|
6 months ago ::
Nov 27, 2012 - 1:40PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Sep 15, 2008
|
Under the hood, you find math that can help codify the reasons behind some things. When done correctly, it makes sense.
The DC categories rise in increments of 3. Training in a skill adds +3 to your ability check. Thus, having a skill increases your effectiveness by one step up the difficulty chart.
Good find. I didn't put that together.
"Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 27, 2012 - 2:03PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
Oh, and they did make those numbers public for 4e, (last page of the DMG rules update document) so you should check your research before posting wrong things.
Those are the numbers for monsters. Since PCs and monsters don't follow the same rules in 4e, the target numbers are not the same.
We will have the target number for skills, but that isn't the same as knowing what the expected bonuses for PCs are. Without out those numbers, we don't know how the target numbers actually compare to what PCs are expected to be able to do. Plus, bounded accuracy covers a lot more. We also need BAB and expected damage rolls at least, and probably expected AC and HP along with saves by level so we can determine if a PC or a class in general violates those standards.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 27, 2012 - 2:04PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
And since the monsters have both offensive and defensive stats, defining just the monster half defines the whole system.
Funny how that works, hm?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 27, 2012 - 2:06PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Feb 13, 2012
|
Bounded Accuracy is a great concept, but if we are going to use it as a fundamental concept for game design, shouldn't it be clearly defined? I know 'Bounded Accuracy' is really just code for 'flatter math', but I believe placing actual boundaries on the system will create the internal consistency that the game requires.
What do you think?
I think "bounded accuracy" is at least as "not D&D" as "fighters casting spells in 4e." One of the things that makes D&D so interesting is the way your character constantly improves as you gain levels. For classes that don't cast spells, the clearest and most obvious ways you improved were hit points and to hit and saving throw matrixes. D&D Next keeps hit points but losing to hit and saving throw improvement seems like a major deviation from "D&D," to me.
Of course, that's not a real difference, just like fighters didn't really cast spells in 4e. Characters in D&D: Next are still going to advance, they'll gain more & better spells, more dice, and more & less desireable maneuvers. At least some classes do get attack bonuses at higher levels. They'll pick up magic items that give them bonuses. The advancement is still there. But the concept, itself, creates an appearance that it's absent, and a mere appearance was enough to create an unjustified, but dreadfully effective, outcry against 4e.
D&D Next needs to be careful, lest it be D&D Last.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 27, 2012 - 2:11PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
One of the things that makes D&D so interesting is the way your character constantly improves as you gain levels.
I agree, and fortunately, your character will continue to constantly improve as you gain levels.
But, it may not improve in accuracy, automatically, for all characters ever, no matter what they are doing with themselves.
Why do people insist on accuracy as the only acceptable form of character improvement? Well, largely because non-spellcasters got screwed and couldn't have nice things, so to-hit was all they had left. They can do better, and get real, meaningful improvements, as the spellcasters have been doing for decades. But they're blind to the possibilities for character advancement beyond just to-hit, after growing accustomed to being abused for so long.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 27, 2012 - 2:12PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
I think "bounded accuracy" is at least as "not D&D" as "fighters casting spells in 4e." One of the things that makes D&D so interesting is the way your character constantly improves as you gain levels. For classes that don't cast spells, the clearest and most obvious ways you improved were hit points and to hit and saving throw matrixes. D&D Next keeps hit points but losing to hit and saving throw improvement seems like a major deviation from "D&D," to me.
Removing the 1/2 level shenanigans from 4th Ed like a gangrenous limb was the single best (mechanical) thing to ever hit my 4th Ed campaign.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 27, 2012 - 2:15PM
#37
|
|
|
D&D Next keeps hit points but losing to hit and saving throw improvement seems like a major deviation from "D&D," to me.
Of course, that's not a real difference, just like fighters didn't really cast spells in 4e. Characters in D&D: Next are still going to advance, they'll gain more & better spells, more dice, and more & less desireable maneuvers. At least some classes do get attack bonuses at higher levels. They'll pick up magic items that give them bonuses. The advancement is still there. But the concept, itself, creates an appearance that it's absent, and a mere appearance was enough to create an unjustified, but dreadfully effective, outcry against 4e.
D&D Next needs to be careful, lest it be D&D Last.
