# Bounded Accuracy L&L



## nogray (Jun 4, 2012)

A discussion of the bounded accuracy design move is up by Rodney Thompson. Here is the link: Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Bounded Accuracy).

I liked the article. Discuss, if you please.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 4, 2012)

I love it. I'm 100% behind reducing numbers bloat- the 'bounded accuracy' system looks and sounds great to me.


----------



## jadrax (Jun 4, 2012)

Yeah, I am really looking forward to seeing if this works.


----------



## Rydac (Jun 4, 2012)

Count me as another who really likes this direction & I'm looking forward to more play testing in this paradigm!


----------



## Dragoslav (Jun 4, 2012)

Great post. It really confirms everything we need to know about their design philosophy for accuracy bonuses, the flat math, etc.

It does leave me with one question I've been wondering though, and I ask this in all honesty: If we assume that 5 goblins are a challenge to a party of 1st-level characters, how many of you DMs are going to have the patience to manage, let's say, 25 goblins fighting a party of 10th-level adventurers?


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jun 4, 2012)

In principle this is right on the money for me. The relative DC system of 4e was one of my primary issues with that system as against an absolute DC system where the difficulty of a task is relative to the task not the character.

However, this would seem to place a great deal of pressure on hit points as the primary determiner of ability be it in how many your character has or how easily they can take opponent's away. There needs to be perfect clarity with how hit points are interpreted as given in the playtest document. Hit points more than ever are representative of screen time. I'm cautiously optimistic that this can work out well even if it takes a bit of work to get it right and straighten out some of the kinks (Reaper I'm looking at you).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 4, 2012)

me. 

As long as they have no advantage, no problem... (Advantage really needs to be reworded, so only misses may be thrown again!)


----------



## Falling Icicle (Jun 4, 2012)

I am in total agreement with almost everything said in this article. 

I am extremely happy to hear that DCs don't scale with level, as that never made any sense to me at all. Why should a door be DC 10 to break down at 1st level but DC 25 to break down at 30th level? That makes absolutely no sense and means that all the level up bonuses the character gained don't really mean anything since he's not actually any more likely to succeed at something than he was when he was lower level.

I also like how, with fewer bonuses, those bonuses are more precious and meaningful. I like how a 20th level wizard, who has probably not really spent any time training with weapons, doesn't need to get a +10 to hit just because he's higher level. Despite that, the wizard can still pick up a weapon and at least try to use it with some chance of success, since he might only be +5 or whatever behind the fighter. I also like how this allows DMs far greater flexibility in what monsters to throw at the players. A mob of peasents can still threaten a group of high level characters, rather than being a trival concern.

The only concern I have is all the talk about hp and damage bloat being the primary way characters advance. It seems contrary to many of the goals they discuss when talking about flatter math. I'm not saying that characters shouldn't gain any hit points or damage as they level, I'd just like to see that part of the math be flatter as well. A mob of peasents might be able to hit you, and be a potential threat that way, but they're still a trivial encounter if the wizard can wipe them all of the face of the map with an AoE spell, due to their low hit points and the wizard's extremely high damage.


----------



## Stormonu (Jun 4, 2012)

To me, it's still number bloats.  Instead of just enlarging the hit and damage numbers, they're just doubling up on the damage part.

First level characters still won't be fighting trolls, and once regular trolls get mundane, there will be ubertrolls (or whatever they called) that are tougher than regular trolls.

Having played for 10 levels and going from killing a handful of goblins to killing 86 goblins on a regular basis isn't exactly something that sounds thrilling.  Why do you think we have 3-5 or more MM's per edition?


----------



## Raith5 (Jun 4, 2012)

Is there any real downside of lower bonuses?  The only real query for me is having a sense of progress as a character. So a lot will depend on the abilities (dare I say powers?) you get when you level up in giving you a sense of doing new things and a feeling that you are more powerful.

In particular I am hoping the flatter bonuses will help keeping the sweet spot as broad as possible. I like the broad sweet spot of 4th, and I think/hope that flatter maths will help this.


----------



## Keldryn (Jun 4, 2012)

If hit points and damage are going to be where most of the vertical scaling exists, then I think that those numbers need to be reigned in at first level, or we're going to be back to 4e's inflated hit point totals.  When a level 1 fighter with 16 Strength has a +7 static bonus on top of the die roll, I have cause for concern.  Larger numbers take more time to add and subtract during the game, and I don't really want to see 456 HP creatures being common, with the fighter doing 1d10 + 24 damage.


----------



## mlund (Jun 4, 2012)

An excellent article with excellent ideas. It'll probably further irritate the folks that refuse to concede the concept of HP and HP Damage being abstractions instead of physical blood-and-guts, but they'd apparently rather complain about D&D than play GURPS so whatever. 

Not having to re-scale a recurring monster or monster type from Solo to Elite to Standard to Minion to keep to-hit rolls relevant really appeals to me.

I'm also enthused with the idea that getting a +1 Magical Sword is actually an advantage, not an expectation. If my PCs lose their equipment I don't have to contrive some way to replace or restore it in order to let them continue to operate as Level X characters and meet encounter and challenge levels without being slaughtered.



Keldryn said:


> Larger numbers take more time to add and subtract during the game, and I don't really want to see 456 HP creatures being common, with the fighter doing 1d10 + 24 damage.




Is it any worse than 3E with the Wizard tossing his 10d6 Fireball and 15d6 Cone of Cold with a Reflex save DC of 17 plus or minus feats (everybody inside a 20' radius start throwing saves!) and the fighter attacking at +21/+16/+11/+6 with his +2 Greatsword for 2d6 + 9 plus or minus Power Attack?

Seriously, though, it looks like in the play-test they are working on the default d8 hit die for monsters using 4HP per die as the basic template. A "normal" 20th level monster is getting what, 80 HP?

- Marty Lund


----------



## Incenjucar (Jun 4, 2012)

So I guess this means that they have to key almost every non-HP ability to HP to prevent Charm from taking over the game?


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 4, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> I am extremely happy to hear that DCs don't scale with level, as that never made any sense to me at all. Why should a door be DC 10 to break down at 1st level but DC 25 to break down at 30th level? That makes absolutely no sense and means that all the level up bonuses the character gained don't really mean anything since he's not actually any more likely to succeed at something than he was when he was lower level.




I like the article, but I feel like a lot of people bring up this sort of complaint against 4e DCs, and it's just completely against how I interpreted the rules.

The game wasn't saying "At 30th level, it's DC 25 to break down a door." It was saying, "If you want a somewhat challenging obstacle at 30th level, it should be DC 25." Now, to me, it was obvious that the obstacle needs to be something that matches the DC.

So if you want the party to kick open a normal door, it's still DC 10. It's inconsequential. But if you want the door to be a challenge, well, figure out what makes sense as DC 25. It's a door possessed by a vestige of a dead god of strength. It's a wall of force enchanted to look like wood. It's a three-foot-thick plate of adamantium. It's a veil dipped in the river Styx.

Anyway, good article.


