Bounded Accuracy is the ultimate DEAL-BREAKER

Not surprisingly, this new extremist philosophy known as "bounded accuracy" is proving to be a total deal-breaker for literally every veteran player and DM that I know. It is an absolute nightmare. The reality is that if bounded accuracy is in D&D Next, then I don't know a single person who is interested in playing it.

I've been playing D&D and similar games for well over two decades, and I've never seen anything that has angered people this much. A tremendous feeling of betrayal is evident at our gaming tables these days, and it is literally all because of this short-sighted and ham-fisted system of "bounded accuracy" that the designers have decided to force on us.

Here's a tip: if you want the game to be successful, then it is an unbelievably bad idea to introduce some extremely controversial new system that angers people right off the bat. How is that not ridiculously obvious?

For the record, I DO NOT CARE what the designers have said that bounded accuracy is supposedly meant to accomplish. Vague statements like "we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the table…" mean absolutely nothing. All that matters is what bounded accuracy actually accomplishes within the game, including the undeniable game-changing consequences on the player's side of the table that are leaving people very frustrated and very angry. I will highlight some of these consequences below.

--------------

The main practical effect of bounded accuracy is that it clumsily attempts to cram both accuracy and damage into primarily just damage. This is done by reducing characters' attack bonus increases gained as a result of leveling-up to an extremely slow rate, as shown by the progressions presented in the playtest. The idea is that it is supposed to make those increases "feel" more important as they relate to enemy AC's, but it instead does a fantastic job of creating the exact opposite effect.

Considering how easily this bounded accuracy philosophy can break down, it is abundantly clear that the designers simply did not think it through before forcing it on us, and that they have utterly failed to recognize the ridiculous mathematical consequences of its implementation:

1. The first part of the problem with bounded accuracy is that attack bonus increases from leveling-up occur only every 5 or so levels, which means that the difference between high- and low-level characters' attack bonuses will only be a few points. But because we are rolling the d20 to attack, the randomness the d20 will frequently create more variance than just a few points. This makes something like a two-point difference in attack bonus a lot less important than it would be in a system without a randomly-generated attack roll. Yet that two-point difference is supposed to represent like 10 entire levels of improvement, and so it just ends up feeling like virtually nothing because it is diluted over such a large range of levels, and because the randomness of the d20 in such a system can frequently override much – if not all – of the perceived gain.

In other words, because characters' attack bonuses do not significantly improve over time in the bounded accuracy system, it makes players feel like their characters are never really getting better. People HATE this with an absolute passion, and they desperately want the old attack progressions back. In any case, we definitely need a much bigger range of level-based attack bonus increases one way or another (i.e. some kind of faster progression, with a +1 increase every other level at the absolute minimum) so that the improvements to attack are truly significant over time. Then we can set the AC values within the game to correspond with that range. This would not only be incredibly easy to do mathematically, but it would also present NONE of the ridiculous pitfalls of the bounded accuracy system.

2. When it comes to low-HP enemies, bounded accuracy makes it such that there is little difference in the attack efficiency between higher- and lower-level characters. Why? Because against low-HP enemies, the extra damage that a higher-level character may be able to do doesn't come into play, and so he/she becomes virtually no better than the lower-level guy (since their attack bonuses barely differ). This is an extremely clumsy way of handling things, almost to the point of making the game comedic.

Our campaigns are about 50% low-HP enemies (in groups of varying sizes) and 50% high-HP enemies, and this means that literally half of the time there is little noticeable difference in attack efficiency between higher- and lower-level characters. It is a terrible problem, and yet it is a problem that we literally never had before. Bounded accuracy is solely responsible for creating this mess.

3. We have discovered another big problem with bounded accuracy: Numerous scenarios can exist in D&D in which dealing X amount of damage isn't the main goal of hitting a target. So while the bounded accuracy philosophy assumes that we can just use the quantity of damage to effectively represent the level of accuracy, it completely neglects all of the types of scenarios where we REALLY DO need to be able to measure accuracy and damage as two entirely separate things. For instance, if you are trying to hit in order to inflict a mind-altering poison, or induce a magical weapon effect, or trigger any other kind of non-damaging effect resulting from a successful hit, then bounded accuracy will consistently make higher-level characters virtually no better than lower-level characters at doing so. This is extremely stupid.

So for example, in our campaign setting we have a group of wild elves who use poison darts to impair (but not really damage) those who stumble into their forest. Since dealing physical damage isn't the point of their attacks at all, bounded accuracy makes it such that there is little noticeable difference between lower- and higher-level characters' attack efficiencies. They never get noticeably better at hitting as they increase in level, and so the masters of the forest are virtually no better than the low-level guys. It is absolutely ridiculous, and it doesn't feel anything like D&D anymore.

The same thing will happen with any type of attack that triggers a special type of effect. Since the effect is triggered upon a hit, there will be little noticeable difference between lower- and higher-level characters at successfully triggering that effect. Again, this is silly, and it is a problem that we never had before.

As with any mathematical system, it is never a good idea to conflate two distinct variables like this (in this case, accuracy and damage). It's just extremely poor judgment on the part of the game designers. We absolutely need to keep accuracy and damage as clearly separate variables, just as we always have in the past, for both practical and logical reasons.


Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER. Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.

