Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 6728356" data-attributes="member: 6787650">Not just defenses and attack bonuses, but didn't it also apply to skills? Forum discussions have led me to believe that to be the case.Discussion in this thread makes it sound like 4E was pretty much the exact opposite of bounded accuracy, althoug you can see how one led to the other. "Everything scales" => "this is pointless" => "nothing scales". The big difference between them is that when nothing scales, you can fight wildly level-"inappropriate" threats and it works out. For a gamer who only wants to tangle with level-appropriate threats anyway (+/- 5 levels, as Hussar said), I can see how they might get the idea that this is old hat that already existed in 4E anyway. But to someone like myself who throws 20th level threats at 3rd level characters, I see that there's no way I could possibly have done that in a system that didn't have fairly flat math, and that makes it look like Bounded Accuracy is a 5E innovation--or rather, it's a major part of what makes 5E feel familiar enough to be worth playing. I know what AC 15 means in 5E, it's basically "rock-hard like a Gargoyle," just as AC 0 in AD&D meant "like a knight in elaborate full plate and a shield." However, when I played 3E computer games like Icewind Dale II, I had no clue what AC 37 was or how it was different from AC 43, except inasmuch as they both fell off the d20 at different points when you're fighting on Impossible mode against high-level monsters like Sherincal.If it weren't for Rodney Thompson and Bounded Accuracy there is no way I'd waste my time on 5E, and I think the lack of it is a major reason for my prior lack of interest in 3E-era D&D. Perhaps the primary reason.</blockquote>

Verification