Improving Bounded Accuracy

Some people like bounded accuracy and some people don't.  Reading through the forums, the criticisms against bounded accuracy seem to fall into 2 categories:

1.  Robin Hood Scenario - a novice is as good at making the shot as an expert
2.  ACs are too low for powerful monsters - level 1 characters can easily hit Asmodeous

The proponents of bounded accuracy complain that high level characters are invincible since their AC is so high they can't be hit.

I think there are ways to improve bounded accuracy and satisfy both groups.  If we accept that some form of bounded accuracy is going to stay, here are some possible improvements:

1 - Get rid of the "10" as the standard, starting AC.  D&D has always assumed that an average unarmed and unarmored person had an AC 10.  In a bounded accuracy system, a minimum of 10 really collapses the useable real-estate if you stick with the D20 model.  Make the standard, starting AC a 2 so that only a 1 fails.  This may sound crazy at first but think about it.  For non-ranged attacks, it's actually really easy in real life to hit someone who is "standing and fighting" and not dramatically moving away or flat out running away.  Now, just because you hit someone doesn't mean that you actually did any serious damage.  So a low AC 2 (95% chance to hit) isn't really as ridiculous as it sounds. Whether or not you do any real damage could easily be handled on the HP side of the house (which is addressed below).  If the minimum AC is 2, there are several other things that must also take place to make this effective.

2 - Dramatically lower the AC bonus of armor.  They should look something like:

Padded armor = 3 + Dex modifier
Leather armor = 4 + Dex modifier
Hide armor =  5 + Dex modifier
Studded leather = 6 + Dex modifier
Scale mail = 7 + Dex modifier
Ring mail = 8
Chain mail = 9
Splint = 10
Banded = 11
Plate = 12
Shield = +1 AC

3 - Add back in AC scaling with level.  This helps alleviate some of the issues with bounded accuracy.  A level 1 fighter in plate with a shield still only has an AC of 13 (a 40% chance of getting hit w/o bonuses).  A level 20 fighter in the same plate with the same shield has an AC of 23 (a 5% chance of getting hit w/o bonuses).  This way characters still get the benefit from experience without breaking the bank.  The level 1 fighter is easier to hit and the level 20 knight is much harder to hit, but not impossible to hit.

4 - Get rid of almost all bonuses to hit except from class and level progression.

4.A. First, get rid of the STR bonus to hit.  This isn't as bad as it sounds since bounded accuracy makes up for easy to hit ACs by adding more hit points.  So while a strong character will not hit more often than a weaker one, they will do more damage.  If all things else are equal, the stronger character still has a better chance of taking out their weaker twin.

4.B. Don't have Weapon proficiencies add bonuses;  have them prevent penalties.  If you are not proficient with a weapon and attempt to use it then you could suffer something like a -5 or -2 to your attack roll.  If you are proficient with the weapon you are using then your unmodified D20 roll is your attack roll.

4.C. Add back in the attack bonus scaling by level based on class.  This would help alleviate the Robin Hood syndrome and actually separate the classes from each other.  I imagine something like "martial characters get a 1/2 per level bonus to attack with weapon attacks. Arcane characters get a 1/2 per level bonus to attack with arcane attacks. etc."  This means at level 1 a fighter and wizard both have a 50% chance of hitting a target with an AC 10.  However, at level 20 a fighter has a 95% chance of hitting that same target and a 50% chance of hitting an AC 20 target with a weapon attack.  If a level 20 wizard tries to use a weapon (not their thing), they still only have a 50% chance of hitting the AC 10 target and only a 5% chance of hitting the AC 20 target.  However, if the wizard casts a spell then they would also have the 95% chance to hit the AC 10 target and 50% chance to hit the AC 20 target.

5.  Increase the ACs of tougher monsters.  If you have a scaling attack bonus, it would be OK to have the highest level monsters with ACs of 20 - 25.  A 20th character would have a 50% chance of hitting a creature with an AC of 20 and a 25% chance of hitting a creature with an AC of 25, while a level 1 character would only have a 5%  chance of hitting something like a demi-god or the Duke of Hell.  That doesn't sound unreasonable.

6.  Increase starting Hit Points.  If you are drastically decreasing ACs then it only makes sense to increase the PCs' starting HP unless you want a truly gritty campaign.  This goes back to the point of above that just because you hit someone doesn't mean it was significant. It could have been mostly blocked, only a glancing blow or simple scratch or mainly absorbed by the armor, etc.

7.  Add in mob tactics.  This mainly for NPCs and monsters, but it would address the issue of the level 20 character who doesn't fear low level monsters because they can never be hit.  Essentially, if the DM decides that NPCs or monsters form into a mob they can collectively attack a single target.  This would represent a character surrounded by goblins or a group of peasant archers shooting at a dragon.  It would speed up combat since you could roll one attack for the whole mob and still keep their attacks meaningful.  A mob rule could look something like "The mob makes a single basic attack against a single target with an additional +1 to its attack roll for every 5 creatures in the mob.  If the mob successfully hits its target, the target suffers normal damage from the single basic attack with an additional +1 damage for every 5 creatures in the mob.  If the mob misses, then the mob only inflicts half damage.  To be part of the mob, a creature must be able to attack the target in the same round as the rest of the creatures in the mob."

8.  Add in decaying ACs.  Essentially, each time a target is attacked in a round, they suffer a -1 to their AC. This addresses situations where the target is being ganged up on by multiple attackers who shouldn't or couldn't be categorized into a mob (like the PCs themselves).  This would be in addition to any bonuses gained from flanking, etc.  So, no matter how tough you are, the more you are attacked, the more vulnerable you are.  This prevents the level 20 character from totally wading through a group of level 10 drow mercenaries because they can't even be hit.

So, besides totally abandoning bounded accuracy, what other improvements could be made?
I would have to playtest the proposal before deciding it was an improvement.  4C would be a no-go.  I have yet to see a good argument on the Robinhood syndrome.

