So, bounded accuracy. How do you feel about it?

So, bounded accuracy. How do you feel about it?

What is it?

It's one of D&D 5e's attempts to streamline the system. Instead of quickly escalating bonuses to your rolls, you only slowly increase your numbers and in a very limited way. Situational modifiers have been reduced to roll twice keep highest/lowest.
So at lvl 1 you might have something like +4 to your rolls and at lvl 20 you end up with +10 or so

Depends on implementation.
In 3e and prior, it wasn't really an issue. After a certain level a player in melee could always reliably land a few attacks, and would have one or two risky ones that might not connect due to a diminishing accuracy bonus.

In 4e it meant everything was a 50/50 shot, until suddenly it was a 40/60 shot and then a 30/70 shot if you didn't maximize your ability bonus. Defenses on monsters grossly outstripped the offensive options on players, just to make the math work.

Now in 5e, it's much better, partially because Attack bonuses don't completely outstrip defenses, or vice-versa.

One of the absolute best changes in 5e, along with Concentration spells to prevent buff-mania.

pretty good, keeps things simple, and prevents having to keep track of large numbers
most people only need to keep track of the 2 largest digits usually anyway, so you might as well get rid of the extra zeroes
and very importantly, it keeps the players focused on the action instead of tallying numbers

One of the reasons I play 5e, the others being concentration rules and every class being viable.

guys

guys

what if we just

don't let characters get very strong

t-then

they won't be very strong

and like

then you will never be strong

But what's the point in playing if you don't gain power?

>In 3e and prior, it wasn't really an issue.
3E is like the poster child for why limitless modifiers is shitty design. Pre-3E D&D had bounded accuracy. I'm not even sure how you could lump the two together.

There's a subtle, but very important difference between "gaining power" and "ascending to capeshit power levels".

>I decide what is and isn't too powerful based on some shitty rules and exploits that I think work because I read them online but don't actually work in real games

Don't get me wrong, it's cool that kobolds are a threat to characters of every level now. It's cool that D&D has level scaling built right into it. I mean seriously man, it's great, I loved it in oblivion and I sure love it in D&D. Really well done.

>Accuracy
>clownfiesta rng dice mechanics of 5% autofail 5% autohit
Hahahahaha
Everyfuckingtime.
If a system doesn't use a x+1dy its dogshit and a clownfiesta etarded system, it doesn't have ANY accuracy of any kind.

nice digits, but x+1d20 is exactly how D&D works and d&d is the arbitrary clownfiesta with 5% autofail and 5% autohit

Where x is higher than 1, forgot that add that and thought it was implied retard, but I also seem to forget D&D will literally rot your brain in seconds.

What feels too powerful is a personal preference, no need to ask anyone else's opinion on that. If some dude online argues that some bullshit min max build is totally legit it's not gonna change my mind.

I know that you're just here to shitpost, but you could at least learn something about the subject before doing it.

>It's another "D&D retards are reminded of their tiny rotten brain and get angry at people with a working brain" episode

Every time, I personally ban D&D players from my table, literally removed 99.999% of that guys.

I don't like D&D I'm on your side dummy dumb dumb dummy dumb

>But what's the point in playing if you don't gain power?

Found the rollpleb.

except your character concepts are bound as fuck and limited until higher level and even then they don't feel that special or have that many options.

Compare with GURPS where I can make my character exactly like I want and have him evolve with little points in fluffy ways or combat ways slowly giving me a wider array of options.

Sounds like you've never met a D&D player. Only AD&D and Pathfinder players.

>If I don't shitpost about how bad I find thing and establish my superiority for demonstrating how little I respect those who enjoy thing every single fucking day I will literally die.

>These mad D&Drones
go scuttle along to your tierlists kids or keep proving the meme right boyos.

>Stormwind Fallacy
Why even bother using rules?

Because D&D rules are epic you fucking retard refer to and kys urself NOW.