----------



## grimslade (Jun 4, 2012)

Ok accuracy is bounded, and damage and hit points will scale. Cool. A regular goblin can't get any deader with increased damage, but a dragon can go from "Are you trying to tickle me?" to "Frackity-frack! Those scales took a century to grow, Meat!". 

Hopefully, new playtest materials will show us how this works in practice. I wonder if we will see amplifying dice for melee damage like spell damage. A fire ball does 5d6 damage and a 5th level halfling fighter is sporting a 5d6 dagger throw? Time will tell.


----------



## ren1999 (Jun 4, 2012)

Only more information on higher level play in the play-tests will really confirm how good this will work out.

We're only guessing at how a character is progressing. 
In principle, keeping all unique bonuses +10 or lower is really good.

I'm really hoping that characters will see a +1 to an ability score per level. That means that while a wizard may not be able to hit with his dagger any better because he did not chose to improve his strength or dexterity, he'll be a better spell caster if his intelligence and wisdom increases.

This will also keep AC down, if the dex modifier to AC is no greater than +10 and that includes magic.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 4, 2012)

Well, it looks like they're using HP to determine depth, in a way. AC and attack bonus don't scale, but HP and damage does, so that's how you determine how challenging something is. That's all fine and good, but how do you determine depth with non-combat DCs? Seemingly, those DCs just go up. And that's where I get iffy. If "the adamantine door's DC is too high for you to hit" is in the game, why isn't "the master swordsman's AC is too high for you to hit"?

I think that combat might be getting a depth mechanic that offsets a few things, but I'm afraid for "skills", "saves", and the like, since they're seemingly mostly ability checks. But, I'll wait and see. Wait and see. As always, play what you like


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 4, 2012)

This is the one idea I absolutely love about the next edition of D&D. I feel tempted to hack 4E to do the same, really.


----------



## Serendipity (Jun 4, 2012)

I can't say how much it would please me if they followed through with this.  Lots, with a side of hell yes at least. 
We'll see how it gets implemented.


----------



## jadrax (Jun 4, 2012)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> This is the one idea I absolutely love about the next edition of D&D. I feel tempted to hack 4E to do the same, really.




I have seen quite a few people say that now.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 4, 2012)

Dragoslav said:


> Great post. It really confirms everything we need to know about their design philosophy for accuracy bonuses, the flat math, etc.
> 
> It does leave me with one question I've been wondering though, and I ask this in all honesty: If we assume that 5 goblins are a challenge to a party of 1st-level characters, how many of you DMs are going to have the patience to manage, let's say, 25 goblins fighting a party of 10th-level adventurers?




Not every play session, but having the party face a true horde of enemies is incredibly cinematic!  The heroes are tough enough to face the threat of a large number of enemies, but there is still danger that a "skilled" or "lucky" orc/goblin/henchman might land a telling blow.

I love it!

And to keep things simple, you might have 30 orcs slavering to carve up your heroes, but only a small handful of statblocks (or even just one) to keep track of.  Each villainous mook doesn't need a full statblock, only a track of their hp loss.  Which isn't new, of course.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 4, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> So I guess this means that they have to key almost every non-HP ability to HP to prevent Charm from taking over the game?




No, it means we don't know how Charm effects work yet.  I'm not worried.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 4, 2012)

I also agree it's a good article.



mlund said:


> Not having to re-scale a recurring monster or monster type from Solo to Elite to Standard to Minion to keep to-hit rolls relevant really appeals to me.



Although elite and standards aren't _just_ about defences and attacks. They're also about action economy. And nothing in the playtest suggests that action economy is less important in Next than in 4e.



Dragoslav said:


> If we assume that 5 goblins are a challenge to a party of 1st-level characters, how many of you DMs are going to have the patience to manage, let's say, 25 goblins fighting a party of 10th-level adventurers?



Good question. In my 4e game I've taken to using swarms to handle this issue - the mid-paragon PCs in my game have confronted 13th level Huge hobgoblin phalanxes, and 17th level Gargantuan hobgoblin phalanxes.

Is there any indication as to whether D&Dnext will handle scaling up by way of swarms?



Incenjucar said:


> So I guess this means that they have to key almost every non-HP ability to HP to prevent Charm from taking over the game?



Despite the early talk about 3 pillars, so far I'm really only seeing one pillar in this playtest. And balancing the maths all around hit points reinforces that impression.

Will there be secret doors that you can't detect, or magical gates that you can't pass through, unless you have a certain minimum number of hp?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 4, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> Well, it looks like they're using HP to determine depth, in a way.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> how do you determine depth with non-combat DCs?



You ninja-ed me! (But XP still remains disabled.)


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 4, 2012)

When I first read the article, I too had first thoughts like, "Yeah, stupid attack bonus scaling is gone!"  followed by "Boo, hp inflation is still in."

However, after having read the article a few times, plus some of the commentary here, I'm pretty excited!  It makes cinematic sense to me that as my low level character I can run up to that monstrous dragon and give it a good smack and expect to land a blow with my sword . . . only to have the dragon chuckle evilly and then roast me alive!  But as a high level character (a hero with destiny and power), I'm only slightly more likely to smack that dragon with my sword, but when I do . . . . it howls in surprise and pain!  Or, that I rally the villagers and the local garrison to face the beast, and although we suffer heavy losses, we bring it down or drive it away through force of numbers!

This totally opens up options for the players, as "traditional" D&D means that as a low-level dude, you can't even touch that dragon, even if you are accompanied by an army of low-level dudes.  It also should mean the end of 15th-level folks staffing the town guard, the inn, etc, etc.

Through in a critical hit module, and that low-level town guardsman with the crossbow leveled at my heart is a viable threat at any level!

There is potential, of course, for hp bloat to be an issue . . . but I won't be worried until we see higher level play in action.


----------



## Incenjucar (Jun 4, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Will there be secret doors that you can't detect, or magical gates that you can't pass through, unless you have a certain minimum number of hp?




I can't imagine they'd use HP for that. Level, maybe. In general 5E rules seem to suggest a universe that is very shallow in some respects. The easiest things and the hardest things don't have much of a gap between them. An epic lock might come with epic consequences for failure, and might take ten times as much time to pick, but enough level 1 kobold lockpicks could do it in time.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 4, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Despite the early talk about 3 pillars, so far I'm really only seeing one pillar in this playtest. And balancing the maths all around hit points reinforces that impression.




Well, not only is this the first playtest of a rather lengthy playtesting schedule, but it is also quite deliberately limited in scope.  I agree that we haven't seen full implementation of the "3 pillars" yet, as well as many other aspects of the new game that have been revealed, including much of what is in this article.  But, I am not worried, or at least, not yet.  



> Will there be secret doors that you can't detect, or magical gates that you can't pass through, unless you have a certain minimum number of hp?




Without having any more knowledge than you do, I think I can confidently say, "No."  Let's not invent things to worry about until we actually get to playtest the rules that govern non-combat actions.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 4, 2012)

I think this may prove to be the single biggest conceptual Improvement in D&D since its inception. It is odd that something that seems so obvious now has never really been discussed before, but it neatly handles a whole range of issues. 

