|
3 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 2:48PM
#171
|
|
|
A dragon with AC 20-22 is not out of the boundaries of bounded accuracy: I mean, a PC can reach AC 20 quite well with some items or special abilities...
fact is: a dragon with AC 15 is ridicuous. Not a failure of bounded accuracy, but of monster design. A dragon needs at least Plate armor AC.
You also have to take his size into account. He's not terribly hard to hit on the ground :P
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 2:48PM
#172
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
If I DM'd a Huge Red Dragon like that I would hang up my charts and hand my players my dice.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 2:58PM
#173
|
|
|
Except I'm pretty sure that stringing the bow included using a trick that only Odysseus knew...none of them could do it because for them the check is 100% impossible. For odysseus it isn't even a check because he knows the trick. Now had someone in that room used their int and figured out the trick there would have been a problem however all the suiters were big dumb warrior types so not big thinkers (hence the reason the lady set them this nearly impossible task because she knew non of them were smart enough to figure out the trick).
If he didn't even tell Telemachus he's kind of a jerk.. but then again we already knew that. 
The problem is that you insist your super hero way of playing be supported by the core system. There is nothing wrong with your way of playing. There is nothing wrong with having a game where the PCs are required to perform the task because they are the only ones that can perform the task. There is nothing wrong with playing in the super hero genre. However designing the base non advanced system need not take that into account because you can just as easily layer on some optional rules to make this type of gameplay achievable. Super hero mode: increase all DC's and AC's by 5 all Player Characters or important NPCs get the skill die to every roll in addition to all other bonuses up to and including any skill die that already exist for said check. This super hero skill die is unaffected by skill mastery.
In his defense, the problem is that this whole thread is responding to a Q&A where they specifically said that there won't be a module that removes BA. If they'd said, "Sure, we'll have a simple module that will let you add half your level to everything," we could all be happy.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 3:02PM
#174
|
Date Joined:
Feb 15, 2013
|
Why would the old style of orc have less hitpoints though? Its important to address this because its the lynchpin of this argument.
We're not comparing a real 3.5 orc to a real 5e orc - we're comparing two theoretical monsters that are supposed to be about the same level as each other. An orc with 22 AC and 50 hp is CLEARLY much more powerful than an orc with 16 AC and 50 hp. Like I said in the post I quoted, if your problem is that 5e monsters and PCs don't scale up enough in power, that could be addressed by increasing HP and damage scaling more and still maintain BA.
Possibly another way of looking at this would be to add a third example. In older versions, both HP/Damage & Atk/AC scaled. So, what you'd need is to compare along both axes. Something like this:
Hypothetical level X Ogre (math completely made up on the spot, so don't take exact number to heart, just concepts)
Hypothetical Ogre with Universal Scaling: AC 19, 35 HP
Hypothetical Ogre with Bounded Accuracy: AC 16, 50 HP
Hypothetical Ogre with Bounded Damage: AC 22, 22 HP
Now lets look at the attack capabilities of our warriors trying to fight this Ogre:
Universal Scaling:
lower level: +5 atk, 8 dmg; at-level +10 atk, 15 dmg; higher-level +15 atk, 30 dmg
Bounded Accuracy:
lower level: +5 atk, 8 dmg; at-level +6 atk, 20 dmg; higher-level +7 atk, 45 dmg
Bounded Damage:
lower level: +5 atk, 8 dmg; at-level +12 atk, 10 dmg; higher-level +18 atk, 12 dmg
In each case, at lower level it would take about 12 attacks to kill the ogre, falling to 5 at same-level, and 2 attacks at higher-level. However, with universal scaling and bounded damage, you will actually succeed at hitting the enemy between 20 and 30% of the time at low level, and only missing that frequently at high level. On the other hand, bounded accuracy will always be about the same chance to hit, hovering between 40 and 60%
The argument of proponents of bounded accuracy is that hitting too often (probably over 80%) is boring, while missing too much (under 20%) is frustrating, and also swingy. You can make the argument that it doesn't 'feel' right when you accuracy doesn't change, but I don't think you can make an effective argument that 'bounding accuracy is the same as bounding damage'. The objective is completely different.
But if bounding accuracy and bounding damage yield the same functional result, as you just proved. Same number of attacks need to kill a monster.
I just don't get how someone can say "its not fun to miss frequently when fighting things that are above my level." but then have that same person turn around and agree that it is totally okay for a player to get killed in 2 hits by something that is higher level.
Furthermore, from a narrative perspective, which makes more sense? An increase in your ability to strike creatures effectively with a weapon while simultaneously getting better at avoiding attacks? Or an increase in how many stab wounds you can suffer before falling over?
Seriously, it is hard to justify 2 men standing 10 ft apart, one shooting a longbow that deals 27-64 damage, and another picking up that same longbow and hitting for 2-14 damage. Keeping in mind that this has nothing to do with striking a vital area, since that is the purpose of critical hits. It is a bow.... its destructive force is determined by the weight of the string.
And at the same time, if you set up a game of target shooting and set up an AC 20 bullseye in the middle of the target, a level 1 fighter with a 16 dex versus a level 20 fighter with a 20 dex. The level 20 fighter will win 75% of the time..... not exactly dominant for 19 levels of separation.
Now realism isn't really important to me... but plausibility is. I don't mind keeping the scaling slightly more shallow, and I don't mind keeping things within that 40-60% hit range for things that a player will feasibly come up against...
