I know this is a long shot, since your comment is 5 months old at the time of my reply, but bounded accuracy essentially describes a paradigm shift in the "mathematical engine" that runs behind the scenes. In earlier editions there was this ever-escalating quasi-arms race between the PCs and the DM, with the PCs gaining ability bonuses and attack bonuses every level making it increasingly difficult for the DM to construct challenging encounters. The bounded accuracy system spaces out these...
View full commentI know this is a long shot, since your comment is 5 months old at the time of my reply, but bounded accuracy essentially describes a paradigm shift in the "mathematical engine" that runs behind the scenes. In earlier editions there was this ever-escalating quasi-arms race between the PCs and the DM, with the PCs gaining ability bonuses and attack bonuses every level making it increasingly difficult for the DM to construct challenging encounters. The bounded accuracy system spaces out these bonuses better making them feel special to your character, like they have crossed some important milestone in their adventuring career. Taking the place of the attack bonus bumps is damage. Now your damage goes up with level, representing a higher competence in regards to the placement of your sword in the troll's back, or the dragon's exposed underbelly. A orc raiding party facing a first level party would be an almost insurmountable task at 1st level in past editions. Whereas at 20th level, that raiding party is a cake walk. Bounded accuracy now says that that at 20th level, these orcs should still be a tangible threat without having to artificially inflate their statistics. Instead, just throw more of them at the party.
Thanks for the input on this, PrestonSnow. Now it makes sense. And you nailed something I do to this day in 4E - "level-up" creatures so they are a challenge to the party.
I call improvisation the 3rd (and last) requirement of DM'ing. I often wonder if people are simply creative or can learn creativity, because creativity, by nature, is outside the norm. Your previous articles have eluded to preparation (having a list of NPC names), which I use. But I also wonder if maybe, as creative people, we can't describe our ability any more than an athlete could describe their movements (research has shown that teaching a skill and having proficiency are actually two...
View full commentI call improvisation the 3rd (and last) requirement of DM'ing. I often wonder if people are simply creative or can learn creativity, because creativity, by nature, is outside the norm. Your previous articles have eluded to preparation (having a list of NPC names), which I use. But I also wonder if maybe, as creative people, we can't describe our ability any more than an athlete could describe their movements (research has shown that teaching a skill and having proficiency are actually two different skills). So as a creative person Perkins, maybe there is a method to improvisation we don't understand outside of confidence. Just a rambling thought.
I was actually planning to use a variant of what follows on a table soon. "A stranger emerges from the shadows and begins to present you with a quest." "From the scowl that now creases his face, he obviously recognizes you." "A barmaid obstructs your view for what was apparently long enough for your contact to slip away." "Whatever you were meant to know would seem, for the moment, lost to you." "The barmaid in front of you falls to the ground, convulsing." "Did the...
View full commentI was actually planning to use a variant of what follows on a table soon.
"A stranger emerges from the shadows and begins to present you with a quest."
"From the scowl that now creases his face, he obviously recognizes you."
"A barmaid obstructs your view for what was apparently long enough for your contact to slip away."
"Whatever you were meant to know would seem, for the moment, lost to you."
"The barmaid in front of you falls to the ground, convulsing."
"Did the barmaid step in the way or is she a warning to you?"
"Either way, the dying barmaid has informed you of whom your contact was and why that is a very bad thing."
It is a very smart idea to be able to incorperate both styles of play (TotM/grid) into one game system. Not only do you find both types of encounters (2 guards/big final battle) and both types of players' tastes. But it would create a great amount of flexibility in the game itself. That is what our imagination can do, now D&D might do it as well. I love the fact that a DM or module would have the freedom to say "You know, they would probably post a pair of guards." and be able to run it quickly...
View full commentIt is a very smart idea to be able to incorperate both styles of play (TotM/grid) into one game system. Not only do you find both types of encounters (2 guards/big final battle) and both types of players' tastes. But it would create a great amount of flexibility in the game itself. That is what our imagination can do, now D&D might do it as well. I love the fact that a DM or module would have the freedom to say "You know, they would probably post a pair of guards." and be able to run it quickly and effectively. Many a time my old groups tried to take out the guards quietly and flubbed the delicate proceedure. He he... Adding to other, often unforseen, complications. The designers want the system to be able to run with anything that could happen. Sweet!
This is intriguing, and I have to admit, I haven't really given much thought as to whether or not a particular encounter warrants grid and minis (I'm a bit of a grognard). This will be interesting to see. I'm actually going to start trying more TotM style combats in my games for the smaller encounters.
One thing about #6 that I find strange is the notion of "If the fighter can get close, the wizard's dead." That seems to be the angry old-school consensus, along with the related "If the wizard can keep the fighter at a distance, the fighter is dead." Whatever happened to "I ready my bow and shoot him in his eye"? Why should a fighter's ranged attacks be less deadly than his up close ones, if he is truly versatile (#4 above). I admit, I do love the idea of balance across classes so I never...
View full commentOne thing about #6 that I find strange is the notion of "If the fighter can get close, the wizard's dead." That seems to be the angry old-school consensus, along with the related "If the wizard can keep the fighter at a distance, the fighter is dead." Whatever happened to "I ready my bow and shoot him in his eye"? Why should a fighter's ranged attacks be less deadly than his up close ones, if he is truly versatile (#4 above). I admit, I do love the idea of balance across classes so I never feel like my class was a bad choice unless I'm the one playing it badly. I don't want to be the wizard's caddie at high level anymore than I want to be his mommy at low level. I want him by my side, being awesome while I do the same. Our jobs aren't exactly the same, but I want to feel cool while I do mine and clap and yell encouragement as he does his. I very much loved the roles of different classes, and hoped that they would expand on that idea across classes. I wanted a wizard defender who wasn't a swordmage but instead used magic to up his defenses, who tanked the demon prince while wearing a dress and flip-flops, armed with a stick and a headful of hoodoo. One of the failings of 4th ed is they have never hammered out the martial idea enough to come up with a really good, solid martial controller. They took the idea of martial meaning "no magic at all" too far and painted themselves into a corner.
I actually totally agree a high level fighter should be able to hit a wizard with a bow attack, its just that on average arrows do less damage than heavy weapons since you don't get your str bonus unless you have a special bow, and this would mean it takes 3 or 4 rounds of arrows (whatever) to take down the wizard outright, giving the wizard hope of escape (teleport). I posted the earlier comment purely in response to #6 above suggesting that a high level fighter should be close to immune to a...
View full commentI actually totally agree a high level fighter should be able to hit a wizard with a bow attack, its just that on average arrows do less damage than heavy weapons since you don't get your str bonus unless you have a special bow, and this would mean it takes 3 or 4 rounds of arrows (whatever) to take down the wizard outright, giving the wizard hope of escape (teleport). I posted the earlier comment purely in response to #6 above suggesting that a high level fighter should be close to immune to a full assault of a high level wizard. I actually don't think of PC vs PC contests much when I play. I love playing wizards and I love playing barbarians, pretty much the two extremes role wise. I worry less about balance and more about fun.
This approach is the core of a good RPG, guidelines and QuickStart rules but a solid framework for customisation. It is what I have almost always done to every RPG that tried to be too prescriptive.
Couple more ideas for you–Barrister, Demagogue, Magical Duelist (please make counterspell work), Mighty Caster, Persistent Caster (saves, eschew components, spell resistance), Versatile Caster (and this is the one who messes with distance, area and duration).
View full comment