I'm delighted!


----------



## Jack99 (Jun 4, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> I think this may prove to be the single biggest conceptual Improvement in D&D since its inception. It is odd that something that seems so obvious now has never really been discussed before, but it neatly handles a whole range of issues.
> 
> I'm delighted!




Yep


----------



## variant (Jun 4, 2012)

This is definitely at the top of one of the most exciting things about 5e.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Jun 4, 2012)

One thing that excites me about this is that I can envision having a house rule removing level entirely and instead letting people buy and train individual traits one at a time with experience, like alot of other games. The whole flat math thing makes something like that easily possible.


----------



## Ichneumon (Jun 4, 2012)

WotC designers, if you are reading this thread, *please stick to your guns* on this one issue over the development life of 5e. Being able to trust that an AC or DC of a given number is easy/hard/extreme regardless of party level will make life wonderful for me as a DM. Since the "hardest" numbers are in the mid to late 20s, they're within reach of highly competent 1st level PCs. D&D Next could be a game where any PCs can potentially go anywhere. I'd love to see that happen.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 4, 2012)

This is a good system, and I can see that it solves a lot of problems.

One difficulty I have, is that I don't think I like worlds where the most powerful BBEGs, such as the Tarrasque or its equivalent, can be defeated by armies. I want only heroes to be able to fight these things. Cuz that's cool.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 4, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> I can't imagine they'd use HP for that. Level, maybe.





Dire Bare said:


> Without having any more knowledge than you do, I think I can confidently say, "No."  Let's not invent things to worry about until we actually get to playtest the rules that govern non-combat actions.



Of course I fully agree. My comment was intended as a tongue-in-cheek riff on Incenjucar's upthread comment about Charm spells, extending the idea to the "exploration pillar".

My serious point was to agree with Incenjucar, and say that by linking everything to hit points, it makes it hard to expend a sense of "depth" to aspects of the game that don't involve hit points - unless (as with the mind-affecting spells in the playtest) you somewhat artificially introduce hit point threshholds into those aspects.



Incenjucar said:


> In general 5E rules seem to suggest a universe that is very shallow in some respects. The easiest things and the hardest things don't have much of a gap between them. An epic lock might come with epic consequences for failure, and might take ten times as much time to pick, but enough level 1 kobold lockpicks could do it in time.



In the case of monsters, what (if anything) will they do with damage reduction? That is a time-honoured mechanism for stopping the 1st level NPC archers having much of an effect even if they can hit the AC in question.

But even if damage reduction is a way of introducing a type of "depth" into combat that doesn't require escalating the DCs, what is the analogue of damage reduction for out of combat activities, given that (as far as we have seen to date) there is no analogue of hit points and damage there, but just the same old "make a check and have the GM adjudicate the result of success/failure".

Given that, in the actual world, there are intellectual problems that no number of first level scholars will solve no matter how long they are given to think about it, and pursuits that no ordinary person can succeed at, no matter how cool their shoes and how much energy drink they are allowed to consume en route, I hope that the non-combat pillars are a bit more robust than is suggested by that image of 1st level kobold lockpicks!


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 4, 2012)

Bounded accuracy? Sounds good.

Unbounded hit points and damage? Not so much.


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 4, 2012)

It sounds great.

Now for some good old fashion Minigiant pessimism.

1) Pokemon play. Everything hits. Everything hurts. Goblins are lvl 2 pidgeys to your druid's level 20 venusaur. No one is ever an insignifacant speck. It's a good thing but it was never part of d&d before.

2) Can't make a mountain of goblin corpses anymore. They can actually hurt me now. 

3) With no increases, you intial rolls for stats matter a lot. No more growing your 14 STR halfling into a warrior by getting +10 to hit over 10 level. That +2 stays forever...maybe.

4) 18 str cleric is about equal to a 18 str fighter in hitting. 18 Dex wizard is as sneak as a 18 Dex rogue.  Class feature will mean a lot now. And bad ones equals really bad classes.


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 4, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Bounded accuracy? Sounds good.
> 
> Unbounded hit points and damage? Not so much.




_Something_ has to go up. 
This is D&D after all.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 4, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> _Something_ has to go up.
> This is D&D after all.



In D&D, damage has classically been one of the few things that is not level-based or skill-based. I'd prefer it if everything went up(or could go up, not everything automatically increasing like 4e), just much more slowly.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 4, 2012)

> It's good for verisimilitude. The bounded accuracy system lets us perpetually associate difficulty numbers with certain tasks based on what they are in the world, without the need to constantly escalate the story behind those tasks. For example, we can say that breaking down an iron-banded wooden door is a DC 17 check, and that can live in the game no matter what level the players are. There's no need to constantly escalate the in-world descriptions to match a growing DC; an iron-banded door is just as tough to break down at 20th level as it was at 1st, and it might still be a challenge for a party consisting of heroes without great Strength scores. There's no need to make it a solid adamantine door encrusted with ancient runes just to make it a moderate challenge for the high-level characters. Instead, we let that adamantine door encrusted with ancient runes have its own high DC as a reflection of its difficulty in the world. If players have the means of breaking down the super difficult adamantine door, it's because they pursued player options that make that so, and it is not simply a side effect of continuing to adventure.




In order for an Iron-banded wooden door to be tough to break down for a 20th level party it would need hitpoints on a level equal to a 20th level monster. But that would mean it's near-impossible to break down or damage at low levels (whioch breaks verisimilitude for anyone who ever used an axe)

Or wooden doors are somehow impossible to be damaged by weapons such as Axes (which destroys verisimilitude, period.)

Or wood is the ultimate armor material, able to withstand level 20 damage better than anything else (which again destroys verisimilitude).

Or You can cut an iron golem down with your sword, but cannot cut down a door since it has to be "broken down" according to the rules, which means a strength test, no weapons allowed. Which would be silly.


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 4, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> In D&D, damage has classically been one of the few things that is not level-based or skill-based. I'd prefer it if everything went up(or could go up, not everything automatically increasing like 4e), just much more slowly.




That is my preference as well. Everything goes up... slowly.  I like people who at better than others at something to actually be much better and to continue to make a gap as they level... just slowly.

But _some people _hate big numbers.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Jun 4, 2012)

If everything goes up, then nothing really changes...as defenses of foes do to?

I am loving this idea. Tougher creatures are, well, tougher, not harder to hit. Always wondered why lumbering oafs were still hard to hit in 4E (and other editions), but even braindead ogres had high Will scores, simply b/c of level.

I am much more in favour of the numbers reflecting the world. When i couldn't determine ACs etc, based on the creature's traits and armor, I was lost. Everything going by level seemed very backward to me.

This is one of THE key core design philosophies that has me interested.

As a DM I like to describe what the PCs see and they act on that. Monsters certainly did not work that way in 4E. (Though I hope they keep the monster format and cool abilities...just not numbers based purely on level).