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

1.  Robin Hood Scenario - a novice is as good at making the shot as an expert



This isn't actually an issue; all melee capable classes gain a bonus to hit as they level up.  Are you perhaps thinking of the reverse, in that it's as easy to hit a high level target as a low level target? 

First, get rid of the STR bonus to hit.  This isn't as bad as it sounds since bounded accuracy makes up for easy to hit ACs by adding more hit points.  So while a strong character will not hit more often than a weaker one, they will do more damage.  If all things else are equal, the stronger character still has a better chance of taking out their weaker twin.



This would be a fine system assuming they actually make the ability score damage matter across all levels; right now it's a very small portion of damage at high levels.

8.  Add in decaying ACs.  Essentially, each time a target is attacked in a round, they suffer a -1 to their AC. This addresses situations where the target is being ganged up on by multiple attackers who shouldn't or couldn't be categorized into a mob (like the PCs themselves).  This would be in addition to any bonuses gained from flanking, etc.  So, no matter how tough you are, the more you are attacked, the more vulnerable you are.  This prevents the level 20 character from totally wading through a group of level 10 drow mercenaries because they can't even be hit.



This sounds like a nightmare to keep track of. 
1.  Robin Hood Scenario - a novice is as good at making the shot as an expert


The Robin Hood scenario is easy to handle.

The "To hit" roll determines a binary condition: success or failure.
The "damage" roll determines degree of success: how well you succeed.

So in the Robin Hood scenario, the ti-hit roll only determines is you hit the target at all.  And in most archery situations most people can hit a target.  The damage will then tell you how well you hit the target.  The higher the damage, the closer to the bullseye you got. 

This is erfectly consonant with the bonded accuracy statement and makes a heckuva lot more sense than trying to use to-hit alone, as a simple d20 roll does not have enough granularity to properly reflect the difference in skill betweem archers.

Now let's look at part II of your propsal

1 - Get rid of the "10" as the standard, starting AC. 
2 - Dramatically lower the AC bonus of armor.
I'd be interested in seeing that play out.  I think that may in fact be a useful idea. 

3 - Add back in AC scaling with level.
No.  This is specifically what Bounded Accuracy is doing away with.  It's actually a misnomer.  Bounded Accuracy should be called something like "No Assumed Scaling" because that what it is.  If you scale AC with level, then you've eliminated the whole point of the BA system.

Getting tagged should not be an issue.  The issue is how well you're hit. 

4.A. First, get rid of the STR bonus to hit. 
I'd be okay with this.

4.B. Don't have Weapon proficiencies add bonuses;  have them prevent penalties. 
Agreed.  Using a weapon in which you are not proficient should give you disadvantage. 

4.C. Add back in the attack bonus scaling by level based on class. 
Absolutely not.  See Point 3, above.

5.  Increase the ACs of tougher monsters. 
Absolutely not. See Point 3, above.  If monsters are to be immune to commoners' attacks (Asmodeus vs. the villag, for example) then just give him immunity or DR.  If he is tougher to hit, there should be a reason.  If Asmodeus chooses to wear armor that gives him a +8 AC and has a +4 from Dex (and we got with your base assumption of AC 2 for unarmored), then he as an AC 14.  If he wants to up his AC then he needs some assistance in that regard, whether it be an aura of deflection, a ring of protection, a parrying ability, or some other protection.  He should not get a boost just because he is "high level"

6.  Increase starting Hit Points. 
Sure, if we reduce base AC, we need to increase initial hp.

7.  Add in mob tactics. 
This contradicts point 5, above.  The reason you want to scale AC for high-level monsters is to make them immune to mobs.  If you add in mob tactics, you've just undone the whole point of scaling AC.  I'd rather not scale AC and not worry about "mob tactics" except nsofar as it makes for an interesting encounter.

8.  Add in decaying ACs. 
That sounds like unnecessary bookkeeping.

So, besides totally abandoning bounded accuracy, what other improvements could be made?
Right now, the math needs rejiggering.  Creatures are too easy to kill and numbers are too low across the board.  That's not an inherent problem with BA. 
+1 to what Wrecan said. Also, I really want to focus on the fact that neither of the two complaints are really valid. The so called "robin hood scenario" doesn't actually exist. Skill with a bow is dictated by a high stat and level in a weapon combat based class. That has been the case in every edition, and it is still the case in D&DN. You get a higher attack bonus with a high level in a weapon combat based class. You get a higher attack bonus with a high stat. That gives you a higher statistical probability of winning an archery contest. Between the skill die mechanic/and or adding your damage to your attack roll when running an archery contest, the game works just fine when modeling such contests.

Meanwhile, everyone is aware that the monster ACs need tweaking.  
1.  Robin Hood Scenario - a novice is as good at making the shot as an expert


The Robin Hood scenario is easy to handle.

The "To hit" roll determines a binary condition: success or failure.
The "damage" roll determines degree of success: how well you succeed.

So in the Robin Hood scenario, the ti-hit roll only determines is you hit the target at all.  And in most archery situations most people can hit a target.  The damage will then tell you how well you hit the target.  The higher the damage, the closer to the bullseye you got. 


      This still leaves us with the basic objection; Robin Hood misses the entire target all too often.
He may hit the elephant in the eye with every hit, but he misses the entire elephant almost as often as a novice. 
    [We also have the reverse problem in the pseudo-bounded accuracy that is being discussed.  Our novice quite simply can't hit the bulls-eye at all since he does far less damage with a hit.]
     For any sort of non-combat archery, we have this problem.  Robin Hood just fails frequently at when should be a gimmie, and some red shirt is almost as good as him.


This is erfectly consonant with the bonded accuracy statement


      Depends on the statement.  But in terms of keeping the orc relevant, you need to hire a lawyer who is good at showing black is white.  Whether the PC gets more hp or better AC, the orc becomes unimportant at higher levels.  One way he hits only on a 20.  The other he barely does enoungh damage to notice.  Either way it's not going to be an even fight at those higher levels.
    

 and makes a heckuva lot more sense than trying to use to-hit alone, as a simple d20 roll does not have enough granularity to properly reflect the difference in skill betweem archers.