4. Another problem with the bounded accuracy system: a single bonus from an ability score can be greater than the entire range of experience-based attack increases from low to high level (i.e. +5 from an ability score, but only +4 from leveling-up from 1st to 20th level). This is utterly crazy, and it just makes leveling-up worth a lot less than it should be. It accomplishes nothing but to make the game less fun, and for no good reason whatsoever.

In other words, it is critically important that the attack bonus increases gained from leveling-up are allowed to grow to significantly greater amounts than any other single modifier to the attack bonus (like that from an ability score or magical weapon). This is what makes players feel like their characters are truly getting better from experience, because they actually are. But bounded accuracy destroys this, as it eliminates the significant improvement of one's ability to hit as a result of leveling-up. It is downright irrational, and it does not feel like D&D anymore.

So for example, a 20th-level character will have only 3 more points on his attack bonus from his leveling-up than a 5th-level character. That is a HUGE difference in experience, and yet it grants only a 15% improvement at hitting (!). If you do not find that to be utterly preposterous, then you and I are living in two entirely different universes. It is so bad that it is laughable.

5. Another idiotic problem that bounded accuracy creates: It makes us do a lot more bookkeeping in combat, slowing the game down significantly. Because even the weaker combatants will be hitting frequently, then each and every round we have to roll their damage and deduct it from the targeted character. This is of course intentional, since the bounded accuracy philosophy essentially makes us measure the accuracy by the amount of damage someone does, and thus we have to constantly be rolling attack AND damage for most characters/monsters every round. How could the designers not have realized how foolish this is?

Contrast that with an un-bounded accuracy system: while the Fighter-types and tougher monsters might be hitting frequently, weaker combatants will be hitting much less of the time, and thus we avoid having to tabulate their damage every single round. This time-savings really adds up, allowing us to get on with the role-playing, and spend a hell of a lot less time bookkeeping.

To add insult to injury, the playtest adds EVEN MORE unnecessary die-rolling, in the form of damage dice. This is a deeply stupid idea, and it needs to be dropped immediately. It just wastes more of our time each round. We definitely need to go back to an un-bounded accuracy system, and then we can completely eliminate all of this inefficient nonsense that bounded accuracy forces on us.

6. Most people seem to agree that a projectile like a crossbow bolt should have the same damage potential regardless of the competency level of the shooter, and so if you really want to "bound" something, you should want to bound damage, NOT accuracy. Some people will predictably respond with the tired argument that the resulting damage amount represents the level of accuracy (as the more damage dealt, the better the hit location on the target's body… e.g. head shot vs. shoulder graze), but that relies entirely upon the false assumption that all creatures automatically have distinct vital areas that are more or less "valuable" to hit, which is simply not the case in D&D.

Again, if you desperately want to "bound" something, then it is simply a hell of a lot smarter to completely un-bound accuracy and instead bound the damage, which will literally remove ALL of these problems in one fell swoop. Then everything would make sense again, and we 3E/PF/SAGA players will come running back to D&D in droves. Otherwise, we'll just stick with our previous systems instead, because they do a MUCH better job of allowing us to do what we want to do with our characters mathematically. Bounded accuracy just strangles the math to the point of absurdity, making the game a mockery of its former self.

Also, keep in mind that these half-dozen problems that I've listed are just the failures of bounded accuracy that we've found so far. I would not be surprised if more problems arise along the way. That's what you get with such an illogical, ham-fisted system.

--------------

In short, bounded accuracy introduces numerous problems to the game that are absolutely unacceptable, and it accomplishes NOTHING than cannot be accomplished more intelligently in some other way. It is probably the most boneheaded philosophy that the designers of D&D have ever introduced, and it should absolutely be eliminated from the game. Otherwise, there is no possible way on this earth that anyone I know will be playing D&D Next.

Thanks to the atrocious mathematical consequences of bounded accuracy, I've literally never seen players so disillusioned about D&D in my entire life. It is a disaster of epic proportions.

Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER. Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
Kind of an issue for me. Probably want to scale back 3.5 style numbers nad 4th eds bloating of hit points. I don't think we actually get a choice on BA.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

The "treadmill" myth:

In reading through some of the posts on here, I keep coming across this bizarre talking point (by the supporters of bounded accuracy) that is being used to criticize non-bounded accuracy systems: the supposed "treadmill" effect. I find this to be a very disingenuous argument.

The "treadmill" effect that is said to exist within our non-bounded accuracy systems is simply a myth. Why? Because in a non-bounded system, characters being able to consistently hit enemies with tougher and tougher AC's as they advance in level is pretty much the exact opposite of a "treadmill". It is instead a reflection of genuine improvement. Those types of creatures that our low-level fighter should have difficulty hitting will become significantly easier to hit by the mid levels, and likewise those tougher-to-hit creatures that our mid-level fighter should have difficulty hitting will become significantly easier to hit by the high levels. Thus, players always feel like their characters are getting better, because they actually are.

How is that a treadmill? It's not even close. It is instead a reflection of a character's ability to hit actually getting better, exactly as it should, because they have significantly improved as a result of gaining experience. This is a fundamental aspect of these kinds of games, and if you carelessly take that away (as bounded accuracy does), then it is not only a hell of a lot less fun for the players, but it barely feels like D&D anymore.

In all my years of playing D&D and similar games, I have NEVER seen a "treadmill" effect in any of my games. Not once ever. The only way you can have a "treadmill" effect is if your DM intentionally creates it (and it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you are using a bounded or non-bounded system). In other words, whenever your attack bonus goes up, your DM purposefully increases the AC of your enemies by that exact same amount.

