Orcus is Why We Need Bounded Math in 5E

Orcus Empowered from 4th Edition's Prince of Undeath.
1,525 hit points,
Armor Class 48,
does 1d20+38 vs ac,
Str 35(+29)
If you ask me, we've all got to be mathematicians to play this game.
I bet hardly anybody bought this module and played this game.

We've got to have limits.
How about
Level 23x1d12HD hit points
AC 23
Str 23(+6)+Level 23(+5)
1d20+11 to hit
1d12+11 necrotic damage
and if Orcus dies, he is just banished to his other plane for 7 days.

Sure, with lower bonuses a crowd of peasants could rise up to kill Orcus in their town.
But nobody should be immune or impervious. Even a peasant should be able to hit the god of the undead with a natural 1.
Less math, more play.

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

 Even a peasant should be able to hit the god of the undead with a natural 1.



You're an American Original, good sir.

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

 Even a peasant should be able to hit the god of the undead with a natural 1.



You're an American Original, good sir.



I second this

Here is a revised Orcus for 5th Edition. He still slaughtered the 1st level party. But some of the rolls of int vs and wis vs against Orcus were successful.
level 23(+5)
ac 23
The highest stat was 35 so I subtracted 23(my idea of the highest possible stat right now) from that to get 12. Then I subtracted 12 from all the scores.
str 23(+6)
con 21(+5)
dex 10(+0)
int 13(+1)
wis 13(+1)
cha 18(+4)
hp178=1d12xlevel 23+con21
2 main attacks and 2 off-hand attacks
main attack the wand of Orcus str vs ac doing 1d12 necrotic
or
1 recharge 6 attack only no main and off-hand attacks, tail lash str vs ac doing 3d4 target stunned and prone
or
1 recharge 6 attack only no main and off-hand attacks, sweeping blow with the wand of Orcus blast 4 square radius 1d12 necrotic and all hit targets pushed 2 and prone

tail parry reaction, orcus uses his armored tail dex vs dex on hit he reduces his damage by 1d8
blink shift reaction, orcus teleports up to 6 squares from his position and reduces his damage by 1d8

off-hand weaken foe dex vs dex target takes stackable str-1
off-hand shift foe dex vs dex target is pushed 2 squares orcus' choice

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

I don't buy it. Now, if this was a monster from an encounter that didn't happen once, and it being the last encounter, you might have a point. Round those numbers to the nearest 5 or 10, and it's going to be just as simple as d20+11
Thats nothing you should see Kyuss's 2 page stat block from 3.5's age of wryms campaign setting. I suspect Orcus would be more like AC30

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

This 1st level party was able to inflict about 40 points damage on my altered Orcus.
The Cleric's Command worked on his low Wisdom defense.
The Sorcerer's Dancing Lights on his Intelligence defense, I allowed a sit mod of +4 to attack Orcus but the Sorcerer had to reroll to maintain the Dancing Lights each round.
The fighter and rogue were able to flank Orcus for an additional +2 which didn't last long.
He killed all but the Sorcerer who ran away in about 5 rounds.
He inflicted the same damage as the 1st level party but he got 2 main attacks and 2 off-hand attacks or 1 recharge attack.
The first level party got only 1 main attack or action and 1 off-hand attack or minor action.
The Rogue used her dodge reaction to stay alive longer, as well as help from the fighter's Protect reaction.
The cleric could heal 1d8 as a reaction.

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

Thats nothing you should see Kyuss's 2 page stat block from 3.5's age of wryms campaign setting. I suspect Orcus would be more like AC30



Oh dear god. All his SPELLS!
My two copper.
Wait... wait, wait, wait. A lvl 1 cleric successfully used command on Orcus, demon prince of undeath? No, just no. If a lvl one anything approaches orcus his aura should be enough to kill him without a single swing from the wand he carries. I mean, this looks to me that a lvl 1 PC could possibly survive a hit from the wand of orcus. That shouldn't happen. Can you please explain to me why you feel the strongest beings in the multiverse of DnD should be threatened by a small village of lvl 1s?
Wait... wait, wait, wait. A lvl 1 cleric successfully used command on Orcus, demon prince of undeath? No, just no. If a lvl one anything approaches orcus his aura should be enough to kill him without a single swing from the wand he carries. I mean, this looks to me that a lvl 1 PC could possibly survive a hit from the wand of orcus. That shouldn't happen. Can you please explain to me why you feel the strongest beings in the multiverse of DnD should be threatened by a small village of lvl 1s?