     Bounded accuracy is designed to reduce granularity.  Critizing the alternatives for not having something hardly fies when it has even less.

 

+1 from me also on what wrecan said.

Also...

I love suggestions 1 and 2. Would like to see how 1 plays out especially. It makes a lot of sense that unless you have some terrible luck you can hit an unarmored human standing still more than half the time! Can't say enough how much I like this idea.
I agree with wrecan on this: damage is the number to look at.  I have never understood the whole "archery contest" argument in which your performance is based on your attack roll result.  When you attack a monster, a hit is a hit.  If I hit the monster exactly, you don't say, "You just barely hit him", right?  Because that implies just a graze which wouldn't be much damage, but I could still roll max damage and kill the monster.

The hit roll is simply determining whether or not you hit, nothing more.  It is the damage roll that differentiates between grazing the target an hitting it in the eye.

So for an archery contest, the target wouldn't have a very high AC, because it isn't hard to hit the target.  For the harder contests, the target would be farther away, thus increasing the AC (or just giving a penalty to hit, same result).  Each circle on the target would then get an HP threshold (you must do this much damage to enter), ending with the bullseye.  Yes, this does mean that a novice might not stand any chance of hitting the bullseye, but I think this is good.  I don't think a novice should have a 5% chance to get a bullseye.  And don't forget extra damage from a crit, which means the novice might actually have a chance.  With the longbow he does 1d8+8 damage on a crit.  If you make the bullseye threshold 16 damage, the novice has a 0.625% chance of hitting the bullseye.  Sounds about right.

Now, in terms of this idea that Robin Hood (or any master archer) can't hit things any more often than a novice, even in D&D Next that just isn't true.  I consider a novice to be someone with no training and no natural skill: a level 1 commoner with a 10 Dexterity.  An average joe.  Attack bonus: +0.  Also, they aren't proficient, so they have disadvantage (this is part of the current rules, it is just burried on page 15 of the How to Play file).  Robin Hood, on the other hand, has a 20 Dex, and a +5 from level, giving him a +10 to hit.  1d20 + 10 vs. 2d20 (take the lowest) doesn't exactly seem like a fair fight to me.

In terms of lowering defenses, I'd be fine with it, but I'm not sure about everyone else.  The whole AC 10 thing is so fundamental to D&D that it might be a mistake to change it.


      This still leaves us with the basic objection; Robin Hood misses the entire target all too often.
He may hit the elephant in the eye with every hit, but he misses the entire elephant almost as often as a novice.  
    [We also have the reverse problem in the pseudo-bounded accuracy that is being discussed.  Our novice quite simply can't hit the bulls-eye at all since he does far less damage with a hit.]
     For any sort of non-combat archery, we have this problem.  Robin Hood just fails frequently at when should be a gimmie, and some red shirt is almost as good as him.



That is 100% false. Seeing as Robin Hood is defined by high dex and a higher level in a weapon using class, he will have a higher attack bonus, and will have a higher chance to hit the target. He will not miss the target as often as a novice. A level 1 novice attacks with a +5 bonus at best. A level 20 master attacks with a +10 bonus. Meanwhile, how much damage you deal reflects what ring you strike. It works, and it works well. In fact, it works better than the challenge has ever worked before!
 

7.  Add in mob tactics. 
This contradicts point 5, above.  The reason you want to scale AC for high-level monsters is to make them immune to mobs.  If you add in mob tactics, you've just undone the whole point of scaling AC.  I'd rather not scale AC and not worry about "mob tactics" except nsofar as it makes for an interesting encounter.  



I want team work ... to be explicitly requred.. so the "mob tactics" may be a wrong name but thats my thought, I want heroic leaders to transform the group who really cant touch those monsters normally to be capable and inspired to stand up and stay steady, improving both impact and ability to survive.

Since these are for me about the players interacting with the scenario  (its really silly otherwise) ... the heros guidance should be what makes the difference.
  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."

 

And in most archery situations most people can hit a target.  The damage will then tell you how well you hit the target.  The higher the damage, the closer to the bullseye you got. 


      This still leaves us with the basic objection; Robin Hood misses the entire target all too often.


Dude, read what you quoted, for goodness' sake.  The archers always hit the target.  If you're proficient in a longbow, I wouldn't even bother with the attack roll.  The target is the archery target.


Our novice quite simply can't hit the bulls-eye at all since he does far less damage with a hit.


A critical hit is always a bullseye, I would rule.  But the master archer is going to hit the bullseye every time because he can always do more than the novice's critical hit damage.  The issue is not whether Robin Hood hits the bullseye.  He never misses the bullseye -- he's Robin Hood.  At that point, you're measuring success in terms of millimeters, not archery rings.

For any sort of non-combat archery, we have this problem.  Robin Hood just fails frequently at when should be a gimmie, and some red shirt is almost as good as him.


If you're not even going to bother reading the suggestions, please don't write posts implying that you did.  Because anybody reading your responses immediately can tell you haven't done so.

the orc becomes unimportant at higher levels.  One way he hits only on a 20.  The other he barely does enoungh damage to notice.  Either way it's not going to be an even fight at those higher levels.


Then it doesn't matter which system is used. It's not a mark before or against.  The difference, however is the orc is a significant threat over more levels because the orc's damage is irrelevant only when you approach legacy levels.  A group of orcs is a significant threat for a good six levels.  Third and Fourth editions had legitimate threat ranges of four CR/levels either way.
    
Bounded accuracy is designed to reduce granularity.


No it isn't.  Bounded accuracy simply does away with assumed scaling.
Can someone explain Bounded Accuracy to me from the ground up? I've been looking everywhere and can't seem to find it. I only have the December packet.
Can someone explain Bounded Accuracy to me from the ground up? I've been looking everywhere and can't seem to find it. I only have the December packet.


mand12 on Bounded Accuracy
wrecan on Bounded Accuracy

That's a pretty good primer.
 mand12 on Bounded Accuracy
wrecan on Bounded Accuracy

That's a pretty good primer.



