No. Raistlin pretty much debunks that in D&D fiction. He holds way less than his own in any sort of contest requiring physical prowess. Caramon is the epitome of a powerful fighter and he doesn't go around He-manning mountain tops. Go play He-man the RPG if you want that kind of fighter.
Raistlin is explicitly cursed with weakness. It has nothing to do with him being a wizard, or with high-level characters being incompetent.
Compare to Elminster, a high-level wizard repeatedly and frequently shown doing intense physical activity with no small amount of success.
The thing I like about Elminster is that he was a Fighter and Rogue long before he became a high-level Wizard and Chosen of Mystra
Raistlin is explicitly cursed with weakness. It has nothing to do with him being a wizard, or with high-level characters being incompetent.Compare to Elminster, a high-level wizard repeatedly and frequently shown doing intense physical activity with
if you only lift one guy's Athletics then he's that much ahead of the other characters from that point onward. This is OK when the difference isn't too huge but when one guy has a bonus that is 15 points higher than everyone else's then the things that will challenge you are things that nobody else can even try. This sounds good except there are a lot of cases where you'd like to challenge every PC at least somewhat (can you all swim the river) but when the numbers are a whole die off from each other you cannot.
I think this is only a problem when you only need one player to succeed to get past whatever the obstacle is, which makes it especially difficult for things like traps and locks. A character that really, really specializes in picking locks finds that for some "strange" reason all locks he picks keep getting better (without the owner's prior knowledge of him coming), it kind of invalidates the point of specializing at all. At the same time, for the DM, why bother including a lock if the character doesn't even have to roll to get past it, then it isn't a challenge, its just part of the description. This is why places where group checks become helpful. If half of the party has to succeed on some skill use, such as swimming across the river as a group, then the specialist feels useful since he reduces the risk of failing the task overall, and the people that are terrible at the skill don't completely invalidate its use. Another good example of this is the party that tries to be stealthy in approaching an enemy camp. Without a group check, the heavy armor fighter is so bad there is no point in ever trying, but with a group check, the party can plausibly get close to an enemy camp, even if they aren't right at its door (which should require more persoal stealth rolls).
It explains why bounded accuracy is self contradictory, and where giving any sort of bonus, even relatively small and optional ones, completely invalidate the baseline reason for Bounded Accuracy existing.
For some reason your analysis of the situation feels both correct and makes me kind of sad. I suppose it could work out in the end, somehow, but it really scales back the feeling of epic-ness when it comes to characters that rely on dice rolls to accomplish things (ie. maybe not spell casters).
I think this is only a problem when you only need one player to succeed to get past whatever the obstacle is, which makes it especially difficult for things like traps and locks. A character that really, really specializes in picking locks finds that
Just a quick reply: the original post looks good, makes sense to me, and pretty much every game I've ever played is about like that. So, all in all? I think it looks great!
Just a quick reply: the original post looks good, makes sense to me, and pretty much every game I've ever played is about like that. So, all in all? I think it looks great!
4th ed definitely gets it wrong by being to steep in its progression. As a GM you really can't consider using monsters that are more than 5 levels away from the PCs, at that range the hit ratio is 3 to 1, and with a difference of 10 levels one side aways hits the others misses - barring 1s and 20s. I regularly scaled monsters up and down levels so I could use the monsters that made sense to the plot but still be a challenge to the PCs. That is too much work to being doing all the time.
I didn't ever realy have a problem with this, because:
1) Monster scaling is dead easy.
2) It is fun and easy to make monsters in 4th, unlike in previous editions.
3) I like to make things more or less challenging for the players.
While it is true that it is work, I'm not really thinking that's actually that big of a deal, and it also has the upside that you can potentially take something that is a normal monster but 4 levels higher than the party and make it REALLY scary when they first run into it. On the downside, though, it is true that pretty fast they will stop being so scary.
The other advantages of lack of scaling are I think the bigger things rather than this; in some ways, this can actually be a rather big disadvantage, because if you look at some games (Alternity, for example), a rocket launcher will kill a 20th level character the same as a 1st level character. This is great in a game like Alternity, which is much more action movieish where being shot hurts regardless of how badass you are, but in D&D I sort of think of heroes as being beyond the mortal ken - you CAN take 10 arrows and still be standing.
I will note that, regarding magic weapons, there is a simple solution - get rid of +X weapons entirely, and make them more like Flaming Swords or what have you. Weapons that actually DO something rather than just add some stupid static bonus.
I didn't ever realy have a problem with this, because:1) Monster scaling is dead easy.2) It is fun and easy to make monsters in 4th, unlike in previous editions.3) I like to make things more or less challenging for the players.While it is true that i
I will note that, regarding magic weapons, there is a simple solution - get rid of +X weapons entirely, and make them more like Flaming Swords or what have you. Weapons that actually DO something rather than just add some stupid static bonus.
I agree with this. With these proposed changes, I simply don't see the need for +X weapons and armor and from what Seerow discussed in the post he linked to, simply having them constrains a lot of monsters, feats, and class abilities that could potentially stack with +X weapons.
I agree with this. With these proposed changes, I simply don't see the need for +X weapons and armor and from what Seerow discussed in the post he linked to, simply having them constrains a lot of monsters, feats, and class abilities that could poten
DnD isn't about gritty fantasy. Never was. It was about ordinary people growing to become epic heros. Frankly a lot of other systems out there did gritty fantasy like Man-to-Man (which later became GURPS) and many others did gritty fantasy far better.
My D&D is about gritty fantasy. Always has been. I have always preferred it to be more in line with the stories I like to read.
Shane
My D&D is about gritty fantasy. Always has been. I have always preferred it to be more in line with the stories I like to read.Shane
DnD isn't about gritty fantasy. Never was. It was about ordinary people growing to become epic heros. Frankly a lot of other systems out there did gritty fantasy like Man-to-Man (which later became GURPS) and many others did gritty fantasy far better.
My D&D is about gritty fantasy. Always has been. I have always preferred it to be more in line with the stories I like to read.
Shane
So uh... did you stop playing after chainmail and decided to come back and check out all this newfangled stuff, or what?
My D&D is about gritty fantasy. Always has been. I have always preferred it to be more in line with the stories I like to read.Shane [/quote]So uh... did you stop playing after chainmail and decided to come back and check out all this newfangled stuf
But in those 20 levels you take to reach Aragorn levels of power, Wizards are still reaching Elminster levels of power in 20 levels. Because Wizards aren't relying on skill checks, they're relying on Spells, that they get either way. I don't see how this is a good thing.
Granted. If I make the terrible mistake of not also curbing in the wizard to match the more martial classes. Why would I do that?
Shane
Granted. If I make the terrible mistake of not also curbing in the wizard to match the more martial classes. Why would I do that?Shane
So uh... did you stop playing after chainmail and decided to come back and check out all this newfangled stuff, or what?
Not at all. I have just always adjusted the game to fit my idea of fantasy roleplay. I like that under bounded accuracy it appears that It will be easier for each of us to play the game we want.
Shane
Not at all. I have just always adjusted the game to fit my idea of fantasy roleplay. I like that under bounded accuracy it appears that It will be easier for each of us to play the game we want.Shane
So uh... did you stop playing after chainmail and decided to come back and check out all this newfangled stuff, or what?
Not at all. I have just always adjusted the game to fit my idea of fantasy roleplay. I like that under bounded accuracy it appears that It will be easier for each of us to play the game we want.
Shane
So why do you continue to play a game that you need to change to get gritty results rather than play a game that actually is intended to be gritty? Why should your playstyle, which is completely different from what any edition of D&D has supported in the past be supported and the focus of major mechanics (such as the resolution system for literally any action a non-magic user might want to take).
Not at all. I have just always adjusted the game to fit my idea of fantasy roleplay. I like that under bounded accuracy it appears that It will be easier for each of us to play the game we want.Shane[/quote]So why do you continue to play a game that
So why do you continue to play a game that you need to change to get gritty results rather than play a game that actually is intended to be gritty? Why should your playstyle, which is completely different from what any edition of D&D has supported in the past be supported and the focus of major mechanics (such as the resolution system for literally any action a non-magic user might want to take).
Why should your playstyle, which is completely different from what any edition of D&D has supported in the past be supported and the focus of major mechanics
D&D has always supported my playstyle by giving me the ability to, and often advice for, changing the game to suit my playstyle. Think Darksun, sans the desert. But it's always been a take-away-from approach to accomplish grittier D&D. Now it can be an add to approach to achieve my play style, and yours and anyone elses. Add the modules you want, withhold the modules you don't. My playstyle is not the focus of these mechanics, these mechanics simply make more playstyles easier to accomplish.
Shane
Because I, and my group, enjoy it. D&D has always supported my playstyle by giving me the ability to, and often advice for, changing the game to suit my playstyle. Think Darksun, sans the desert. But it's always been a take-away-from approach to acc
D&D has always supported my playstyle by giving me the ability to, and often advice for, changing the game to suit my playstyle. Think Darksun, sans the desert. But it's always been a take-away-from approach to accomplish grittier D&D. Now it can be an add to approach to achieve my play style, and yours and anyone elses. Add the modules you want, withhold the modules you don't. My playstyle is not the focus of these mechanics, these mechanics simply make more playstyles easier to accomplish.
Shane
No it doesn't Shane. I am not going to judge your preference, but there are fundamental differences (and often in very unexpected places) between a game where your overall ability is largely static (see GURPS as a good example) and one where you are supposed to grow from being a weakling to being an epic hero of yore. By putting in bounded accuracy, while it might suit your personal likes better, it makes it far (and needlessly so) more difficult for DnD to BE DnD for the rest of us.
-Polaris
No it doesn't Shane. I am not going to judge your preference, but there are fundamental differences (and often in very unexpected places) between a game where your overall ability is largely static (see GURPS as a good example) and one where you are
By putting in bounded accuracy, while it might suit your personal likes better, it makes it far (and needlessly so) more difficult for DnD to BE DnD for the rest of us.
-Polaris
Don't presume to speak for "the rest of us". The bounded accuracy idea has been getting positive responses from many more people than just shanelwalden.
Don't presume to speak for "the rest of us". The bounded accuracy idea has been getting positive responses from many more people than just shanelwalden.
By putting in bounded accuracy, while it might suit your personal likes better, it makes it far (and needlessly so) more difficult for DnD to BE DnD for the rest of us.
-Polaris
Don't presume to speak for "the rest of us". The bounded accuracy idea has been getting positive responses from many more people than just shanelwalden.
I would submit that a lot of you haven't thought it through or what it means for DnD.
-Polaris
Don't presume to speak for "the rest of us". The bounded accuracy idea has been getting positive responses from many more people than just shanelwalden.[/quote]I would submit that a lot of you haven't thought it through or what it means for DnD.-Pol
I can even imagine different sourcebooks that support different playstyles with all the modules you need for each. One can be D&D High Fantasy. Another can be D&D, Where You Actually Get Crap On Your Boots And Killing A Dragon Is A Campaign Defining Event.
Shane
I can even imagine different sourcebooks that support different playstyles with all the modules you need for each. One can be D&D High Fantasy. Another can be D&D, Where You Actually Get Crap On Your Boots And Killing A Dragon Is A Campaign Defining
I have played every edition of D&D. The arguments in this thread are exactly like ones I have had with friends who still play their homebrew 2.X when I was running 4e. And the arguments, at their core, are based on a very real, very irreconcilable difference between AD&D and 4e. Their homebrew game has been going on for years. Literally 20 years, every Sunday. Most people have been playing the same characters, swapping out only when they get bored. Level-wise, their characters have been in their teens for what seems like forever.
They are interested in a perpetual game. They can take their characters through an unlimited number of adventures, kill dragons and gods and still worry about where their next meal comes from and about the next plot around the corner. One where, like a series of Conan books, Conan never changes dramatically, he just has more and more adventures. Maybe he becomes a king, but then he loses his throne and is forced back into the wilderness and his story just keeps on going. Each individual adventure has a beginning, middle and end, but Conan goes on forever.
4e used its system to fully realize the idea that a D&D game was no longer perpetual. It had tiers, that roughly went like this: in heroic, you save the city. In paragon, you save the kingdom. In epic, you save the whole world. And when you are done saving the world, that character's story is supposed to end: along the way to 30th, each PC essentially becomes an NPC, someone who shapes the world rather than participates in it. Unlike a series of Conan books, 4e was a trilogy of novels that ended at the end.
Bounded accuracy supports the series of books model-- you can essentially play your character forever. Scaling accuracy supports the single trilogy model, where there is an upward limit to how far a character can go, and once that limit is reached, the only way to keep playing is to roll new characters who experience the world the former characters shaped.
I have played every edition of D&D. The arguments in this thread are exactly like ones I have had with friends who still play their homebrew 2.X when I was running 4e. And the arguments, at their core, are based on a very real, very irreconcilable di
By putting in bounded accuracy, while it might suit your personal likes better, it makes it far (and needlessly so) more difficult for DnD to BE DnD for the rest of us.
-Polaris
Don't presume to speak for "the rest of us". The bounded accuracy idea has been getting positive responses from many more people than just shanelwalden.
I would submit that a lot of you haven't thought it through or what it means for DnD.
-Polaris
polaris ne question.
in 4th edition, the defences of the monsters rose almost at the same rate the players to hit bonus did. meaning that yes your to hit number went up but the target you needed to roll on your dice ramained the same. zombie soldies level 2 AC 18 zombie soldies level 20 AC 36
so it just created the illusion of becoming more powerfull. the only time you realy became more powerfull was when your numbers rose faster then the standard expected rise.
Don't presume to speak for "the rest of us". The bounded accuracy idea has been getting positive responses from many more people than just shanelwalden.[/quote]I would submit that a lot of you haven't thought it through or what it means for DnD.-Pol
in 4th edition, the defences of the monsters rose almost at the same rate the players to hit bonus did. meaning that yes your to hit number went up but the target you needed to roll on your dice ramained the same. zombie soldies level 2 AC 18 zombie soldies level 20 AC 36
so it just created the illusion of becoming more powerfull. the only time you realy became more powerfull was when your numbers rose faster then the standard expected rise.
A true statement and one that followed through with most of the adventures created. However if the PC's were faced by a group of low level scrubs (goblins, kobolds or similar) when high level (paragon say) there was a significant difference. Something that I would occasionally do by having a couple of high level leader types (close to the PC's level) and a large group of basic level critters 'minions' if you will, who'd attack them.
The PC's would wade through the minor critters yes, but a few would find their mark and the PC's could do some cool things with such easy opponents. It was also a nice mark as to how much the characters had developed since starting out when kobolds could be a serious challenge.
The DMG says 'Level X players must face Level X creatures' something that I remembered was a guideline and one that I generally hold to 70% of the time, but that doesn't mean I don't deviate to shake things up a bit. Especially in a world where your average peasant is bout level 3-5, a few higher and a few lower. Why then if the group are faced by a mob should the PC's end up fighting 10th level peasants when the average is 3-5.
A true statement and one that followed through with most of the adventures created. However if the PC's were faced by a group of low level scrubs (goblins, kobolds or similar) when high level (paragon say) there was a significant difference. Somethin
By putting in bounded accuracy, while it might suit your personal likes better, it makes it far (and needlessly so) more difficult for DnD to BE DnD for the rest of us.