Because Clark the Butcher have a super strong 13 strength for choping chicken heads since he was 10 years old at his family butcher shop...
Wait... wait, wait, wait. A lvl 1 cleric successfully used command on Orcus, demon prince of undeath? No, just no. If a lvl one anything approaches orcus his aura should be enough to kill him without a single swing from the wand he carries. I mean, this looks to me that a lvl 1 PC could possibly survive a hit from the wand of orcus. That shouldn't happen. Can you please explain to me why you feel the strongest beings in the multiverse of DnD should be threatened by a small village of lvl 1s?



And this is why I am not sold on bounded accuracy. First level monsters/characters-- even in great numbers--should really have NO chance against the highest level characters/monsters, IMO.
Wait... wait, wait, wait. A lvl 1 cleric successfully used command on Orcus, demon prince of undeath? No, just no. If a lvl one anything approaches orcus his aura should be enough to kill him without a single swing from the wand he carries. I mean, this looks to me that a lvl 1 PC could possibly survive a hit from the wand of orcus. That shouldn't happen. Can you please explain to me why you feel the strongest beings in the multiverse of DnD should be threatened by a small village of lvl 1s?



And this is why I am not sold on bounded accuracy. First level monsters/characters-- even in great numbers--should really have NO chance against the highest level characters/monsters, IMO.



+1


In another very long argument I was told that in these situations the DM sould "just make them unhittable" rather than allow the mechanics to reflect the sensibilities of the game world. While I like the sentiment of the DM going ahead and making thematically appropriate stuff happen I'd much prefer it if the mechanics could reflect those themes. It makes the DM's job a lot easier and eases relations at the table.

Wait... wait, wait, wait. A lvl 1 cleric successfully used command on Orcus, demon prince of undeath? No, just no. If a lvl one anything approaches orcus his aura should be enough to kill him without a single swing from the wand he carries. I mean, this looks to me that a lvl 1 PC could possibly survive a hit from the wand of orcus. That shouldn't happen. Can you please explain to me why you feel the strongest beings in the multiverse of DnD should be threatened by a small village of lvl 1s?

And this is why I am not sold on bounded accuracy. First level monsters/characters-- even in great numbers--should really have NO chance against the highest level characters/monsters, IMO.

The fact that they can get a hit in is no measure of threat.

Villagers pour forth, swinging, chopping and hacking, and Orcus cleaves them all with a mighty sweep.

Accuracy is bounded, damage is what scales exponentially.

Danny

I'm looking forward to seeing one of the big boys (Orcus, Demogorgon, etc) stats for 5th Ed, and with bounded accuracy, they should be much more manageable.

-No ability score over 30.

-Any AC over 20 is huge.

-As of now it looks like the highest to hit a monster can get is around +12.
I'm looking forward to seeing one of the big boy (Orcus, Demogorgon, etc) stats for 5th Ed, and with bounded accuracy, they should be much more manageable.

-No ability score over 30.

-Any AC over 20 is huge.

-As of now it looks like the highest to hit a monster can get is around +12.

I'm excited too!!

I'm into the bounded numbers, big time. 

Danny

The fact that they can get a hit in is no measure of threat.

Villagers pour forth, swinging, chopping and hacking, and Orcus cleaves them all with a mighty sweep.

Accuracy is bounded, damage is what scales exponentially.



I understand the idea but there are situations where it's simply inappropriate for something to get hit at all. I don't want my PCs to even consider their chances to hit The Lady of Pain and this mechanic invites them to. I understand that the circumstances are rare (like the PCs seeing anything more than The Lady's shadow) but I don't want to have to do narrative gymnastics to make those situations happen.


