across the pit so I resist falling damage! I rage before smashing open the chest to get advantage!" Etc.)

 

[pemerton]

That's exactly the point of bounded accuracy! If you have managed to rack up such an unnaturally high hit bonus, you simply don't have to worry about missing.

Bounded accuracy allows a DM to pay less attention to the math because the difference between "more effective" and "less effective" is never so great that it breaks the game.

I think there is a bit of tension between these two statements. If bounded accuracy allows players to build their PCs to the point of "hit only on a one", then it's arguable that unless I, as GM, pay attention to the maths the game will break.

I'm not saying that auto-hit has to be broken. But it's at odds with a range of traditional D&D playstyles. (Look at the ACs in Vault of the Drow - Gygax certainly seems to have though it important to keep to-hit chances well above 2+ on d20.)