-Polaris
Don't presume to speak for "the rest of us". The bounded accuracy idea has been getting positive responses from many more people than just shanelwalden.
I would submit that a lot of you haven't thought it through or what it means for DnD.
-Polaris
Does it mean that DnD gets slapped in the face again?
Don't presume to speak for "the rest of us". The bounded accuracy idea has been getting positive responses from many more people than just shanelwalden.[/quote]I would submit that a lot of you haven't thought it through or what it means for DnD.-Pol
By putting in bounded accuracy, while it might suit your personal likes better, it makes it far (and needlessly so) more difficult for DnD to BE DnD for the rest of us.
-Polaris
Don't presume to speak for "the rest of us". The bounded accuracy idea has been getting positive responses from many more people than just shanelwalden.
I would submit that a lot of you haven't thought it through or what it means for DnD.
-Polaris
polaris ne question.
in 4th edition, the defences of the monsters rose almost at the same rate the players to hit bonus did. meaning that yes your to hit number went up but the target you needed to roll on your dice ramained the same. zombie soldies level 2 AC 18 zombie soldies level 20 AC 36
so it just created the illusion of becoming more powerfull. the only time you realy became more powerfull was when your numbers rose faster then the standard expected rise.
Except when you fought the level 2 zombie, in which case you hit easily and your improved abilities really matter.
Yes, you can have campaigns where you never see anything except reskinned versions of what you did before that makes progression totally non-existant. On the other hand, any well planned adventure won't have that kind of thing happening. I fail to see how making all characters not advance at all is better than having characters who have advanced, but don't feel like it because a DM can't think of anything more interesting than leveling up and reskinning his low level encounters.
Don't presume to speak for "the rest of us". The bounded accuracy idea has been getting positive responses from many more people than just shanelwalden.[/quote]I would submit that a lot of you haven't thought it through or what it means for DnD.-Pol
4E mechanics are wonky on this issue. They advise against ever pitching PCs against monsters who are more than 2 levels below or more than 4 levels above the PCs. So you would rarely pitchso-called low level monsters against PCs (4 levels below is just about doable but it depends how high your defenders' ACs are). Instead you would pitch level appropriate minions in place of the low level monsters.
Bounded accuracy gets a massive, massive thumbs up from me. No more looking at that awful table of level appropriate challenge ratings to try and work out where to pitch your DC. This will make the game much simpler for younger and more casual players to learn. This is a good thing.
4E mechanics are wonky on this issue. They advise against ever pitching PCs against monsters who are more than 2 levels below or more than 4 levels above the PCs. So you would rarely pitchso-called low level monsters against PCs (4 levels below is
I can even imagine different sourcebooks that support different playstyles with all the modules you need for each. One can be D&D High Fantasy. Another can be D&D, Where You Actually Get Crap On Your Boots And Killing A Dragon Is A Campaign Defining Event.
I doubt they will do any thing like that. A series of books like that would probably not sell very well, especially compared to more location specific splat books (think Heroes of the Feywild) or class related splat books (like Psionic Power or Complete Fighter). If they did books based on broad campaign themes like that, a large number of their customers would have no reason to purchase such books since they don't play in those campaigns. However, if they put all those campaign styles into a book on Fighters or martial characters, then players in all campaigns styles are more likely to buy it.
4E mechanics are wonky on this issue. They advise against ever pitching PCs against monsters who are more than 2 levels below or more than 4 levels above the PCs.
But the reasons behind recommending this are important. They made that suggestion because they want the DM to create encounters that challenge the party without being too easy or too difficult. If you throw a party against some random encounter with monsters that are 5 levels lower than they are, it won't be much of a challenge, now much of a fight. Now, such an encounter could have a story purpose and that's fine, but it won't be challenging and the DMG is trying to tell DMs to be careful of that.
I doubt they will do any thing like that. A series of books like that would probably not sell very well, especially compared to more location specific splat books (think Heroes of the Feywild) or class related splat books (like Psionic Power or Compl
Question : do you think "bounded accuracy" can work with "unbounded magic"? Or should magic have the same "bounds", too ? If a spell on x-th level give a way to casters to bypass skill DCs, like let's say, fly above a chasm that should be a hard jump chek, open a difficult locked door, etc, doesn't this make DCs irrelevant ? Or rather doesn't it change what DC means, making difficult things only difficult untill you have a mage with the convenient spell at hand? Let's take charm person, for instance - who cares about how difficult a "diplomacy" chck can be, if the wizard can bypass these rolls ? Bounded accuracy is good and all, but is the goal of bounded accuracy made irrevelant by the power progression of spells? Will bounded accuracy really have a meaning for casters - or will it just a way to say "this is how it works as long as you don't cast spells to bypass the difficulties?"
Question : do you think "bounded accuracy" can work with "unbounded magic"? Or should magic have the same "bounds", too ?If a spell on x-th level give a way to casters to bypass skill DCs, like let's say, fly above a chasm that should be a hard jump
Great point, Kaliban7! Alas, the weather map tells me this thread has a 90% chance of a "But it's magic!" deluge today.
Seriously though, if we're not going to let leveling up trivialize DCs, let's actually *do* that and not just halfway do it. If a few classes don't care about DCs, then the game doesn't care about DCs.
Great point, Kaliban7! Alas, the weather map tells me this thread has a 90% chance of a "But it's magic!" deluge today.Seriously though, if we're not going to let leveling up trivialize DCs, let's actually *do* that and not just halfway do it. If a f
I think those kind of spells can work, but only if they provide things like static DC bonuses (in lieu of training in Diplomacy or Pick Locks, for example) or the wizard has only a very limited spells per day selection.
One of the problems with the spell progression from older additions when combined with spells that don't scale their damage is that wizards can't really use their lower level spells for combat, so those spell levels will be dedicated to non-combat or general utility functions, such as Comprehend Languages. If they get spells like Knock or Invisibility or Fly, once they get access to higher level combat-orientated spells, nothing will compete with those kinds of spells at that spell level.
I think those kind of spells can work, but only if they provide things like static DC bonuses (in lieu of training in Diplomacy or Pick Locks, for example) or the wizard has only a very limited spells per day selection.One of the problems with the sp
I think those kind of spells can work, but only if they provide things like static DC bonuses (in lieu of training in Diplomacy or Pick Locks, for example) or the wizard has only a very limited spells per day selection.
One of the problems with the spell progression from older additions when combined with spells that don't scale their damage is that wizards can't really use their lower level spells for combat, so those spell levels will be dedicated to non-combat or general utility functions, such as Comprehend Languages. If they get spells like Knock or Invisibility or Fly, once they get access to higher level combat-orientated spells, nothing will compete with those kinds of spells at that spell level.
Remember that the saves are just ability score checks now, so yes the system will work similar. The spell save DC's can't go that high or it would be impossible for anyone to make the save. The only thing going up would be damage.
Remember that the saves are just ability score checks now, so yes the system will work similar. The spell save DC's can't go that high or it would be impossible for anyone to make the save. The only thing going up would be damage.
if you only lift one guy's Athletics then he's that much ahead of the other characters from that point onward. This is OK when the difference isn't too huge but when one guy has a bonus that is 15 points higher than everyone else's then the things that will challenge you are things that nobody else can even try. This sounds good except there are a lot of cases where you'd like to challenge every PC at least somewhat (can you all swim the river) but when the numbers are a whole die off from each other you cannot.
I think this is only a problem when you only need one player to succeed to get past whatever the obstacle is, which makes it especially difficult for things like traps and locks. A character that really, really specializes in picking locks finds that for some "strange" reason all locks he picks keep getting better (without the owner's prior knowledge of him coming), it kind of invalidates the point of specializing at all. At the same time, for the DM, why bother including a lock if the character doesn't even have to roll to get past it, then it isn't a challenge, its just part of the description. This is why places where group checks become helpful. If half of the party has to succeed on some skill use, such as swimming across the river as a group, then the specialist feels useful since he reduces the risk of failing the task overall, and the people that are terrible at the skill don't completely invalidate its use. Another good example of this is the party that tries to be stealthy in approaching an enemy camp. Without a group check, the heavy armor fighter is so bad there is no point in ever trying, but with a group check, the party can plausibly get close to an enemy camp, even if they aren't right at its door (which should require more persoal stealth rolls).
It explains why bounded accuracy is self contradictory, and where giving any sort of bonus, even relatively small and optional ones, completely invalidate the baseline reason for Bounded Accuracy existing.
For some reason your analysis of the situation feels both correct and makes me kind of sad. I suppose it could work out in the end, somehow, but it really scales back the feeling of epic-ness when it comes to characters that rely on dice rolls to accomplish things (ie. maybe not spell casters).
A perfect analysis of why it is pretty much necessary to have a skill challenge framework. Individual skill checks are a usable mechanic for "I want to do something" or "you could accomplish something extra special if you can do X", but in terms of anything beyond that you start running into exactly the problems you've identified. Either the DM starts throwing "extra good locks" at the specialist, or locks stop having meaning. On top of that all these super hard locks leave anyone but the specialist in the dust. This means there has to always be some other way to bypass anything like that, so it is inherently not story important. DMs can VERY carefully engineer every situation to be a trade off between bashing the door (make noise), using a spell on it, or having the rogue try to pick the super hard trapped lock (and maybe get hit by the trap). It becomes a lot of work. OTOH presenting a whole scenario as an SC means that yes, some bits may have checks that are passed without fail, but the whole scenario can be constructed so that there is both always some challenge involved and everything matters to some extent, and it isn't always necessary to work out every detail of every part of it down to a tee because the overall result is what is focused on (passing the challenge, vs opening the lock).
I think this is only a problem when you only need one player to succeed to get past whatever the obstacle is, which makes it especially difficult for things like traps and locks. A character that really, really specializes in picking locks finds that
By putting in bounded accuracy, while it might suit your personal likes better, it makes it far (and needlessly so) more difficult for DnD to BE DnD for the rest of us.
-Polaris
Don't presume to speak for "the rest of us". The bounded accuracy idea has been getting positive responses from many more people than just shanelwalden.
Lots of things will get positive responses, doesn't mean they WORK in practice or are necessarily good ideas.
Consider, if the core rules are a game where nobody can do anything beyond what Shane's 'gritty' sensibilities allow for then what? THE ENTIRE GAME will have to be layered with a module that changes every single bit of it in order for the rest of us to do what D&D always did right out of the box perfectly well. Resolution mechanics ARE basically the engine. It is one thing to say "well, OK, healing can work a bit different in this module", that can impact a lot of things, but within some limits can probably be accomodated. If you change all the numbers for resolution then every item, every spell, every place that there's any kind of assumption about who can do what is different.
Don't presume to speak for "the rest of us". The bounded accuracy idea has been getting positive responses from many more people than just shanelwalden.[/quote]Lots of things will get positive responses, doesn't mean they WORK in practice or are nec
I have played every edition of D&D. The arguments in this thread are exactly like ones I have had with friends who still play their homebrew 2.X when I was running 4e. And the arguments, at their core, are based on a very real, very irreconcilable difference between AD&D and 4e. Their homebrew game has been going on for years. Literally 20 years, every Sunday. Most people have been playing the same characters, swapping out only when they get bored. Level-wise, their characters have been in their teens for what seems like forever.
They are interested in a perpetual game. They can take their characters through an unlimited number of adventures, kill dragons and gods and still worry about where their next meal comes from and about the next plot around the corner. One where, like a series of Conan books, Conan never changes dramatically, he just has more and more adventures. Maybe he becomes a king, but then he loses his throne and is forced back into the wilderness and his story just keeps on going. Each individual adventure has a beginning, middle and end, but Conan goes on forever.
4e used its system to fully realize the idea that a D&D game was no longer perpetual. It had tiers, that roughly went like this: in heroic, you save the city. In paragon, you save the kingdom. In epic, you save the whole world. And when you are done saving the world, that character's story is supposed to end: along the way to 30th, each PC essentially becomes an NPC, someone who shapes the world rather than participates in it. Unlike a series of Conan books, 4e was a trilogy of novels that ended at the end.
Bounded accuracy supports the series of books model-- you can essentially play your character forever. Scaling accuracy supports the single trilogy model, where there is an upward limit to how far a character can go, and once that limit is reached, the only way to keep playing is to roll new characters who experience the world the former characters shaped.
I don't see any reason why you cannot play 4e for 20 years. Obviously if the PCs in the perpetual AD&D game (and I have characters that I played for MANY years in AD&D and none of them ever hit 20th level either) simply has VERY SLOW advancement. There's nothing stopping a DM from giving out a pittance of XP in 4e. I mean really unless you're hard on it and really pushing it will IME take most groups 2-4 years to level to 30 even with the default 4e progression. If you halve that and you're playing several PCs then there's no doubt you can run 10+ year campaigns where the main PCs hang out in the upper half of the levels pretty much permanently. I just don't seen any inherent difference.
I don't see any reason why you cannot play 4e for 20 years. Obviously if the PCs in the perpetual AD&D game (and I have characters that I played for MANY years in AD&D and none of them ever hit 20th level either) simply has VERY SLOW advancement. The
By putting in bounded accuracy, while it might suit your personal likes better, it makes it far (and needlessly so) more difficult for DnD to BE DnD for the rest of us.
-Polaris
Don't presume to speak for "the rest of us". The bounded accuracy idea has been getting positive responses from many more people than just shanelwalden.
I would submit that a lot of you haven't thought it through or what it means for DnD.
-Polaris
polaris ne question.
in 4th edition, the defences of the monsters rose almost at the same rate the players to hit bonus did. meaning that yes your to hit number went up but the target you needed to roll on your dice ramained the same. zombie soldies level 2 AC 18 zombie soldies level 20 AC 36
so it just created the illusion of becoming more powerfull. the only time you realy became more powerfull was when your numbers rose faster then the standard expected rise.
Not really true at all. For instance the very first thing my first group did was take on some goblins at level 1. 7 levels later they ran into a whole group of goblins. Guess what? They dusted them in 3 rounds without anyone even getting hit. Plenty of power increase. A goblin warrior went from being a fairly tough opponent to being basically a minion (and I probably should have used minions, though for whatever reason I didn't).
If you run basically a sandbox then you'll quickly see that increases in PC power in 4e are very real. If you're going to run a totally managed 'treadmill' sort of game where the opponents are always just by chance exactly equal to the PCs then of course nothing really changes, that's the way you DESIGNED the story! Now, admittedly 4e's guidelines on building adventures and encounters focus on equal level type play, but that doesn't mean that the core rules only allow you to be on a treadmill. Certainly not to any greater degree than you were on one in AD&D.
Don't presume to speak for "the rest of us". The bounded accuracy idea has been getting positive responses from many more people than just shanelwalden.[/quote]I would submit that a lot of you haven't thought it through or what it means for DnD.-Pol
4E mechanics are wonky on this issue. They advise against ever pitching PCs against monsters who are more than 2 levels below or more than 4 levels above the PCs. So you would rarely pitchso-called low level monsters against PCs (4 levels below is just about doable but it depends how high your defenders' ACs are). Instead you would pitch level appropriate minions in place of the low level monsters.