It really boils down to what you consider to be a hit, and I think that the designers are asking perhaps a bit too much from the community when they tell us to see a hit as not necessarily a hit. Their definition of hit points is far from universally accepted so I fail to see how the explanation that not all damage is damage will work here either.


A lot of people, including myself, aren't very comfortable with resolving a hit that does damage as something other than a hit that does damage.

Just occured to me:


If monster qualities (stats as a term doesn't seem to qualify in this discussion) are meant to rise organically from what a creature is then it's highly likely that the big crazy powerful guys like The Lady of Pain or Orcus will be totally unhittable anyway.


If you consider that the creatures aren't meant to be fought, really, and would probably require crazy artifact powers to even approach them without being killed by looking at them then we might see an entry for such entities as AC: N/A and an explanation that they're not hittable under normal circumstances.




You fell asleep on your keyboard again...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.

Just occured to me:


If monster qualities (stats as a term doesn't seem to qualify in this discussion) are meant to rise organically from what a creature is then it's highly likely that the big crazy powerful guys like The Lady of Pain or Orcus will be totally unhittable anyway.


If you consider that the creatures aren't meant to be fought, really, and would probably require crazy artifact powers to even approach them without being killed by looking at them then we might see an entry for such entities as AC: N/A and an explanation that they're not hittable under normal circumstances.




No what will happen is they will have thousands of hit points. Go ahead and hit away if they just stand there and take it and do nothing you might beat them by the end of the year...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.



+1 bound accuracy is boring.
 
No what will happen is they will have thousands of hit points. Go ahead and hit away if they just stand there and take it and do nothing you might beat them by the end of the year...



See above: there are situations where it is thematically and dramatically inappropriate for anything to be able to hit the hting. If you're in a situation where you roll a hit that deals damage, then many are uncomfortable with describing that hit that deals damage as anything but a hit that deals damage.


So a big bad guy of titanic proportions that under no circumstances should be hit by anything can't be accounted for in a game where the numbers have a mandate to remain in a range that requires an allowance for them to be hit.

No what will happen is they will have thousands of hit points. Go ahead and hit away if they just stand there and take it and do nothing you might beat them by the end of the year...



See above: there are situations where it is thematically and dramatically inappropriate for anything to be able to hit the hting. If you're in a situation where you roll a hit that deals damage, then many are uncomfortable with describing that hit that deals damage as anything but a hit that deals damage.


So a big bad guy of titanic proportions that under no circumstances should be hit by anything can't be accounted for in a game where the numbers have a mandate to remain in a range that requires an allowance for them to be hit.




Go ahead and describe it as a hit that deals damage. Do it the same way you describe a level 10 Fighter with around 100 hit points taking a physical hit compared to a Wizard with 6 hit points at level one taking a hit and not dying. Its simple:

Player "I slash Orcus with all my might with my might Great Sword of Cleaving +3."

DM "A small scratch appears on his arm. He laughs at your feeble attempt to harm him as he raises your companions from the dead to fight for him."
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Go ahead and describe it as a hit that deals damage. Do it the same way you describe a level 10 Fighter with around 100 hit points taking a physical hit compared to a Wizard with 6 hit points at level one taking a hit and not dying. Its simple:

Player "I slash Orcus with all my might with my might Great Sword of Cleaving +3."

DM "A small scratch appears on his arm. He laughs at your feeble attempt to harm him as he raises your companions from the dead to fight for him."



You're ignoring what I'm saying. There are situations where it is thematically and dramatically inappropriate for anything to have a chance at hitting something.


This system does not account for those situations.

Go ahead and describe it as a hit that deals damage. Do it the same way you describe a level 10 Fighter with around 100 hit points taking a physical hit compared to a Wizard with 6 hit points at level one taking a hit and not dying. Its simple:

Player "I slash Orcus with all my might with my might Great Sword of Cleaving +3."

