Community

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.

"After a short period of DMing, DMs should gain a clear sense of how to assign DCs to various tasks."

Wow, looks like they didn't learn a thing from DM fiat problems in the past or on the forums...

"Thus, when it comes time to improvise, a link has been created between the difficulty of the challenge in the world (balancing as you run across this rickety bridge is pretty tough due to the breaking planks, especially if you're not a nimble character) and the target number. Since those target numbers don't change, the longer a DM runs his or her game, the easier it is going to be to set quick target numbers, improvise monster attack bonuses and AC, or determine just what kind of bonus a skilled NPC has to a particular check. The DM's understanding of how difficult tasks are ceases to be a moving target under a bounded accuracy system."

Yeah, unless the DM sets the DC wrong at the start of the game, then the rest of the DCs will cascade out of wack for the rest of the game.

"It opens up new possibilities of encounter and adventure design. A 1st-level character might not fight the black dragon plaguing the town in a face-to-face fight and expect to survive. But if they rally the town to their side, outfit the guards with bows and arrows, and whittle the dragon down with dozens of attacks instead of only four or five, the possibilities grow. With the bounded accuracy system, lower-level creatures banding together can erode a higher-level creature's hit points, which cuts both ways; now, fights involving hordes of orcs against the higher-level party can be threatening using only the basic orc stat block, and the city militia can still battle against the fire giants rampaging at the gates without having to inflate the statistics of the city guards to make that possible."

Yeah, it also means you can't put save or die mechanics in the game on the PCs side or they will just bypass whole groups of monsters or boss monsters. It won't matter what level they are or what level the monsters are.

"Likewise, a DM knows that he or she can reasonably expect players to understand the difficulty of things based purely on their in-world description, and so the DM can focus more on the details of the world rather than on setting player expectations."

This is just pure bunk. They won't understand anything until the DM tells them what the DC is...

"For example, we can say that breaking down an iron-banded wooden door is a DC 17 check"

Yeah, except they didn't do that, they said easy, moderate, hard, and impossible. They didn't tell you jack about what you were supposed to be doing.

"Now, we want to avoid situations where DMs feel bound by the numbers. ("Hey," says the player, "you said it was an iron-bound wooden door and I rolled a 17, what do you mean I didn't break it down?") We hope to do that by making sure we focus more on teaching DMs how to determine DCs and other numbers, and letting them adjust descriptions and difficulties based on their needs."

This part is hilarious. Its exactly the situation that is created. Expectations don't cross from table to table and the players have no real clue how hard a specific obstacle is without asking the DM what the DC is. One party might have a high str fighter because they know their DM sets DCs for strength based tasks high, but when they take that character to another table the new DM might set strength DCs low and Cha high, other DMs might auto-succeed on cha checks (like role-players that ignore in game rules and make you role-play it out). In other words they enable **** DMs, and turn mediocre DMs into **** DMs by default...