Guess what? Your to-hit and saving throws still improve, just at a slower rate. That's for all classes, not some of them. The good thing is that your improvements really are improvements, not just bonuses that are promptly matched on the other side, Red Queen-style.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 27, 2012 - 6:27PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
And since the monsters have both offensive and defensive stats, defining just the monster half defines the whole system.
Not really. Using that information and the player character information from the character builder you might be able to reverse engineer a chart of the player character ACs, attack bonuses and damage by level and role. But there would be no way to be sure it matches WotC's expectations.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 27, 2012 - 11:46PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2010
|
Bounded Accuracy is possibly my favourite thing out of everything in this edition.
So you have a door in your path.. It is either a Trivial, Easy, Moderate, Hard, Very Hard or Impossible challenge. Bounded Accuracy means that the Easy wooden door remains Easy for all 20(30) levels of character advancement.
The characters themselves do not rapidly or inherently gain bonuses for checks against breaking down or unlokcing a door as they gain level (+1/2 level bonus for 4e or skill point increases in 3.5). This means that that iron hinged door which was a Moderate challenge is always a Moderate challenge. Sure, the character might pick up an ability which makes him better at picking the locks of doors throughout their advancement - but this is real advancement of the character - and so the Moderate door stays a Moderate door - but the Rogue finds all doors easier to unlock.
This is in wild contrast to previous editions, where the DC of a Moderate door changed with level. So the players never knew even roughly how hard the door before them was going to be to break down.
Another effect of this was it caused a terrible case of DM Fiat. Because the Easy - Moderate - Hard DCs shifted with level, a DM never really knew what to set the DC at. Example follows:
I have a DM who threw level 30 Hard DCs at a level 8 Bard I played, because he knew the Bard wouldn't have a problem with the level 8 hard - despite I had put EVERYTHING into making that Bard good at Diplomacy - to the point that he was useless at combat. So because he used my Bard's check results as a guideline, my Bard was still only mediocre at Diplomacy - despite the fact that he could crash through checks that would have made a level 30 character struggle. Having a set, "This would be a hard thing to convince the city council of" would have solved that problem, completely and utterly.
Then, coming back to combat - yes, it means Plate armour is AC18 no matter what level you are at - or Leather is somewhere between 11 and 16 depending on the Dexterity of the wearer.
And so, in assuming that characters gain options, rather than hitting more often - characters that were moderatly hard to 'hit' at level 1 can still be a threat (in great numbers) at level 20. Which means that you can always throw goblins at the PCs, and they will know exactly what to expect.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 28, 2012 - 12:04AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2003
|
So. Maybe the solution isn't in a bounded scale. Maybe the solution is in creating an internal consistency of numbers in D&D. if a '5' actually meant something, it might feel more 'real'.
That's the whole point of Bounded Accuracy. A DC 15 Strength check to break something is a DC 15 Strength check to break something, no matter what level the person doing the breaking is. The DC is tied directly to the objective nature of the thing in question. That's what Bounded Accuracy does.
In fact, a stated goal of the system is for the DM to just know what DC to make a thing, as a result of this internal consistency of numbers. "easy" "medium" and "hard" are no longer moving targets.
Yes, PCs will improve over time. What they might consider easy relative to their own capability may change. But the objective label won't. The fact that they can, actually, hit those "Hard" DCs easily is the real character advancement, not just keeping pace with the treadmill.
I agree 100% with this. One of the things that always confuse dme about 4E was that in order to put together a 'by the books' (or RAW if you will) adventure, I had to use DCs that were reflected by the level of the PCs. So if they went into an old dwarven ruin at say level 4, finding that really hard to spot secret door would be DC 21. Now suppose they don't find it. If I decide that they need to go back to that set of ruins at level 26 for some reason (a dragon took them over, giants are using old dwarven runes found there to open a gate into the Elemental Chaos, whatever, then if I were to go 'by the books, or RAW, then the DC to find that door would now be a DC 39. How does that make any sense?
Now granted, I can easily decide that the DC is still 21, but then the challenge would not be up to par for the PCs anymore. I much prefer the way DDN is doing skills and DCs. Makes a hell of a lot more sense. Opening that lock to that gate? Always a DC 13. Not 8 then 13 then 19. Seems more realistic to me. Also the way they are currently doing skills? Nothing new. Go back and look at Proficiencies in AD&D 2nd. It's not exactly the same, but it's more in that neighborhood than 3/4e skills.
|
|
|