DM "A small scratch appears on his arm. He laughs at your feeble attempt to harm him as he raises your companions from the dead to fight for him."



You're ignoring what I'm saying. There are situations where it is thematically and dramatically inappropriate for anything to have a chance at hitting something.


This system does not account for those situations.




Not only that, but an entire first level monestary full of first level monks has no business being able to stun Orcus (or even your typical Elder Great Wyrm) at all.  This criticism also applies to many spells cast by low level wizards and the like.

-Polaris

To be honest I don't actually need the rules to account for this situation but the thing I'd like to avoid is me getting accused of going on a power trip when I do play the dramatic license card and refuse to allow a spell or attack to land.


Even a provision spelled out clearly for the players that the DM can and will place them in situations where they won't be able to affect a given monster or NPC would do. As long as the DM is empowered by the rules to make the necessary changes in the name of dramatic license then there's no harm done.

Okay.  Now we're talking about Gods being hittable.  Let me just express again, that Bounded Accuracy does not mean you will ever see a God with an AC of 18.  In fact, it's highly unlikely.  What BA means is that the God will not have +30 to AC from assumed levels resulting in AC in the 40+ range.  What he will have is Skin that has God-like resistance to being punctured (read: harder than plate = base AC 20) and God-like reflexes (read: Dex 30 = +10), which results in roughly AC 30.  Which settles him nicely in the the nearly impossible range.

This is perfectly acceptable in a BA system.  You don't need to change any rules to make it happen.

If you want something to be nearly impossible to hit, give them an AC in the nearly impossible range (25+).

All BA means is that something with an AC that high is going to be worth a heck of a lot more xp if you beat them.
Okay.  Now we're talking about Gods being hittable.  Let me just express again, that Bounded Accuracy does not mean you will ever see a God with an AC of 18.  In fact, it's highly unlikely.  What BA means is that the God will not have +30 to AC from assumed levels resulting in AC in the 40+ range.  What he will have is Skin that has God-like resistance to being punctured (read: harder than plate = base AC 20) and God-like reflexes (read: Dex 30 = +10), which results in roughly AC 30.  Which settles him nicely in the the nearly impossible range.

This is perfectly acceptable in a BA system.  You don't need to change any rules to make it happen.

If you want something to be nearly impossible to hit, give them an AC in the nearly impossible range (25+).

All BA means is that something with an AC that high is going to be worth a heck of a lot more xp if you beat them.


This is pretty much exactly what I said above only with numbers attached to it.
Except you also said this:



You're ignoring what I'm saying. There are situations where it is thematically and dramatically inappropriate for anything to have a chance at hitting something.


This system does not account for those situations.




Which is why I chimed in.  The system absolutely accounts for this.

No what will happen is they will have thousands of hit points. Go ahead and hit away if they just stand there and take it and do nothing you might beat them by the end of the year...



See above: there are situations where it is thematically and dramatically inappropriate for anything to be able to hit the hting. If you're in a situation where you roll a hit that deals damage, then many are uncomfortable with describing that hit that deals damage as anything but a hit that deals damage.


So a big bad guy of titanic proportions that under no circumstances should be hit by anything can't be accounted for in a game where the numbers have a mandate to remain in a range that requires an allowance for them to be hit.



So are you also opposed to the classic "20 always hits attacks" and "1 always fails saves" rules?
Except you also said this:
You're ignoring what I'm saying. There are situations where it is thematically and dramatically inappropriate for anything to have a chance at hitting something.

This system does not account for those situations.


Which is why I chimed in.  The system absolutely accounts for this.


The system people think they're seeing in 5e - a disregard for targetting vs defense mechanics - doesn't account for that, no. The OP's suggestion was actively taking this notion that monsters don't advance on the basis of player challenge and using it to make a ridiculous claim which doesn't account for basic sensibilities that any D&D system must account for.


Which is really the problem with the name "bounded accuracy" (when I write BA, all I can think of is British Airways - the name is stupid; can we find a new one?) is it creates this bizarre perception that somehow encounter balance is going to be found in this way that basically disregards targetting mechanics.