Bounded accuracy gets a massive, massive thumbs up from me. No more looking at that awful table of level appropriate challenge ratings to try and work out where to pitch your DC. This will make the game much simpler for younger and more casual players to learn. This is a good thing.
Minions are just a convenience for when some monster is almost trivial and you minionize it, or other situations where for some reason you have some very minimal opponents.
I've used monsters from level + 8 down to level - 4 and found them useful. Of COURSE the PCs will crush the level - 4 monsters pretty quick, what else would one expect? If they're reasonable monsters then they can still get hits now and then, and they still do reasonable damage (about 4 points less than an at-level monster). A lot of it depends on how you handle the monsters and which ones you use. MM3 type monsters for instance are FAR more useful over a bigger range than MM1 monsters that started out with generally marginal damage output to start with. A horde of lower level MM3 monsters can be quite entertaining and problematic. Sure, they won't do much to the defender with a high AC, but he's not going to be locking down 12 or 16 of them...
Minions are just a convenience for when some monster is almost trivial and you minionize it, or other situations where for some reason you have some very minimal opponents. I've used monsters from level + 8 down to level - 4 and found them useful. Of
I have played every edition of D&D. The arguments in this thread are exactly like ones I have had with friends who still play their homebrew 2.X when I was running 4e. And the arguments, at their core, are based on a very real, very irreconcilable difference between AD&D and 4e. Their homebrew game has been going on for years. Literally 20 years, every Sunday. Most people have been playing the same characters, swapping out only when they get bored. Level-wise, their characters have been in their teens for what seems like forever.
They are interested in a perpetual game. They can take their characters through an unlimited number of adventures, kill dragons and gods and still worry about where their next meal comes from and about the next plot around the corner. One where, like a series of Conan books, Conan never changes dramatically, he just has more and more adventures. Maybe he becomes a king, but then he loses his throne and is forced back into the wilderness and his story just keeps on going. Each individual adventure has a beginning, middle and end, but Conan goes on forever.
4e used its system to fully realize the idea that a D&D game was no longer perpetual. It had tiers, that roughly went like this: in heroic, you save the city. In paragon, you save the kingdom. In epic, you save the whole world. And when you are done saving the world, that character's story is supposed to end: along the way to 30th, each PC essentially becomes an NPC, someone who shapes the world rather than participates in it. Unlike a series of Conan books, 4e was a trilogy of novels that ended at the end.
Bounded accuracy supports the series of books model-- you can essentially play your character forever. Scaling accuracy supports the single trilogy model, where there is an upward limit to how far a character can go, and once that limit is reached, the only way to keep playing is to roll new characters who experience the world the former characters shaped.
I don't see any reason why you cannot play 4e for 20 years. Obviously if the PCs in the perpetual AD&D game (and I have characters that I played for MANY years in AD&D and none of them ever hit 20th level either) simply has VERY SLOW advancement. There's nothing stopping a DM from giving out a pittance of XP in 4e. I mean really unless you're hard on it and really pushing it will IME take most groups 2-4 years to level to 30 even with the default 4e progression. If you halve that and you're playing several PCs then there's no doubt you can run 10+ year campaigns where the main PCs hang out in the upper half of the levels pretty much permanently. I just don't seen any inherent difference.
You really don't see any inherent difference? After a million pages of posts on these boards with arguments between "grognards" and "4vengers" about whether fighters should ever get quasi-magical abilities, about how what 4e lacked was gritty realism, about whether 4e is just a videogame on paper, etc, etc, I would think the differences would be rather clear. All these issues of balance and scaling are about very inherent differences between the systems: bounded accuracy prevents "supernormal" PCs, where in 4e, scaling by 1/2 level ensures them.
Having played 1-30 in a 4e game (we did Scales of War), I can say from experience it takes about 2-3 years of weekly play with 5-hour sessions, depending on how much the characters stay on track versus how much they want to tangent. For our group, it took about 27 months, and ended up being just over 100 sessions. But we stayed pretty much on track week to week. And at the end of the game, we were a group with a minor deity, a time-travelling explorer and we even had a queen. And we each wrote a story about how our character passed into NPC-dom and after the last session, we each read ours to the group, and the game was over. It was one of the most extraordinary things I have ever done. It's also something that has never happened in my friends' perpetual AD&D game, because that's not how their game system, and by extension their game world, works.
Now, of course you can play 4e with the same character for twenty years. I'm just saying that's not the design philosophy. 4e is a game with a definitive end, which makes it pretty different from previous editions, where the base game says it goes to 20 but then the Epic Level Handbook comes out a year or two later and gives you rules for continuing to play after that.
I don't see any reason why you cannot play 4e for 20 years. Obviously if the PCs in the perpetual AD&D game (and I have characters that I played for MANY years in AD&D and none of them ever hit 20th level either) simply has VERY SLOW advancement. The
I have played every edition of D&D. The arguments in this thread are exactly like ones I have had with friends who still play their homebrew 2.X when I was running 4e. And the arguments, at their core, are based on a very real, very irreconcilable difference between AD&D and 4e. Their homebrew game has been going on for years. Literally 20 years, every Sunday. Most people have been playing the same characters, swapping out only when they get bored. Level-wise, their characters have been in their teens for what seems like forever.
They are interested in a perpetual game. They can take their characters through an unlimited number of adventures, kill dragons and gods and still worry about where their next meal comes from and about the next plot around the corner. One where, like a series of Conan books, Conan never changes dramatically, he just has more and more adventures. Maybe he becomes a king, but then he loses his throne and is forced back into the wilderness and his story just keeps on going. Each individual adventure has a beginning, middle and end, but Conan goes on forever.
4e used its system to fully realize the idea that a D&D game was no longer perpetual. It had tiers, that roughly went like this: in heroic, you save the city. In paragon, you save the kingdom. In epic, you save the whole world. And when you are done saving the world, that character's story is supposed to end: along the way to 30th, each PC essentially becomes an NPC, someone who shapes the world rather than participates in it. Unlike a series of Conan books, 4e was a trilogy of novels that ended at the end.
Bounded accuracy supports the series of books model-- you can essentially play your character forever. Scaling accuracy supports the single trilogy model, where there is an upward limit to how far a character can go, and once that limit is reached, the only way to keep playing is to roll new characters who experience the world the former characters shaped.
I don't see any reason why you cannot play 4e for 20 years. Obviously if the PCs in the perpetual AD&D game (and I have characters that I played for MANY years in AD&D and none of them ever hit 20th level either) simply has VERY SLOW advancement. There's nothing stopping a DM from giving out a pittance of XP in 4e. I mean really unless you're hard on it and really pushing it will IME take most groups 2-4 years to level to 30 even with the default 4e progression. If you halve that and you're playing several PCs then there's no doubt you can run 10+ year campaigns where the main PCs hang out in the upper half of the levels pretty much permanently. I just don't seen any inherent difference.
You really don't see any inherent difference? After a million pages of posts on these boards with arguments between "grognards" and "4vengers" about whether fighters should ever get quasi-magical abilities, about how what 4e lacked was gritty realism, about whether 4e is just a videogame on paper, etc, etc, I would think the differences would be rather clear. All these issues of balance and scaling are about very inherent differences between the systems: bounded accuracy prevents "supernormal" PCs, where in 4e, scaling by 1/2 level ensures them.
Having played 1-30 in a 4e game (we did Scales of War), I can say from experience it takes about 2-3 years of weekly play with 5-hour sessions, depending on how much the characters stay on track versus how much they want to tangent. For our group, it took about 27 months, and ended up being just over 100 sessions. But we stayed pretty much on track week to week. And at the end of the game, we were a group with a minor deity, a time-travelling explorer and we even had a queen. And we each wrote a story about how our character passed into NPC-dom and after the last session, we each read ours to the group, and the game was over. It was one of the most extraordinary things I have ever done. It's also something that has never happened in my friends' perpetual AD&D game, because that's not how their game system, and by extension their game world, works.
Now, of course you can play 4e with the same character for twenty years. I'm just saying that's not the design philosophy. 4e is a game with a definitive end, which makes it pretty different from previous editions, where the base game says it goes to 20 but then the Epic Level Handbook comes out a year or two later and gives you rules for continuing to play after that.
The point is that if the characters are basically almost unchanging then there's no actual point to leveling (much) and no reason why the fact that your character stops being playable at level 30 matters. In fact the game doesn't require you to stop playing your character at 30 anyway, you can go on as long as you want. Again, there's no XP chart above 30 but if your goal is to just keep playing...
As for the tone of 4e vs the tone of AD&D... There's a big difference at high levels? I don't honestly think so. Once you hit 12th level in AD&D you're definitely into superhero territory. Characters that can climb pretyt much any wall, fall off a cliff and walk away, etc. Wizards are totally gonzo. Even without magic items my 12+ level wizard could fly literally forever, was virtually impossible to hit, and would be unlikely to evne be SEEN unless he decided to attack you. Maybe he wasn't quite superman, but he was surely on a par with most of that sort of hero. Throw in any decent amount of items and my RANGER was virtually unkillable, and DID jump off a 200' cliff just to get to the bottom faster at one point. We weren't even playing with stupid levels of magic.
In some ways 4e is MORE restrained. While it doesn't emphasize gritty realism it is certainly achievable, and DEFINITELY you're looking at a good bit more restrained magic. Sure, high level fighters can unleash an attack on 10 enemies at once now and then or go into a stance where they're preposterously hard to hurt, but I don't really agree that the difference in tone is that huge when playing each game off-the-shelf. They each have their stronger and weaker points, and I am not in any way saying the guys playing perpetual 2e should be playing 4e. What I am saying is that IMHO bounded accuracy has nothing to do with it one way or another.
Basically scaling ala all previous editions allowed for both styles of play, bounded accuracy AFAICT so far doesn't. Maybe it will. We shall see.
I don't see any reason why you cannot play 4e for 20 years. Obviously if the PCs in the perpetual AD&D game (and I have characters that I played for MANY years in AD&D and none of them ever hit 20th level either) simply has VERY SLOW advancement. The
It is always interesting to see these discussions develop. There always ends up being two camps saying pretty much the same thing.
"You're not seeing what I am seeing." or "How do you not see the potential for awesomenness/suck that this change can bring."
There also always seem to be one or two who say, "There is no way you've given this the same careful consideration that I have. If you had you would absolutely feel the same way I do."
The thing is, we don't know. And I accept that. I was taught that lesson very clearly with the release of 4th edition. I, like many were very excited and hopeful for 4E until we held the books in our hands and played some games. I am choosing to, again, be hopeful. (before it is said, being hopeful is not the same as not voicing criticism for playtest materials that we actually have, this article does not count as playtest materials)
I hope that next, using bounded accuracy, can enable our group to play the D&D we want and your group to play the D&D that you want. And I really think it can. All that either of us should have to do is change the bounds to suit our needs.
Also, I love the idea that when we decide we want to play a more high fantasy style game, as we inevitably do, I can simply create a document listing all the modules we're going to use, adjust the bounds of accuracy, and present it to the players. Or maybe, as mentioned above, I can just tell them the theme of the gampaign and if that theme is presented with others throughout the source material then we will know what versions of the modules to use.
But in the end, until we see the implementation, it is hope. Hope for some and pessimism for others.
There is no doubt in my mind that if we get a highlevel playtest and the game is as some of you fear then I will boooo just as loud.
Until then I prefer to hope. It's healthier for me.
Shane
It is always interesting to see these discussions develop. There always ends up being two camps saying pretty much the same thing. "You're not seeing what I am seeing." or "How do you not see the potential for awesomenness/suck that this change can b
Having played 1-30 in a 4e game (we did Scales of War), I can say from experience it takes about 2-3 years of weekly play with 5-hour sessions, depending on how much the characters stay on track versus how much they want to tangent. For our group, it took about 27 months, and ended up being just over 100 sessions. But we stayed pretty much on track week to week. And at the end of the game, we were a group with a minor deity, a time-travelling explorer and we even had a queen. And we each wrote a story about how our character passed into NPC-dom and after the last session, we each read ours to the group, and the game was over. It was one of the most extraordinary things I have ever done. It's also something that has never happened in my friends' perpetual AD&D game, because that's not how their game system, and by extension their game world, works.
Emphasis mine.
Time to tangent.
If your friend hasn't tied up high-level character story lines it's not becase AD&D told him, "No." The goups I have played with using the older editions all the way up through 3.5/Pathfinder have never had a problem keeping the game system from dictating the game world and, by extension, the story. I don't know your friend, but I suggest that if he feels that the game is telling him when to end one story and begin another that he find some help . Some people just really like those longer, multi-year and decade spanning stories. I would bet that those players are in the vast minority, though their playstyle should still be considered in the design of D&DN.
Shane
Emphasis mine. Time to tangent. If your friend hasn't tied up high-level character story lines it's not becase AD&D told him, "No." The goups I have played with using the older editions all the way up through 3.5/Pathfinder have never had a problem k
I think I may know what the problem is. 3.5 and 4e both presented D&D in such a way as to make it far easier to play a certain style than any other. That's ... well, it's not what D&D was. I see so many people fretting over 5e making different peoples' games play so differently that they're almost completely different systems because, to them, that's a problem and I just can't wrap my head around it. D&D was a game designed to give you the basics in order to make a more full game your own. The groups are supposed to play differently. That's the way the game works. Use what you like, change what you don't and add what you feel is missing. It's a cooperative game on more than just a storytelling level, you know. Er, at least it used to be. Today? Nah. People want The One True Way presented so that everyone's tables operate the same. And that's a damned shame to me. After all, we constantly remind one another that there's no right or wrong way to play, no one true way to play D&D. Why, then, do so many seem obsessed with a perfect rule system that will, in effect, provide us with one intended way to play?
I think I may know what the problem is. 3.5 and 4e both presented D&D in such a way as to make it far easier to play a certain style than any other. That's ... well, it's not what D&D was. I see so many people fretting over 5e making different peo
I am mildly insulted that I am pushing 'one true wayism' when I am really just stating a fact. DnD from it's very beginning in Chainmail (at the heart of the very soul of what it meant to be DnD) was always about having special but otherwise ordinary people grow with experience until they became extraordinary heros of lore and legend able to do extraordinary things far beyond the ken of mortal men. IIRC EGG himself says as much. It was why the level system was designed the way it was.
Bounded accuracy IMHO betrays this.
-Polaris
I am mildly insulted that I am pushing 'one true wayism' when I am really just stating a fact. DnD from it's very beginning in Chainmail (at the heart of the very soul of what it meant to be DnD) was always about having special but otherwise ordinar
To the bounded accuracy, I go for it. I hope it creates a Final Fantasy feeling, where the difference in levels are expressed in other things that aren't chance to hit or escape (except in some characters or monsters that have as special quality have super accurate attacks or being just harder to hit).
This actually sounds pretty awesome. Plus, from now on, any time somebody in these boards has a new idea or proposes something new and somebody else responds with some bull about "that's counter to D&D history and tradition, so it's bad and will never happen", we can all point to bounded accuracy.
While I think that some things are core to D&D, such classes, races, levels, alignment, other things aren't, and that's different than saying that it's bad or good.