But none of our games have EVER done this: Enemy AC's do NOT go up just because your attack bonus goes up. They never have. The suggestion is absolute nonsense. Whenever you get an increase to your attack bonus as a result of leveling-up, those monsters' AC values remain the same. They haven't changed. But you have. You have become better. Now you are better at hitting those AC's, and you will be able to hit tougher enemies with more efficiency: the opposite of a treadmill.

But with bounded accuracy, this continual improvement does not occur. Your attack bonuses remain the same most of the time, and enemy AC's remain in virtual lock-step with your attack bonus. It is the most stagnant and boring system I have ever played in my entire life. It makes no sense whatsoever, and it is simply not fun at all.

So in order to get rid of that "static" effect, we absolutely must get rid of bounded accuracy. Then, our characters will consistently get better at their attacks – just as they should – and those enemies will become easier to hit as our characters advance. Then our characters can proceed to take on tougher enemies, or more enemies, or whatever. Regardless, the "treadmill" will not exist, unless of course your DM decides to force it on you, in which case that would be solely the fault of the DM, not the game system.

Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER. Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
Been playing for 20+ years and couldn't disagree more.

We caught on to the arbitrariness of leveling at age 14, and it was basis of our branching out from D&D into games that provided a better sense of accompishment.

My mind is a deal-breaker.

Bounded Accuracy is the best thing that ever happened to this game. <3

Danny

Bounded Accuracy is the best thing that ever happened to this game. <3


+1

My mind is a deal-breaker.

Bounded Accuracy is the best thing that ever happened to this game. <3



...and I am the King of Prussia.

It is good for one thing: it will save us a lot of money because we won't buy ANY of the books. In that sense - and in that sense alone - it is great. 


Been playing for 20+ years and couldn't disagree more.

We caught on to the arbitrariness of leveling at age 14, and it was basis of our branching out from D&D into games that provided a better sense of accompishment.



So let me get this straight... it's "arbirtrary" to you that my archer actually gets A LOT better with his accuracy over time, and can hit targets as a result of his experience that he was nowhere near good enough to hit when he was low-level?

Do you also think that the sky is red, by chance?
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER. Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
It is obvious certain play groups will love this game and certain play groups will hate this game. The key is going to be if the game can get more fans than haters. We havent seen all of what is in store with this system, I am still willing to give it a "wait and see". It isnt as if this is the ONLY game any of us are playing and its "do or die" for this to work.
It is obvious certain play groups will love this game and certain play groups will hate this game. The key is going to be if the game can get more fans than haters. We havent seen all of what is in store with this system, I am still willing to give it a "wait and see". It isnt as if this is the ONLY game any of us are playing and its "do or die" for this to work.



The problem is that unless everyone loves it (and fwiw I am in full agreement with JacobSinger on this point...I do regard Bounded Accuracy as a flat out betrayal of what it means to play DnD), Wotc loses.  That's because Hasbro (apparently) has some completely unrealistic demands for how well an TRPG should be able to do, and it means getting the entire market share (maybe even twice over if rumors are correct).

So if even a large minority of people hate Bounded Accuracy with a passion (and I think it's more than that actually), DDN will flop.

-Polaris
I'd like to see the bounds expanded a little bit (AC from 10-20).  But i'm good with the way it is (AC 13-17).

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

I like the idea of bounded accuracy so now you know one person at least.

However, I do agree that I would prefer to see less emphasis on high ability scores on attack rolls (halve the bonus) add an extra +1 to all the characters attack rolls at level 1, and expand the level bonuses slightly.
I would rate the message content at three stars our of four, the coherency of the argument at three stars out of five, and the enthusiasm behind the message at three stars out of three.

You should spend more time saying why the math is bad, and avoid emphasizing how stupid you think it is.  Overall, I'd give this rant a B+.

The metagame is not the game.

Casts Dispel Magic at the Wall of Text!


Quote: the difference between high- and low-level characters' attack bonuses will only be a few points.

Assumption: The difference between high- and low- level character should primarily be determined by difference in accuracy.

Response: There is no reason why the difference between high- and low- characters should differ based primarily on accuracy.  And there have been very good reasons why it should not.
> First, accuracy detemines merely whether an attack can connect well enough to cause damage.  That should be fairly static.  You either penetrate armor or you don't.  You either avoid someone's dodge of you don't.  That is a very narrow range.
> Second, wide gaps in accuracy induce either a treadmill effect on defense to keep up with ever-increasing attack values or result in massive imbalance.
> Third, if the treadmill effect is chosen, then you have ever-increasingly absurd explanations for defense values. One person wearing chainmail is AC15 and another is AC 25 (in 4e, this could be as high as 45 or more) based on his level, requiring someone to so good at defending themselves that even naked and immobilized they are the equivalent AC of someone wearing platemail and carruing a shield.  The numbers cease to represent anything concrete in the world.
> Fourth, there are penty of less irrational ways to illustrate progress.  Of course, there is damage.  But there is also a greater range of options in attack.  More maneuvers, more abilities, more conditions.  Relying primarily on ever-increasing attack values to represent progress has been characterized (and not entirely inaccurately) as number porn.


Quote:
there is little difference in the attack efficiency between higher- and lower-level characters.

Response: Although you numbered this "2" it is the exact same point as number one and contain sprecisely the same assumption: the difference between low- and high-level characters should be primarilty determined by the treadmill of ever-increasing attack bonuses.