No what will happen is they will have thousands of hit points. Go ahead and hit away if they just stand there and take it and do nothing you might beat them by the end of the year...

See above: there are situations where it is thematically and dramatically inappropriate for anything to be able to hit the hting. If you're in a situation where you roll a hit that deals damage, then many are uncomfortable with describing that hit that deals damage as anything but a hit that deals damage.

So a big bad guy of titanic proportions that under no circumstances should be hit by anything can't be accounted for in a game where the numbers have a mandate to remain in a range that requires an allowance for them to be hit.


 So are you also opposed to the classic "20 always hits attacks" and "1 always fails saves" rules?

I don't mind if lightning strikes once in a while, I do mind if the system doesn't make those nearly impossible rolls feel nearly impossible by making a god hittable. If I confront a player with a god and they attack it and go ahead and roll a 20, then I'll treat it as a hit that does damage and it'll have consequences for the character. But if a god has an AC of 19 'cause of some misguided notion that nobody can have a really high AC in 5e then lightning will strike pretty often and that's where the consequences of making a dramatic shot in the dark stop carrying meaning.

Also, if you're only taking into account HP and damage then there is no chance that lightning will strike at all, even on a crit... and where's the fun in that?


But I should stress that we've all ready established that the OP is fundamentally mistaken and the scenario Lokiare was giving us shouldn't happen under the current guidelines we've got in any case.

Except you also said this:
You're ignoring what I'm saying. There are situations where it is thematically and dramatically inappropriate for anything to have a chance at hitting something.

This system does not account for those situations.


Which is why I chimed in.  The system absolutely accounts for this.


The system people think they're seeing in 5e - a disregard for targetting vs defense mechanics - doesn't account for that, no. The OP's suggestion was actively taking this notion that monsters don't advance on the basis of player challenge and using it to make a ridiculous claim which doesn't account for basic sensibilities that any D&D system must account for.


Which is really the problem with the name "bounded accuracy" (when I write BA, all I can think of is British Airways - the name is stupid; can we find a new one?) is it creates this bizarre perception that somehow encounter balance is going to be found in this way that basically disregards targetting mechanics.


I agree that the name of the design goal is causing quite a bit of confusion as to what it actually means.  I've seen others suggest the name Bounded Difficulty.  Which is a bit more appropriate, but I think the bigger word problem is "Bounded."  Peaople seem to think that this means all number must be attainable by all levels.  This is not the case.  What it means is that a DC that means "difficult"  will always mean "difficult." Whereas level scaling means a DC of 15 could mean "difficult" at 1st level, but will mean "trivial" at higher levels.  This also does not mean that characters don't improve.  It means that numbers don't inflate on a level scale.  Meaning that smaller bonuses have a higher impact on what characters can actually achieve.

It means that an AC 20 is always going to be a challenge.  Not that you won't get better at hitting that AC.  Nor that an AC 30 can't exist.  It makes an AC 30 meaningful at all levels instead of a scaling decrease in meaning with level.


And no, the current DC's do not match in practice the difficulty they are meant to represent.  Hopefully that will be changed with the coming skill overhaul.
Go ahead and describe it as a hit that deals damage. Do it the same way you describe a level 10 Fighter with around 100 hit points taking a physical hit compared to a Wizard with 6 hit points at level one taking a hit and not dying. Its simple:

Player "I slash Orcus with all my might with my might Great Sword of Cleaving +3."

DM "A small scratch appears on his arm. He laughs at your feeble attempt to harm him as he raises your companions from the dead to fight for him."



You're ignoring what I'm saying. There are situations where it is thematically and dramatically inappropriate for anything to have a chance at hitting something.


This system does not account for those situations.





Of course it does. It only gives stats for things that are 'hittable,' why would it give stats for things that are unhittable....

It doesn't give stats for a mountain. because players can't attack and destroy a mountain. Anything a DM wants to be unhittable doesn't have stats.

My mind is a deal-breaker.