To the bounded accuracy, I go for it. I hope it creates a Final Fantasy feeling, where the difference in levels are expressed in other things that aren't chance to hit or escape (except in some characters or monsters that have as special quality have
I am mildly insulted that I am pushing 'one true wayism' when I am really just stating a fact. DnD from it's very beginning in Chainmail (at the heart of the very soul of what it meant to be DnD) was always about having special but otherwise ordinary people grow with experience until they became extraordinary heros of lore and legend able to do extraordinary things far beyond the ken of mortal men. IIRC EGG himself says as much. It was why the level system was designed the way it was.
Bounded accuracy IMHO betrays this.
-Polaris
That's not even what I was talking about. What I was trying to address was the idea that we need some specific, detailed system to tell us the one true way - which seems to be a common sentiment here what with the constant attacks against 'DM may I' and non-specific (read: DM chosen) DCs.
That's not even what I was talking about. What I was trying to address was the idea that we need some specific, detailed system to tell us the one true way - which seems to be a common sentiment here what with the constant attacks against 'DM may I'
I can simply create a document listing all the modules we're going to use, adjust the bounds of accuracy, and present it to the players.
I don't think something like adjustments to bounds of accuracy can be so easily waved into the game with modules at a whim. Under a bounded accuracy, feats like Weapon Expertise will most likely not exist and won't be printed in the rules, simple +1 magic items will probably not exist, monsters will be created using the standard rules and won't likely have "use this DC with bounds and this DC without bounds" or things like that.
Some of these changes I think are good, such as bounded accuracy on ACs and attack bonuses. That sounds nice because hit points and damage will not be bounded. However, again, skills are an area where a bounded accuracy is not as good because certain things (like climbing very sheer walls) should be impossible for ordinary people, but should be possible for heroes that specialize in climbing.
I don't think something like adjustments to bounds of accuracy can be so easily waved into the game with modules at a whim. Under a bounded accuracy, feats like Weapon Expertise will most likely not exist and won't be printed in the rules, simple +1
I think I may know what the problem is. 3.5 and 4e both presented D&D in such a way as to make it far easier to play a certain style than any other. That's ... well, it's not what D&D was. I see so many people fretting over 5e making different peoples' games play so differently that they're almost completely different systems because, to them, that's a problem and I just can't wrap my head around it. D&D was a game designed to give you the basics in order to make a more full game your own. The groups are supposed to play differently. That's the way the game works. Use what you like, change what you don't and add what you feel is missing. It's a cooperative game on more than just a storytelling level, you know. Er, at least it used to be. Today? Nah. People want The One True Way presented so that everyone's tables operate the same. And that's a damned shame to me. After all, we constantly remind one another that there's no right or wrong way to play, no one true way to play D&D. Why, then, do so many seem obsessed with a perfect rule system that will, in effect, provide us with one intended way to play?
Yeah, I'm very far from sure about that. Have you read the 1e DMG? It is pretty clear. I thas statements like "the DM MUST do X" etc. Gary clearly was presenting A game and playstyle. He certainly recognized and approved of people doing what they wanted with it, but he wasn't trying to make "one game to bring them all", he was just making rules that worked for him and assumed everyone else would understand that and make different rules.
In many ways the tendency of early groups to play very differently has been somewhat overstated. The divergence has grown over time and there were always variations, but in the early days there weren't really that many choices of games to play. You could try playing EPT or RQ, or TnT, but frankly they had miniscule market share and it was just plain easier to hack on D&D and do what you wanted.
Nowadays there are tons of good solid systems out there that each have more support than 70's era D&D did in its day. I don't really need D&D to do it all.
Yeah, I'm very far from sure about that. Have you read the 1e DMG? It is pretty clear. I thas statements like "the DM MUST do X" etc. Gary clearly was presenting A game and playstyle. He certainly recognized and approved of people doing what they wan
What I was trying to address was the idea that we need some specific, detailed system to tell us the one true way - which seems to be a common sentiment here what with the constant attacks against 'DM may I' and non-specific (read: DM chosen) DCs.
Yes, because some of us play with groups that don't like playing with what they consider to be optional modules or don't want to have the extra burden of having to make rules for things that could have been in the main book. In addition, you have to recognize that future books have to be based on something, not every monster can be written to take into account every module that a group might or might not be playing with, so that either limits the scope of these "modules" or it suggests that the writers will look more closely at the baseline assumptions (ie. no modules).
The "one true way" arguments can just be considered short hand for "make that way the baseline assumption" in the rules since something has to be the baseline assumption.
Yes, because some of us play with groups that don't like playing with what they consider to be optional modules or don't want to have the extra burden of having to make rules for things that could have been in the main book. In addition, you have to
I am mildly insulted that I am pushing 'one true wayism' when I am really just stating a fact. DnD from it's very beginning in Chainmail (at the heart of the very soul of what it meant to be DnD) was always about having special but otherwise ordinary people grow with experience until they became extraordinary heros of lore and legend able to do extraordinary things far beyond the ken of mortal men. IIRC EGG himself says as much. It was why the level system was designed the way it was.
Bounded accuracy IMHO betrays this.
-Polaris
That's not even what I was talking about. What I was trying to address was the idea that we need some specific, detailed system to tell us the one true way - which seems to be a common sentiment here what with the constant attacks against 'DM may I' and non-specific (read: DM chosen) DCs.
Sorry then. I just got up and misinterpreted what you posted then and it rubbed me a bit badly is all. All I am saying is that for the new DnD to be faithful to it's predecessors SOME scaling based strictly on class and level needs to stay and it needs to be meaningful. We can discuss what that scale and progression should be (and I would be sympathetic to the idea that perhaps it was too extreme in 4e).
-Polaris
That's not even what I was talking about. What I was trying to address was the idea that we need some specific, detailed system to tell us the one true way - which seems to be a common sentiment here what with the constant attacks against 'DM may I'
Sorry then. I just got up and misinterpreted what you posted then and it rubbed me a bit badly is all. All I am saying is that for the new DnD to be faithful to it's predecessors SOME scaling based strictly on class and level needs to stay and it needs to be meaningful. We can discuss what that scale and progression should be (and I would be sympathetic to the idea that perhaps it was too extreme in 4e).
-Polaris
No problem. These things happen.
I'm not sure how I feel about it, truth be told. I like the idea but ... well, I agree that part of D&D has always been that scaling. You look forward to that +1 or whatever. In a level based game, level has to mean something.
No problem. These things happen. :-DI'm not sure how I feel about it, truth be told. I like the idea but ... well, I agree that part of D&D has always been that scaling. You look forward to that +1 or whatever. In a level based game, level has t
I am mildly insulted that I am pushing 'one true wayism' when I am really just stating a fact. DnD from it's very beginning in Chainmail (at the heart of the very soul of what it meant to be DnD) was always about having special but otherwise ordinary people grow with experience until they became extraordinary heros of lore and legend able to do extraordinary things far beyond the ken of mortal men. IIRC EGG himself says as much. It was why the level system was designed the way it was.
Bounded accuracy IMHO betrays this.
-Polaris
Except, I am absolutely certain that some groups have been playing D&D their own way from the very beginning. Even as far back as Chainmail.
If the characters stop advancing at 10th level it is still D&D. It's just not super high fantasy D&D. There is a lot of evidence to support the fact that 20th & 30th level D&D characters far outstrip the traditional high fantasy that we see in the stories and novels that inspire many of us to create our own D&D stories. Epic D&D is more accurately described as mythic fantasy IMO. But some D&D players prefer high fantasy and not mythic. High fantasy is easily acheived between 6th and 10th levels in most editions. Far earlier in some, like 4E.
Some of us just want characters to be beyond the ken of mortal men, we don't need far beyond. Stand toe to toe with gods, nah. Kill dragons, sure, but not 20 by 15th level. And beyond mortal ken only in areas in which those characters specialize.
But I do understand your point of view, and accept that bounded accuracy might not work out the way I am hoping. But let's hope not.
Shane
Except, I am absolutely certain that some groups have been playing D&D their own way from the very beginning. Even as far back as Chainmail. If the characters stop advancing at 10th level it is still D&D. It's just not super high fantasy D&D. There i
Except, I am absolutely certain that some groups have been playing D&D their own way from the very beginning. Even as far back as Chainmail.
I'm sure they have, but no offense intended, that is completely besides the point. The point is that the rise in power as measured just by a class' level has been hardwired as an intrinsic part of DnD from the start. It needs to stay if it is to remain DnD. Those that played it different could of course continue to.
-Polaris
I'm sure they have, but no offense intended, that is completely besides the point. The point is that the rise in power as measured just by a class' level has been hardwired as an intrinsic part of DnD from the start. It needs to stay if it is to re
What I was trying to address was the idea that we need some specific, detailed system to tell us the one true way - which seems to be a common sentiment here what with the constant attacks against 'DM may I' and non-specific (read: DM chosen) DCs.
Yes, because some of us play with groups that don't like playing with what they consider to be optional modules or don't want to have the extra burden of having to make rules for things that could have been in the main book. In addition, you have to recognize that future books have to be based on something, not every monster can be written to take into account every module that a group might or might not be playing with, so that either limits the scope of these "modules" or it suggests that the writers will look more closely at the baseline assumptions (ie. no modules).
The "one true way" arguments can just be considered short hand for "make that way the baseline assumption" in the rules since something has to be the baseline assumption.
This is really my ultimate concern is that yes, THEORETICALLY many options will be available, but in practice it will require almost as much work to play with options that aren't 'mainstream' as it would be to homebrew. Beyond that I don't see how WotC can practically support what amount to several different RPGs. There will ALWAYS be the temptation for the developers to simply provide support for what is already most supported and thus most likely to be played.
Yes, because some of us play with groups that don't like playing with what they consider to be optional modules or don't want to have the extra burden of having to make rules for things that could have been in the main book. In addition, you have to
I am mildly insulted that I am pushing 'one true wayism' when I am really just stating a fact. DnD from it's very beginning in Chainmail (at the heart of the very soul of what it meant to be DnD) was always about having special but otherwise ordinary people grow with experience until they became extraordinary heros of lore and legend able to do extraordinary things far beyond the ken of mortal men. IIRC EGG himself says as much. It was why the level system was designed the way it was.
Bounded accuracy IMHO betrays this.
-Polaris
Except, I am absolutely certain that some groups have been playing D&D their own way from the very beginning. Even as far back as Chainmail.
If the characters stop advancing at 10th level it is still D&D. It's just not super high fantasy D&D. There is a lot of evidence to support the fact that 20th & 30th level D&D characters far outstrip the traditional high fantasy that we see in the stories and novels that inspire many of us to create our own D&D stories. Epic D&D is more accurately described as mythic fantasy IMO. But some D&D players prefer high fantasy and not mythic. High fantasy is easily acheived between 6th and 10th levels in most editions. Far earlier in some, like 4E.
Some of us just want characters to be beyond the ken of mortal men, we don't need far beyond. Stand toe to toe with gods, nah. Kill dragons, sure, but not 20 by 15th level. And beyond mortal ken only in areas in which those characters specialize.
But I do understand your point of view, and accept that bounded accuracy might not work out the way I am hoping. But let's hope not.
Shane
Well, that's fine. Play the levels that play the way you like to play. My sister runs 3.5 E6 and nothing else. It works for her. I know people that stop their 4e games at 10th or 20th level too. I don't see why the game should not support all of them, and if it can do that without alternate rules, so much the better!
Except, I am absolutely certain that some groups have been playing D&D their own way from the very beginning. Even as far back as Chainmail. If the characters stop advancing at 10th level it is still D&D. It's just not super high fantasy D&D. There i
Except, I am absolutely certain that some groups have been playing D&D their own way from the very beginning. Even as far back as Chainmail.
I'm sure they have, but no offense intended, that is completely besides the point. The point is that the rise in power as measured just by a class' level has been hardwired as an intrinsic part of DnD from the start. It needs to stay if it is to remain DnD. Those that played it different could of course continue to.
-Polaris
I promise that this is germaine to the topic, just seems not to be because I failed to be clear about the connection.
The point is that to a lot of players, my group and I among them, D&D is a feel and not a mechanic. When we played E8, limiting character leveling was not the goal but instead a means to the goal of limiting power creep beyond the feel that was appropriate for our stories. From those first Chainmail players who adjusted the rules to my game table and many others, we adjust the game to suit the feeling of D&D for us.
If D&D next can control the basic power assumption of the game while making all power assumptions playable, a lot of us don't care what mechanic they use to accomplish it. We pick the modules that suit us and bam, it's still D&D. It's our D&D. You pick the modules that suit your playstyle and much louder, heavens shaking bam rings forth.
The problem at this point is that the gulf between what we do know and what a lot of us are assuming is huge. You know what you think D&D under bounded accuracy will look like. I know what I hope it looks like. Another poster knows what his own home system of bounded accuracy looked like. But we do not know what it will look like with D&DN implements it. We won't know this until we playtest high-level characters.
Bounded accuracy can be a lot of things. The fighter can still gain bonuses to by some mechanic associated with his level. Those bonuses can be bounded. We have no idea where the bounds lie and how difficult/easy they might be to adjust.
Shane
I'm sure they have, but no offense intended, that is completely besides the point. The point is that the rise in power as measured just by a class' level has been hardwired as an intrinsic part of DnD from the start. It needs to stay if it is to re
Another interesting option that I saw posted earlier, but have been thinking about more, is removing the idea of a miss. If HP is abstract then every type of attack should reduce some HP from the character. We already assume that a hit does not mean you actually strike the persons flesh and deal a wound, but means that the strike shakes up the character and takes some energy out of them. Since AC is calculated by including Dex and Armor, then a miss just means the target evaded the attack or the armor withstood it, which both would still take some energy out of the target of the attack. Now obviously this could lead to some very complicated charts regarding what physically hits and does not, but I would say that even if a person misses a swing, the person will likely still take some energy to evade or deflect the attack, not realizing the attacker was going to make a terrible swing. So this would make combat more about how well did I swing instead of hitting or missing.
I could make the same reasonable case for spells as well...this is more of a just me thinking out loud (typing out loud), but I am starting to like the idea.
Another interesting option that I saw posted earlier, but have been thinking about more, is removing the idea of a miss. If HP is abstract then every type of attack should reduce some HP from the character. We already assume that a hit does not mea
The point is that to a lot of players, my group and I among them, D&D is a feel and not a mechanic.
This may be the first time I have ever quoted myself online.
I just wanted to add that, at times, this feel that is D&D for us has at times been both High Fantasy and Gritty Fantasy. Less common are the times when it has been the Mythic Fantasy that I usually see in epic D&D. We have had so much more fun when the story is awesome it and of itself and didn't have to rely on fighting Demogorgon to be cool. But that had its moments.
Shane
This may be the first time I have ever quoted myself online.I just wanted to add that, at times, this feel that is D&D for us has at times been both High Fantasy and Gritty Fantasy. Less common are the times when it has been the Mythic Fantasy that I
Except, I am absolutely certain that some groups have been playing D&D their own way from the very beginning. Even as far back as Chainmail.
I'm sure they have, but no offense intended, that is completely besides the point. The point is that the rise in power as measured just by a class' level has been hardwired as an intrinsic part of DnD from the start. It needs to stay if it is to remain DnD. Those that played it different could of course continue to.
