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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DMZ2112" data-source="post: 6363935" data-attributes="member: 78752">I may be speaking grandly -- I have a habit of doing so -- but I think my point stands.  Bounded accuracy is a big deal in D&D5.  It's certainly in the running for biggest reason why I'm excited about it, if it is not actually the reason itself.  A maximum ability score of 20 is part of that system.  Once you punch through that wall once, it's no longer a convincing barrier.  The barbarian goes this far past 20.  How much further will a minotaur character be able to go?  Or a psychometabolicist?  Where does it stop?  The strength of a bounded accuracy system is that it is /bounded/.When I say there's no "rule," what I mean is that there's no /authority/.  Prior to the level 20 barbarian, we had it on authority that an ability score of 21 was impossible.  Now we have it on authority that it is possible, and that is a very different thing.  The most different, really.I am also concerned about classes granting /more/ additional actions in a round, but that feels substantially less likely to come to pass.  It is a far more obvious crack to widen.Picking spells from other lists or casting spells without components doesn't really represent potential abuse, in my opinion.  Wizards only casting wizard spells is a thematic consideration, but if they were to learn a cleric spell (other than a healing spell, at least), it wouldn't dramatically improve their utility.A feat that allows a PC to ignore somatic components could only be followed by a feat that permits silent spells and a feat that permits casting without materials.  Considering how often I forget about the latter I'm hard pressed to see these potential outcomes as a threat to the fabric of the game in the same way that a suddenly /unbounded/ accuracy system does.</blockquote>

Verification