I agree that the name of the design goal is causing quite a bit of confusion as to what it actually means.  I've seen others suggest the name Bounded Difficulty.  Which is a bit more appropriate, but I think the bigger word problem is "Bounded."  Peaople seem to think that this means all number must be attainable by all levels.  This is not the case.  What it means is that a DC that means "difficult"  will always mean "difficult." Whereas level scaling means a DC of 15 could mean "difficult" at 1st level, but will mean "trivial" at higher levels.  This also does not mean that characters don't improve.  It means that numbers don't inflate on a level scale.  Meaning that smaller bonuses have a higher impact on what characters can actually achieve.

It means that an AC 20 is always going to be a challenge.  Not that you won't get better at hitting that AC.  Nor that an AC 30 can't exist.  It makes an AC 30 meaningful at all levels instead of a scaling decrease in meaning with level.


And no, the current DC's do not match in practice the difficulty they are meant to represent.  Hopefully that will be changed with the coming skill overhaul.



The word "bounded" doesn't even match what they're doing anyway. Mathematically a bounded range is one that stretches between two numbers into infinity - like how there's an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1 - or a finite set of numbers between two bounds - like 0, .2, .5, .9. 1. Totally doesn't make any sense at all when applied to D&D because those kinds of sequences aren't very useful.


I've come to think it of it more as organically derrived mechanics. I don't even think it needs a fancy title and I really don't actually see how it changes the DM or player's jobs in any way apart from the types of numbers and abilities they're pulling out of the air.


All it really ends up being is a more evenly weighted approach to the system math where you get lots of little increases instead of one or two big ones.

Go ahead and describe it as a hit that deals damage. Do it the same way you describe a level 10 Fighter with around 100 hit points taking a physical hit compared to a Wizard with 6 hit points at level one taking a hit and not dying. Its simple:

Player "I slash Orcus with all my might with my might Great Sword of Cleaving +3."

DM "A small scratch appears on his arm. He laughs at your feeble attempt to harm him as he raises your companions from the dead to fight for him."



You're ignoring what I'm saying. There are situations where it is thematically and dramatically inappropriate for anything to have a chance at hitting something.


This system does not account for those situations.




Not only that, but an entire first level monestary full of first level monks has no business being able to stun Orcus (or even your typical Elder Great Wyrm) at all.  This criticism also applies to many spells cast by low level wizards and the like.

-Polaris



That's just your opinion, mine is the opposite. 

I would love to run a 1st level adventure where the party has to get an entire village to band to gethor to fend off a powerful dragon. I agree that some spells need to be balanced and have level ranges (as to what they can effect). One of the most exiciting tropes of all adventure and fantasy is the weak facing the mighty and overcoming through willpower and cleverness. What's the fun of beating a dragon when you have the clear stat advantage to do it? I want my players to look death in the eyes and actually be heroic.

Your problem is one of the few things that enables truly heroic fantasy in 5e. What's wrong with player empowerment?

My mind is a deal-breaker.

Except you also said this:
You're ignoring what I'm saying. There are situations where it is thematically and dramatically inappropriate for anything to have a chance at hitting something.

This system does not account for those situations.


Which is why I chimed in.  The system absolutely accounts for this.


The system people think they're seeing in 5e - a disregard for targetting vs defense mechanics - doesn't account for that, no. The OP's suggestion was actively taking this notion that monsters don't advance on the basis of player challenge and using it to make a ridiculous claim which doesn't account for basic sensibilities that any D&D system must account for.


Which is really the problem with the name "bounded accuracy" (when I write BA, all I can think of is British Airways - the name is stupid; can we find a new one?) is it creates this bizarre perception that somehow encounter balance is going to be found in this way that basically disregards targetting mechanics.



It's only a problem now, in the playtest, when people don't know what bounded accuracy. I'm assuming this edition will have a DMG like the others.
I wouldn't worry about it dude, it's completely in line with bounded accuraccy to have orcus be almost unhittable. Some guy on a forum doesn't change that.