-Polaris
I promise that this is germaine to the topic, just seems not to be because I failed to be clear about the connection.
The point is that to a lot of players, my group and I among them, D&D is a feel and not a mechanic. When we played E8, limiting character leveling was not the goal but instead a means to the goal of limiting power creep beyond the feel that was appropriate for our stories. From those first Chainmail players who adjusted the rules to my game table and many others, we adjust the game to suit the feeling of D&D for us.
I understood you the first time, but it is still irrelevant! Just because you can use DnD to support a style that isn't part of the core DnD assumption from the beginning does not mean that it should be part of the core system. In the late 70s and early 80s a lot of us played DnD for campaign types that were completely out of whack with the design assumptions of DnD largely because there was little alternative.
That doesn't mean your idiosyncratic perference should be reflected in the core rules for all of us especially when it violates one of the original design intents of DnD. That's what Bounded Accuracy does and that's my prime object to it.
-Polaris
I'm sure they have, but no offense intended, that is completely besides the point. The point is that the rise in power as measured just by a class' level has been hardwired as an intrinsic part of DnD from the start. It needs to stay if it is to re
I understood you the first time, but it is still irrelevant! Just because you can use DnD to support a style that isn't part of the core DnD assumption from the beginning does not mean that it should be part of the core system. In the late 70s and early 80s a lot of us played DnD for campaign types that were completely out of whack with the design assumptions of DnD largely because there was little alternative.
That doesn't mean your idiosyncratic perference should be reflected in the core rules for all of us especially when it violates one of the original design intents of DnD. That's what Bounded Accuracy does and that's my prime object to it.
-Polaris
It is relevant because if a large body of D&D players play in a style that is not part of D&D's core assumption, and WotC wants to appeal to those players, it needs to be made part of that core assumption. I'm not suggesting at all that you should somehow be forced to play by a core assumption dictated by my group's story style. That's just crazy. I am saying that if D&DN meets it's design goals it will create a core assumption that is straightforward and elegant enough that all it needs is modules and it can support all of our playstyles.
Bounded accuracy may have been implemented poorly in your previous experience with it. But can we, you and I Polaris, agree that neither of us have any specific idea of what bounded accuracy will look like under D&DN?
Shane
It is relevant because if a large body of D&D players play in a style that is not part of D&D's core assumption, and WotC wants to appeal to those players, it needs to be made part of that core assumption. I'm not suggesting at all that you should so
Bounded accuracy may have been implemented poorly in your previous experience with it. But can we, you and I Polaris, agree that neither of us have any specific idea of what bounded accuracy will look like under D&DN?
Care to address my analysis of the article from a few pages back then, and explain to me how Bounded Accuracy can possibly work and accomodate ANY style of play that is not low level gritty all the way to level 20? Because I went through that article piece by piece, and the restrictions it insists are the design premises pigeon-hole the game into a very narrow range. I posit that it is impossible for them to implement bounded accuracy as described and include any amount of scaling, because doing so would be failing to implement bounded accuracy. I have yet to see anybody actually debunk this, just a whole lot of "Trust the designers, they're not going to screw you".
Care to address my analysis of the article from a few pages back then, and explain to me how Bounded Accuracy can possibly work and accomodate ANY style of play that is not low level gritty all the way to level 20? Because I went through that article
Bounded accuracy may have been implemented poorly in your previous experience with it. But can we, you and I Polaris, agree that neither of us have any specific idea of what bounded accuracy will look like under D&DN?
Care to address my analysis of the article from a few pages back then, and explain to me how Bounded Accuracy can possibly work and accomodate ANY style of play that is not low level gritty all the way to level 20? Because I went through that article piece by piece, and the restrictions it insists are the design premises pigeon-hole the game into a very narrow range. I posit that it is impossible for them to implement bounded accuracy as described and include any amount of scaling, because doing so would be failing to implement bounded accuracy. I have yet to see anybody actually debunk this, just a whole lot of "Trust the designers, they're not going to screw you".
I can say for certain that I am not the most trusting of the designers. I was alienated by 4E and I remember how that felt. I am simply choosing not to trust or distrust them and reserving my judgment for when I actually see the playtest rules demonstrating how bounded accuracy will be implemented.
When you see me saying what I like about bounded accuracy and what it can do for all of our games that is merely my hope and opinion.
I will look at your article analysis more thoroughly though it might not be soon. The work hour approaches. One question though. Do you really contend that any scaling, any at all, is absolutely impossible? I actually see quite a bit of scaling in the 1-3rd level pregen characters. Not attack. But scaling. It could be that we'll see very little scaling as a core assumption and that scaling would be apparent if we saw the characters statted up through 4th or 6th level. Limited scaling would still be bounded accuracy. As long as the accuracy stays within certain bounds established by the core assumption. It might not be bounded accuracy as you've known it until now, it would simply be bounded accuracy as implemented by 5E.
Shane
Care to address my analysis of the article from a few pages back then, and explain to me how Bounded Accuracy can possibly work and accomodate ANY style of play that is not low level gritty all the way to level 20? Because I went through that article
I can say for certain that I am not the most trusting of the designers. I was alienated by 4E and I remember how that felt. I am simply choosing not to trust or distrust them and reserving my judgment for when I actually see the playtest rules demonstrating how bounded accuracy will be implemented.
When you see me saying what I like about bounded accuracy and what it can do for all of our games that is merely my hope and opinion.
I will look at your article analysis more thoroughly though it might not be soon. The work hour approaches. One question though. Do you really contend that any scaling, any at all, is absolutely impossible? I actually see quite a bit of scaling in the 1-3rd level pregen characters. Not attack. But scaling. It could be that we'll see very little scaling as a core assumption and that scaling would be apparent if we saw the characters statted up through 4th or 6th level. Limited scaling would still be bounded accuracy. As long as the accuracy stays within certain bounds established by the core assumption. It might not be bounded accuracy as you've known it until now, it would simply be bounded accuracy as implemented by 5E.
Shane
Any scaling of AC is strictly limited. Any scaling of skill rolls or attack rolls is moderately limited. I think I came to the conclusion no more than an extra +9 can be included anywhere in the system to attack rolls or skill checks without breaking bounded accuracy, and no more than +2 to AC can be included. Extra room for AC scaling may be made by buffing attack rolls or nerfing starting AC values across the board by a few points.
Scaling of Damage/Hit Points is to be expected, however if the rates we have seen in the first 3 levels hold steady, I doubt it will be a sharp enough grade of scaling to be equivalent or even close to what was in previous editions.
Any scaling of AC is strictly limited. Any scaling of skill rolls or attack rolls is moderately limited. I think I came to the conclusion no more than an extra +9 can be included anywhere in the system to attack rolls or skill checks without breaking
Any scaling of AC is strictly limited. Any scaling of skill rolls or attack rolls is moderately limited. I think I came to the conclusion no more than an extra +9 can be included anywhere in the system to attack rolls or skill checks without breaking bounded accuracy, and no more than +2 to AC can be included. Extra room for AC scaling may be made by buffing attack rolls or nerfing starting AC values across the board by a few points.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that we agree that some scaling, limited scaling, can be included in the core rules, given the very little that we actually know about those core rules. More scaling could be included if they realized that we as playtesters wanted a larger scale and upped it.
Different bounds, as it were, for different playstyles.
So, imagine there is a module that says "if you want to play a Mythic Fantasy game do the following: add two more DC ranks (perhaps up into the 30s), grant your characters +1/2 level to certain checks, allow them to fall level x10 ft without damage, be certain to compliment them on their virility often, and so on.
Imagine another module that says "for a really gritty game reduce the scaling this much and include this wound/vitality-like mechanic, and remember to tell your characters how often they get crap on their boots, and reiterate to them how dangerous and world with dragons in it actually is."
Of course I expect their rules modules to be much more robust and refined than my examples. But the point is, we end up with a core assumption between the two extremes. That prospect has me excited. The people in the middle, the ones happy with just the core assumption, will just have to fiddle with modules less.
The core will come with the assumption of modularity. Adding or taking away those modules shouldn't be to difficult. Just be upfront with your players.
Shane
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that we agree that some scaling, limited scaling, can be included in the core rules, given the very little that we actually know about those core rules. More scaling could be included if they realized that we as
Bounded accuracy may have been implemented poorly in your previous experience with it. But can we, you and I Polaris, agree that neither of us have any specific idea of what bounded accuracy will look like under D&DN?
Care to address my analysis of the article from a few pages back then, and explain to me how Bounded Accuracy can possibly work and accomodate ANY style of play that is not low level gritty all the way to level 20? Because I went through that article piece by piece, and the restrictions it insists are the design premises pigeon-hole the game into a very narrow range. I posit that it is impossible for them to implement bounded accuracy as described and include any amount of scaling, because doing so would be failing to implement bounded accuracy. I have yet to see anybody actually debunk this, just a whole lot of "Trust the designers, they're not going to screw you".
It certainly isn't hard to add bonuses. In fact the game does this already, +1 magic weapons add a bonus to hit. A high level PC attack will have bonuses over a lvl 1 character.
It seems fairly easy to me to add bonuses and expand bounded accuracy beyond the gritty.
If a character has a strength check to bust down a door of +10 and all die rolls below 8 are treated as an 8, within a bounded accuracy system, it means he knocks wooden doors down everytime, but he has a shot to knock down a steel reinforced door with a crossbeam. Something epic.
I just don't see why bounded accuracy destroys this style of gameplay. In my opinion, it provides the opportunity for epic characters to feel *more* epic, not less.
Bounded accuracy just has the potential to provide an amazing addition to the flavor and progression and setting of the game, I think people want to give it a chance and see how it plays on the table.
Care to address my analysis of the article from a few pages back then, and explain to me how Bounded Accuracy can possibly work and accomodate ANY style of play that is not low level gritty all the way to level 20? Because I went through that article
Bounded accuracy may have been implemented poorly in your previous experience with it. But can we, you and I Polaris, agree that neither of us have any specific idea of what bounded accuracy will look like under D&DN?
Care to address my analysis of the article from a few pages back then, and explain to me how Bounded Accuracy can possibly work and accomodate ANY style of play that is not low level gritty all the way to level 20? Because I went through that article piece by piece, and the restrictions it insists are the design premises pigeon-hole the game into a very narrow range. I posit that it is impossible for them to implement bounded accuracy as described and include any amount of scaling, because doing so would be failing to implement bounded accuracy. I have yet to see anybody actually debunk this, just a whole lot of "Trust the designers, they're not going to screw you".
Okay, the reason I find your analysis flawed at least for AC/hit part is that automatically assume the numbers from the playtest will be the final numbers and kill the idea because of that. Why don't you post some suggestions to fix the numbers for bounded accuracy to work? Boosting attack bonuses at low levels and of simple npc's would be helpful. Also maxing AC at a lower number is also reasonable...which can be done by adjusting AC bonus from armor and limiting magic bonuses.
I actually agree with you on the skills and that it would actually be bad for them to use it for skills. That being said, I think they can still do make it work without automatic increases by adjusting the DC's for the different tiers and looking at the feats or abilities that give those bonuses. I think there should a be tier that only the best can access, but still allow others to succeed at lower tiers a reasonably % of times.
I also agree that the monsters in the playtest did not reflect the bounded accuracy and they previously stated that the monsters weren't really worked on much for the playtest. So the lower level monsters should start with the range of attack bonus as the PC's which would allow for them to still hit the players at high level.
If they want this to be work, they will likely need to throw out +X bonuses on magic weapons and armor and just have them add damage and effects. The wizard will also need a much better defensive spell or even a natural deflection AC to keep their AC's on track with the rest of the party (11 was just stupid).
Overall, I think the Hit/AC option can work if the numbers are done properly, you make assuptions that the numbers won't, so it makes the whole thing a failure.
Care to address my analysis of the article from a few pages back then, and explain to me how Bounded Accuracy can possibly work and accomodate ANY style of play that is not low level gritty all the way to level 20? Because I went through that article
If a character has a strength check to bust down a door of +10 and all die rolls below 8 are treated as an 8, within a bounded accuracy system, it means he knocks wooden doors down everytime, but he has a shot to knock down a steel reinforced door with a crossbeam. Something epic.
You sir, make a delightfully awesome point. With minimum accuracy (oh yeah) options added to bounded accuracy the cases where a high-level fighter drowns and such should become very rare, though in a grittier game he might have to remove that plate armor to save himself .
I can easily imagine a module where the minimum accuracy for Mythic Fantasy characters is their level or 1/2 their level.
Shane
You sir, make a delightfully awesome point. With minimum accuracy (oh yeah) options added to bounded accuracy the cases where a high-level fighter drowns and such should become very rare, though in a grittier game he might have to remove that plate a
Okay, the reason I find your analysis flawed at least for AC/hit part is that automatically assume the numbers from the playtest will be the final numbers and kill the idea because of that. Why don't you post some suggestions to fix the numbers for bounded accuracy to work? Boosting attack bonuses at low levels and of simple npc's would be helpful. Also maxing AC at a lower number is also reasonable...which can be done by adjusting AC bonus from armor and limiting magic bonuses.
All right let me try to explain. Bounded Accuracy requires everyone to be on the same RNG. If one person can succeed on something, everyone else must have at least a chance to succeed at it, otherwise when characters run into that challenge, some characters can't contribute, thus defeating the point of bounded accuracy. But no matter what the system can't work with the level of scaling traditionally associated with D&D because everyone needs to be within so many points of each other in D&D. If your low end is a +2, that means the best he can succeed at without needing a 20 is a 21. Which means conversely the highest bonus you can have is a +18, because otherwise you succeed on a 2.
But the problem is, if you have that variance of +16, then DC21 is the ONLY DC that can exist. The reason why right now attack bonuses can fluctuate so much is because armor doesn't fluctuate as much relatively. If you move the DC up by 1, then now the low end can only succeed on a 20. If you move the DC down by 1, the high end can succeed on a 2.
So as a result you need to account for the variability between DCs and Bonuses both adding up to 16. So you have DC ranging from 16-24. Your low end here is +5 (hits DC24 on a 19), and the high end is a +13 (hit DC16 on a 3). This is pretty much the ideal balance point of bounded accuracy, where both the DC and the hit bonus has a swing of about 8 points it can go between. But this means that the absolute max difference between someone with no skill, and someone with training has to be +8.
In fact, there's a strong argument that the existence of DCs even existing spread out between DC11 and DC27 violates bounded accuracy, unless everyone has a +8 bonus to do everything no matter what. "But wait!" you say, "That's a variance of 8 points! Why can't that work?", the main reason is attributes already represent a variance of 6 points (-1 vs +5), adding even another 2 points from anything throws it off.
There is no suggestions I can make to fix this. The only way to accept it is that you have to realize eventually some challenges are no longer challenges, and characters should in fact scale and be able to have mastery far exceeding other characters. Unfortunately, that goes against every principle of the bounded accuracy system, and is why I am so hardset against it.
I honestly believe that anyone who supports bounded accuracy hasn't yet realized just how restrictive this is, and in play either they will notice it and realize the mistake, or WotC will actually fail to follow through on their design goals and give us a system where bounded accuracy doesn't actually exist. Honestly I find the latter more likely than the former, simply because I can't believe even WotC thinks that such limited ranges are good for play.