Quote: Numerous scenarios can exist in D&D in which dealing X amount of damage isn't the main goal of hitting a target. So while the bounded accuracy philosophy assumes that we can just use the quantity of damage to effectively represent the level of accuracy, it completely neglects all of the types of scenarios where we REALLY DO need to be able to measure accuracy and damage as two entirely separate things.

Assumption: The only way to differentiate low- and high- level characters is through the media of attack rolls and damage.

Response: The game already accommodates this by giving people options.  We have yet to see poisons yet, but it is very likely that there will be skill checks to resist (thus allowing skill tricks to help avoid), hp thresholds for debilitating effects (much like many save-or-die spells have now been given), and other powers and options that will ameliorat these effects.

The criticism is particularly unfounded since it completely relies on assumptions of what poison rules will look like, which we have not seen.  However, if it appears anythign like spell design (and that would appear to be the appropriate analogy), then the game will accommodate the higher resistance to poisons of high-level characters in the same way that high-level characters are more resistant to certain spells.


Quote
: a single bonus from an ability score can be greater than the entire range of experience-based attack increases from low to high level

Assumption: Same assumption as before: that accuracy bonuses are the primary way to determine the difference between low- and high-level creature.

Response: See above.  This is the same point as one and as two.


Quote: It makes us do a lot more bookkeeping in combat, slowing the game down significantly

Assumption: It is more fun for PCs and NPCs to mis more often than it is to take and inflict damage.

Response: I see no basis for this assumption.  In fact, all observation performed by Wizards since 2000 is that PCs are happy to take damage as long as they are hitting and inflicting damage regularly.  The most comppon complaint is frustration iif attacks are missing more often than not.  If you are happier in a game in which you will miss more than you hit, then I agree that this new edition is not for you. However, it would be inaccurate to state that your preference is objectively preferable.  It is not.


Quote: the playtest adds EVEN MORE unnecessary die-rolling, in the form of damage dice.

Assumption: Rolling dice is not fun.

Response: I disagree.  I think people enjoy rolling dice.  If you do not like to roll dice, then I agree that this new edition is not for you. However, it would be inaccurate to state that your preference is objectively preferable.  It is not.

Also, if your goalis to have people agree with you or to present a cogent response to people, you might want to tone down the hyperbole.  It really does get in the way of your posts.
It is obvious certain play groups will love this game and certain play groups will hate this game. The key is going to be if the game can get more fans than haters. We havent seen all of what is in store with this system, I am still willing to give it a "wait and see". It isnt as if this is the ONLY game any of us are playing and its "do or die" for this to work.


They already tried that "let's make a radical and unnecessary change" philosophy with 4E. It succeeded in making a lot of people very angry, and fracturing the fanbase.

Do you really think that introducing another VERY controversial new system with D&D Next is a good idea? ... especially one that is so utterly nonsensical, as bounded accuracy is?

At least 4E made sense. Sure, we didn't care for the homogenous class mechanics and whatnot, but it wasn't inherently irrational like bounded accuracy is. 

We felt betrayed before. Now we are feeling even more betrayed than last time.
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER. Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
I look at it from a DMs point of view with an AC/Hit point equalizer.  I throw an encounter at the players and then I push or pull my AC and HP sliders before we go to the next encounter. 

I like the control actually.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Personally i would do away with attacks all together, and have everyone just roll damage.

Not going to happen, but... 

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

I don't mind bounded accuracy, generally.  Hell, one of my favorite games has no automatic accuracy increase with level (it also doesn't give "ability score" bonuses to attack rolls).

But I am, personally, not really a huge fan of just shifting the "automatic scaling" into damage and hit points.  Someone else called it "Final Fantasy Syndrome", and yeah, that's exactly what it feels like to me: significantly higher numbers, just to have significantly higher numbers ("because levels").
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
You should spend more time saying why the math is bad, and avoid emphasizing how stupid you think it is.



Are you joking? I went into great detail, thus the need for the length.

And I have plenty more to come (you should know that). I just had to limit the first few posts from being too long. 
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER. Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.

So let me get this straight... it's "arbirtrary" to you that my archer actually gets A LOT better with his accuracy over time, and can hit targets as a result of his 



No, I think your wrong. I think you maintained status quo, with leveled upgrades before.
Did you take your level 15 archer out on a few level 3 campaigns or something? My hit rate always stayed the same except for magic item improvements, mainly because our encounters leveld with us. 

And....

It's extremely weird that an archer has a harder time hitting a dragon then hitting kobald. So, yes.
I could hit a dragon with a bow, but I probably couldn't hit a house cat.

Worst case just your level to your attack bonus, and add monster level to AC and you have achieved the desired power sensation.


Do you also think that the sky is red, by chance? 



Well... they say red in morning, players take warning. Red at night, players delight!

My mind is a deal-breaker.

