D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[darjr]

I am enjoying bounded accuracy.

As far as 'trained' vs proficiency, I have made a distinction similar to 'trained', in a game I'd ask if folks were 'proficient' with a skill much like I did with 'trained' but I have also branched out to ask that about a tool set, like thieves tools, or an alchemists kit, or climbers kit, so on.

 

[Bardbarian]

Generally I am a fan of bounded accuracy. I found it helps to explain the when the players numbers got higher in previous editions, the monsters gained a similar increase nullifying the gain. If a player needs an 8 to hit a goblin at level 1 they still needed an 8 to hit the Vampiric Goblin Lich Lord at level 12 who now had a 30 ac. Rather than follow this route bounded accuracy made armor increases matter. There is a difference in fighting against a leather clad rogue and a full plate wearing knight. On the flip side, an army of 200 archers can now be a threat to payers at high levels and a valuable ally against a dragon raining fire on the kingdom.

It also felt pretty silly that at level 1 I needed a DC 10 to break down a door to an in and at level 25 the inn had replaced all it's doors with Mithril requiring a DC 30 or such. Now a wood door is wood and becomes trivial to bad ass murder-hobos while the Duergar kingdom may very well have mithril doors and not that feels like something special.

 

[abirdcall]

I love bounded accuracy.

A couple thoughts -

Most PCs don't focus their training on skills. They learn other abilities. Rogues and Bards do though. Their bonuses become very large and in the case of the former, they can't even fail after a certain point.

Also each level is not equal. The amount of experience you need to get from level to level changes. That is something that is often missed in these discussions.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Well, I guess the OP got his or her answer lol.

I too really like it. For two main reasons.

1. (I posted a thread about this a couple days ago actually) Monsters have a much longer live span in the level ranges. A monster like a kobold can still be a challenge to groups of PCs well into the 2nd tier of play, and probably longer.

2. Stuff like this is a HUGE turn off for me:

Size/Type: Huge Giant
Hit Dice: 19d8+114 (199 hp)
Initiative: +2
Speed: 35 ft. (7 squares), swim 30 ft. (6 squares) in breastplate; base speed 50 ft., swim 40 ft.
Armor Class: 27 (–2 size, +2 Dex, +12 natural, +5 breastplate), touch 10, flat-footed 25
Base Attack/Grapple: +14/+36
Attack: Greatsword +26 melee (4d6+21/19–20) or slam +26 melee (1d6+14) or composite longbow (+14 str bonus) +14 ranged (3d6+14/x3)
Full Attack: Greatsword +26/+21/+16 melee (4d6+21/19–20) or 2 slams +26 melee (1d6+14) or composite longbow (+14 str bonus) +14/+9/+4 ranged (3d6+14/x3)
Space/Reach: 15 ft./15 ft.
Special Attacks: Spell-like abilities
Special Qualities: Freedom of movement, immunity to electricity, low-light vision, rock catching, water breathing
Saves: Fort +17, Ref +8, Will +13
Abilities: Str 39, Dex 14, Con 23, Int 16, Wis 20, Cha 15
Skills: Climb +20, Concentration +26, Craft (any one) +13, Diplomacy +4, Intimidate +12, Jump +24, Listen +15, Perform (sing) +12, Sense Motive +15, Spot +25, Swim +18*



The larger the modifiers, the less important the die roll actually becomes. I don't like it when you're pretty assured of missing or making something, and I really don't like constant recalculating of total modifiers.

 

[brehobit]

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's actually intra-party stuff that bothers me. Say a character has a skill in navigation (navigator's tools). In general he's only slightly more likely to be successful navigating than any other character. And a wizard will generally be better than the "professional sailor" unless that sailor has a remarkably high Int. It underplays the importance having trained vs. raw ability IMO. An extra +2 bonus (or so) might work, but in general I just won't let someone without proficiency do certain things (admittedly usually only if one of the other PCs is proficient, but still...)

Edit: and for the record, I really like bounded accuracy in the context of combat (other than wanting a tweek to saves).

 

[The Human Target]

It's a good idea not implemented well.

 

[Rhenny]

Add me to the list of people who love BA.

BA keeps numbers from becoming obscene and unwieldy.

BA makes it so that fighting larger groups (of even lower level monsters) actually becomes more difficult.