----------



## Danzauker (Jun 4, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> This is a good system, and I can see that it solves a lot of problems.
> 
> One difficulty I have, is that I don't think I like worlds where the most powerful BBEGs, such as the Tarrasque or its equivalent, can be defeated by armies. I want only heroes to be able to fight these things. Cuz that's cool.




There are a lot of other things, most of them I guess we still don't know, that can be used to "insulate" BBEGs from low level heroes.

For example, judging solely what was written in the article, they could give epic monsters high damage resistance, so that only high level heroes have a chance to actually damage them.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 4, 2012)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> This is the one idea I absolutely love about the next edition of D&D. I feel tempted to hack 4E to do the same, really.




in 4th Ed I removed 1/2 level from all character's and monster's attacks, defences and skills quite a while ago, and it really helps.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 4, 2012)

I like the idea of a +1 longsword now being _huge_.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 4, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> I think this may prove to be the single biggest conceptual Improvement in D&D since its inception. It is odd that something that seems so obvious now has never really been discussed before, but it neatly handles a whole range of issues.
> 
> I'm delighted!



It was discussed before this article, certainly, but it may have come up only with Next. (Though I am certain it was discussed also as house rule for 4E, and Steely_Dan's post seems to confirm that).

It may be seen as a continual evolution starting in response to 3E, if not earlier
1) Bonus stacking to insane levels (pre 3E)
2) 3E introduces "named" bonuses limiting the number of stuff that stacks. 
3) named bonuses from magic items lead to the magic item Christmas Tree. 4E cuts this down to a very sparse tree of 3 items for every character to get "mandatory expected items per level", later introduces a variant rule to take even tha tout.
4) D&D Next questions the existence of all the other bonuses gained by level and tries to reduce them.

I wonder if 6E will rmove all bonuses gained by character generation and only gives players new options as they level (e.g. powers, spells, feats)? That would probably go too far...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 4, 2012)

For masses of creatures, you may see an (optional) return to something like the minion rules: you can just assume the average for most of them, roll for a few lucky ones, and get on with yer life. 

For noncombat elements, let me say that HP roughly equals "Number of Successes," so picking a lock or convincing a guard might require now a QUANTITY of successful checks, rather than just one or two really high rolls. A better-quality lock might not just be a tougher DC, it might also require 3 or 4 successful checks to unlock. A stubborn guard isn't a higher DC, he's just going to withstand more checks. You could call this a "threshold," and let the whole party contribute to solving the problem, especially if there's a hazard for failure (or even just some shotclock mechanic, like after failing a check (or STATMOD checks), you can't try again until after your next extended rest). 

It's not too shabby.

Though I never had much of a problem with the escalating DC's, I am also not particularly attached to them. This mechanic shows great promise, and I'm eager to see more.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Jun 4, 2012)

I am really liking what I am reading. This fixes EXACTLY what I have been complaining about for years. D&DNext just might be the game I've been looking for for a long time.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 4, 2012)

This is an interesting concept and it looks quite promising. Anxious to see how some of the higher level play looks now!


----------



## Balesir (Jun 4, 2012)

I like this article, too. It describes a game that could be unlike 4e but still good (as opposed to the last L&L which described a game unlike 4e but bad).

I still have some concerns: it doesn't sound like it will handle Epic play well (if getting enough bonus to barely succeed in busting down that Adamantine door on a 20 is a major undertaking, getting to any state where it's a reasonable thing to actually try is going to be impossible - repeat for climbing rainbows, stealing prisons and balancing on clouds). The "hordes of low level monsters" needing a "to hit" roll each is also going to get really old, really fast. And I still think much, much better definition of character powers will be beyond helpful.

But still - reasons to be cheerful!



Kamikaze Midget said:


> For noncombat elements, let me say that HP roughly equals "Number of Successes," so picking a lock or convincing a guard might require now a QUANTITY of successful checks, rather than just one or two really high rolls. A better-quality lock might not just be a tougher DC, it might also require 3 or 4 successful checks to unlock. A stubborn guard isn't a higher DC, he's just going to withstand more checks. You could call this a "threshold," and let the whole party contribute to solving the problem, especially if there's a hazard for failure (or even just some shotclock mechanic, like after failing a check (or STATMOD checks), you can't try again until after your next extended rest).



Yeah - we could call it a "Skill Challenge", maybe? 



Connorsrpg said:


> As a DM I like to describe what the PCs see and they act on that. Monsters certainly did not work that way in 4E. (Though I hope they keep the monster format and cool abilities...just not numbers based purely on level).



Isn't that just the equivalent of telling the players the information in code, and if they are on the same "wavelength" as you they 'get' the code and are well set, while if their model of "reality" differs from yours they mistranslate the code and get screwed?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 4, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> I like the idea of a +1 longsword now being _huge_.



Provided it grants +1 to hit. Maybe it only provides a bonus to damage?

Though I think you're right. The article seemed to me to be hinting at game elements that provide bonuses to the d20 roll but which are not assumed or necessary. Presumably magic items.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Jun 4, 2012)

I'd prefer somewhere in between - numbers go up, but not as quickly as they used to.

If you could take the 3rd edition numbers progression and cut them maybe in half, I think that would be a decent place to start.


----------



## DNH (Jun 4, 2012)

Really like the sound of this. It addresses a personal gripe that I have had with D&D for a long time. Looking forward to seeing more (when we get to see more character progression rules, probably).

I can't see how established players can complain about "too much maths" - time was when we had to try and figure out how to fit 33,000 cubic feet of fireball in the room!


----------



## YRUSirius (Jun 4, 2012)

Dragoslav said:


> It does leave me with one question I've been wondering though, and I ask this in all honesty: If we assume that 5 goblins are a challenge to a party of 1st-level characters, how many of you DMs are going to have the patience to manage, let's say, 25 goblins fighting a party of 10th-level adventurers?



Hm, a group of 25 goblins could be split up to groups of 5 and every group would attack one PC. So for every group of 5 kobolds that attack you throw 5d20 for the attack, you count how many attacks hit and throw damage dice accordingly.

I'm inclined to handle this differently though. Don't make attacks for the NPCs but let the PCs make AC rolls against static monster attack stats. You'll say: "Everyone of you gets attacked by five goblins, everyone makes 5 AC rolls (with a bonus of classic AC -10). The players roll all the dice, so the workload is handed over to the PCs instead of the lazy DM. This way everyone gets to feel special too, if they defend 4 of 5 attacks for example. 

-YRUSirius


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 4, 2012)

I suppose an interesting question is how to handle "elite" and "solo" monsters. A Dragon is usually a solitary enemy but a difficult challenge. SO naturally, it will have a lot of hit points. But is that alone sufficient, or doesn't a party actually get a certain advantage against him thanks to having multiple actions. Even if most abilities, even charms and dominates and the like, are based or limited by the target's hit points, some abilities will not. Isn't the Moradin's Defender ability giving an enemy disadvantage on his attacks? Imagine that used against a high hit point creature - it's far more powerful than it normally would be against a lower hit point monster with allies.

Or will high level creatures (excluding PCs?) by default gain extra actions?


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 4, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> Provided it grants +1 to hit. Maybe it only provides a bonus to damage?




