|
5 months ago ::
Dec 20, 2012 - 3:46PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Mar 23, 2007
|
I'm on the fence about the bounded accuracy system. I think there's a lot of tweaking to do, but as a concept it's not bad. I don't hate it. I feel like it might solve a few problems that I've had in D&D since the beginning, like the "spit-on-the-king" mentality that takes over players once their AC gets to a certain point. Once they realize that no matter how many guards the king has they are basically immune to anything he can throw at them all sense of believability and respect goes out the window and this happens way too soon.
The problem is that it doesn't make sense because fantasy doesn't make sense. In fantasy a hero can take out the demon that killed 1000 guards. So hero > demon > guards. Yet that same hero will often either run away from or sometimes be captured by less than 20 or so guards. That doesn't make sense. I don't know how many movies I've seen (and not just fantasy) where heroes regularly get beaten up by enemies that were themselves beaten up by things the hero just finished ground pounding. The bounded accuracy system is attempting to bring some logic to this mess. The hero can take out the demon, not because he can hit it's AC (anybody can do that) but because he alone can do enough damage to kill it or because he has the magic weapon that lets him bypass it's resistance. The guards meanwhile don't have that weapon or can't do enough damage to kill the demon, but boy they can do enough damage to overpower the hero and toss him in the dungeons.
I like all that. I guess. It certainly will make it easier to tell certain stories. My concern though is that without AC going up and without regular shiny new magic weapons, what rewards will we give higher level players?
D&D, at it's heart, uses the same trick as Farmville. Random but regular rewards punctionated by larger rewards. D&D invented that. But because of bounded accuracy that will eventually reach a wall. Then what happens? Will the game just become boring?
That's what I don't understand.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 20, 2012 - 3:49PM
#2
|
|
|
Lol, skinner box.
Anyway, on to the topic! If this demon killed 1000 guards at once, a player should probably not be able to take him on alone. A party makes more sense, since there are more targets, attacks, and what have you. But whatever power he used to kill 1000 guards SHOULD kill a solo adventuerer :P
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 20, 2012 - 3:55PM
#3
|
|
|
You can have magical rewards as per normal, just less frequent and at a rate you prefer.
You can have piles of gold.
Or you can have alternative rewards unrelated to beating things up. Land. Titles. Castles. The hand of the princess.
You can even have abstract rewards such as wisdom or answers to life's questions.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? Spoiler:
Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 3:09AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2009
|
Like Jenks already said, a demon that killed 1000 guards would wipe the floor with a solo hero as well.
In any case, Bounded Accuracy implies that the demon simply would not be able to take out 1000 guards alone. Your example puts the demon outside the concept of Bounded Accuracy, while restricting the hero and guards to the concept.
A demon being fought by 1000 guards, within the Bounded Accuracy system, is not going to last very long, even if only 5% of the guards hit on a regular basis. That's still 100 hits per round; even at only 1 HP damage per hit, the demon dies quickly. How many rounds would it take the demon to kill 1000 guards, even if they were inneffective in hitting it at all?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 6:01AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
I'm on the fence about the bounded accuracy system. I think there's a lot of tweaking to do, but as a concept it's not bad. I don't hate it. I feel like it might solve a few problems that I've had in D&D since the beginning, like the "spit-on-the-king" mentality that takes over players once their AC gets to a certain point. Once they realize that no matter how many guards the king has they are basically immune to anything he can throw at them all sense of believability and respect goes out the window and this happens way too soon.
That is pretty much how I look at it right now. I like the idea of bounded accuracy but I think they still have some balancing to do.
In 4e the comounding of increasing attack bonus, defense bonus, attack damage/effect and HP meant that a monster more then a few levels above or below the PCs where hard to use in game. Bounded accuracy is a reaction to that, and like many major reactions, they may have gone a bit too far. The range between 1st and 20th level seems to small, so that hoards of low level monsters are too much of a threat and a single tough monster of higher level then the party isn't enough of a threat.
D&D, at it's heart, uses the same trick as Farmville. Random but regular rewards punctionated by larger rewards. D&D invented that. But because of bounded accuracy that will eventually reach a wall. Then what happens? Will the game just become boring?
If your doing it right, the treasure is secondary to the fun of the adventures themselves.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 7:36AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Mar 11, 2008
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" /> D&D, at it's heart, uses the same trick as Farmville. Random but regular rewards punctionated by larger rewards. D&D invented that. But because of bounded accuracy that will eventually reach a wall. Then what happens? Will the game just become boring?
If your doing it right, the treasure is secondary to the fun of the adventures themselves.
This.