>When I quote people and establish a relationship between them and mindless herd mentality it establishes me as a unique individual and improves the validity of my opinions because I don't actually understand how to make an argument against a stance, but I don't need to if I instead utilize tone policing and arguments from age/name calling.

This is fun.

>samefagging this hard.

Dude, dude. Settle down.

Here. Have a isded

I have more issues with the hard level caps and the lack of potential growth beyond level 20 than bounded accuracy itself.

I understand most GMs and Players don't play from 1-20, but some of us can actually plan and run games from level 1 to X, and would like to actually ignore level capping stupidity.

...

You could extrapolate from AD&D pretty easily. +X for experience, keep increasing HP by half (or less) of the maximum die value, don't increase saves or attack bonus/proficiency, and finally keep improving via multiclassing.

There's nobody to stop you in a game of imagination.

It would be even better.
Normalize monster stats to the players'stats.
Assume the players already have maxed their attack bonus (or saves, dcs, whatever).
Easy to hit? AC 8. Hard to hit? AC12. Characters get some +s and some -s to allocate, but the numbers never really change, cue reaction faces when the gods you fight in the epic levels have AC21.

>he doesn't know how to check for samefag.

OD&D and AD&D got it right, after level 9 nothing really happened. The characters were 'ready' at that point, which gives a nice progression of levels 1-9 instead of later editions's 1-20.

...

Oh holy shit, you know what? When I hide your posts, mine also hide!

You're in the same building as me!

I'm you retard.

Kill president kenny.

I'm surprised there's someone in the building who also browses Veeky Forums.

Not only that, but you're being terrible on Veeky Forums.

The players don't actually get stronger because they have the exact same chance to fail or succeed every challenge they face.
Like when you get to level 80 in an MMO from level 1 you can only fight lvl 80 crabs instead of lvl 1 crabs.

>Lvl 1
>45% chance to hit average CR 1 enemy.
>lvl 20
>50% chance to hit average CR 20 enemy
No real improvement.

You forgot
>Lvl 1
>best option is to full attack
>Lvl 20
>best optiion is still to full attack

It can work, depending on the setting.

In 5e, a 10th level PC facing 10 level 1 enemies might get injured and may even need to heal after.
In 4e, however, it would be a boring 10 rounds battle with no challenge at all.

The bounded accuracy means a 20th level Fighter is 5e is much weaker than a 20th level Fighter in 4e in the lens of the world design. It dictates the tone of the game, a more down-to-earth or a more super hero way of dealing with things.

It all boils down to the feel the game wants to convey.

Now, let's add a spice in this discussion, since even with a low ceiling with upgrades, there's always sidegrades: Increasing in versatility is increasing in power, even if your attack modifier is the same.

Good idea, meh execution. 5e places the bonuses too low for the d20's range. 4e's math was much better in this regard.

You are either biased, or a fucking idiot.

First off, bounded accuracy as a design thing only exists in 5e. It existed in OD&D in the sense that numbers just generally didn't go very high, but it's more of an accidental thing than conscious design.

>In 3e and prior, it wasn't really an issue.

Using "3e and prior" as one "block" is fucking retarded because the numbers in 3e go way higher than anything before it, for everyone.

>In 4e it meant everything was a 50/50 shot, until suddenly it was a 40/60 shot and then a 30/70 shot

It actually means about 60/65/70 +/-10, unless...

>if you didn't maximize your ability bonus.

...you are retarded, got it.

>Now in 5e, it's much better, partially because Attack bonuses don't completely outstrip defenses, or vice-versa.

Player attack bonuses absolutely do, because defenses still don't scale. Only "boss monsters" have defenses scaled to their level, everything else has static defenses and so they become more and more easy to hit. Especially obvious with spells, since defenses have 0 scaling, to the point where the tarrasque can be harassed to death with acid sprays, since he has a staggering +0 DEX save.

It's also worth noting while this can be considered a somewhat good thing (if somewhat low powered heroes is your jam) it's fucking terrible for the way skills are set up.