Okay so in 4e you always kept "getting better" however your on level challenges also got better at the same speed.  This is relatively true in most editions up till now (though 4e was by far the best about keeping those DC's the same) essentially in 4e if you were fighting what the game handed you as a proper encounter you were always facing the same exact challenge.  The numbers were completely meaningless because you were always looking for a 9-13 on the d20 roll (depending upon difficulty of encounter) you could in fact entirely disregard the entire character sheet and monster block and just arbitrarily make the call as to if the thing succeeded based upon the d20 roll.  Unless you broke and ignored the system and made encounters that were not of the prescribed difficulty.  Basically in most editions the number "advancement" was a total lie since the actually DC's were a distinctly similar offset from your meaninglessly inflated stats.  Even worse the "advancement" was a lie that did nothing but completely take lower level monsters out of the list of viable threats.  By using bounded accuracy you stop lying and keep as many things as possible relevant as threats and challenges for longer.  In fact in a bounded acuracy system the +1 to accuracy actually becomes even more precious because it actually means you are going to have a better chance to hit everything.  In former systems the +1 just meant you would now have the same chance of hitting a new library of threats.

Here is an example I mentioned months ago where bounded accuracy fails to differentiate the combat competency of higher- and lower-level characters:

In our campaign setting we have a species of low HP/high AC enemies. They are dangerous because they have a nasty sting and are quite tough to hit (and they tend to attack in series), and thus a low-level combatant should have great difficulty in hitting them, while a high-level combatant should be able to hit them quite reliably. This very straightforward scenario was always extremely easy to achieve with previous systems, but in a bounded accuracy system this is basically impossible for me to achieve as a DM, because the low- and high-level characters' attack bonuses are way too close together to provide the necessary differential to consistently overcome the potential randomness of the d20.

So as a DM, either I have to keep the creatures' AC high enough so that the low-level combatant cannot easily hit them (where the creatures' AC should be, but then the high-level guy will probably also have great difficulty hitting them, since his attack bonus will only be a few points better)…

or I have to artificially reduce the creatures' tough-to-hit AC such that the high-level character can indeed reliably hit them (as he should be able to), but this means that the low-level guy will be able to do so almost as easily (since his attack bonus is only slightly worse). In other words, with bounded accuracy there is little difference in the success rate of the high- and low-level characters to defeat these creatures, because bounded accuracy foolishly attempts to represent that difference with primarily damage alone, even though the key to fighting these creatures is NOT doing tons of damage, but is instead being able to hit them in the first place (!).

This simply doesn't make any sense at all, and it doesn't feel like D&D anymore. It completely ruins the effect of these creatures (who have worked just fine for us for decades… until now), and instead makes me as a DM treat them as just another generic sack of hit points. But we don't want generic sacks of hit points (!)… we want some creatures to have high AC's, some have high HP's, some have both, some have neither, some be really good attacking while not having a high AC or HP, some have really high AC or HP while not having a high damage capability, etc., etc., etc. That wide range of variance is essential because it mixes things up in combat, keeping it interesting because monsters are not always operating on the same terms mathematically.

Chopping off literally half of the variables from that equation, as bounded accuracy does (i.e. keeping attack bonuses and AC static), just means less diversity of numbers, and thus less interesting enemies mathematically. Now they are all operating on the same boring scale: the HP/damage scale is predictably always going up, because that's really the only thing that can go up. It is FAR more like a treadmill than anything I have ever seen in my life. B-O-R-I-N-G.

We absolutely need our diversity of numbers back, and we absolutely need a large range of numbers to work with. It doesn't have to be some ridiculous +75 as some people have suggested. In SAGA, attack bonuses top out somewhere in the 20's, and skill bonuses (for those who have focused on a given skill) top out in the mid-20's. That's all we are asking for, and that gives us enough of a numerical range to allow us to do what we want to do (i.e. what we have always been allowed to do in the past).

---------

Another example in which bounded accuracy completely fails to differentiate the competency levels of high- and low-level characters: The wounded creature escaping through a mountain pass with a valuable piece of intel that only our village's master archer should be able to take down in the nick of time.

With bounded accuracy, either I have to keep the creature's AC high enough such that the lower-level guys almost certainly can't hit him (where the creature's AC should be, but then the master archer probably can't hit him either, since his attack bonus is only a few points better than the low-level guys)…

or I have to make the creature's AC easy enough to hit such that the master archer should indeed be able to hit him, but then so could a lot of the low-level guys too (and then that master archer feels like he isn't special after all… a career's worth of experience, and yet he is virtually no better than regular schmucks. In short, the ridiculous mathematical consequences of bounded accuracy completely destroy what otherwise was a cool campaign scenario: the master archer being the only one capable of making a difficult shot… a heroic D&D moment that is now impossible because of the deeply-flawed bounded accuracy system.

There's just no way around it, folks: bounded accuracy simply doesn't make sense. It is a disgrace.

Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER. Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
It's extremely weird that an archer has a harder time hitting a dragon then hitting kobald. So, yes.
I could hit a dragon with a bow, but I probably couldn't hit a house cat.

Except we've already long established that "hitting" something means "getting through the thickness of its armor"... although that only succeeds in convincing me that they've been doing armor wrong ever since the seventies.

The metagame is not the game.

While I disagree with his choice of language, and acknowledge that there are two sides to the debate, I have to agree that most of the OPs points are spot on - although all of them have been pointed out repeatedly elsewhere, with less insults thrown in.  Moreover, the "mand12" definition of BA doesn't actually require us to have any of these problems, even if even he doesn't seem to realize that.  BA has some nice features, but this level of emphasis on damage/HP scaling is neither good nor required.  Even if you want to be fighting kobolds at 10th level and hitting dragons at 1st.  
so many miss the point of bounded accuracy.
why should a door be harder or eaiser to break down depending on what level you are? that was a problem with the 4e mechanic. in Next classes still get a bonus 'to hit' as they level up, so they become more accurate with level, so what is the issue against bounded accuracy?
as far as high to low level characters, HP and damage output is a big part of the equation you are leaving out. using the second example above the low level character may only do 10 HP damage while the high level character may do 40 HP damage. the AC is not as important as how many HP the opponent has left... 