The takeaway here is that none of these schools of thought, or preferences of playstyle are wrong. But choosing one and only one, and denying the possibility that BA could be traded out for a different system is a mistake. The issue is subjective... it isn't the kind of thing you should set in stone, especialy considering the impact it has on the game and how far it diverges from the traditional mechanics.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 3:28PM
#175
|
Date Joined:
Feb 15, 2013
|
Except I'm pretty sure that stringing the bow included using a trick that only Odysseus knew...none of them could do it because for them the check is 100% impossible. For odysseus it isn't even a check because he knows the trick. Now had someone in that room used their int and figured out the trick there would have been a problem however all the suiters were big dumb warrior types so not big thinkers (hence the reason the lady set them this nearly impossible task because she knew non of them were smart enough to figure out the trick).
The problem is that you insist your super hero way of playing be supported by the core system. There is nothing wrong with your way of playing. There is nothing wrong with having a game where the PCs are required to perform the task because they are the only ones that can perform the task. There is nothing wrong with playing in the super hero genre. However designing the base non advanced system need not take that into account because you can just as easily layer on some optional rules to make this type of gameplay achievable. Super hero mode: increase all DC's and AC's by 5 all Player Characters or important NPCs get the skill die to every roll in addition to all other bonuses up to and including any skill die that already exist for said check. This super hero skill die is unaffected by skill mastery.
Literally throw that kind of an optional rule over the top of the game and BAM now your heroes are required to complete the tasks because the towns people couldn't really accomplish it. The example idea is admitadely just a rough idea used to show that by laying optional rules over the current system you can in fact get your desired gameplay out of it. However you do have to make the consession that you are playing super heroes....which you are (literally your playing a game where the PCs are superior to all other individuals on the face of the globe you are supermen).
1) Except that I am reacting to the Devs saying flatly that there will be no module that changes Bounded Accuracy.
And I do find your aversion to high fantasy slightly odd considering that every other edition of D&D has used steeper scaling. I guess some people have hated that aspect of D&D for a long time?
Yes, all I want are a set of options to replace or modify bounded accuracy. If you want this sort of lower power level game, that is fine, but I don't. I want my PCs to feel like they are head and shoulders above the town's pig farmers. I want them to feel, at high level, like they have singular capabilities, like they can change the fortunes of the world, avert disasters, foil evil plots.... and that if they didn't do these things, 25 guardsmen from Hogfort couldn't roll up and do it for them.
2) I also think it is absolutely hilarious that anyone would argue that Bounded Accuracy was fine.... they just need to scale up that higher level monster's armor class.... so it should be much harder for level 1 characters to hit higher level monsters.... amazing. You know there is a system that does that....
3) It is also reasonable to argue that a Dragon should never act like that... it should be flying around recharging its breath weapon and then swooping down to rain firey death.... that just wasn't the point though, its less about what a dragon can do, and more about what a large group of level 1 npcs could do. Switch the scenario to a small troop sent into the Dragon's lair, where it doesn't have room to fly, and you will get a similar result.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 3:49PM
#176
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
If he didn't even tell Telemachus he's kind of a jerk.. but then again we already knew that.
How could he tell Telemachus? Telemachus was an infant when Odysseus got drafted to fight the Trojan War.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 3:57PM
#177
|
|
|
If he didn't even tell Telemachus he's kind of a jerk.. but then again we already knew that.
How could he tell Telemachus? Telemachus was an infant when Odysseus got drafted to fight the Trojan War.
But Odysseus had reunited with Telemachus by the time the suitors tried to string his bow, and Telemachus was unable to do so himself. (Unless I'm confusing my timeline.)
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 4:00PM
#178
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
I think that the accuracy will become unbound as the game evolves. I think they've created a largely unsustainable model that players are all ready starting to rail against and we're only in the playtest stage. What will happen after a year? Ten years? There is no way bounded accuracy will survive. As a starting point - a germ - it's fine. It's a concept-driven design model and that's cool. As a long term approach.. naaaah. What will happen is they'll unbind it in a concept-driven way. Also cool. It'll rely on quasilogical constructs like "how hard is it to hit a god of speed" rather than "what level is the god of speed". Both are equally tenuous and impossible to answer. Both are equally arbitrary and pulled out of the air. The whole thing is held together with string anyway 'cause "monster level" has all ready crept into the vocabulary of the pdfs, which means at some level or another, monsters do get better on the basis of level. My criticism of bounded accuracy is the over attention on attack vs ac and the willingness to let damage and hp bloat out in crazy ways that force monster design to places I'd rather not DM. There's a lot of awesome in DDN. I really enjoy it. But I don't like this and if they won't fix it, I will.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 4:02PM
#179
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Odysseus had reunited with Telemachus by the time the suitors tried to string his bow, and Telemachus was unable to do so himself. (Unless I'm confusing my timeline.)
I'm pretty sure by then, Odysseus (disguised as a beggar) was in the house with Telemachus. I don't think Homer detailed what they discussed. It was irrelevant since Odysseus was there to string the bow. (I never understood why he didn't take the bow to Troy though. Wouldn't it have been useful?)
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 4:06PM
#180
|
|
|
3) It is also reasonable to argue that a Dragon should never act like that... it should be flying around recharging its breath weapon and then swooping down to rain firey death.... that just wasn't the point though, its less about what a dragon can do, and more about what a large group of level 1 npcs could do. Switch the scenario to a small troop sent into the Dragon's lair, where it doesn't have room to fly, and you will get a similar result.
I do think the design of DDN puts a lot more pressure on the DM to "protect" powerful monsters. In 4e, it didn't matter if you plopped Asmodeus down in an empty field, he was a solo monster with a billion hit points and tons of built-in tricks. In 5e, if you let the rogue sneak up on him unexpected, the big guy might be in trouble - but if you set up his lair as befits a paranoid Lord of Hell with near-unlimited wealth and power, he'll be tough indeed.
|
|
|