Bounded accuracy at a given level is acceptable. A +8 difference between a specialist and a generalist is workable. I can get behind the idea of keeping everyone at the same level on the same RNG for all level appropriate tasks. But that isn't the bounded accuracy system described in the article, which isn't just bounded accuracy at one level, but bounded accuracy across every level of play. The difference that is acceptable for two characters who are the same power level is not acceptable as the difference between the worst person at level 1 vs the best person at level 20.
All right let me try to explain. Bounded Accuracy requires everyone to be on the same RNG. If one person can succeed on something, everyone else must have at least a chance to succeed at it, otherwise when characters run into that challenge, some cha
All right let me try to explain. Bounded Accuracy requires everyone to be on the same RNG. If one person can succeed on something, everyone else must have at least a chance to succeed at it, otherwise when characters run into that challenge, some characters can't contribute, thus defeating the point of bounded accuracy.
What do you mean by RNG? Also, doesn't everyone always succeed on a 20? Hasn't the situation where everyone has had a chance to succeed always been the case?
Shane
What do you mean by RNG? Also, doesn't everyone always succeed on a 20? Hasn't the situation where everyone has had a chance to succeed always been the case?Shane
All right let me try to explain. Bounded Accuracy requires everyone to be on the same RNG. If one person can succeed on something, everyone else must have at least a chance to succeed at it, otherwise when characters run into that challenge, some characters can't contribute, thus defeating the point of bounded accuracy.
What do you mean by RNG? Also, doesn't everyone always succeed on a 20? Hasn't the situation where everyone has had a chance to succeed always been the case?
Shane
1) RNG stands for Random Number Generator. When I say "everyone needs to be on the same RNG" I mean "Everyone needs to have both a chance of failure and a chance of success at a given task". ie the maximum differences need to fit on the d20 roll, aka the RNG.
2) You are correct that a natural 20 succeeding and natural 1 failing has always been true. This is why I specified hitting on a 19 or failing on a 3. Because if their definition of bounded accuracy was for natural 20s or natural 1s, the entire definition they gave in their article would be 100% meaningless, and true across all editions, and as such not a new system at all. A level 1 orc had a chance of hitting a level 30 fighter in 4e after all, but this is obviously not an example of bounded accuracy.
What do you mean by RNG? Also, doesn't everyone always succeed on a 20? Hasn't the situation where everyone has had a chance to succeed always been the case?Shane [/quote]1) RNG stands for Random Number Generator. When I say "everyone needs to be on
Bounded accuracy at a given level is acceptable. A +8 difference between a specialist and a generalist is workable. I can get behind the idea of keeping everyone at the same level on the same RNG for all level appropriate tasks. But that isn't the bounded accuracy system described in the article, which isn't just bounded accuracy at one level, but bounded accuracy across every level of play. The difference that is acceptable for two characters who are the same power level is not acceptable as the difference between the worst person at level 1 vs the best person at level 20.
Okay, so I think I now understand what you are saying and I think I was visualizing something different when I was reading the article and what you state. I was visualizing a possibility that some characters will have the ability to auto succeed on lower DC's, especially for skills. For hit/AC, I was visualizing a max of 20 AC for all creatures. Which would allow any pc or npc the ability to hit it, although very minimal chance. I'm not sure where I would cap the attack bonus for that, but if there is always a chance for failure, then it would cap at +9. If we assume they can get to the point where they autohit the lowest of AC's (a 10) then the cap could be higher, but would probably want to cap it close to 15 to allow some chance of missing.
I imagine skills could also be done similarly if the DC's were lowered and the number of tiers reduced, but I don't care for it to be applied to skills. I don't mind having a tier in skills that is unreachable by the untrained and maybe a level for mastery (likely just one boost with a feat or whatever they will use). Since the highest achieveable with ability mod is 25 (assuming a 20 ability score)...then all but two tiers should be below that level. The current system of master (23-26)/Immortal (27+) is seems too low for my tastes (but easy enough to house rule. Given these numbers only those trained can reach immortal and any bonuses that they gain, will just make increase the chance of success....which I assume was their goal.
I think automatic success is fine for skills and hit values....this may not be what the goal of Bounded Accuracy is, but I think it is still workable.
Okay, so I think I now understand what you are saying and I think I was visualizing something different when I was reading the article and what you state. I was visualizing a possibility that some characters will have the ability to auto succeed on
Okay, so I think I now understand what you are saying and I think I was visualizing something different when I was reading the article and what you state. I was visualizing a possibility that some characters will have the ability to auto succeed on lower DC's, especially for skills. For hit/AC, I was visualizing a max of 20 AC for all creatures. Which would allow any pc or npc the ability to hit it, although very minimal chance. I'm not sure where I would cap the attack bonus for that, but if there is always a chance for failure, then it would cap at +9. If we assume they can get to the point where they autohit the lowest of AC's (a 10) then the cap could be higher, but would probably want to cap it close to 15 to allow some chance of missing.
Personally I'd consider AC13 as the minimum. But then again, I'd just let Wizards have light armor. But even with AC 13 as the minimum, that makes your max hit bonus a +10, which is only 4 higher than the Fighter has right at level 1.
I imagine skills could also be done similarly if the DC's were lowered and the number of tiers reduced, but I don't care for it to be applied to skills.
I agree with not wanting it being applied to skills. Once again, this is the point of my argument. People can say "Well if we change this" or "If this happens that doesn't fit with bounded accuracy..." and that's fine. However it has nothing to do with me saying Bounded Accuracy is a terrible mechanic that does not allow any real degree of scaling.
Having more tiers of skill checks/DCs and more scaling in skills is good. That gives you something akin to 3.5, which wasn't ideal, but it at least let characters feel like they were progressing. I've never argued against that, what I have argued against is the idea that this somehow fits with the Designer's presented goal of bounded accuracy.
The current system of master (23-26)/Immortal (27+) is seems too low for my tastes (but easy enough to house rule. Given these numbers only those trained can reach immortal and any bonuses that they gain, will just make increase the chance of success....which I assume was their goal.
Speaking of that. Immortal checks being DC27 means anyone with a +7 bonus can succeed at it 5% of the time even without natural 20s, and +8 can succeed all the time. So you have to decide... do you want level 1 rogues succeeding on completing epic deity level tasks 5-10% of the time, or do you want gods to not be able to accomplish anything much more than a normal mortal? When a system has you seriously considering this kind of decision, that should be a red flag that something is wrong.
Personally I'd consider AC13 as the minimum. But then again, I'd just let Wizards have light armor. But even with AC 13 as the minimum, that makes your max hit bonus a +10, which is only 4 higher than the Fighter has right at level 1.I agree with not
I'm sure they have, but no offense intended, that is completely besides the point. The point is that the rise in power as measured just by a class' level has been hardwired as an intrinsic part of DnD from the start. It needs to stay if it is to remain DnD. Those that played it different could of course continue to.
-Polaris
Bounded Accuracy doesn't eliminate level based power growth, it changes the curve. This has already happened in 4e wrt wizards and clerics, and 4e is still very much DnD. It may be something a lot of people like, or something that a lot of people don't like. But the idea that it represents the end of DnD is a bit over the top.
Bounded Accuracy doesn't eliminate level based power growth, it changes the curve. This has already happened in 4e wrt wizards and clerics, and 4e is still very much DnD. It may be something a lot of people like, or something that a lot of people don
Bounded Accuracy doesn't eliminate level based power growth, it changes the curve. This has already happened in 4e wrt wizards and clerics, and 4e is still very much DnD. It may be something a lot of people like, or something that a lot of people don't like. But the idea that it represents the end of DnD is a bit over the top.
Why is it people keep coming into the thread, making assertions that are provably false, and have been proven false, and use it as an argument?
Why is it people keep coming into the thread, making assertions that are provably false, and have been proven false, and use it as an argument?
Personally I'd consider AC13 as the minimum. But then again, I'd just let Wizards have light armor. But even with AC 13 as the minimum, that makes your max hit bonus a +10, which is only 4 higher than the Fighter has right at level 1.
I think wizards should some sort of automatic shield that gives them the bonus...but whatever. Also why would it max at +10 if we assume that at a certain point they can autohit lower AC's.
Speaking of that. Immortal checks being DC27 means anyone with a +7 bonus can succeed at it 5% of the time even without natural 20s, and +8 can succeed all the time. So you have to decide... do you want level 1 rogues succeeding on completing epic deity level tasks 5-10% of the time, or do you want gods to not be able to accomplish anything much more than a normal mortal? When a system has you seriously considering this kind of decision, that should be a red flag that something is wrong.
yeah, I definitely agree here. If training in a skill gives a +3 and each feat you take gives you another +3 (or boost or whatever). Then the pc should have training and take at least one boost to even reach immortal, if not a second boost. So the master might start around 27 or even over 30 if they need the second boost to reach it (max mod for just trained will be +8, then +11, +14 for added feat boosts)---this assumes a abil score of 20.
I think wizards should some sort of automatic shield that gives them the bonus...but whatever. Also why would it max at +10 if we assume that at a certain point they can autohit lower AC's. yeah, I definitely agree here. If training in a skill giv
Personally I'd consider AC13 as the minimum. But then again, I'd just let Wizards have light armor. But even with AC 13 as the minimum, that makes your max hit bonus a +10, which is only 4 higher than the Fighter has right at level 1.
I think wizards should some sort of automatic shield that gives them the bonus...but whatever. Also why would it max at +10 if we assume that at a certain point they can autohit lower AC's.
Because it goes back to the primary design assumption that everyone has a chance to hit everyone, and conversely, everyone has a chance to be missed by everyone. You can't have auto hits past a certain point and still be using bounded accuracy, so you can only have a +10, so you don't only miss on a 1. (with a +10 you also miss on a 2, but hit on a 3 or higher). Once again, if you abandon bounded accuracy you have a lot more freedom here, as it just means +10 is your max for 1st level, and at higher levels the character can auto hit on those low ACs easily.
yeah, I definitely agree here. If training in a skill gives a +3 and each feat you take gives you another +3 (or boost or whatever). Then the pc should have training and take at least one boost to even reach immortal, if not a second boost. So the master might start around 27 or even over 30 if they need the second boost to reach it (max mod for just trained will be +8, then +11, +14 for added feat boosts)---this assumes a abil score of 20.
Personally I wouldn't want immortal tasks to even be within reach of PCs until level 15 at minimum (assuming a 20 level system. Level 20 in a 30 level system). The idea of a 1st or even 5th level character being able to hit a DC that is intended to be a challenge for deities any percentage of the time is either way too powerful for my tastes, or requires deities way too weak to be believable as deities.
I think wizards should some sort of automatic shield that gives them the bonus...but whatever. Also why would it max at +10 if we assume that at a certain point they can autohit lower AC's. [/quote]Because it goes back to the primary design assumpt
Bounded Accuracy doesn't eliminate level based power growth, it changes the curve. This has already happened in 4e wrt wizards and clerics, and 4e is still very much DnD. It may be something a lot of people like, or something that a lot of people don't like. But the idea that it represents the end of DnD is a bit over the top.
Why is it people keep coming into the thread, making assertions that are provably false, and have been proven false, and use it as an argument?
And your point is what, exactly? That bounded accuracy eliminates power growth? That 4e didn't severly flatten caster power growth? That 4e isn't DnD?
Why is it people keep coming into the thread, making assertions that are provably false, and have been proven false, and use it as an argument?[/quote]And your point is what, exactly?That bounded accuracy eliminates power growth?That 4e didn't severl
Because it goes back to the primary design assumption that everyone has a chance to hit everyone, and conversely, everyone has a chance to be missed by everyone. You can't have auto hits past a certain point and still be using bounded accuracy, so you can only have a +10, so you don't only miss on a 1. (with a +10 you also miss on a 2, but hit on a 3 or higher). Once again, if you abandon bounded accuracy you have a lot more freedom here, as it just means +10 is your max for 1st level, and at higher levels the character can auto hit on those low ACs easily.
Actually rereading the article I didn't see where it said that there would be no auto success. Nowhere in the article did they say that they expected the pc's would have a always have a chance to miss. I don't see where they made that assumption, they just said that pc's and monsters will always have the ability to hit...not miss.
Actually rereading the article I didn't see where it said that there would be no auto success. Nowhere in the article did they say that they expected the pc's would have a always have a chance to miss. I don't see where they made that assumption, t
Bounded Accuracy doesn't eliminate level based power growth, it changes the curve. This has already happened in 4e wrt wizards and clerics, and 4e is still very much DnD. It may be something a lot of people like, or something that a lot of people don't like. But the idea that it represents the end of DnD is a bit over the top.
Why is it people keep coming into the thread, making assertions that are provably false, and have been proven false, and use it as an argument?
I guess because they read the article and assume that everyone else is using that as a basis for their arguments?
Why is it people keep coming into the thread, making assertions that are provably false, and have been proven false, and use it as an argument?[/quote]I guess because they read the article and assume that everyone else is using that as a basis for th
Bounded Accuracy doesn't eliminate level based power growth, it changes the curve. This has already happened in 4e wrt wizards and clerics, and 4e is still very much DnD. It may be something a lot of people like, or something that a lot of people don't like. But the idea that it represents the end of DnD is a bit over the top.
Why is it people keep coming into the thread, making assertions that are provably false, and have been proven false, and use it as an argument?
I guess because they read the article and assume that everyone else is using that as a basis for their arguments?
The article is the basis of every one of my arguments. But please feel free to ignore that.
Why is it people keep coming into the thread, making assertions that are provably false, and have been proven false, and use it as an argument?[/quote]I guess because they read the article and assume that everyone else is using that as a basis for th
All this speculation is groovy and all, but we really don't have enough information at the moment for the speculation to even be a worthy hypothesis... let alone enough to actually TEST a given hypothesis to see if there's actuually any merit to it.
Until we can test it, it's all bluster one way or another.
All this speculation is groovy and all, but we really don't have enough information at the moment for the speculation to even be a worthy hypothesis... let alone enough to actually TEST a given hypothesis to see if there's actuually any merit to it.U
The article is the basis of every one of my arguments. But please feel free to ignore that.
The article does not say it is necessary for everyone to have the ability to miss, just the ability to hit...so actually at least part of your argument incorrect because you are basing on something the article did not say.
The article does not say it is necessary for everyone to have the ability to miss, just the ability to hit...so actually at least part of your argument incorrect because you are basing on something the article did not say.
Until we can test it, it's all bluster one way or another.
And that should be the final post in 98% of the threads in general chat.
But to be fair, we're humans and what we do in the absence of anything to talk about is posit things to talk about.
And that should be the final post in 98% of the threads in general chat.But to be fair, we're humans and what we do in the absence of anything to talk about is posit things to talk about.
The article is the basis of every one of my arguments. But please feel free to ignore that.
The article does not say it is necessary for everyone to have the ability to miss, just the ability to hit...so actually at least part of your argument incorrect because you are basing on something the article did not say.