Looks like that will be juicy too (a +1 to anything being big).


----------



## Scribble (Jun 4, 2012)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I suppose an interesting question is how to handle "elite" and "solo" monsters. A Dragon is usually a solitary enemy but a difficult challenge. SO naturally, it will have a lot of hit points. But is that alone sufficient, or doesn't a party actually get a certain advantage against him thanks to having multiple actions. Even if most abilities, even charms and dominates and the like, are based or limited by the target's hit points, some abilities will not. Isn't the Moradin's Defender ability giving an enemy disadvantage on his attacks? Imagine that used against a high hit point creature - it's far more powerful than it normally would be against a lower hit point monster with allies.
> 
> Or will high level creatures (excluding PCs?) by default gain extra actions?




He DID say as you gain levels you gain extra abilities. Perhaps for powerful monsters (and maybe certain PCs) this means extra attacks?


----------



## Vicar In A Tutu (Jun 4, 2012)

Great stuff! 5E is looking better and better


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 4, 2012)

Scribble said:


> He DID say as you gain levels you gain extra abilities. Perhaps for powerful monsters (and maybe certain PCs) this means extra attacks?



Could be. For some monsters it makes sense, for some less so. (Imagine you're a tthe level you fight Giants like you used to fight Goblins, but every Giant still has 2 attacks...)


----------



## Ratskinner (Jun 4, 2012)

I have nothin' but love for the bounded accuracy idea.


----------



## sheadunne (Jun 4, 2012)

I'm not convinced this will do anything to improve my enjoyment of the game. The last thing I want to be doing is rolling 20d6 damage at level 10 because the monster has 987 hp. Or fighting 84 goblins who die without me needing to roll. And I certainly don't want to be DMing that game. I want less dice not more. If you can't fit the dice in one hand, it's too many dice!

That said, I look forward to seeing how it shapes up.


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 4, 2012)

As far as L&L goes, it was kinda awesome.


----------



## Ratskinner (Jun 4, 2012)

sheadunne said:


> I'm not convinced this will do anything to improve my enjoyment of the game. The last thing I want to be doing is rolling 20d6 damage at level 10 because the monster has 987 hp. Or fighting 84 goblins who die without me needing to roll. And I certainly don't want to be DMing that game. I want less dice not more. If you can't fit the dice in one hand, it's too many dice!
> 
> That said, I look forward to seeing how it shapes up.




I dunno, some wizard players seem to like the bucket-o'-dice throw...

Nonetheless, I agree in general (the occasional spell notwithstanding). I hope that HP inflation doesn't become the newest issue in mistaken compensation for Bounded Accuracy.


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 4, 2012)

I am still afraid.

Skills are stripped from class and made into Backgrounds 
Styles are stripped from class and made into Themes
Accuracy is now stripped from class and bound to abilities.

*Class Features Have To Have Major Impacts Now.
*
There has to be very big reasons to pick one class over another or there will be major overshadowing. There has to be a good reason to be a soldier dwarf slayer FIGHTER with 16 Strength and Wisdom over a soldier dwarf slayer CLERIC with 16 Strength and Wisdom or a a soldier dwarf slayer ROGUE with 16 Strength and Wisdom.


----------



## am181d (Jun 4, 2012)

Two thoughts:

I do NOT understand what happened with skill rolls in 4e that freaked everyone out so much, but I gather it had something to do with scaling DC rolls based on levels. So the DC for climbing a rope keeps going up and up and up. Which is idiotic. 

In this week's column they joke "You also don't have to throw an Adamantine door in front of a party just to challenge them at higher levels." And I say, What? Isn't the point of going up to higher levels to face bigger, crazier threats. You SHOULD be bashing down Adamantine doors. When you need to make a climb roll, you shouldn't be climbing up a Tarasque's back, not a rope. For all the talk about 1st level characters being superheroes, I find the idea that a 20th level character will be challenged by an ordinary door kind of stupid.

Second: While I like the idea of a town taking on a dragon, I'm less thrilled with the dynamic of sword master vs. apprentice: The apprentice is going to his the sword master twice and the sword master is going to hit the apprentice twice, and then the apprentice is going to fall over. (As opposed to the apprentice being unable to hit the sword master, or only getting in one lucky blow before being taken down.)


----------



## Astrosicebear (Jun 4, 2012)

am181d said:


> Second: While I like the idea of a town taking on a dragon, I'm less thrilled with the dynamic of sword master vs. apprentice: The apprentice is going to his the sword master twice and the sword master is going to hit the apprentice twice, and then the apprentice is going to fall over. (As opposed to the apprentice being unable to hit the sword master, or only getting in one lucky blow before being taken down.)





First, I think everyone is over reacting at the word "Dragon".  There was no mention of size, and I am sure everyone's mind immediately pictured Smaug or some other colossal beast of legend.  I am sure the scenario presented wasn't meant to be that extreme.  And truthfully, I bet a town guard of 100 could take down a medium-large dragon with proper tactics and brute force.

Secondly, to your idea of apprentice vs master.  I think that's a bit too vague right now on class mechanics to define.  I am sure there will be builds that have Int based AC modifiers, or combat expertise, etc.  In those situations the apprentice could not hit the master(except on a 20, as it should be).  And yes when the master strikes back, it hurts a hell of a lot more and everything is right in the world.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 4, 2012)

am181d said:


> In this week's column they joke "You also don't have to throw an Adamantine door in front of a party just to challenge them at higher levels." And I say, What? Isn't the point of going up to higher levels to face bigger, crazier threats. You SHOULD be bashing down Adamantine doors. When you need to make a climb roll, you shouldn't be climbing up a Tarasque's back, not a rope. For all the talk about 1st level characters being superheroes, I find the idea that a 20th level character will be challenged by an ordinary door kind of stupid.




It is stupid. A level 20 party is meant to kill dragons, yet can't wreck a wooden door faster than you can say "I hit it with my axe"? How many hitpoints does a wooden door have, huh?


----------



## Grazzt (Jun 4, 2012)

am181d said:


> In this week's column they joke "You also don't have to throw an Adamantine door in front of a party just to challenge them at higher levels." And I say, What? Isn't the point of going up to higher levels to face bigger, crazier threats. You SHOULD be bashing down Adamantine doors.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## B.T. (Jun 4, 2012)

Will be honest, while I'm okay with the design philosophy, I'm getting tired of these corporate buzzwords. In 4e, we had "exception-based design," "design tech," "effects-based design," "narrative control," and "economy of actions." Now we have "modularity," "flatter math," and "bounded accuracy."

Yuck.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 4, 2012)

Dragoslav said:


> How many of you DMs are going to have the patience to manage, let's say, 25 goblins fighting a party of 10th-level adventurers?




Seeing that I really enjoyed running a horde of 100 ghouls against a high-level AD&D party, me.



Stormonu said:


> First level characters still won't be fighting trolls, and once regular trolls get mundane, there will be ubertrolls (or whatever they called) that are tougher than regular trolls.
> 
> Having played for 10 levels and going from killing a handful of goblins to killing 86 goblins on a regular basis isn't exactly something that sounds thrilling.  Why do you think we have 3-5 or more MM's per edition?




