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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Race/Class combinations that were cool but you avoided due to mechanics?
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: 8342612" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>There are arguments to be made in either direction. As you've said, the system is <em>intended</em> to make it so that Advantage is worth so much more than other stuff, and is your one-stop buff shop, so you get that and you're done. Little point in grubbing for more benefits mechanically. And, on the feel side, hitting on a 16 when you would have missed, and doing 1 more average damage, is pretty small potatoes.</p><p></p><p>On the flipside, "Bounded Accuracy" only really works as a fitting term if it <em>actually</em> means "bounded accuracy <em>and defenses</em>," so that all of the numbers are bounded similarly. But, at least from my casual examination of the monsters in the books I've read, there's a pretty solid argument to be made, not for "this ONE SINGLE +1 will make ALL the difference," but rather that gunning for the highest AC and highest to-hit you can get makes an outsized difference in the long haul. Because if you can grub up just another +1 or +2 from somewhere, well, that net +3 difference may only matter in 15% of rolls you make, but it's very likely going to jump you up <em>significantly</em> in terms of how many things you can hit with reasonable reliability. Then, from the perspective of feel and relative differences, fifteen percentage points is (very nearly) the difference between "hitting as often as you miss" and "hitting <em>twice</em> as often as you miss." That could be a pretty huge deal, if the DM is using enemies that ride a bit high on the AC curve.</p><p></p><p>You can make similar arguments about the 4e method, where the numbers go up a lot and there's innate scaling. On the one hand, "you're on a treadmill," so you're incentivized to grub for whatever bonuses you can (which may be plentiful, if non-obvious) in order to "get ahead." On the other hand, the system bakes in the idea that there are plenty of monsters you simply couldn't hit even if you wanted to, so you only move the "how much of the DMG can I reliably hit now" meter up a small amount, and many of the best bonuses don't come from self-focused things (or are trivial to get, like spending one feat or picking a high-proficiency weapon) but rather from teamwork. Then, on the feel side, because the math is clearly laid out for you rather than aiming for 5e's kinda-sorta 'black box' approach, you can <em>choose</em> where you want to end up--e.g., I like to build Dragonborn Paladins that <em>don't</em> have 18 in either of their main stats, because I can compensate for that in other simple ways (use +3 proficiency swords, pick up a feat, grab an at-will with a hit bonus, etc.) and still end up with a perfectly viable character that is more of a generalist.</p><p></p><p>So...yeah. In the long run, I'm not actually sure that BA addresses <em>either</em> the "feel" side OR the "math" side, unless you were kinda already inclined toward its perspective to begin with. It makes a <em>different</em> situation, where the reasons for bonus-seeking change. But the reasons are still there, and (much to my chagrin) the over-use of Advantage induces its own problems.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8342612, member: 6790260"] There are arguments to be made in either direction. As you've said, the system is [I]intended[/I] to make it so that Advantage is worth so much more than other stuff, and is your one-stop buff shop, so you get that and you're done. Little point in grubbing for more benefits mechanically. And, on the feel side, hitting on a 16 when you would have missed, and doing 1 more average damage, is pretty small potatoes. On the flipside, "Bounded Accuracy" only really works as a fitting term if it [I]actually[/I] means "bounded accuracy [I]and defenses[/I]," so that all of the numbers are bounded similarly. But, at least from my casual examination of the monsters in the books I've read, there's a pretty solid argument to be made, not for "this ONE SINGLE +1 will make ALL the difference," but rather that gunning for the highest AC and highest to-hit you can get makes an outsized difference in the long haul. Because if you can grub up just another +1 or +2 from somewhere, well, that net +3 difference may only matter in 15% of rolls you make, but it's very likely going to jump you up [I]significantly[/I] in terms of how many things you can hit with reasonable reliability. Then, from the perspective of feel and relative differences, fifteen percentage points is (very nearly) the difference between "hitting as often as you miss" and "hitting [I]twice[/I] as often as you miss." That could be a pretty huge deal, if the DM is using enemies that ride a bit high on the AC curve. You can make similar arguments about the 4e method, where the numbers go up a lot and there's innate scaling. On the one hand, "you're on a treadmill," so you're incentivized to grub for whatever bonuses you can (which may be plentiful, if non-obvious) in order to "get ahead." On the other hand, the system bakes in the idea that there are plenty of monsters you simply couldn't hit even if you wanted to, so you only move the "how much of the DMG can I reliably hit now" meter up a small amount, and many of the best bonuses don't come from self-focused things (or are trivial to get, like spending one feat or picking a high-proficiency weapon) but rather from teamwork. Then, on the feel side, because the math is clearly laid out for you rather than aiming for 5e's kinda-sorta 'black box' approach, you can [I]choose[/I] where you want to end up--e.g., I like to build Dragonborn Paladins that [I]don't[/I] have 18 in either of their main stats, because I can compensate for that in other simple ways (use +3 proficiency swords, pick up a feat, grab an at-will with a hit bonus, etc.) and still end up with a perfectly viable character that is more of a generalist. So...yeah. In the long run, I'm not actually sure that BA addresses [I]either[/I] the "feel" side OR the "math" side, unless you were kinda already inclined toward its perspective to begin with. It makes a [I]different[/I] situation, where the reasons for bonus-seeking change. But the reasons are still there, and (much to my chagrin) the over-use of Advantage induces its own problems. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Race/Class combinations that were cool but you avoided due to mechanics?
Top