Ok, so let me make sure I have the issue entirely clear. At its very core bounded accuracy means that monster AC's aren't level-dependent. Am I correct?

I was looking for the term in the packet itself, which explains why I couldn't find it. I'm not interested in its implications... I'm honestly just trying to find out what exactly it is that people are talking about, and what's causing all this hubbub.
 mand12 on Bounded Accuracy
wrecan on Bounded Accuracy

That's a pretty good primer.



Ok, so let me make sure I have the issue entirely clear. At its very core bounded accuracy means that monster AC's aren't level-dependent. Am I correct?

I was looking for the term in the packet itself, which explains why I couldn't find it. I'm not interested in its implications... I'm honestly just trying to find out what exactly it is that people are talking about, and what's causing all this hubbub.



It's not a packet term. It was a development term coined way back at the beginning. And yes, it's taking away the assumed scaling based on level. So that hobgoblin wearing plate and a shield will have an AC of 19 at level 1, and will still have the same AC of 19 at level 20.

What people seem to have a problem with is that low level characters can still hit higher level monsters, that is what the controversy surrounds at its core.
It's not a packet term. It was a development term coined way back at the beginning. And yes, it's taking away the assumed scaling based on level. So that hobgoblin wearing plate and a shield will have an AC of 19 at level 1, and will still have the same AC of 19 at level 20.

What people seem to have a problem with is that low level characters can still hit higher level monsters, that is what the controversy surrounds at its core.



Hmmm, I see. That's what I had gathered. I only recently jumped in on the playtest (haven't even given it a shot yet).
And in most archery situations most people can hit a target.  The damage will then tell you how well you hit the target.  The higher the damage, the closer to the bullseye you got. 


      This still leaves us with the basic objection; Robin Hood misses the entire target all too often.


Dude, read what you quoted, for goodness' sake.  The archers always hit the target.


   "Can hit" is not the same as "always hits".  "Can" is consistent with a high percentage of misses, just not with 100%.
     And no, the archers do not always hit the target.  In any sport, the target is placed when some will miss it.  [Why bother to give a score for the outer ring if everybody always hits it?] Our Robin Hood expects to always hit it, but Joe Average expects to miss a few shots.
     Our typical contest would have an AC of about 15.  Giving Robin Hoob a +10, he is going to miss 20% of the time.  But this is Robin Hood!  A system that makes him miss that often often just doesn't cut it.  And then there is the style of his misses.  16 shots are in the bullseye,  and 4 missed the target entirely.  A system that eliminates the middllin shots jars.


 If you're proficient in a longbow, I wouldn't even bother with the attack roll.  The target is the archery target.  Maximum damage is always a bullseye, I would rule.


     Now this sounds like a system that is asking to be gamed.  Use a weapon that does d4 instead of 1d10 for example.  However, you are houseruling the system before it even gets started.
 

  But the master archer is going to hit the bullseye every time because he can always do more than the novice's maximum damage.


     When he hits the target at all.  And there is a quite large chance he will miss the entire target according to bounded accuracy.


 The issue is not whether Robin Hood hits the bullseye.  He never misses the bullseye -- he's Robin Hood.  At that point, you're measuring success in terms of millimeters, not archery rings.


    But as pointed our Robin Hood is missing under bounded accuracy.

the orc becomes unimportant at higher levels.  One way he hits only on a 20.  The other he barely does enoungh damage to notice.  Either way it's not going to be an even fight at those higher levels.



Then it doesn't matter which system is used. It's not a mark before or against.


    Even if this equality is accepted, bounded accuracy is the new system and thus needs to prove it is an improvement.  Pure equality is rejected because of the fear we have missed something.


 The difference, however is the orc is a significant threat over more levels because the orc's damage is irrelevant only when you approach legacy levels.  A group of orcs is a significant threat for a good six levels.  Third and Fourth editions had legitimate threat ranges of four CR/levels either way.


     4 levels either way??  That's +8 to hit, a boatlead of hps, and other advantages.  The 4e chart says the party should be very worried about a +4 encounter, and should have no trouble with +0 or +1.  a -3 encounter would be a walk.
     And what is this "group" nonsense?  You can "extend" the utility of a monster in any system by adding more monsters to the encounter.  5e gains no points on this. 
    
Bounded accuracy is designed to reduce granularity.



No it isn't.  Bounded accuracy simply does away with assumed scaling.


      Which will reduce granularity.

     Our typical contest would have an AC of about 15.  Giving Robin Hoob a +10, he is going to miss 20% of the time.  But this is Robin Hood!  A system that makes him miss that often often just doesn't cut it.  And then there is the style of his misses.  16 shots are in the bullseye,  and 4 missed the target entirely.  A system that eliminates the middllin shots jars.



Sorry, what!? No it would not. Base AC is 10. It would have a Dex of 1/0. That means that it has a max Dex penalty to AC, which is -5. So, a typical target would have an AC of 5. It might be placed at 150-600 feet away if the contest is targeted to more skilled archers, which would mean that you attack with disadvantage (unless you have the feat that allows you to aim to lose that disadvantage). If you hit, you roll damage. The winner is the archer who hit and dealt the most damage. It works, and it works well. So long as everyone shooting is skilled, chances are they will all hit the target. Damage is what will dictate how well they hit the target. 

     Our typical contest would have an AC of about 15.  Giving Robin Hoob a +10, he is going to miss 20% of the time.  But this is Robin Hood!  A system that makes him miss that often often just doesn't cut it.  And then there is the style of his misses.  16 shots are in the bullseye,  and 4 missed the target entirely.  A system that eliminates the middllin shots jars.



Sorry, what!? No it would not. Base AC is 10. It would have a Dex of 1/0. That means that it has a max Dex penalty to AC, which is -5. So, a typical target would have an AC of 5. It might be placed at 150-600 feet away if the contest is targeted to more skilled archers, which would mean that you attack with disadvantage (unless you have the feat that allows you to aim to lose that disadvantage). If you hit, you roll damage. The winner is the archer who hit and dealt the most damage. It works, and it works well. So long as everyone shooting is skilled, chances are they will all hit the target. Damage is what will dictate how well they hit the target. 