Sure. But you can choose to move on to bigger threats, while the DM running a campaign centering on a human nation's conflict with goblin tribes isn't forced to use increasingly leveled goblins just to challenge the party. There is no downside to you, you don't have to keep using goblins.



pemerton said:


> But even if damage reduction is a way of introducing a type of "depth" into combat that doesn't require escalating the DCs, what is the analogue of damage reduction for out of combat activities, given that (as far as we have seen to date) there is no analogue of hit points and damage there, but just the same old "make a check and have the GM adjudicate the result of success/failure".




The depth would have to come from other sources. For example, breaking down the Gates of Hell wouldn't just be "Break Portcullis - DC 21." You might need to gather sources of power or components that are too difficult to acquire for low-level characters.



Fenes said:


> In order for an Iron-banded wooden door to be tough to break down for a 20th level party it would need hitpoints on a level equal to a 20th level monster. But that would mean it's near-impossible to break down or damage at low levels (whioch breaks verisimilitude for anyone who ever used an axe)
> 
> Or wooden doors are somehow impossible to be damaged by weapons such as Axes (which destroys verisimilitude, period.)
> 
> ...




Or the increase in damage isn't a large as you assume. It could take a 1st-level PC 10 good axe swings to break down the iron-bound wooden door while the 20th-level character does it in three. Depends on how fast damage scales.



Danzauker said:


> There are a lot of other things, most of them I guess we still don't know, that can be used to "insulate" BBEGs from low level heroes.
> 
> For example, judging solely what was written in the article, they could give epic monsters high damage resistance, so that only high level heroes have a chance to actually damage them.




Or, in the case of the Tarrasque, requiring a _wish_ to permanently kill it. Not many low-level armies with wish spells.

And monster abilities can come into play. If the Tarrasque can Rampage (move through enemy squares, attacking each that you pass through), it can probably attack a couple or a few hig-level party members in a single attack. Against a low-level army in formation? Devastation as one would expect when fighting Godzilla.


----------



## Grazzt (Jun 4, 2012)

Fenes said:


> It is stupid. A level 20 party is meant to kill dragons, yet can't wreck a wooden door faster than you can say "I hit it with my axe"? How many hitpoints does a wooden door have, huh?




Wooden Door: AC 5, hp 10.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 4, 2012)

Grazzt said:


> Wooden Door: AC 5, hp 10.




And how on earth can any developer think this should be a challenge, even a minor one, for a level 20 party?


----------



## Dedekind (Jun 4, 2012)

One of the implications I love is that the party no longer needs to be all the same level for everybody to contribute. Long ago, we houseruled that everybody gets the same XP so that everybody levels up at the same time. 

In 2e, we made Resurrection easier to get so you wouldn't lose a level.

In 3e, we houseruled that death imposed a negative level until you received Y amount of XP.

In 4e, it was impossible to kill anyone so it didn't matter. 

Death penalties (where you lose a level) were seen as way too harsh, so we always avoided it. With bounded accuracy, I think it is much more feasible to have a party of characters with multiple different levels where everybody contributes significantly. 

(I recognize that it never was unworkable to have a multi-level party... but our group never liked it.)


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 4, 2012)

Balesir said:
			
		

> Yeah - we could call it a "Skill Challenge", maybe?




Sssshhh! Don't let the h4ters know. 

But where it could be different (and solve my major issues with SC's) is that they could be hard-coded into the obstacle at a realistic DC with explicit hazards without necessarily being quite as subject to DM fiat. 

But essentially, yeah, the skeleton of the Skill Challenge, but made specific.


----------



## SkidAce (Jun 4, 2012)

RangerWickett said:


> I like the article, but I feel like a lot of people bring up this sort of complaint against 4e DCs, and it's just completely against how I interpreted the rules.
> 
> The game wasn't saying "At 30th level, it's DC 25 to break down a door." It was saying, "If you want a somewhat challenging obstacle at 30th level, it should be DC 25." Now, to me, it was obvious that the obstacle needs to be something that matches the DC.
> 
> ...




I'm with you on this.


----------



## Grazzt (Jun 4, 2012)

Fenes said:


> And how on earth can any developer think this should be a challenge, even a minor one, for a level 20 party?




Most probably don't. It was a joke. As DM, unless there was something special about said door, a 20th-level fighter could chop through it with an axe in my game. No door stats needed, and no attack roll or damage roll needed. Player says "I chop down the door"....few rounds later, said door is gone. Time to roll for wandering monsters now.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 4, 2012)

Fenes said:


> And how on earth can any developer think this should be a challenge, even a minor one, for a level 20 party?




First, I think the stat provided for the door above is rediculously low. It's as if they based it on those cheap hollow _modern_ wooden doors used now. The old solid oak back door of my grandfather's house had more than 10 frickin hit points, I don't care what anyone says.

Second, the article mentioned breaking the door, whereas you refer to hacking down the door. Both methods have their own effect in the game world. Busting down the door with a single shove is much more likely to surprise those on the other side than taking your axe to it. IMO, YMMV.

Third, they don't think what you attribute to them:



> There's no need to constantly escalate the in-world descriptions to match a growing DC; an iron-banded door is just as tough to break down at 20th level as it was at 1st, and it *might still be a challenge for a party consisting of heroes without great Strength scores*.




Only if they don't have great Strength scores. Only speaking directly to breaking the door down in a single hit.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 4, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> First, I think the stat provided for the door above is rediculously low. It's as if they based it on those cheap hollow _modern_ wooden doors used now. The old solid oak back door of my grandfather's house had more than 10 frickin hit points, I don't care what anyone says.
> 
> Second, the article mentioned breaking the door, whereas you refer to hacking down the door. Both methods have their own effect in the game world. Busting down the door with a single shove is much more likely to surprise those on the other side than taking your axe to it. IMO, YMMV.
> 
> ...




By that logic a house cat is a challenge for a level 20 party if they don't have handle animal to calm her down, only speaking to dealing with a cat through handle animal. That a dev would even mention a wooden door as presenting a challenge to a level 20 party means he either has not thought at all about his example (I hope that's it), honestly didn't think that people would not force open a door if they can simply smash it in one blow, or actually doesn't think smashing doors through doing damage should be possible.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 4, 2012)

It's possible that the hit point and damage scaling will be more erratic or tiered than one would guess from the article alone. Just from what we have seen thus far, it is possible, for example, that creatures come in several effective types:  PCs, "effectively minions", etc.  

Creatures that are effectively minions have hit points and damage that start with rats and kobolds, and then expand very slowly over 20 levels or so.  At higher levels, these are underage trolls, proto-gelatinious cubes, etc.  They are a threat in numbers, and at higher levels may have some special abilities that make them extremely dangerous to low-level characters, but even enough kobolds can take them out.

