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

[tetrasodium]

I mean if you think that information is critical, you could try typing it. I think it is unreasonable to expect people to watch an hour long video to learn your opinion.

That being said, I have now actually watched half of it. And issue he raises, with which I agree is the stacking bonuses from magic items and from abilities that provide dice bonuses. I think it would be more in keeping with the idea of bounded accuracy if magic bonuses for same thing wouldn't stack like it (IIRC) was in 4e, and if the dice bonuses worked so that you could roll them all but only add the best roll. I think these sort of things are reasonable improvements that could be made.


How did it break it?


Do you have an actual explanation or argument?

Yes I do and explained it to you in 136, but you responded to that stating both that you don't understand it "huh?" And "it works fine" when my effort to illuminate further detail is dismissed questioning if I have an actual explanation or argument.... Id suggest finishing the video and maybe watching it a second time to really understand how the many failures cascade throughout the system...

 

[Rystefn]

Gotta disagree strongly there. I’ve played with plenty of 5e first-timers who are comfortable adding between 5 and 12 to a d20 roll but would be very put-off by adding 20 or more to it. Even if the math isn’t actually meaningfully more difficult, people are more intimidated by bigger numbers.

Not remotely. Especially since switching to 2d10 would mean you have to add three numbers together instead of two, which would put more people off.

I wish I could argue against this... but we are operating in a hobby where even people who are deeply invested, have been playing for a long time, and play in multiple widely divergent systems can say with a straight face "subtraction is significantly more difficult than addition" and everyone around will nod along, not only taking it seriously, but as gospel. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if making a new version of D&D where you don't need to take off your shoes to do the math took the gaming world by storm.

 

[MGibster]

Again, so all discussion is moot.

No. You're exchanging ideas with other people and you might influence or be influenced by what they have to say. Or they might give you a different perspective allowing you to look at something in an entirely new way. But pretty much every conversation here revolves around preferences.

 

[MGibster]

I get a bit tired of arguments that basically amount to "I can think of one exception so the whole system is BROKEN and TERRIBLE." There's not such thing as a perfect TTRPG system, unless it's the one you made for yourself. And even then, your players might not agree.

I dated Morgan Fairchild in the late 1980s. Things were going fairly well, until we got romantic and I discovered her second toe was longer than her big toe. Well I wasn't going to accept anything less than perfection so I broke up with her immediately which is what all right minded people would have done. In unrelated news, I'm so lonely.

 

[Kurotowa]

To make a long story short, it isn't actually bounded due to stacking modifiers that are easy to get. Peace Cleric + Bless + Bardic Inspiration + PB + Ability Score at level 1 can allow an attack to hit AC 30 almost 40% of the time, more so with advantage. This is an extreme example of the argument; the fact that you can pretty easily get several bonuses just makes it so that the accuracy isn't bounded.

Is there room for optimizers to optimize? Of course, there always will be when you have a lot of options. Have I ever seen a Peace Cleric in actual play? No. I also rarely see much use of Bless, despite it being a cornerstone of optimizer builds, because "small but meaningful party wide bonus" is not a fun or exciting use of your Concentration slot.

The only way to remove optimization from the game entirely is to make every character have the same two or three basic actions, with no build variance or class differentiation at all. So instead we have a fairly happy balance where the accuracy is mostly bounded, within certain tolerances, and players still have meaningful choices in character builds and playstyles. People can break it if they really try, but they have to really try, not just play something that looks cool.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes I do and explained it to you in 136, but you responded to that stating both that you don't understand it "huh?" And "it works fine" when my effort to illuminate further detail is dismissed questioning if I have an actual explanation or argument....

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.

Yes this. I ask again, what do you mean by this? Why cannot ranged attackers threaten "squishies" due BA? I might even agree with you, I just don't understand what you're trying to say.

Id suggest finishing the video and maybe watching it a second time to really understand how the many failures cascade throughout the system...

I have watched the video.

The video has some decent examples of things that break the bounded accuracy, and I agree that those could and should be addressed. Then it notes that the monster building rules do not quite correspond to the actual printed monsters. An old issue, and well known, also not directly related to BA. Then there are some general discussion about the sort of feel and gameplay bounded accuracy produces. Whether you like everyone having a chance most of the time or only experts having one is a matter of taste, as is whether you want high level characters to be unbeatable demigods or still mortals.

 

[Umbran]

The quality of options matters. Like making feats optional instead of assumed, it just puts creating a worse play experience on the table for no positive gain.

Ah. "I don't like it so nobody should have it." Gotcha.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm hoping they will some day correct course back to something better designed, like 4E. Until then, I prefer other systems.

See, I'm hoping they will also some day correct course back to something better designed, like B/X or AD&D.

 

[Shardstone]

Is there room for optimizers to optimize? Of course, there always will be when you have a lot of options. Have I ever seen a Peace Cleric in actual play? No. I also rarely see much use of Bless, despite it being a cornerstone of optimizer builds, because "small but meaningful party wide bonus" is not a fun or exciting use of your Concentration slot.

The only way to remove optimization from the game entirely is to make every character have the same two or three basic actions, with no build variance or class differentiation at all. So instead we have a fairly happy balance where the accuracy is mostly bounded, within certain tolerances, and players still have meaningful choices in character builds and playstyles. People can break it if they really try, but they have to really try, not just play something that looks cool.

My point in mentioning that this was an extreme example was to get ahead of the optimization rebuttal.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No. You're exchanging ideas with other people and you might influence or be influenced by what they have to say. Or they might give you a different perspective allowing you to look at something in an entirely new way. But pretty much every conversation here revolves around preferences.

but pointing out that something is someone's preference is meant to shut down the discussion. As beautifully illustrated on this thread in fact.