Shrink the target and move it about and its 15 or better. Oh no better yet put some magic leather over it since armor makes things harder to hit.   

Can someone explain Bounded Accuracy to me from the ground up? I've been looking everywhere and can't seem to find it. I only have the December packet.




Those links have too much hyperbole. Bounded accuracy simply reduces the range in which accuracy increases with level. Martial classes get +5 through five levels. I forget what the Cleric gets and the Wizard gets nada. Just think of  Chinese bounded feet. Do you like chicks with big feet? No. So you squeeze it smaller. Do you want +40 attack vs +52 AC like Pathfinder? For that reason among others I like bounded accuracy however the way its implemented in Next makes the game worse.

Because a mobile archery target outside of the official long range of a bow and equipped with magical armor isn't a corner case or anything.
Can someone explain Bounded Accuracy to me from the ground up? I've been looking everywhere and can't seem to find it. I only have the December packet.




Those links have too much hyperbole.



I used no hyperbole of any kind.  Rather, what I posted is the direct, clear, and unequivocal statements of the developers themselves.  There is no inference, no exaggeration.  Every point I made is directly referenceable to specific statements by the people who decided to use the term.

If you think those links contain hyperbole, then you don't understand what BA is, what it is trying to do, and what it is not trying to do.  If you think those links contain hyperbole, you're wrong.  Flatly.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I know BA is one of wizards major points for next but as more and more packets come out, it seems to be getting in the way of their own mechanics.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

Its easy to fix and you can kepe your mods to hit from strenght and magic weapons. Put an upper limit on ability scores for PCs (20 works), and have 40 as the upper number if you are going for a 3.5/2nd ed +1 to hit every level for fighters or AC 30 or so for a 4th ed style BAB.

 Eliminate most other bonuses to hit. +1 to hit spell is fine maybe +2 or +3 for higher level ones, weapon focus and thats about it.

 Keep the popular parts of 3rd and 4th, scale the silly stat and AC numbers from 3.5 down and scale the 4th ed hit point bloat down.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

And in most archery situations most people can hit a target.  The damage will then tell you how well you hit the target.  The higher the damage, the closer to the bullseye you got. 


      This still leaves us with the basic objection; Robin Hood misses the entire target all too often.


Dude, read what you quoted, for goodness' sake.  The archers always hit the target.


   "Can hit" is not the same as "always hits".  "Can" is consistent with a high percentage of misses, just not with 100%.


I wrote "most people can hit" "in most situations".  That is not consistent with a high percentage of misses and you know it. 

Our typical contest would have an AC of about 15.


In what world is hitting a stationary target made of straw and four feet in diameter an AC of 15?!  Obviously, if you make idiotic rulings then you can't complain when the results are equally idiotic.

If you insist on putting an AC on such a target, then it should be, at a minimum, the equivalent of an unconscious Dex 3 creature with no armor.  That's an AC of 5 and the attackers all have advantage on the attack.

An "average Joe" archer will miss on a 1, 2, 3, or 4, but since he has advantage, he'll only miss one in 25 times.  The same Dex archer (though any "Robin Hood" archer worth his salt will have an 18 Dex) at 10th level, will only miss on a 1.  But since he has advantage, he'll only miss on a double 1, or 1-in-400 times.  Frankly, I think that's still an unrealistically high chance to miss, which is why I wouldn't bother with the attack roll.  But at any rate, Robin Hood is still going hit the target eight times as often as the average Joe.  Now the chance of Joe hitting the target when Robin whiffs is .2%.  And we haven't even figured out how well they hit (which should still be determined by damage).

This is far better than your weird idea that an archery target is as difficult to hit as a man with 13 Dexterity wearing chain mail!

Use a weapon that does d4 instead of 1d10 for example.


You have to use a longbow in an archery contest, so the maximum damage (8) is always the same. 

However, you are houseruling the system before it even gets started.


There is no system for archery contests.  We're both houseruling it!!  The only difference is you are creating an absurd system (in which a stationary target is as hard to it as a man wearing armor) and then complaining that the underlying rules don't correct for your own absurdities.
 
When he hits the target at all.  And there is a quite large chance he will miss the entire target according to bounded accuracy.


1-in-400 is you set the target's AC appropriately.  If you insist on being a moron by setting a stationary target's AC at 15, the problem is guy who thinks a stationary straw target is as difficult to hit as a man wearing chainmail.

You can "extend" the utility of a monster in any system by adding more monsters to the encounter.


Not in 4e.  Due to the assumed scaling, creatures turn into slogs much more quickly.

Bounded accuracy simply does away with assumed scaling.


      Which will reduce granularity.


No, that's not what eliminating assumed scaling does.  Those are separate issues.
So, a typical target would have an AC of 5. It might be placed at 150-600 feet away if the contest is targeted to more skilled archers, which would mean that you attack with disadvantage (unless you have the feat that allows you to aim to lose that disadvantage).


Since it's a stationary inanimate target, you should get advantage, which would offset the disadvantage of distance.  Of course, Robin Hood would have the feat that allows you to aim (thugh no such feat exists in the current playtest, I would be surprised if one did not exist in the final version of the game). So he'd have straight-up advantage while Average Joe is shooting without advantage.

That means Average Joe will miss the target on a 1, 2, 3 or 4, or 1-in-5 of the time.  Robin Hood would miss the target 1-in-400.  Joe will hit when Robin misses .2% of the time.
Shrink the target and move it about and its 15 or better. Oh no better yet put some magic leather over it since armor makes things harder to hit.   


Ah, so now it's Top Shot?  I'm not sure how inventing a magical archery contest improves the conversation.
The target is a Dex 0 armorless object of AC 5.

Damage determines where shot is landed.