I assume it's not going to be a challenge when you auto hit, just like it's not a challenge when they can't hit you. I mean, if you follow the line of thought that "things can become an auto success and not matter" to its obvious conclusion, you end up with the Fighter who hits everything in the game on a 2, or the rogue who succeeds all challenges effortlessly. I guess that is one way of interpretting things, tasks just get trivially easier until epic level characters automatically succeed at everything, though that doesn't seem particularly satisfying
And reading through the article again, the part that stands out in favor of my interpretation is still the part in the article they talk about where a DC17 door will be as valid of a challenge at level 20 as at level 1. If characters could realistically to expect to get bonuses that will invalidate low DC challenges, then I would expect them to say as much, not go on about how challenges will still be viable across all levels.
But you are right, that portion of it is at least partially extrapolation rather than something directly from the article, you could make the argument either way. Though I would love to see someone justifying that Rodney Thompson actually did intend for characters to get badass enough to auto-bypass any lower DC challenge while trumpeting how low DC challenges will still be challenging at high level.
The article does not say it is necessary for everyone to have the ability to miss, just the ability to hit...so actually at least part of your argument incorrect because you are basing on something the article did not say.[/quote]I assume it's not go
Bounded Accuracy doesn't eliminate level based power growth, it changes the curve. This has already happened in 4e wrt wizards and clerics, and 4e is still very much DnD. It may be something a lot of people like, or something that a lot of people don't like. But the idea that it represents the end of DnD is a bit over the top.
Why is it people keep coming into the thread, making assertions that are provably false, and have been proven false, and use it as an argument?
I guess because they read the article and assume that everyone else is using that as a basis for their arguments?
The article is the basis of every one of my arguments. But please feel free to ignore that.
So then we can not blame someone else for looking at the article and basing their arguments on it, can we?
Why is it people keep coming into the thread, making assertions that are provably false, and have been proven false, and use it as an argument?[/quote]I guess because they read the article and assume that everyone else is using that as a basis for th
I assume it's not going to be a challenge when you auto hit, just like it's not a challenge when they can't hit you. I mean, if you follow the line of thought that "things can become an auto success and not matter" to its obvious conclusion, you end up with the Fighter who hits everything in the game on a 2, or the rogue who succeeds all challenges effortlessly. I guess that is one way of interpretting things, tasks just get trivially easier until epic level characters automatically succeed at everything, though that doesn't seem particularly satisfying
The idea given in the article is that you will less bonuses to hit, so they become more impressive. There is nothing to even suggest that the bonus will be +18, they will auto succeed on the lower level stuff and have a better chance of hitting the higher AC's or DC's.
And reading through the article again, the part that stands out in favor of my interpretation is still the part in the article they talk about where a DC17 door will be as valid of a challenge at level 20 as at level 1. If characters could realistically to expect to get bonuses that will invalidate low DC challenges, then I would expect them to say as much, not go on about how challenges will still be viable across all levels.
But you are right, that portion of it is at least partially extrapolation rather than something directly from the article, you could make the argument either way. Though I would love to see someone justifying that Rodney Thompson actually did intend for characters to get badass enough to auto-bypass any lower DC challenge while trumpeting how low DC challenges will still be challenging at high level.
I agree the door was a terrible example and I think this was more related to a str check and having really high ability modifiers, than any skill modifier (still badly written).
" There's no need to constantly escalate the in-world descriptions to match a growing DC; an iron-banded door is just as tough to break down at 20th level as it was at 1st, and it might still be a challenge for a party consisting of heroes without great Strength scores."
This is the only instance that mentions a challenge at 1st and 20th for the same thing...and it is directly related to strength scores and checks.
I think that your argument was based on several unfounded assumptions. First that everyone will have a chance to miss and to hit at all levels on all creatures. Second, you seem to be assuming that if they can auto hit a low AC, then they will eventually auto hit the highest AC. Both of these are completely unfounded based on the article.
The idea given in the article is that you will less bonuses to hit, so they become more impressive. There is nothing to even suggest that the bonus will be +18, they will auto succeed on the lower level stuff and have a better chance of hitting the
I think that your argument was based on several unfounded assumptions. First that everyone will have a chance to miss and to hit at all levels on all creatures. Second, you seem to be assuming that if they can auto hit a low AC, then they will eventually auto hit the highest AC. Both of these are completely unfounded based on the article.
The thing is, if they're saying that auto hitting some DCs is okay, then eventually auto hitting other DCs is also okay. For example, your reasoning of it being okay to invalidate lower DCs makes the decision to continue using +x weapons make sense (if not +x armor, because someone with +x armor will eventually only be hit on a 20 by most monsters, and that point willcome trivially quickly), so a Fighter who gains +2 more to hit from his attribute, and +5 to hit from his sword, is already at +13, so hits a AC15 on a 2. He's only a few points off of the auto hitting everything else I predicted. Basically the article even with the allowance of "low DCs/ACs can be rendered useless" puts itself into an extremely narrow line that has to be walked if my prediction of auto hit everything isn't going to come true. The line may not be as narrow as initially thought, but still far more narrow than would be considered generally acceptable.
The thing is, if they're saying that auto hitting some DCs is okay, then eventually auto hitting other DCs is also okay. For example, your reasoning of it being okay to invalidate lower DCs makes the decision to continue using +x weapons make sense (
I think that your argument was based on several unfounded assumptions. First that everyone will have a chance to miss and to hit at all levels on all creatures. Second, you seem to be assuming that if they can auto hit a low AC, then they will eventually auto hit the highest AC. Both of these are completely unfounded based on the article.
The thing is, if they're saying that auto hitting some DCs is okay, then eventually auto hitting other DCs is also okay. For example, your reasoning of it being okay to invalidate lower DCs makes the decision to continue using +x weapons make sense (if not +x armor, because someone with +x armor will eventually only be hit on a 20 by most monsters, and that point willcome trivially quickly), so a Fighter who gains +2 more to hit from his attribute, and +5 to hit from his sword, is already at +13, so hits a AC15 on a 2. He's only a few points off of the auto hitting everything else I predicted. Basically the article even with the allowance of "low DCs/ACs can be rendered useless" puts itself into an extremely narrow line that has to be walked if my prediction of auto hit everything isn't going to come true. The line may not be as narrow as initially thought, but still far more narrow than would be considered generally acceptable.
This discussion is about the concept of the article. Yes it does matter how it is implemented, but the concept sounds solid. I think they should get rid of the +x magic items period and just have effects for them. That will then only allow bonuses to hit and AC through class abilities and armor types as well as any feats they may have for it. Keep in mind, usually feats will only give a +1 (+1 per tier in 4th), so it is unlikely allow many bonuses from that.
Just don't put words in the article that was not there....that really threw the discussion off.
If you have ideas on how they could implement this properly, I'm sure we would love to hear them.
The thing is, if they're saying that auto hitting some DCs is okay, then eventually auto hitting other DCs is also okay. For example, your reasoning of it being okay to invalidate lower DCs makes the decision to continue using +x weapons make sense (
What bothers me is that without the static level increase, other attack bonuses get even more emphasis. If they remove the level bonuses, they should also remove the attribute and enhancement bonuses from magic weapons from the attack roll as well. Otherwise specific class builds become mechanically superior to others. I'd prefer the bonuses were structured to support the widest range of character concepts. Ideally, that would be by only using class and level to add to the attack roll so that all class concepts from the same level performed at the same rate of effectiveness while allowing variance between the same class with different levels of experience.
What bothers me is that without the static level increase, other attack bonuses get even more emphasis. If they remove the level bonuses, they should also remove the attribute and enhancement bonuses from magic weapons from the attack roll as well. O
This ridiculous, what does it matter if the end result is if the character needs to roll an 11 on a d20 to hit (whether the bonus to it is +7 or +37)?
Also, there will be scaling in 5th Ed, just not as treadmill like as previous editions, ability score bumps may be there, +X magic armour and weapons seem to be in, so every +1 is that more special.
And, Polaris, please don't dictate to me what D&D is, and "betrayal", let's not get hysterical, we're talking about a game, not a marriage.
This ridiculous, what does it matter if the end result is if the character needs to roll an 11 on a d20 to hit (whether the bonus to it is +7 or +37)?Also, there will be scaling in 5th Ed, just not as treadmill like as previous editions, ability scor
This ridiculous, what does it matter if the end result is if the character needs to roll an 11 on a d20 to hit (whether the bonus to it is +7 or +37)?
Also, there will be scaling in 5th Ed, just not as treadmill like as previous editions, ability score bumps may be there, +X magic armour and weapons seem to be in, so every +1 is that more special.
And, Polaris, please don't dictate to me what D&D is, and "betrayal", let's not get hysterical, we're talking about a game, not a marriage.
I am restating Mike Mearl's own design goal and intention. He wants the new edition of DnD to include all the things that DnD was from the very beginning. The idea that fairly ordinary people could rise to become epic heros able to do things beyond the mortal ken is one of these. That's not my opinion. It's a simple fact.
Bounded accuracy for the mathematic reasons already explained by others betrays this and yes betrayal is not too strong a word.
-Polaris
I am restating Mike Mearl's own design goal and intention. He wants the new edition of DnD to include all the things that DnD was from the very beginning. The idea that fairly ordinary people could rise to become epic heros able to do things beyond
This ridiculous, what does it matter if the end result is if the character needs to roll an 11 on a d20 to hit (whether the bonus to it is +7 or +37)?
Also, there will be scaling in 5th Ed, just not as treadmill like as previous editions, ability score bumps may be there, +X magic armour and weapons seem to be in, so every +1 is that more special.
And, Polaris, please don't dictate to me what D&D is, and "betrayal", let's not get hysterical, we're talking about a game, not a marriage.
I am restating Mike Mearl's own design goal and intention. He wants the new edition of DnD to include all the things that DnD was from the very beginning. The idea that fairly ordinary people could rise to become epic heros able to do things beyond the mortal ken is one of these. That's not my opinion. It's a simple fact.
Bounded accuracy for the mathematic reasons already explained by others betrays this and yes betrayal is not too strong a word.
-Polaris
to me the fact still remains that there are more ways of getting more powerfull, that could be intresting then just having the to hit bonus of the character and ac of the targets rise at the same speed.
for example take the 2nd edition wizard, what made him powerfull at higer leval was not his increasing attack bonus or that his saves got better. but that he had access to these realy powerfull spells that no normal human had.
would using magic like trap the soul to trap the sole of a balor be less awsome becouse, the number he had to save against is 20 points lower ( but still required to roll the same number on the dice)?
I am restating Mike Mearl's own design goal and intention. He wants the new edition of DnD to include all the things that DnD was from the very beginning. The idea that fairly ordinary people could rise to become epic heros able to do things beyond
You're right, Wizards are allowed to be epic by virtue of spells.
Fighters, Rogues, and other non-casters get their scaling through use of spells and attacks, because unlike the superior Caster Master Race our poor mundane classes aren't allowed to have cool abilities in the baseline rules, for fear of grognards throwing a bitch fit over the idea of someone doing something cool without being a spellcaster.
But bounded accuracy takes the traditional problem of non-caster suckage a step further, now not only can they not get special abilities that are cool and epic, they can't even manage epic feats of skill that lower level characters weren't capable of.
You're right, Wizards are allowed to be epic by virtue of spells.Fighters, Rogues, and other non-casters get their scaling through use of spells and attacks, because unlike the superior Caster Master Race our poor mundane classes aren't allowed to ha
But bounded accuracy takes the traditional problem of non-caster suckage a step further, now not only can they not get special abilities that are cool and epic, they can't even manage epic feats of skill that lower level characters weren't capable of.
You're missing the part where they say that the bulk of increased power will be getting special abilities that are cool and epic.
Furthermore, you're still incorrect that they can't even manage epic feats of skill: they still will be able to, because they're still going to get bonuses, as was directly stated in the article. The difference is that they're not going to manage epic feats of skill in things they're not actually skilled in.
I know you're going to just dimiss this post, but when you're demonstrably, factually incorrect then that deserves to be said.
You're missing the part where they say that the bulk of increased power will be getting special abilities that are cool and epic. Furthermore, you're still incorrect that they can't even manage epic feats of skill: they still will be able to, becau
Bounded accuracy at a given level is acceptable. A +8 difference between a specialist and a generalist is workable. I can get behind the idea of keeping everyone at the same level on the same RNG for all level appropriate tasks. But that isn't the bounded accuracy system described in the article, which isn't just bounded accuracy at one level, but bounded accuracy across every level of play. The difference that is acceptable for two characters who are the same power level is not acceptable as the difference between the worst person at level 1 vs the best person at level 20.
Okay, so I think I now understand what you are saying and I think I was visualizing something different when I was reading the article and what you state. I was visualizing a possibility that some characters will have the ability to auto succeed on lower DC's, especially for skills. For hit/AC, I was visualizing a max of 20 AC for all creatures. Which would allow any pc or npc the ability to hit it, although very minimal chance. I'm not sure where I would cap the attack bonus for that, but if there is always a chance for failure, then it would cap at +9. If we assume they can get to the point where they autohit the lowest of AC's (a 10) then the cap could be higher, but would probably want to cap it close to 15 to allow some chance of missing.
I imagine skills could also be done similarly if the DC's were lowered and the number of tiers reduced, but I don't care for it to be applied to skills. I don't mind having a tier in skills that is unreachable by the untrained and maybe a level for mastery (likely just one boost with a feat or whatever they will use). Since the highest achieveable with ability mod is 25 (assuming a 20 ability score)...then all but two tiers should be below that level. The current system of master (23-26)/Immortal (27+) is seems too low for my tastes (but easy enough to house rule. Given these numbers only those trained can reach immortal and any bonuses that they gain, will just make increase the chance of success....which I assume was their goal.
I think automatic success is fine for skills and hit values....this may not be what the goal of Bounded Accuracy is, but I think it is still workable.
But if you have automatic success as a possibility then you INHERENTLY have automatic failure (or nearly so with a 20 being the exception) as a possibility as well. You cannot logically have one without the other. At that point 'bounded accuracy' simply doesn't exist. You can have "no inherent level based bonus" but that isn't the same thing as bounded accuracy, it is just part of it (as described by Mike anyway).
Seerow's logic is literally inexorable. It is simply the logical consequence of taking all the things Mike states at face value together. Clearly what Mike stated is not a fully formed and logically consistent concept that can actually work, unless the total bonuses available to PCs are VERY small.
IMHO what they will end up with is a system where you get no automatic level bonus and there's technically no bounded accuracy. Instead they'll basically end up with a tighter version of the 4e system where bonuses never exceed something like about +10. At that point DC29 is acceptable as the most difficult possible check, but the issue then is that even a level 1 PC as the system is currently designed is VERY close to being able to achieve the toughest DC in the game. A character with training (+3) and a 20 ability score (+5) is only 1 points from hitting DC 29 on a 19 (19+8 = 27). Of course the best high level PC could be able to hit that DC on say a 10, giving you 12 total points of growth beyond level 1 (assuming there's no other ways to get any bonus at level 1). You could of course invoke Advantage in some way, etc. It is still a quite narrow system and clearly requires that PCs much lower than 20th can handle the top DCs with at least SOME reliability.
All of this is in service of what? Insuring that the 30th level wizard cannot be as good as the first level fighter at bashing doors that he will probably never try to bash anyway and can just as easily open with some trivial level 1 spell?