BA makes it so that it is not necessary for the DM to make checks, saves, AC, to hit scores, etc. more and more difficult as PCs gain levels. It has, by and large, de-emphasized the "treadmill effect." This is a point that DMs need to be aware of, especially if they cut their teeth on prior editions of D&D. DMs need to remember that they don't need to boost the numbers because it should get easier for players as they gain levels. What makes it more difficult is that they will be faced with more powerful/deadly effects. For example, a beholder's disintegration ray, a more damaging trap, a creature that can attack 2 or 3 times a turn rather than 1 time per turn, creatures that can cast spells.

As for skill use, as DM, when I analyzed the DCs of most of the playtest and early adventures for 5e, I found that nearly 80% of the DCs were DC 10-12, while about 15% were about 15, and only 5% were 20. This was a revelation for me, basically because I used to set DCs higher for the most part. I found that with most of the lower DCs, BA worked really well. It encouraged nearly any PC to attempt to do things that in 3e (without the skill trained), the PC would never attempt. As a player or a DM, I never really felt that I was not capable of accomplishing things. If the majority of the skill checks stay below 15, I think that most players will not ever feel as if they are not improving as they gain in levels, and of course, as others have stated, it really is the rogue and bard who shine when it comes to dealing with skill checks.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

I love Bounded Accuracy for the same reasons that I loved E6 in the 3X era. It keeps the die roll relevant while keeping bonuses in my perceived sweet spot. It achieves what I would have wanted to do with E6 in 3X while still allowing a 20 level progression. I also love the idea of one attack bonus instead of descending attack bonuses (+20/+15/+10/+5) as well as ability scores being a lot less likely to change mid-fight since spells that adjust ability scores either don't exist or are very unlikely to be cast, mid-fight (which would sometimes basically require the reworking of entire character sheets due to cascading modifiers).

I love 5E and Bounded Accuracy.

 

[Sacrosanct]

BA makes it so that it is not necessary for the DM to make checks, saves, AC, to hit scores, etc. more and more difficult as PCs gain levels. It has, by and large, de-emphasized the "treadmill effect." This is a point that DMs need to be aware of, especially if they cut their teeth on prior editions of D&D. DMs need to remember that they don't need to boost the numbers because it should get easier for players as they gain levels. What makes it more difficult is that they will be faced with more powerful/deadly effects. For example, a beholder's disintegration ray, a more damaging trap, a creature that can attack 2 or 3 times a turn rather than 1 time per turn, creatures that can cast spells.

As for skill use, as DM, when I analyzed the DCs of most of the playtest and early adventures for 5e, I found that nearly 80% of the DCs were DC 10-12, while about 15% were about 15, and only 5% were 20. This was a revelation for me, basically because I used to set DCs higher for the most part. I found that with most of the lower DCs, BA worked really well. It encouraged nearly any PC to attempt to do things that in 3e (without the skill trained), the PC would never attempt. As a player or a DM, I never really felt that I was not capable of accomplishing things. If the majority of the skill checks stay below 15, I think that most players will not ever feel as if they are not improving as they gain in levels, and of course, as others have stated, it really is the rogue and bard who shine when it comes to dealing with skill checks.

Yep. A hard DC in 5e is always hard, no matter if you're level 1 or level 20. Just that at higher levels, you have a more reliable chance of consistently succeeding at hard tasks.

 

[abirdcall]

It's actually intra-party stuff that bothers me. Say a character has a skill in navigation (navigator's tools). In general he's only slightly more likely to be successful navigating than any other character. And a wizard will generally be better than the "professional sailor" unless that sailor has a remarkably high Int. It underplays the importance having trained vs. raw ability IMO. An extra +2 bonus (or so) might work, but in general I just won't let someone without proficiency do certain things (admittedly usually only if one of the other PCs is proficient, but still...)

Edit: and for the record, I really like bounded accuracy in the context of combat (other than wanting a tweek to saves).

I think this is a great example of the skill system working well.

I like that skilled NPCs have a place in the world. And that PCs have a reason to enlist their help.

If a PC really wants to be an expert in a skill they can make it a background feature or apply the class ability expertise to it. Or both if it is that important to them.

The wizard with the high intelligence can just say that they have read all sorts of theory on physics, and that they are good at figuring out how the tools work on the spot with their great intelligence. And so they are just as good as the character who was once a sailor on a ship a long time ago so understands the basics but doesn't have the raw potential to apply it in a special way.

In actual game play what will end up happening is that one character will help the other which makes perfect sense. Or they will, you know, hire an actual sea captain.