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

Okay so in 4e you always kept "getting better" however your on level challenges also got better at the same speed.


We played every edition except 4E.

The numbers were completely meaningless because you were always looking for a 9-13 on the d20 roll (depending upon difficulty of encounter) you could in fact entirely disregard the entire character sheet and monster block and just arbitrarily make the call as to if the thing succeeded based upon the d20 roll.  


And thankfully SAGA works nothing like that. We face enemies of widely varying defense scores in every single adventure. There is no treadmill whatsoever, because you never know which of their three defenses will be higher, which will be lower, etc.

But with bounded accuracy, AC's top out at a hilariously low number (i.e within or very near the range of the d20 alone), so you essentially have a static treadmill. It creates the illusion that your attack bonuses still mean something, when they are actually a mere shadow of their former importance.

You might as well not have attack bonuses at all.
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER. Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.

Here is an example I mentioned months ago where bounded accuracy fails to differentiate the combat competency of higher- and lower-level characters:

In our campaign setting we have a species of low HP/high AC enemies. They are dangerous because they have a nasty sting and are quite tough to hit (and they tend to attack in series), and thus a low-level combatant should have great difficulty in hitting them, while a high-level combatant should be able to hit them quite reliably. This very straightforward scenario was always extremely easy to achieve with previous systems, but in a bounded accuracy system this is basically impossible for me to achieve as a DM, because the low- and high-level characters' attack bonuses are way too close together to provide the necessary differential to consistently overcome the potential randomness of the d20.

So as a DM, either I have to keep the creatures' AC high enough so that the low-level combatant cannot easily hit them (where the creatures' AC should be, but then the high-level guy will probably also have great difficulty hitting them, since his attack bonus will only be a few points better)…

or I have to artificially reduce the creatures' tough-to-hit AC such that the high-level character can indeed reliably hit them (as he should be able to), but this means that the low-level guy will be able to do so almost as easily (since his attack bonus is only slightly worse). In other words, with bounded accuracy there is little difference in the success rate of the high- and low-level characters to defeat these creatures, because bounded accuracy foolishly attempts to represent that difference with primarily damage alone, even though the key to fighting these creatures is NOT doing tons of damage, but is instead being able to hit them in the first place (!).

This simply doesn't make any sense at all, and it doesn't feel like D&D anymore. It completely ruins the effect of these creatures (who have worked just fine for us for decades… until now), and instead makes me as a DM treat them as just another generic sack of hit points. But we don't want generic sacks of hit points (!)… we want some creatures to have high AC's, some have high HP's, some have both, some have neither, some be really good attacking while not having a high AC or HP, some have really high AC or HP while not having a high damage capability, etc., etc., etc. That wide range of variance is essential because it mixes things up in combat, keeping it interesting because monsters are not always operating on the same terms mathematically.

Chopping off literally half of the variables from that equation, as bounded accuracy does (i.e. keeping attack bonuses and AC static), just means less diversity of numbers, and thus less interesting enemies mathematically. Now they are all operating on the same boring scale: the HP/damage scale is predictably always going up, because that's really the only thing that can go up. It is FAR more like a treadmill than anything I have ever seen in my life. B-O-R-I-N-G.

We absolutely need our diversity of numbers back, and we absolutely need a large range of numbers to work with. It doesn't have to be some ridiculous +75 as some people have suggested. In SAGA, attack bonuses top out somewhere in the 20's, and skill bonuses (for those who have focused on a given skill) top out in the mid-20's. That's all we are asking for, and that gives us enough of a numerical range to allow us to do what we want to do (i.e. what we have always been allowed to do in the past).

---------

Another example in which bounded accuracy completely fails to differentiate the competency levels of high- and low-level characters: The wounded creature escaping through a mountain pass with a valuable piece of intel that only our village's master archer should be able to take down in the nick of time.

With bounded accuracy, either I have to keep the creature's AC high enough such that the lower-level guys almost certainly can't hit him (where the creature's AC should be, but then the master archer probably can't hit him either, since his attack bonus is only a few points better than the low-level guys)…

or I have to make the creature's AC easy enough to hit such that the master archer should indeed be able to hit him, but then so could a lot of the low-level guys too (and then that master archer feels like he isn't special after all… a career's worth of experience, and yet he is virtually no better than regular schmucks. In short, the ridiculous mathematical consequences of bounded accuracy completely destroy what otherwise was a cool campaign scenario: the master archer being the only one capable of making a difficult shot… a heroic D&D moment that is now impossible because of the deeply-flawed bounded accuracy system.

There's just no way around it, folks: bounded accuracy simply doesn't make sense. It is a disgrace.





up the HP needed to bring it down only the master archer will be able to do that with his shot.

Also yeah pretty much every one of your assertions is incorrect.  a level 5 party, while able to hit asmodeus would be completely incapable of defeating him...even with the silver weapons.  they would have about 3 turns (given a 5 man party) of hitting him (which he would largely disregard) before the TPK was finished (with his rod he can basically instant kill any 5th level PC).  THe high level party is required to defeat Asmodeus.  just because they can hit doesn't mean they will be effective.
It's extremely weird that an archer has a harder time hitting a dragon then hitting kobald. So, yes.
I could hit a dragon with a bow, but I probably couldn't hit a house cat.