Assuming a crit is a "bulleye", accuracy would range from 1 to max damage with a longbow. 8 (max damage) +5 (from 20 Dex) + 8 (from max cirt roll)= 21)

Divide by the number of rings in the contest.

A 3 ring contest would be:
1-7 outer ring
8-15 inner ring
15+ bulleye

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I think we ought to stat this thing out and I'll make the first suggestion:

Archery target:

1 STR
1 DEX
1 CON
1 INT
1 WIS
1 CHA

AC 5

Does anyone have any objections? If something is wrong with these stats point it out.

Edit: Updated stats to be more in line with creature rules.
Well, I'd be fine with all the stats being 1 since this is a creature. Still doesn't change the AC though.

Note: updated stats for Archery Target.
Yes, with dex penalties taken into account, if you are setting a minimum AC of 2 then your base AC needs to be 7.  I think a base AC of 10 leaves room for penalties to be applied for curses, making disadvantage worthwhile etc.  I think high level archery will be reflected more in abilities that remove range penalties, apply advantage if you can aim etc rather than primarily higher attack rolls and this is exactly what bounded accuracy is about.  I do agree that the more powerful monsters' ACs need to be tweaked upwards a bit (I would probably want to pitch Asmodeus at AC22-24 since he had AC-8 in 1e, which places him at among the toughest to hit) but I'm willing to playtest to see what other mechanics they employ to challenge those assumptions.
Do you like chicks with big feet? No.



Better for stomping with.
3 - Add back in AC scaling with level.  This helps alleviate some of the issues with bounded accuracy.  A level 1 fighter in plate with a shield still only has an AC of 13 (a 40% chance of getting hit w/o bonuses).  A level 20 fighter in the same plate with the same shield has an AC of 23 (a 5% chance of getting hit w/o bonuses).  This way characters still get the benefit from experience without breaking the bank.  The level 1 fighter is easier to hit and the level 20 knight is much harder to hit, but not impossible to hit.


This is where this falls apart. 
The above means the level 1 kobold designed to be a threat for the level 1 fighter cannot hit the level 20 fighter. So if the DM wants to have a dragon fight with the dragon backed-up by a bunch of kobold archers hidden in the walls, then they need to design a level 20 kobold variant (also boosting their hp beyond minion-levels).  

I'm okay with AC advancing per level, but it should go up at a dramatically reduce rate, like the attack bonuses and the like. A +5 boost to AC over twenty levels is fine (and would be a nice way of filling out dead levels with some number gain. But rolling 5 higher is still doable for the kobolds, especially if there's a dozen of them. 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

And in most archery situations most people can hit a target.  The damage will then tell you how well you hit the target.  The higher the damage, the closer to the bullseye you got. 


      This still leaves us with the basic objection; Robin Hood misses the entire target all too often.


Dude, read what you quoted, for goodness' sake.  The archers always hit the target.


   "Can hit" is not the same as "always hits".  "Can" is consistent with a high percentage of misses, just not with 100%.


I wrote "most people can hit" "in most situations".  That is not consistent with a high percentage of misses and you know it. 


    "Most" also asumes "not always".  Thast is not always logically precise, but when somebody tells you "half the time you tell the truth" you feel insulted anyway. 
    "Most" only means 51%+.  That is fully consistent with the definition of "high percentage of misses" being used here.

Our typical contest would have an AC of about 15.



In what world is hitting a stationary target made of straw and four feet in diameter an AC of 15?!  Obviously, if you make idiotic rulings then you can't complain when the results are equally idiotic.


     Now why are you assuming a 4" diameter target?  You can make the target any size you want and we know of targets down to the size of a dime.
     Assume you are designing a target.  What size would you make it?  Well, big enough to be hit of course, but also small enough to miss.  A target everyone always hit is just too easy.  Our Robin Hood should be hitting the target, the bullseye of the target, all the time.  But the lesser shooters should be missing the target at least part of the time.  So we want a smaller target if the shooters are always hitting it.


If you insist on putting an AC on such a target, then it should be, at a minimum, the equivalent of an unconscious Dex 3 creature with no armor.  That's an AC of 5 and the attackers all have advantage on the attack.


     And why would we use such an easy target?  Everybody hits it and thefefore we can't say who is the best shot.  We just have to find ways to increase the AC so some people will miss.
      So we cut target size in half, and maybe in half again....  Or maybe we attach a rope to each target and have a serf pull on the rope so they are not stationary, or... whatever.  And the AC gets raised until it is around 15 and it is a useful target.  The very nature of a target is that it can be missed.  And in a contest to determine the very best, there will be a lot of misses by the not best.

Use a weapon that does d4 instead of 1d10 for example.



You have to use a longbow in an archery contest, so the maximum damage (8) is always the same. 


     In some archery contests, this is true, but in any real world situation, that requires the tournament officials to issue everyone the approvd weapon.  That is a lot of expense and bother.  So it is quite routine to let the contestant bring his own and approve anything that looks vaguely correct.  So we can't take as a given that there will be controls against the rules lawyer.
    And of course we have not said this was a longbow contest.  It would be because the longbow was such a superior weapon.  But there were no rules against shortbows, nor a number of other alternatives.  However, what we are seeing is that your idea require a number of additional rules, rules that are not needed under the standard system.

However, you are houseruling the system before it even gets started.



There is no system for archery contests.  We're both houseruling it!!
     Not really.  The given system is that there is a to hit and then a damage roll.  You want to say the to hit roll is to be eliminated.  That is a direct change in the rules.  When we make rules for the archery contest itself, we are doing no more than adding to the rules and not reversing a bit of it.  That we do in all situations where the rules do not cover and it should not be considered houseruling.
 
When he hits the target at all.  And there is a quite large chance he will miss the entire target according to bounded accuracy.



1-in-400 is you set the target's AC appropriately.  If you insist on being a moron by setting a stationary target's AC at 15, the problem is guy who thinks a stationary straw target is as difficult to hit as a man wearing chainmail.


     But as said, the AC of the target will be high enough to be difficult.  This is system free.  If it is not difficult, the contest will be changed until it is.