Then you've got standard monsters and/or PCs.  The scaling of hit points and damage starts with something like PCs, and runs briskly up from there, but not completely out of control.  (And remember, the current playtest numbers are deliberately inflated here.)  In other words, once testing is done,* these numbers will be set at the lowest possible scaling to alow the PCs to perform as expected versus monsters in this same group--but no lower*.

Then you've got "elites", "epics", whatever you want to call them.  Perhaps some of these will have hit points and damage that go through the stratosphere.  But thanks to the preceding, you can *also* have damage resistance, multiple actions as a threat, and any number of such things.  That is, instead of having to standardize on one, any of those work as expected in isolation.  Thus, you can mix and match to get the flavor of the creature.  Elite Wraiths perhaps don't have extra actions or crazy hit points, but do have some DR or other defenses that make them hard to hurt.  

Heh.  The whole thing is a natural outgrowth of the focus on the math that started with 3E, intensified in 3.5, and got really serious over the course of 4E.  They've started to really grapple with the side implications of the math, not merely the main line.  Be interesting to see how this shakes out.


----------



## FireLance (Jun 4, 2012)

Well, colour me skeptical. The way I see it, the bounded accuracy system simply means one or more of the following:

1. The PCs never improve, apart from getting more hit points and damage bonuses. You're no longer on a treadmill, but it doesn't matter because you aren't even moving in the first place.

2. The PCs improve, the monsters (or some monsters) don't, apart from getting more hit points and damage bonuses. The monsters almost never hit the PCs when they attack, and the PCs almost always hit the monsters when they attack (and some people say Reaper is broken). The more levels you gain, the easier the game gets.

3. The PCs improve, so do the monsters (or some monsters). You're still on a treadmill, but if you squint, you can almost believe that you're not (if only some people put so much effort into suspending their disbelief in other parts of the game). The difference is quantitative, not qualitative.

2 and 3 aren't mutually exclusive, and there is a continuum between 1 and 2. Somewhere between 1 and 2, the PCs are maybe hitting the monsters 85% of the time, and the monsters are maybe missing the PCs 85% of the time. 

Oh well, it's not a deal-breaker for me, and I can always house-rule in level-dependent attack and defense bonuses for the PCs and the monsters if I want.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Jun 4, 2012)

Dedekind said:


> One of the implications I love is that the party no longer needs to be all the same level for everybody to contribute. Long ago, we houseruled that everybody gets the same XP so that everybody levels up at the same time.




Be wary - if damage/hit points are the primary indicator of what level monsters you can fight then a lower level character might have to be careful..

Though against a horde of things, they'd stand a chance, and I would love to see different level characters make a comeback. I wouldn't use level loss as a penalty for dying, or getting hit by the right type of undead, however, more that I could reward players with different XP for achieving different things in character, or have characters miss sessions and not have things get too out of balance.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jun 4, 2012)

For the most part, I also love it.  However, the one issue about the flatter math / bounded accuracy that I know I would probably end up house-ruling out (if what is currently in the playtest stays in the playtest) is the "Multiple Checks" / Take 20 type rule within the doc.  I think I'd probably remove it.

Because as the document says, DC 27 is supposed to be an Immortal DC... and yet a character with a +4 ability mod, +3 skill bonus and the time to do Multiple Checks can theoretically defeat an Immortal DC all the time (assuming no Hazards or penalties for failure, and the DM doesn't rule the lock aribitrarily "impossible".)

This is the one issue where I personally would make a ruling that every skill check is "one and done".  You fail, that's it.  You just don't have the skill or the patience or the conceptual intellect to complete the task.  This particular instance is just too much for you.  If you roll to pick a DC 20 lock and fail the roll... you just "don't get it" for the particular lock.  Something just doesn't click for you (no pun intended).  It doesn't matter if you have 20 minutes of uninterrupted and stress-free time to try... you just won't ever be able to pick this lock unless your situation changes in some way and I allow a second roll (like if you go up in level, or you get an ability buff or something.)

Thus... a 1st level Thief with a +7 (mod/skill) _might_ find that Immortal lock that they can pick (rolling a 20, which shows off some bizarre almost supernatural insight into the inner-workings of _this particular_ lock-- and that would be a HUGE deal for the character)... but not every Immortal lock will be that way.

(And yes, I also know that as DM I could just rule that the Immortal lock is impossible to the 1st level thief if I wanted... but if that was the case, then I wouldn't set a DC to it in the first place.)


----------



## Dedekind (Jun 4, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> Be wary - if damage/hit points are the primary indicator of what level monsters you can fight then a lower level character might have to be careful..
> 
> ...





True, I don't think the game would ever really support a party with more than a couple of levels difference among the PCs. Unless it is _really_ flat math and I don't think that would be much fun. 

I don't think I really advocate level penalties for death, but bounded accuracy would handle XP/Level penalties for death neatly, however.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 4, 2012)

The ideas in this L&L have some potential. There are potential pitfalls.

1) There's risk of hit point attrition grind if the rate of improvement in damage is outstripped by the rate of improvement in hit points. 

2) The d20 will tend to be a bigger determinant in EVERY combat than in previous editions, not just the ones against level-appropriate challenges. That's a potential issue with everything going on in 5e with reduced bonuses. The game may be swingier for important checks and combat.

3) High hit point monsters may encourage use of save or die/suck/sit encounter-ending powers because you get to bypass the massive hp sink the monster has. Basing these powers on damage or even hit point level, while a balancing mechanism, undermines the verisimilitude of the powers in the first place that may harm willing adoption of the system.


----------



## mcintma (Jun 4, 2012)

I like this Bounded idea very much, but one red flag goes up for me: it seems HP leap to even greater importance under this system.

How will the low-HP glass-cannon classes (rogues and wizards) fare in such a system? Will the correlated damage inflation make them easy kills when hit? The starting HP bump is only a 1-time help... so the important thing will be to carefully playtest this at mid+ level. 

But as long as they recognize the possibility of this problem, I'm sure they can address it with a tweak or 2.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 4, 2012)

Perhaps bounded accuracy is what leaves room to have magic items that grant attack bonuses, without breaking the math?


----------



## Dedekind (Jun 4, 2012)

Another implication is using XP to make magic items isn't as big a deal... the PC may be a little behind, but will still be effective when adventuring. 

(Barring the potential unbalancing effect of the magic items, of course.)


----------



## Hawke (Jun 4, 2012)

I like the idea of controlling character progression numbers from a DM point of view.  I found it challenging in 4E to have an idea of difficulty especially when we were leveling at a faster pace.  Inherent bonuses helped a bunch, this seems to say apply inherent bonuses by simply removing the bonuses to the players and monsters.

I am concerned from both the playtest and this article that it seems to be a major goal of this edition to allow combats of 30 kobolds vs. the PCs. Really? I don't recall that being a major problem in 4E that needed fixing - between minions and swarms (including using angry mob swarms on players) I thought they could easily carry that forward as a positive lesson to be repeated with a few tweaks.