Except we've already long established that "hitting" something means "getting through the thickness of its armor"... although that only succeeds in convincing me that they've been doing armor wrong ever since the seventies.



I know. But there are levels of weirdness. Games are going to have weirdness in favor of system mechanics and all, just why make it the most extreme variety.

@singer
You can stack the treadmill on bounded accuracy if that's what you need to make stinger monsters that low level characters can't hit. You can also just give them damage resitance, i.e. subtract 10 or 15 from damage of attack. to accompish an identical effect

My mind is a deal-breaker.

There's an odd mindset around here that if a character goes from fighting goblins at level 1, to fighting ogres at level 10, to fighting giants and archdemons at level 20, he hasn't improved his abilities at all, simply because the things he's fighting are always a challenge.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
There's an odd mindset around here that if a character goes from fighting goblins at level 1, to fighting ogres at level 10, to fighting giants and archdemons at level 20, he hasn't improved his abilities at all, simply because the things he's fighting are always a challenge.



The mindset should be obvious. Is an ogre more skilled a fighter then a giant, orc or kobald? My impression is no. I shoudl be able to hit all of these types of creatures equally better as I level. There is no reason why a giant shopuld be impossible to hit at level 1, he should be just nearly impossible to kill. 

My mind is a deal-breaker.

so many miss the point of bounded accuracy.
why should a door be harder or eaiser to break down depending on what level you are? that was a problem with the 4e mechanic.


What does that have to do with it?

You picked the only game in which that goofy mechanic was included, and you are using that as some bizarre excuse for bounded accuracy? That makes no sense.

Breaking down a door is simple: STR check. It doesn't get higher just because you level-up. That's how it works in SAGA and 3E. No need for bounded accuracy whatsoever.

as far as high to low level characters, HP and damage output is a big part of the equation you are leaving out.



Accuracy should get better with experience. That makes all the sense in the world.

But damage and HP? Not necessarily. If anything, they should be bounded instead. I don't see any logical explanation as to why my arrows or my sword would do more damage just because I have more experience.... but my accuracy would definitely get better, without a doubt.
 

Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER. Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.


Accuracy should get better with experience. That makes all the sense in the world.



AND finally it does!

My mind is a deal-breaker.

Did you take your level 15 archer out on a few level 3 campaigns or something? My hit rate always stayed the same except for magic item improvements, mainly because our encounters leveld with us.



By this logic, your damage isn't actually improving in DDN right now. Your damage is staying the same, because the encounters are leveling with you. It is still taking the same number of hits to kill an enemy. So why bother tracking damage? Why not just get rid of hit points and damage altogether, and just say "Everyone rolls a d20 each round, if they roll above a 6, they hit. If three hits connect, the enemy dies", no more need to track hp, damage, hit, or ac!

The answer of course is obvious. Just like how in bounded accuracy you can have hordes of weaker enemies that you can kill in one hit, in the older editions you could have hordes of enemies that you hit/killed effortlessly and had no chance of hitting you. Every enemy you ever face is not going to be equal level to you. If that is your experience, I am sorry that you have/are a bad DM. 
There's an odd mindset around here that if a character goes from fighting goblins at level 1, to fighting ogres at level 10, to fighting giants and archdemons at level 20, he hasn't improved his abilities at all, simply because the things he's fighting are always a challenge.



The mindset should be obvious. Is an ogre more skilled a fighter then a giant, orc or kobald? My impression is no. I shoudl be able to hit all of these types of creatures equally better as I level. There is no reason why a giant shopuld be impossible to hit at level 1, he should be just nearly impossible to kill. 



I think the opposition is saying they care less if it makes sense, they just want the nonsense to remain consistant.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Hi, I'm Michael, I love bounded accuracy.  Now you know one more person who loves it. 


BA has serious issues.  I won't pretend it doesn't.  But, a non bounded system also has serious issues.  Which you ignore entirely.  This debate is really about which systems benefits and problems we prefer over the other. 


I think the bounded accuracy system makes D&D more cinematic, make more sense, and more approachable ON A WHOLE.


Yes, the poison dagger situation is unforunate.  It's part of the trade-off, and I'll happily take it. 


There are many many positives to a non-bounded accuracy system.  I like that a group of lower level enemies can be an interesting encounter for higher level enemies.  I like that a higher level PC can slay a lower level monster in a single blow, rather than being able to kill it with several blows that are virtually guaranteed to hit.  I like that a high level mage and a high level rogue and a high lvl fighter actually have a chance to hit the same enemy (as opposed to one being able to hit easily, and another never having a shot). 

Many of your concernc with bounded accuracy could be alleviated with abilities and don't HAVE to be inherent to the system.  You could have an ability which uses martial damage dice to add a +1 to hit, but sacrifices all damage bonuses beyond the base weapon die - just as a quick example I just thought of. 

Bounded accuracy doesn't fit the way D&D has worked in the past.  The designers obviously realize this.  What bounded accuracy DOES fit is the depiction of stories and movies.  THAT's the framework that the system needs to do a better job of mimicking in order to attract more players. 

so many miss the point of bounded accuracy.
why should a door be harder or eaiser to break down depending on what level you are? that was a problem with the 4e mechanic.


What does that have to do with it?