You can "extend" the utility of a monster in any system by adding more monsters to the encounter.



Not in 4e.  Due to the assumed scaling, creatures turn into slogs much more quickly.


    The sloginess seems to be system free.  #3e, 4e, 5,  there are more monsters to kill and they are too easy to be interesting.    This is an objection to the very idea of using extra monsters, not merely to doing it with a particular system.

Bounded accuracy simply does away with assumed scaling.


      Which will reduce granularity.



No, that's not what eliminating assumed scaling does.  Those are separate issues.


      When you say there are separate issues, you logically assume a burden of proof, to distinguish the two cases.
Can someone explain Bounded Accuracy to me from the ground up? I've been looking everywhere and can't seem to find it. I only have the December packet.




Those links have too much hyperbole.



I used no hyperbole of any kind.  Rather, what I posted is the direct, clear, and unequivocal statements of the developers themselves.  There is no inference, no exaggeration.  Every point I made is directly referenceable to specific statements by the people who decided to use the term.

If you think those links contain hyperbole, then you don't understand what BA is, what it is trying to do, and what it is not trying to do.  If you think those links contain hyperbole, you're wrong.  Flatly.




The devs themselves are using hyperbole. Wotc has a history of over-analysis. An explanation of what BA is should not take more than a paragraph. Anything more than that and you are trying to sell it or diss it. 


Because a mobile archery target outside of the official long range of a bow and equipped with magical armor isn't a corner case or anything.


Make it 14 without magic and its a middle of the street case.  


Using the rules that are supposed to apply to active combatants and then complaining that they give you weird results when applied to an inanimate target is silly.  For an example of how they are treated differently in Next, here is what happens if you attempt to disintegrate a creature:

"it must make a Dexterity saving throw.  On a failed save, the ray strikes the target.  If the target has 60 hit points or fewer, it is automatically disintegrated. Otherwise the target takes 16d6 force damage.  If this damage reduces the target to 0 hit points or fewer, it is disintegrated."

Here is what happens when you attempt to disintegrate an unattended object:

"If the target is a Large or smaller object, it is automatically disintegrated".

You insist on continuing to use a situation the rules aren't designed to handle to explain why the rules are broken.
David Argall: "Most" also asumes "not always".  That is not always logically precise, but when somebody tells you "half the time you tell the truth" you feel insulted anyway.  "Most" only means 51%+.  That is fully consistent with the definition of "high percentage of misses" being used here.

Then you have absolutely no ability to understand things in context.  Or, more likely, you look for the most ridiculous interpretation wihtout any regard for how silly it makes you look.


David Argall: Our typical contest would have an AC of about 15.

wrecan: In what world is hitting a stationary target made of straw and four feet in diameter an AC of 15?!  Obviously, if you make idiotic rulings then you can't complain when the results are equally idiotic.

David Argall: Now why are you assuming a 4" diameter target?

You said "typical" and the 4' target is typical in archery and has been since the English started holding archery contests in the middle ages. 


David Argall: You can make the target any size you want and we know of targets down to the size of a dime.

Not if you want a "typical" archery contest which is what was specified, and which actually makes sense to use. 


David Argall: A target everyone always hit is just too easy.

Only if the competition assumes a binary victory condition: hit or miss.  But the targets used in Robin Hood stories always indicate degrees of success.  It is insufficient to simply hit the target.  You want to get closer to the center than other competitors.  Olympic archers almost never miss the official archery target (which is, by the way, four feet in diameter).  And yet, somehow, they can still figure out who gets gold, silver and bronze.  Want to know how they do it?  By measuring degrees of success.


David Argall: And why would we use such an easy target?  Everybody hits it and thefefore we can't say who is the best shot.

Because the contest, like actual archery contests, is not a binary victory condition.  Actually, with the binary victory condition, you can't tell who is the best shot, because a lucky shot could determine victory.  If we were to hold a weird binary competition, you'd need to have several iterations. 

So, for example, you could do a skeet shooting competition with bows and arrows.  But in skeet shooting, you don't just shoot one clay pigeon.  You shoot 25 times.  Why?  Because a competition that has only binary victory conditions and a single shot is not a competition at all.  But in a competition with 25 shots, small differences in accuracy become pronounced, meaning that even the small bonuses you get in the current packet (along with maneuvers that improve accuracy) would be sufficient to ensure that Robin Hood would win a skeet shooting competition.

Actual archery contests -- such as the ones used by the Olympics -- use targets that anybody can hit.  They use four-foot wide targets from a relatively short distance.  Because the goal is not merely to hit the target, but to hit the target well.


David Argall: We just have to find ways to increase the AC so some people will miss.

No, we don't.  We just have to use damage to determine how well someone succeeds.  Because that's what damage actually represents in the game.


David Argall: In some archery contests, this is true, but in any real world situation, that requires the tournament officials to issue everyone the approvd weapon.

Standard longbows have been issued since the medieval times.  They are regulated by the pound of draw.  It's not complicated.  It is historically accurate.  And in D&D it requires no additional rules since all longbows are identical (unless masterwork or enchanted, and we already have rules for that as well)


David Argall:
And of course we have not said this was a longbow contest.

You said "typical" and in archery contests, the longbow has always been the weapon used.  Because archery contests date back to the days when Englishmen were required to practice in the longbow.


David Argall: what we are seeing is that your idea require a number of additional rules, rules that are not needed under the standard system.

I have not introduced a single new rule.  I use to-hit to see if you hit the target and damage to see how well you hit the target.  You, on the other hand, are trying vey hard to eliminate the damage roll.  And eliminating the damage roll is indeed a new rule and a very peculiar one.


David Argall: You want to say the to hit roll is to be eliminated.

No, I want to say the hit roll is irrelevant because the chances of missing the target is infinitesimal.  But, as I said, I'm willing to bring the to-hit roll back in if you really can't grok the concept of eliminating useless rolls.

The person trying to eliminate a roll is you because you want to eliminate the damage roll from the equation.  You want to turn an archery contest into a binary pass-fail contest that is not true to archery contests in myth or history. 


wrecan:
No, that's not what eliminating assumed scaling does.  Those are separate issues.

