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

[MGibster]

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

You know what? That's fair. Saying it's preference isn't a valid rebuttal to criticism.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

136 covered that

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 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

5e doesn't have "squishies" & the reasons are because of things done in service of bounded accuracy. Sure a wizard is squishier than a fighter or barbarian, but "squishier" is not the same as feeling squishy. It's almost impossible for anything short of Cthulu in Power armor / rocks fall / lightning strikes tier monsters who will also frighten the fighter & barbarian to make that wizard feel the kind of terror that they once did getting plinked at by a skeleton or two & chased down by a kobold/zombie/etc.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

136 covered that

5e doesn't have "squishies" & the reasons are because of things done in service of bounded accuracy. Sure a wizard is squishier than a fighter or barbarian, but "squishier" is not the same as feeling squishy. It's almost impossible for anything short of Cthulu in Power armor / rocks fall / lightning strikes tier monsters who will also frighten the fighter & barbarian to make that wizard feel the kind of terror that they once did getting plinked at by a skeleton or two & chased down by a kobold/zombie/etc.

When was this "once"? AD&D, or perhaps before? Because it wasn't 4e. In non-bounded system the wizard's defences will scale, so that the skeletons are no longer a threat at higher levels and in any case in 4e the PCs had even more HP. However, with bounded the skeletons remain a threat, it merely takes more of them to be a serious one at higher levels.

 

[Shardstone]

@Crimson Longinus thank you for watching the video! It is very rare people actually compromise and ingest the material introduced. I agree with your assessments above for the most part; however, I no longer put bounded accuracy on a pedestal, and instead now I idealize a form of D&D with much more minimalized math.

 

[MichaelSomething]

136 covered that

5e doesn't have "squishies" & the reasons are because of things done in service of bounded accuracy. Sure a wizard is squishier than a fighter or barbarian, but "squishier" is not the same as feeling squishy. It's almost impossible for anything short of Cthulu in Power armor / rocks fall / lightning strikes tier monsters who will also frighten the fighter & barbarian to make that wizard feel the kind of terror that they once did getting plinked at by a skeleton or two & chased down by a kobold/zombie/etc.

Bring back d4 hit dice!!!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Crimson Longinus thank you for watching the video! It is very rare people actually compromise and ingest the material introduced. I agree with your assessments above for the most part; however, I no longer put bounded accuracy on a pedestal, and instead now I idealize a form of D&D with much more minimalized math.

I don't think it is any sort of Holy Grail. It is just one way of doing things that has its own strengths and weaknesses, and of course the implementation could be improved. But in practice it has worked very well for me, so I appreciate it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

When was this "once"? AD&D, or perhaps before? Because it wasn't 4e. In non-bounded system the wizard's defences will scale, so that the skeletons are no longer a threat at higher levels and in any case in 4e the PCs had even more HP. However, with bounded the skeletons remain a threat, it merely takes more of them to be a serious one at higher levels.

AD&D or perhaps before, yes.

 

[Umbran]

You know what? That's fair. Saying it's preference isn't a valid rebuttal to criticism.

1) Not all responses to criticism (or statements of preference, for that matter) are intended as, "rebuttal".

2) Valid criticism requires more than statements of preference, and noting the statements may be an indication that maybe solid criticism has not been reached.

 

[Scribe]

In DnD the accuracy in Bounded within a fairly narrow range, so even if you are Level 1 against a Level 20 opponent you are still fairly likely to hit.

Yet if one cannot put their +2 in the optimal stat, it's the end of the world... /s

The quoted part is also why I don't like the concept, in addition to its impact on Magic Items, optimization, party dynamics, monster math...I generally feel it's a mistake, but it makes it all easier for pick up play, and that likely boosted the editions broad appeal.

 

[Seramus]

When you have a bonus to a d20 roll that is greater than the rolling range of the die itself, the die roll seems superfluous.

To be fair, when the best person in the world at a skill contributes a smaller bonus than a d20, your character choices can feel very muted.

Of course, the nature of compromise often leaves both sides feeling uneasy.