Okay, so I think I now understand what you are saying and I think I was visualizing something different when I was reading the article and what you state. I was visualizing a possibility that some characters will have the ability to auto succeed on
But if you have automatic success as a possibility then you INHERENTLY have automatic failure (or nearly so with a 20 being the exception) as a possibility as well. You cannot logically have one without the other. At that point 'bounded accuracy' simply doesn't exist. You can have "no inherent level based bonus" but that isn't the same thing as bounded accuracy, it is just part of it (as described by Mike anyway).
Demonstrably false. "If your bonus is X or higher, you automatically succeed at DCs of Y." Automatic success happens, yet everyone can still make a check.
You continue to operate under faulty assumptions based on how the skill system works. Please attempt to step back and recognize the assumptions you're making. Seerow's allegedly inexorable logic is based on a faulty foundation. That puts the entire logical premise into question.
You are correct though that the level bonus is not the same thing as bounded accuracy. Much of the complaints against the concept are centered on the lack of the level bonus, rather than the actual concept.
Demonstrably false. "If your bonus is X or higher, you automatically succeed at DCs of Y." Automatic success happens, yet everyone can still make a check.You continue to operate under faulty assumptions based on how the skill system works. Please
But bounded accuracy takes the traditional problem of non-caster suckage a step further, now not only can they not get special abilities that are cool and epic, they can't even manage epic feats of skill that lower level characters weren't capable of.
You're missing the part where they say that the bulk of increased power will be getting special abilities that are cool and epic.
Furthermore, you're still incorrect that they can't even manage epic feats of skill: they still will be able to, because they're still going to get bonuses, as was directly stated in the article. The difference is that they're not going to manage epic feats of skill in things they're not actually skilled in.
I know you're going to just dimiss this post, but when you're demonstrably, factually incorrect then that deserves to be said.
So what are we defining as an epic feat of skill? DC 20? Okay sure, high level character can manage that. But most importantly, a level 1 character can as well! What's so epic about it when the level 1 character who dies in one shot to orcs can manage it just as well?
This is another complaint, if high level characters can do awesome things with skills, so can low level characters. This comes back to the argument of "there's no progression". Even the DC27 Immortal Challenges can be completed 5% of the time by a level 1 with a 18 in his stat and skill training. And this is the absolute pinnacle of what is possible. What is the point of leveling up if you never actually get access to new things, just what you always had.
As for class levels giving lots of neat abilities, excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting for the designers to start giving actual abilities to non-casters and not just "Here take an extra attack a couple times a day". Evidence points to them listening very closely to people who say "Whirlwind attack is equivalent to rewriting reality and traveling through time/space"
Anyway, I'm not sure why I'm bothering responding to you. You're clearly nothing but a troll, because you have ignored every serious argument put out, and are once again coming in to try to nit pick a specific point rather than actually acknowledging any of the arguments that oppose your skewed point of view.
You're missing the part where they say that the bulk of increased power will be getting special abilities that are cool and epic. Furthermore, you're still incorrect that they can't even manage epic feats of skill: they still will be able to, becau
Demonstrably false. "If your bonus is X or higher, you automatically succeed at DCs of Y." Automatic success happens, yet everyone can still make a check.
The actual rule is "If your attribute is 5 higher than the DC, you succeed". So characters will eventually be able to auto succeed at DC15 checks. Rogues are a little different with their take-10 ability, but that is not the system, that is the rogue special ability.
You continue to operate under faulty assumptions based on how the skill system works. Please attempt to step back and recognize the assumptions you're making. Seerow's allegedly inexorable logic is based on a faulty foundation. That puts the entire logical premise into question.
And yet you never refuted it, the only thing you've done is point out the developers said there will be bonuses. I agree the developers said this, I also point out that the developers contradict themselves and present design goals that directly interfere with giving more than miniscule bonuses along the way.
The actual rule is "If your attribute is 5 higher than the DC, you succeed". So characters will eventually be able to auto succeed at DC15 checks. Rogues are a little different with their take-10 ability, but that is not the system, that is the rogue
Demonstrably false. "If your bonus is X or higher, you automatically succeed at DCs of Y." Automatic success happens, yet everyone can still make a check.
The actual rule is "If your attribute is 5 higher than the DC, you succeed". So characters will eventually be able to auto succeed at DC15 checks. Rogues are a little different with their take-10 ability, but that is not the system, that is the rogue special ability.
You continue to operate under faulty assumptions based on how the skill system works. Please attempt to step back and recognize the assumptions you're making. Seerow's allegedly inexorable logic is based on a faulty foundation. That puts the entire logical premise into question.
And yet you never refuted it, the only thing you've done is point out the developers said there will be bonuses. I agree the developers said this, I also point out that the developers contradict themselves and present design goals that directly interfere with giving more than miniscule bonuses along the way.
What, so your argument is that the devs don't mean what they say? Really?
On auto-success, my point is that you and Abdul are saying that auto-success can't happen without auto-failure. And I demonstrated a potential rule that would make that happen. The overall point I'm trying to make is that you and many others are making large, blanket, unequivocal statements based on the slimmest information and assuming that that is the only way of doing things. It's not. Things can work differently.
But not if people take the approach you do, which is to completely disbelieve even the potential of change.
The actual rule is "If your attribute is 5 higher than the DC, you succeed". So characters will eventually be able to auto succeed at DC15 checks. Rogues are a little different with their take-10 ability, but that is not the system, that is the rogue
But if you have automatic success as a possibility then you INHERENTLY have automatic failure (or nearly so with a 20 being the exception) as a possibility as well. You cannot logically have one without the other. At that point 'bounded accuracy' simply doesn't exist. You can have "no inherent level based bonus" but that isn't the same thing as bounded accuracy, it is just part of it (as described by Mike anyway).
Demonstrably false. "If your bonus is X or higher, you automatically succeed at DCs of Y." Automatic success happens, yet everyone can still make a check.
You continue to operate under faulty assumptions based on how the skill system works. Please attempt to step back and recognize the assumptions you're making. Seerow's allegedly inexorable logic is based on a faulty foundation. That puts the entire logical premise into question.
You are correct though that the level bonus is not the same thing as bounded accuracy. Much of the complaints against the concept are centered on the lack of the level bonus, rather than the actual concept.
Except that in order to achieve your dismissal of my point you had to ignore the whole part of the article where it is plainly stated that "a DC17 will always remain relevant", which cannot be squared with your position in any logical manner! So who is "operating under faulty assumptions" here? Please, go read the entire article and stop cherry picking pieces of it and then saying those of us that took it all at face value are making 'demonstrably false' arguments. It is simply not the case. Seerow's logic is the logic of the article taken as a whole. If you want to argue about the merits of some other system, feel free, but just please understand that this is not the system Seerow and Mike are talking about, OK?
As for the level bonus... Level bonuses aren't strictly necessary, nor do they form a part of the argument being made here WRT Mike's system (obviously, since it doesn't include a level bonus). So yes, you are correct, they can be treated as two separate points. However, the bounded accuracy that Mike discusses is not possible in a system with a level bonus, so those discussions really are tangential. I, and others, only bring them up as another related observation about skill systems. However, since the article DID partly base its justification for the whole system on perceived negatives of level bonus it is certainly something that is worth discussing.
I'd further observe that if you were familiar with the various lines of discussion on these forums that far predate anything to do with 5e you'd find that the debate about the maximum divergence of skill bonuses among different character builds at a given level has been a frequent topic. The same two schools of thought arise there. One says that excessive divergence undermines the concept that most characters should be able to try most things and the other pointing out that it is cool when the guy that spent lots of resources on being the best at something can accomplish things nobody else can.
Mike's answer to that, way back in earlier L&L articles was to introduce some sort of added complexity to the DC system. He stated that Monte (and this was reiterated in a later article IIRC) had an idea of 'levels of difficulty' where you couldn't even roll for something unless you had some mastery level (how that would be acquired was an open question, but options are not hard to imagine). It was pointed out that this was basically the same as having an even LARGER divergence. The amusing thing here is that all this whole elaborate redesign ends up doing in that case is taking away divergence with one hand, and adding it right back in with the other, while making the system more complex.
Again, this all leads to my inevitable conclusion that the "all DCs will remain relevant" part of the article is simply not compatible with the rest and will have to be dropped. My arguments for level bonus are separate, so if you want to address them further that would be a separate discussion, though I don't think there's actually anything more to be said there.
Demonstrably false. "If your bonus is X or higher, you automatically succeed at DCs of Y." Automatic success happens, yet everyone can still make a check.You continue to operate under faulty assumptions based on how the skill system works. Please
I still think the only way to have bounded accuracy work is to have tiers of difficulty and tiers of skill training.
A difficult task may be DC 17 but the tier changes.
So a tier 0 door is basic wood, tier 1 is iron bound, tier 2 is stone, etc.
Perhaps you can attempt something a tier above your skill at disadvantage and a tier below with advantage.
I also hope magic items are not necessary and I would still like to see some kind of inherent bonuses with about 1/4 level scaling.
I still think the only way to have bounded accuracy work is to have tiers of difficulty and tiers of skill training. A difficult task may be DC 17 but the tier changes. So a tier 0 door is basic wood, tier 1 is iron bound, tier 2 is stone, etc. Perha
Except that in order to achieve your dismissal of my point you had to ignore the whole part of the article where it is plainly stated that "a DC17 will always remain relevant", which cannot be squared with your position in any logical manner!
Sure it can. DC17 is a "whatever" check. The specific value of "whatever" is fixed relative to the gameworld. For our purposes let's call it "Moderately Hard DC."
At first level, it may be possible that someone untrained in the relevant skill and with a 10 in the relevant stat has a 20% chance of success. I'd argue that that DC can easily be considered 'relevant.'
For a specialist, someone trained in the skill and with a strong ability score, for say a total modifier of +5, they have a 45% chance of success. Still a bit dicey, but doable, and that extra +5 makes a pretty huge difference. I'd argue that the DC can also easily be considered 'relevant.'
Let's reassess the situation somewhere in the middle of the leveling progression, say level 10. Now, with some further boosts to ability score and maybe some specialized equipment, either mundane or magical. The specialist's bonus is now +10. Now he's up to a 70% chance of success. The important part that I continue to emphasize that continues to get dismissed as "against the spirit of D&D" by Polaris and Seerow is that the change from +5 to +10 is because of a real change in the character. The specialist is now objectively better at the task than he was at level 1. Which means that the "Moderately Hard DC" that was a bit dicey before, but is now much more reliable is a representation of a real improvement in skill. I can't imagine how this means anything but the DC is considered 'relevant.' The untrained character, by comparison, who has not put any effort into getting better at the task still has his fat goose egg for a bonus, and so when that same thing shows up and he can attempt the check at a low success rate, and the specialist says "Please, let the big boys handle it" that's a demonstration of the improvement of the specialist over the untrained character. It's meaningful that you're better than the untrained character, because neither of you got anything for free.
Let's go up to max level, and assume that there's some sort of auto-success mechanic in place. Practically, since the bonus scale is arbitrary, this can be duplicated by just giving the character a large bonus. But I think it's important to look at the impact of the math that the autosuccess mechanics can introduce. I'll get that a bit later. For now, assume the specialist has such a high bonus that that level 17 "Moderately Hard DC" is an autosuccess whereas the untrained character still has to roll it, and has a 20% chance of success. Same things as before, same results.
Here's where we hit the auto-failure wall "inexorably" as you claim. But it's not inexorable. It is inexorable if you assume everything has to be a straight D20 roll. Because it's entirely reasonable that you would expect that max-level specialist to start engaging on challenging adventures, and start running up against things that actually challenge him. And by doing so, the lack of automatic bonuses pushes the untrained character off the d20. You're absolutely correct that the system that D&D has always used for skill and ability checks results in this in an inexorable fashion.
But here's where the autosuccess mechanics can come in. With an auto-success mechanic, you can adjust the shape of the DC chart. So far it's always been linear: +1 means +5%, on a scale from 0% to 100%. It's got a hard cutoff on either edge. But autosuccess mechanics can flatten out that curve. It means that we can have more than a d20's worth of difference in capability and still have the system as a whole function.
I haven't gone into the math completely in terms of what would be an optimal shape in order to get the Best Game, but my point is that your unequivocal statements of "It's impossible for this ever to work" is attempting to prove the nonexistence of a thing. That's a dramatically more difficult task, and you don't seem to acknowledge the inherent weakness of what you're attempting.
You can't just say "Nope, can't be done" without actually exploring all the options, and unless you provide a whole lot more evidence your claim simply doesn't hold up. And it can be disproven by a single counterexample. There's lots of brainstorming that can be done. What if the specialist, instead of getting increased +X bonus, gets advantage for checks of DC Y and lower, and further improvements increase the value of Y? Increased average chance of success, but doesn't push off the d20. What if we keep adding more and more advantages? 3d20, 4d20 pick highest? What if characters with low bonus get disadvantage, rather than simply bumping up the DC?
Lots of options exist. Your approach is to say "Nope, can't be done." That's the opposite of providing constructive feedback.
Sure it can. DC17 is a "whatever" check. The specific value of "whatever" is fixed relative to the gameworld. For our purposes let's call it "Moderately Hard DC."At first level, it may be possible that someone untrained in the relevant skill and w
You continue to operate under faulty assumptions based on how the skill system works. Please attempt to step back and recognize the assumptions you're making. Seerow's allegedly inexorable logic is based on a faulty foundation. That puts the entire logical premise into question..
In a prior post, Seerow even stated that his logic was flawed by misunderstanding the article.
Except that in order to achieve your dismissal of my point you had to ignore the whole part of the article where it is plainly stated that "a DC17 will always remain relevant", which cannot be squared with your position in any logical manner! So who is "operating under faulty assumptions" here? Please, go read the entire article and stop cherry picking pieces of it and then saying those of us that took it all at face value are making 'demonstrably false' arguments. It is simply not the case. Seerow's logic is the logic of the article taken as a whole. If you want to argue about the merits of some other system, feel free, but just please understand that this is not the system Seerow and Mike are talking about, OK? .
As mentioned earlier, the only place the article talks about the DC 17 is the example of a door with characters of low strength. It is not about hit/AC or with skill checks. There is nothing in the article that says anything about all tasks staying a challenge over all levels. This assumption is projecting one sentence applying it to the whole article...that is the false premise.
Again, this all leads to my inevitable conclusion that the "all DCs will remain relevant" part of the article is simply not compatible with the rest and will have to be dropped. My arguments for level bonus are separate, so if you want to address them further that would be a separate discussion, though I don't think there's actually anything more to be said there.
I do agree that skills DCs should create a need for mastery, but disagree that the article says that it won't. In regards to hit and AC, there is nothing in the article stating low ACs will remain relevant. The max AC could easily be a 20 and the minimum still seems to be 10, so someone could have a +10 to attack and autohit the low AC....the article does not say that won't happen.
In a prior post, Seerow even stated that his logic was flawed by misunderstanding the article. As mentioned earlier, the only place the article talks about the DC 17 is the example of a door with characters of low strength. It is not about hit/AC or
. Some people just really like those longer, multi-year and decade spanning stories. I would bet that those players are in the vast minority, though their playstyle should still be considered in the design of D&DN.
.
