Community

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "treadmill" myth:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dec 20, 2012 -- 11:38AM, zago wrote:

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

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

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

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