In other news, it would be cool if they could at least adjust expectations from basic mechanics like HP or AC without people throwing their arms up and saying, "I don't agree with your definition of HP!"
Its a game. Games need rules. We might need to accept some changes to those rules if we ever want to experience new games.
A few guidelines for using the internet: 1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart. 2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons. 3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves. 4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health. 5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.

heh now there's the crux of it: nobody really wants to play a new game. They want to play D&D, and what's happened is they've tried to make each edition after 2nd this "stronger, faster and more evolved" D&D that doesn't allow a whole heck of a lot in the way of translation.


So the mess 5e's landed in is they're not actually writing a new edition of a game, they're writing a whole new game and selling it as D&D - just like 3e and 4e did.


I really want WOTC to get back to editions actually being edtions and not whole new games, but that's gonna be a painful process. And they probably won't.


heh now there's the crux of it: nobody really wants to play a new game. They want to play D&D, and what's happened is they've tried to make each edition after 2nd this "stronger, faster and more evolved" D&D that doesn't allow a whole heck of a lot in the way of translation.


So the mess 5e's landed in is they're not actually writing a new edition of a game, they're writing a whole new game and selling it as D&D - just like 3e and 4e did.


I really want WOTC to get back to editions actually being edtions and not whole new games, but that's gonna be a painful process. And they probably won't.



I have those old games. I want new games. To me, (someone whose been playing since 2e and watched their parents play ad&d) D&DN feels like classic d&D with enough changes to make it something new and interesting. I understand it won't feel that way for everyone, but frankly, I'm not convinced anything would beyond letting them make it themselves.... something people have been doing with d&D for 20+ years now.

We have a LONG time before this version is finished so people can continue to give feedback and we'll see more sweeping changes to rogues, fighters alignments and whatnot. But asking for AD&D 2.5 is at this point... just isn't a business proposition when those mechanics aren't (to my knowledge) really concretely WOTC's... or being clamored for. Or do I misunderstand?
A few guidelines for using the internet: 1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart. 2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons. 3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves. 4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health. 5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.

@Staccat0


Yeah I understand and I agree that nobody's gonna get "their D&D" out of this whole crazy train unless they get up and do it themselves.


But people still want this edition to be "their D&D". I'm not saying everyone wants 2e with improvements and nothing else, I'm saying that I would rather an edition build on what's all ready there in such a way that it's still recognisably the same system. 4e was the largest departure from that, but 3e had its share of total failure when it came to building characters from the previous edition and have it still be recognisable.


Change happens. That's just how it goes, but if I started talking about my textbook from my intro to technical theatre course with someone who's in a course using the same book, we could pretty much understand exactly what's what without even realising that my book is 4 editions old. In fact, the only way we'd really know is if they brought up something they weren't talking about when I was at uni or a specific page number was referenced.


I tire of not being able to talk to people about D&D without first establishing whether I can even have that conversation by comparing edition notes.

I don't want gods and demon lords being able to be brought down by a village full of peasants.  If that's possible, then what's the point of even having heroes?  Just get a few hundred peasants and send them out to do the job.
I don't want gods and demon lords being able to be brought down by a village full of peasants.  If that's possible, then what's the point of even having heroes?  Just get a few hundred peasants and send them out to do the job.



I think that's easy. Gods and Demon lords work in much more sophisticated ways walking into a village and stomping things to bits. Also if they did do such... is it likely the villagers will be like... "Let's fight it, dude!!!"... Nope, they'd run. This feel right to me. How often does a bank full of customer rise up against a bank robber? Imagine if the robber was a dragon and 50% of the people knew they'd die if they rose up.... so not an issue really.

Either way... You can make gods that can't be hurt also, just don't give them stats. Or make them ethereal... It's easy. Or make them fly. Or make them cause a terror effect. or whatever... it's not even worth discussing. The point is, why have a system that disallows all but one way?

 
Why would a village of peasants be willing to sacrafice themselves? Heroes will sacrifice themselves if need be. There is your reason.

My mind is a deal-breaker.

Sign In to post comments