Even though the OP was talking about rewards for leveling, not treasure, I have to agree with this. Too many players fall for the push a button and get a reward mentality. I have pointed out repeatedly the falacy of having a character who's goal is to get rich: you get 2-3 magic items to sell and you can live comfortably for the rest of your life (i.e. retire). Almost nobody actually retires the character, but they keep moving the goal of "rich" so they can keep playing. With no set rewards, each game can have it's own feel (gaining a +1 Longsword can be either trivial or epic, depending on your preference).
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 11:02AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2009
|
That is flat math's biggest problem right now. They don't want to give AC/attack bonuses because they have the nonsensical idea that this will result in not being able to fight low or high level monsters. They don't want to give out too much horizontal power, because they want to keep things relatively simple and avoid the 4e "menu" effect (not that they've necessarily succeeded at this). That leaves HP/damage to bear almost the entirety of the burden of power-scaling, which leads to the ridiculously bloated figures we see in the current playtest packet.
So yeah, the answer is HP and damage. And that's a crappy answer.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 11:24AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
Here is the thing, as others have said: in a bounded accuracy system a demon cannot kill 1000 guards. 1000 guards is an army. An army against one demon kills the demon pretty much every time, unless, for some reason, it cannot be hit by mundane attacks at all (immunity to non-magic weapons, for example). Adventurers don't get called in to fight a foe whose location is well known. Adventurers don't get called in to fight foes that armies can find and defeat. At least, not by people who have access to an army. So, your whole paradigm is flawed from the get go.
If someone with access to an army calls you in to fight a single foe, it is a) because it cannot be hit by mundane means, and your patron doesn't have the wealth to furnish an army with magical abilities/would rather save that wealth by hiring you, or b) is using guerrilla tactics against the army, and its lair has not been found.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 10:10AM
#9
|
|
|
Bounded accuracy was meant to make monsters more useful for longer - not make high level monsters immune to commoners. Therefore, arguing that 100 monsters can or cannot kill a level 20 is pointless.
Bounded accuracy was meant to make lower level monsters more of a threat, and it's fair to ask if it is succeeding. In 4e, with magic items, ability improvement, and 1/2 level bonuses, you got close to 1 AC/level. So a monster who hit you 50% of the time at level 1 would hit you 25% of the time at level 6. If you hit them 75% of the time At level 1, it'd be 95% (or 100% depending on house rule) at level 6. So, if 4 could kill a party at level 1, it'd take roughly 10 at level 6.
For next, I don't have the numbers, but it seems like if 4 monsters could kill a party at level 1, then you'd probably need less than 10 to kill a party of level 6. I say probably because in many ways, wizards betray the bounded accuracy - if their spells are too good at killing mobs, then the concept of using lower level monsters falls apart. For instance, if there was a super-sleep that slept up to 7d6 hit point of guys, then suddenly the d2 monsters stop being effective without too many to track.
So, in general, with just fighters, bounded accuracy works. It remains to be seen how ba works with wizard spells.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 3:14PM
#10
|
|
|
Bounded accuracy was meant to make monsters more useful for longer - not make high level monsters immune to commoners. Therefore, arguing that 100 monsters can or cannot kill a level 20 is pointless. Bounded accuracy was meant to make lower level monsters more of a threat, and it's fair to ask if it is succeeding. In 4e, with magic items, ability improvement, and 1/2 level bonuses, you got close to 1 AC/level. So a monster who hit you 50% of the time at level 1 would hit you 25% of the time at level 6. If you hit them 75% of the time At level 1, it'd be 95% (or 100% depending on house rule) at level 6. So, if 4 could kill a party at level 1, it'd take roughly 10 at level 6. For next, I don't have the numbers, but it seems like if 4 monsters could kill a party at level 1, then you'd probably need less than 10 to kill a party of level 6. I say probably because in many ways, wizards betray the bounded accuracy - if their spells are too good at killing mobs, then the concept of using lower level monsters falls apart. For instance, if there was a super-sleep that slept up to 7d6 hit point of guys, then suddenly the d2 monsters stop being effective without too many to track. So, in general, with just fighters, bounded accuracy works. It remains to be seen how ba works with wizard spells.
Creatures will be sub par if the party can kill them all in just a couple of rounds. With Whirlwind attack the Monk and Fighter can hit 6 per round at level 20. The Rogue can hit 1 per round. The Wizard can hit 2-3 per round, but they will take longer to kill them, so it equals out to about 1 per round, same for the Cleric. So we are talking about 14 monsters will be no problem. 20 probably won't be a problem, but then you run into a problem with more than 20 with potential TPKs and then there is the focus fire. The Wizard can be taken out pretty quick by 20 creatures focusing on them even if the party can take out half of them on the first round. If you take that into account you really aren't getting any more viability out of them. You can still only fill out your XP budget with monsters that are within 3-4 levels of the party or you end up with a TPK because of focus fire damage attrition...
|
|
|