You picked the only game in which that goofy mechanic was included, and you are using that as some bizarre excuse for bounded accuracy? That makes no sense.



No, the earlier editions of D&D had that mechanic, and it increased as your level increased.
There's an odd mindset around here that if a character goes from fighting goblins at level 1, to fighting ogres at level 10, to fighting giants and archdemons at level 20, he hasn't improved his abilities at all, simply because the things he's fighting are always a challenge.



The mindset should be obvious. Is an ogre more skilled a fighter then a giant, orc or kobald? My impression is no. I shoudl be able to hit all of these types of creatures equally better as I level. There is no reason why a giant shopuld be impossible to hit at level 1, he should be just nearly impossible to kill. 



I think the opposition is saying they care less if it makes sense, they just want the nonsense to remain consistant.

LOL Yup.

Danny

Why not just get rid of hit points and damage altogether, and just say "Everyone rolls a d20 each round, if they roll above a 6, they hit. If three hits connect, the enemy dies", no more need to track hp, damage, hit, or ac!

Well, in that case you still need to track HP - everything has three HP, and every attack deals 1 damage.

The metagame is not the game.

so many miss the point of bounded accuracy.
why should a door be harder or eaiser to break down depending on what level you are? that was a problem with the 4e mechanic.


Nope a challenging door will need to be more awsome to be worthy as a challenge.. the same door when you are high level and even your at-wills are twice as precise and twice as potent can now be blown off the hinges. Its no longer a worthy challenge... 


  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Okay so in 4e you always kept "getting better" however your on level challenges also got better at the same speed.  This is relatively true in most editions up till now (though 4e was by far the best about keeping those DC's the same) essentially in 4e if you were fighting what the game handed you as a proper encounter you were always facing the same exact challenge.  The numbers were completely meaningless because you were always looking for a 9-13 on the d20 roll (depending upon difficulty of encounter) you could in fact entirely disregard the entire character sheet and monster block and just arbitrarily make the call as to if the thing succeeded based upon the d20 roll.  Unless you broke and ignored the system and made encounters that were not of the prescribed difficulty.  Basically in most editions the number "advancement" was a total lie since the actually DC's were a distinctly similar offset from your meaninglessly inflated stats.  Even worse the "advancement" was a lie that did nothing but completely take lower level monsters out of the list of viable threats.  By using bounded accuracy you stop lying and keep as many things as possible relevant as threats and challenges for longer.  In fact in a bounded acuracy system the +1 to accuracy actually becomes even more precious because it actually means you are going to have a better chance to hit everything.  In former systems the +1 just meant you would now have the same chance of hitting a new library of threats.



Yeah, yeah we've all heard the treadmill argument.  It really isn't that it hasn't been sufficiently well explained to us.  We get it.  We actually disagree with it.  You see, in a treadmill, you keep walking but you don't actually move.  The thing right in front of you is still right in front of you, the thing to your left is still right alongside, the thing behind you is still right behind you.  However, in the "4e treadmill" this is not the case.  That level 4 monster that was in front of you on the power curve?  You get closer to him, you pull alongside him, you surpass him.  He stands still, and you move.  Unless your DM has just been levelling up kobolds with higher stats and no new toys, you are making real progress.  Fundamentally different from a treadmill: the terrain isn't standing still, you're just not making it out of the jungle.  Yes, the chance to hit is staying pretty much the same, but it should stay pretty much the same against equally powerful opponents.  Why should two grand masters have an easier time hitting each other than two noobs?  Why don't their defensive skills increase alongside their offensive skills?  If you think the combat rhythm works best when you hit say 65% of the time, why slowly increase that to 80% of the time?  Same goes for skill checks.  The DC to bust open a wooden door isn't increasing to match your "meaningless bonuses."  Rather, in order to continue to provide a challenge to high level characters, that wooden door is replaced by an adamantium door, which you can now feel super cool about smashing in because you couldn't do that 10 levels ago.  Whereas with flat math, you can't do anything you couldn't do before except more damage.  Guess what, that extra damage you're doing?  It's proportionally equal to the extra HP the monsters you're fighting have.  So if you were on a treadmill before, you're still on a treadmill, you've just swapped a d20 treadmill for a d6 treadmill.  Congratulations!  You have replaced the "illusion" of advancement with the reality of no advancement! Huzzah for flat math!
so many miss the point of bounded accuracy.
why should a door be harder or eaiser to break down depending on what level you are? that was a problem with the 4e mechanic.


What does that have to do with it?

You picked the only game in which that goofy mechanic was included, and you are using that as some bizarre excuse for bounded accuracy? That makes no sense.



No, the earlier editions of D&D had that mechanic, and it increased as your level increased.




The only way a higher level character had an easier way of breaking down a door in 3.5 was by getting a higher strength, or higher damage. Both of these are still possibilities in DDN (though strength is capped very low)


On the other hand, while you can make the argument "Who focuses on breaking down doors as something they do", let's look at something more common. A rogue with a focus on lockpicking. Why should a level 20 rogue who has been picking locks for basically ever and is the best in the world at what he does, have a reasonably large percent chance of failing to pick a low quality lock? He should be able to pick low quality locks without even thinking about it. By level 20, any mundane lock even of exceptional quality should be realtively easy. The rogue at that point should be having trouble with locks made by Gods to guard their valuables, not failing 20% of the time breaking into a farmer's wood shed. 
Sign In to post comments