D&D General Explain Bounded Accuracy to Me (As if I Was Five)

[Vaalingrade]

But it is just you personal preference, like you admitted. So fighting goblins at high level might not be an issue for someone else. It is not a real problem.

Again, so all discussion is moot.

The shield of personal preference protect all.

There's a reason people use the 'That's just like... your opinion, man' clip for this flimsy dismissal.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Did you watch that video upthread?

It was an hour long. So no.

5e is not bounded.

How?

 

[Lanefan]

TO prevent 20th level legends from having to suffer through the boring wolf and goblin swarms BA enthusiastically promises.

I think the whole point of the exercise is that 20th-level legends are still expected to have to pay at least a little bit of attention to those wolf packs and goblin swarms, because with a run of bad luck those seemingly-minor foes could still represent a threat.

And IMO that's a good thing, in comparison to the 3e model where outside of a fairly narrow level range any given foe is either irrelevant to you (it can't touch you and you can kill it at your leisure) or you are irrelevant to it (it'll kill you effortlessly).

Now one could argue that maybe 5e swung the pendulum a bit too far away from the 3e model, but that probably comes down to not much more than personal preference.

 

[Shardstone]

It was an hour long. So no.


How?

I'm not going to summarize an hour long video. I put it on x2 speed and listened to it, it was pretty enrapturing. It's hard to have discussions like these when one side wants to present their opinion as having weight, but refuses to engage with materials that can be used to make a more educated opinion.

FYI, the first 10 minutes of the video answer all your questions, the rest are examples and consequences of the math. Really no excuse to not at least watch those 10 minutes.

 

[Lanefan]

2: I'm saying that spells are sidestepping the issue of numbers entirely because spells are explicitly not limited by bounded accuracy.

Knock, Forcecage, Forcewall, Teleport, Dimension Door, Misty Step, Shield. They all allow you to do X with no regard for bounded accuracy at all.

Instead of throwing bounded accuracy out the window and thus rewriting nearly the whole game, wouldn't it be easier just to houserule in some limitations on spells like that such that they're not always the go-to answer?

5e already did this with Knock by having it make a loud noise. So much for the idea of a MU-Rogue using it to help burgle places. Putting the small-but-not-zero risk of insta-death back into Teleport (a la 1e) very quickly makes it not the go-to answer. And so on.

 

[tetrasodium]

Get rid of spells? I really don't think that's an option.


It doesn't though. In fact bounded accuracy means that even low or moderately skilled character has a chance to succeed at relatively difficult tasks, so the spells are not the only tool in the box.


Why is massively limiting the usability range of enemies a desirable outcome?

The primary use of ranged attackers. Was to harass Squishies in a way that was dangerous enough that the at will dpr and crunchy types need to split their focus instead of just dog piling the big guys immediately. It only hurts ranged enemies if Squishies are not actually squishy as 5e's bounded accuracy ensures.

That's not the game's issue... that's your DM's. Just because the game allows your DM to make your life boring by having goblin swarms attack your 20th level PC... doesn't mean your DM HAS to do it. You might have a better shot talking about your issue with your DM, rather than hope WotC will fix your issue for you.

That is still 5e's issue though because ensuring that swarms of 20 goblins could remain a threat by twisting the system into a pretzel around the idea of keeping low cr monsters viable was explicitly a design goal for bounded accuracy

 

[Clint_L]

1: I never said it was practical, but I said I don't feel like BA is compatible with the way spellcasting works in D&D.

Seems to work fine in my games. And the games I watch on youTube. And the games I observe at D&D Club. And for most people playing the most popular version of D&D.

So there's pretty consistent evidence that bounded accuracy is, in fact, compatible with the way spell casting works in 5e. Obviously, there are some situations to which it doesn't apply, and it isn't perfect. No complex set of RPG rules will perfectly cover every conceivable situation. But not compatible? That's a strong claim that defies my lying eyes.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm not going to summarize an hour long video. I put it on x2 speed and listened to it, it was pretty enrapturing. It's hard to have discussions like these when one side wants to present their opinion as having weight, but refuses to engage with materials that can be used to make a more educated opinion.

I am more interested in your opinion, rather than some youtuber's that is not part of this conversation. It is hard to have a discussions if if one side refuses to discuss.

FYI, the first 10 minutes of the video answer all your questions, the rest are examples and consequences of the math. Really no excuse to not at least watch those 10 minutes.

I listened the first ten minutes. It merely explains the goals of bounded accuracy. Based on my experience of running 5e, these goals have mostly been fulfilled. I don't need to ramp up DCs, and I can use wide variety of monsters. I have used monsters whose CR is seven more than the party level (of four characters) and it has been fine. I have used monsters whose CR is way below the party level and it has been fine.

I am sure improvements could always be made. But the general concept as implemented seems to work pretty well in my experience.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You could, for example, get rid of them entirely?

(I think) bounded accuracy is a bad fit for the system because it empowers spells.

D&D 5E would be better without bounded accuracy is what I am saying (because they would obviously never get rid of the spell casting system).

I'm curious: do you actually want D&D without magic? What would that look like?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The primary use of ranged attackers. Was to harass Squishies in a way that was dangerous enough that the at will dpr and crunchy types need to split their focus instead of just dog piling the big guys immediately. It only hurts ranged enemies if Squishies are not actually squishy as 5e's bounded accuracy ensures.

What?

That is still 5e's issue though because ensuring that swarms of 20 goblins could remain a threat by twisting the system into a pretzel around the idea of keeping low cr monsters viable was explicitly a design goal for bounded accuracy

And it works fine. There is no issue.