David Argall: When you say there are separate issues, you logically assume a burden of proof, to distinguish the two cases.

Which I satisfied by previously citing the websites explaining bounded accuracy, with links to the developer's own statements.  Having done so, it is now your burden to prove that bounded accuracy is meant to deal with granularity.  You have instead chosen to make blanket unsupported statements.
Make it 14 without magic and its a middle of the street case.


What archery target do you think is as difficult to hit as a mobile unarmed man with an 18 Dexterity?  Please identify the archery competition, in history, myth, or story, in which such an archery target has ever been used.
David Argall: "Most" also asumes "not always".  That is not always logically precise, but when somebody tells you "half the time you tell the truth" you feel insulted anyway.  "Most" only means 51%+.  That is fully consistent with the definition of "high percentage of misses" being used here.

Then you have absolutely no ability to understand things in context.  Or, more likely, you look for the most ridiculous interpretation wihtout any regard for how silly it makes you look.


David Argall: Our typical contest would have an AC of about 15.

wrecan: In what world is hitting a stationary target made of straw and four feet in diameter an AC of 15?!  Obviously, if you make idiotic rulings then you can't complain when the results are equally idiotic.

David Argall: Now why are you assuming a 4" diameter target?

You said "typical" and the 4' target is typical in archery and has been since the English started holding archery contests in the middle ages. 


David Argall: You can make the target any size you want and we know of targets down to the size of a dime.

Not if you want a "typical" archery contest which is what was specified, and which actually makes sense to use. 


David Argall: A target everyone always hit is just too easy.

Only if the competition assumes a binary victory condition: hit or miss.  But the targets used in Robin Hood stories always indicate degrees of success.  It is insufficient to simply hit the target.  You want to get closer to the center than other competitors.  Olympic archers almost never miss the official archery target (which is, by the way, four feet in diameter).  And yet, somehow, they can still figure out who gets gold, silver and bronze.  Want to know how they do it?  By measuring degrees of success.


David Argall: And why would we use such an easy target?  Everybody hits it and thefefore we can't say who is the best shot.

Because the contest, like actual archery contests, is not a binary victory condition.  Actually, with the binary victory condition, you can't tell who is the best shot, because a lucky shot could determine victory.  If we were to hold a weird binary competition, you'd need to have several iterations. 

So, for example, you could do a skeet shooting competition with bows and arrows.  But in skeet shooting, you don't just shoot one clay pigeon.  You shoot 25 times.  Why?  Because a competition that has only binary victory conditions and a single shot is not a competition at all.  But in a competition with 25 shots, small differences in accuracy become pronounced, meaning that even the small bonuses you get in the current packet (along with maneuvers that improve accuracy) would be sufficient to ensure that Robin Hood would win a skeet shooting competition.

Actual archery contests -- such as the ones used by the Olympics -- use targets that anybody can hit.  They use four-foot wide targets from a relatively short distance.  Because the goal is not merely to hit the target, but to hit the target well.


David Argall: We just have to find ways to increase the AC so some people will miss.

No, we don't.  We just have to use damage to determine how well someone succeeds.  Because that's what damage actually represents in the game.


David Argall: In some archery contests, this is true, but in any real world situation, that requires the tournament officials to issue everyone the approvd weapon.

Standard longbows have been issued since the medieval times.  They are regulated by the pound of draw.  It's not complicated.  It is historically accurate.  And in D&D it requires no additional rules since all longbows are identical (unless masterwork or enchanted, and we already have rules for that as well)


David Argall:
And of course we have not said this was a longbow contest.

You said "typical" and in archery contests, the longbow has always been the weapon used.  Because archery contests date back to the days when Englishmen were required to practice in the longbow.


David Argall: what we are seeing is that your idea require a number of additional rules, rules that are not needed under the standard system.

I have not introduced a single new rule.  I use to-hit to see if you hit the target and damage to see how well you hit the target.  You, on the other hand, are trying vey hard to eliminate the damage roll.  And eliminating the damage roll is indeed a new rule and a very peculiar one.


David Argall: You want to say the to hit roll is to be eliminated.

No, I want to say the hit roll is irrelevant because the chances of missing the target is infinitesimal.  But, as I said, I'm willing to bring the to-hit roll back in if you really can't grok the concept of eliminating useless rolls.

The person trying to eliminate a roll is you because you want to eliminate the damage roll from the equation.  You want to turn an archery contest into a binary pass-fail contest that is not true to archery contests in myth or history. 


wrecan:
No, that's not what eliminating assumed scaling does.  Those are separate issues.

David Argall: When you say there are separate issues, you logically assume a burden of proof, to distinguish the two cases.

Which I satisfied by previously citing the websites explaining bounded accuracy, with links to the developer's own statements.  Having done so, it is now your burden to prove that bounded accuracy is meant to deal with granularity.  You have instead chosen to make blanket unsupported statements.

+1, Wrecan you have clearly won this argument.  Do not see that is just foolish. 
Do you like chicks with big feet? No.



Better for stomping with.



You know come to think of it I kinda like em too. Foot Bounding was ccccraaaazy
Make it 14 without magic and its a middle of the street case.


What archery target do you think is as difficult to hit as a mobile unarmed man with an 18 Dexterity?  Please identify the archery competition, in history, myth, or story, in which such an archery target has ever been used.



vimeo.com/40718247


I would rather shoot a gymnast than those things. Depends on distance though.


You cant use damage as a means of accuracy without giving everyone close to the same max damage with an arrow. The 1st level character doesnt do enough damage on a crit. I think the issue is with hp being unbound. This creates a runaway in damage.

T his doesnt honor melee builds. There are plenty great fighters who arent great at dealing major damage or lethality in comparison to others. In Next everyone is a damage king and an accuracy squire.  Kane was arguably the greatest warrior in the Forgotten Realms and he wasnt dealing damage like Conan or Drizzt.

Sign In to post comments