D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[Xeviat]

Hi everyone.

One of my players is not liking bounded accuracy. He doesn't feel like his character is improving when his numbers only go up about once every other level. His issue is that his skill bonus of +5 at 1st level, up to maybe +11 at 20th level, doesn't make much that he can do at 20th level that he couldn't do at 1st level. I sympathize with his position a bit. I can see the benefits of both a steady progression like in 3rd and 4th, and the benefits of the slower progression of 5th.

I know bounded accuracy is one of the most popular things about the edition, based on the polls here. Is there anyone else who dislikes bounded accuracy? What do you not like about it, and why? Would you change it? How would you change it?

If you absolutely love bounded accuracy, why? What do you feel it adds to the game? Do you like not needing gamist things to allow low level threats to remain a threat (like minion rules)?

 

[Kramodlog]

Hello.

 

[brehobit]

I like bounded accuracy but feel that the prof. bonus for skills should matter more. I'm fine with combat for the most part, though I find saves a bit problematic (too hard to make at higher levels unless the save just happens to go against a stat you've maxed and a save you are prof. in).

Changes I'm thinking of:
* In many cases, only allow a chance for people prof. in the skill. I do that already, but may turn it up a bit. I've thought about adding an additional +2 prof. bonus to anyone trained, but don't like it much.
* Maybe give a generic +1 on saves at 5th and 15th level for PCs (and maybe some NPCs?). Right now, if a caster with a 20 stat and +4 prof bonus throws a spell, the DC is 17. For most PCs around 11th level their bonuses likely look something like +9, +7, +2, +2, +0, -1 or +9, +4, +3, +2, +1, 0 or something similar. That's tough to make on a "save or suck" spell unless you hit one of your best saves.

 

[Morrus]

I adore it. The 3.x/4E paradigm of zero to superhero in 3 months just got old for me. The shallower graduation suits me just fine.

 

[Sunseeker]

I like bounded accuracy but feel that the prof. bonus for skills should matter more. I'm fine with combat for the most part, though I find saves a bit problematic (too hard to make at higher levels unless the save just happens to go against a stat you've maxed and a save you are prof. in).

Changes I'm thinking of:
* In many cases, only allow a chance for people prof. in the skill. I do that already, but may turn it up a bit. I've thought about adding an additional +2 prof. bonus to anyone trained, but don't like it much.
* Maybe give a generic +1 on saves at 5th and 15th level for PCs (and maybe some NPCs?). Right now, if a caster with a 20 stat and +4 prof bonus throws a spell, the DC is 17. For most PCs around 11th level their bonuses likely look something like +9, +7, +2, +2, +0, -1 or +9, +4, +3, +2, +1, 0 or something similar. That's tough to make on a "save or suck" spell unless you hit one of your best saves.

I was quite fond of the word "Trained" in 4e. It felt like it represented a dedicated learning to the subject, as opposed to "proficiency" which literally just means you're good at a thing. I still run proficiency more like training where in some instances only people with specific training can accomplish a task.

But generally I agree, proficiency doesn't really seem to have much oomph, even at later levels; except for rogues who get double proficiency to several skills.

 

[psychophipps]

I'm a big fan of the bounded accuracy/DCs for ability and skill checks as well. While the increases from one level to another are not that great, I very much appreciate the fact that you don't have to have ACs in the 30s for mobs once the party gets to level 10 or so.

 

[EthanSental]

My feeling falls in line for Morrus as well. I'm enjoying 5e's bounded accuracy as a DM and as a player.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I think many complaints about Bounded Accuracy are confused to some degree. They focus only on the side of the equation that is on their character sheet - that what they are supposed to be good at probably starts at +5 and ends up at +11, rather than it starting at +7 and ending up at +25 or more - and miss that they start out more likely to succeed (a normal quality 5th edition lock being DC 15 (55% success rate with example modifier), while a 3.5 lock of similar quality would be DC 20 (40% success rate with example modifier), and the higher-end challenges have less intense increase to their DC, so while you might find a DC 25 lock in 5th edition it is roughly equivalent to a DC 40 lock in 3.5, so even with a smaller number on your sheet to add to your roll you are still better off (35% chance of success with listed modifier, opposed to 30% chance).

It is a matter of perspective, really - but bounded accuracy doesn't stop a character from having noteworthy improvement in their capabilities, it just stops their being as many situations where there is zero chance of success (using the above example of locks, the +5 bonus against DC 25 has a chance of success, while the +7 bonus against a DC 40 doesn't).

 

[CanadienneBacon]

I like bounded accuracy because, as DM, it means I can still run effective threats even against a mid- or high-level party. With bounded accuracy, I don't have to beef up monsters' hp, AC, or tack on additional tidbits just to keep up with a perpetual "arms race" between players and encounters.

 

[Remathilis]

I love it for one reason: I hated the stratospheric rise of math that encompassed 3e and 4e. I mean, around 8th level a fighter was dealing with a staggered base attack bonus, strength mod, bonuses from items, spells, powers, feats, racial traits, and situational modifiers. A lot of times, those silly numbers were forgotten (did you add bless?) or miscalculated or you got the long stare of "which bonus do I use for this attack?" All so that the fighter would say "AC 33? I rolled a 7".

I'm gladly done with that. Viva la reasonable numbers.