----------



## Blackbrrd (Jun 4, 2012)

DEFCON 1 said:


> For the most part, I also love it.  However, the one issue about the flatter math / bounded accuracy that I know I would probably end up house-ruling out (if what is currently in the playtest stays in the playtest) is the "Multiple Checks" / Take 20 type rule within the doc.  I think I'd probably remove it.
> 
> Because as the document says, DC 27 is supposed to be an Immortal DC... and yet a character with a +4 ability mod, +3 skill bonus and the time to do Multiple Checks can theoretically defeat an Immortal DC all the time (assuming no Hazards or penalties for failure, and the DM doesn't rule the lock aribitrarily "impossible".)
> 
> ...



Picking a lock? Just give a -1 penalty for each failure. That's often how it works in real life. If you try something requiring manual dexterity and patience, the more times you try without a proper break, the harder it gets as you get more and more annoyed.


----------



## grimslade (Jun 4, 2012)

The door example is silly, but the problem it addresses is not. Both 3.x and 4E began to get into bizarre ways to represent escalating skill DCs. Just like kobolds being a threat longer, iron bound doors are going to be a challenge longer. You don't need to bring out the adamantine bound astral diamond door to challenge the half Orc with a 26 Str and skill focus: Smash! Talk about the tail wagging the dog. You needed to come up with descriptive items to justify the math. Someone bothers to put up an adamantine door, the PC better be approaching a demigod of strength to break it down. Easier to break through the wall of stone at that point.


----------



## pauljathome (Jun 4, 2012)

While I'm obviously in the minority (at least in this thread) I loathe this. I want my characters to become visibly more skilled as they advance in levels, I want creatures that used to be a threat to become irrelevant, I want there to be monsters that a village working together can NOT destroy.

At least, that is what I want in D&D. I've already got lots of other games with much, much flatter power curves. Power inflation is part of what makes D&D what it is.

3.x/Pathfinder mostly did this well IMO. Characters got more skilled. Difficulties also often improve but only when it makes sense in world. The locks in the palace are more difficult to pick than those in the cottage. The system had flaws (really twinking out a character for a particular skill) but basically worked. The characters DID visibly advance while remaining challenged.

I have no problem with flattening the power curve. I have huge problems with eliminating it.

Its also going to be hard to playtest this. My expectation is that I'd find it quite boring to play the same characters from Lvl1 to higher levels as they'd just not really grow. Finding out if that expectation is true or not would mean playing for several months.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Jun 4, 2012)

Obviously, a character can try again once the situation has improved. Better informed, better prepared, better equipped or whatever can constitute an improvement (if the DM approves).


----------



## Splurch (Jun 4, 2012)

I also like characters that show increase in skill as well as hp's and damage. I will hold any judgement until the final game comes out and I like a lot of what is being done with 5E. But if you cannot make a skilled fighter for example who's skill makes him hit more for less damage it will not be a system I go with. I think feats and themes will handle this so I have hope!


----------



## mlund (Jun 4, 2012)

The pile of Goblins at higher levels is a non-issue for me. Just like when I know I'll have wave upon wave of minions in 4E I'll use a simple script or web service and pre-generate a stack of d20 rolls for the mooks and just cross them off one at a time as I use them. It's way better than having to toss and read handfuls upon handfuls of d20s every round - eliminating the entire time-crunch / logistical nightmare or rolling.

- Marty Lund


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 4, 2012)

FireLance said:


> Well, colour me skeptical. The way I see it, the bounded accuracy system simply means one or more of the following:
> 
> 1. The PCs never improve, apart from getting more hit points and damage bonuses. You're no longer on a treadmill, but it doesn't matter because you aren't even moving in the first place.




he explicitely stated, that there are bonuses to hit. But if the fighter is getting a bonus it would bring him ahead of the curve, not just allowing to keep up. (What i said in other posts!)
If you go back to ADnD, the fighter thac0 improvement of 1/level allowed him to pull ahead. The cleric was next with 2/3 levels. And if you look at AC improvements of monsters, those were real bonuses. Only special monsters, that had an in game justification, had very high (actually low) AC. In those fight´s the fighter was the only one getting real hits in. But those monsters were usually also resistant to magic. So a dragon, even though it had very low hp, was nearly unkillable, as it was hit only on very lucky hits.




FireLance said:


> 2. The PCs improve, the monsters (or some monsters) don't, apart from getting more hit points and damage bonuses. The monsters almost never hit the PCs when they attack, and the PCs almost always hit the monsters when they attack (and some people say Reaper is broken). The more levels you gain, the easier the game gets.




With relative low scaling, you can balance hitting more often with HP. This also was used in ADnD. And it was quite useful, that PCs were usually not hit by many monsters, but if they were hit, a good part of the hp were gone. Swingy, but quite interesting.



FireLance said:


> 3. The PCs improve, so do the monsters (or some monsters). You're still on a treadmill, but if you squint, you can almost believe that you're not (if only some people put so much effort into suspending their disbelief in other parts of the game). The difference is quantitative, not qualitative.




4e like. When I read: 4e will only have +1/2 level bonuses, i was quite happy. When I found out, that actually +1/level was expected, i got nervous. When you also scale hp and AC, attack and damage on every level, you have a function that is power(level) = level^4 which will make the game scale very badly.



FireLance said:


> 2 and 3 aren't mutually exclusive, and there is a continuum between 1 and 2. Somewhere between 1 and 2, the PCs are maybe hitting the monsters 85% of the time, and the monsters are maybe missing the PCs 85% of the time.




Seems about right for fighters. They are fighting their whole life. If they miss half of their swings and if they are hit on every second swing, their life would be very very hard.
If they enconter a fighter monster, it would be 50-50 again. But against most of the rubble, a fighter should fight along that line.

A wizard, who would not gain bonuses to hit and to AC, will - without magical protection - be hit 85% of the time and miss 85% of his hits.

There just needs to be some mechanic, to protect the weaker member.



FireLance said:


> Oh well, it's not a deal-breaker for me, and I can always house-rule in level-dependent attack and defense bonuses for the PCs and the monsters if I want.




Well, do so if you want. But if you add them on both sides, for every non fighting class, you really do yourself no favour as you break versimilitude:

level 20 Sage: Never hit by the fighter... and hitting the fighter all day? Really?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 4, 2012)

Fenes said:


> By that logic a house cat is a challenge for a level 20 party if they don't have handle animal to calm her down, only speaking to dealing with a cat through handle animal.




If the players have chosen to deal with a house cat through no other means than trying to calm it down through a skill they haven't devoted any attention to, then under Bounded Accuracy the task is relatively no more or less challenging based on the characters' levels. This makes sense to me. If they choose to use other abilities they've gained over those levels to calm the cat (devoting future and/or multiple skill choices to dealing with natural animals, spells, general class abilities, etc.), then the chances of success change. This also makes sense to me.

Under 4E, if the players have chosen to deal with a house cat through no other means than trying to calm it down through a skill they haven't devoted any attention to, the house cat is less challenging for 20th-level characters because they gain +10 to their checks automatically over their 1st-level counterparts. As a 4E fan I have no problem with the +1/2 level bonus, though I don't find it integral to the game to figth for it over the concept of Bounded Accuracy.

Under 3E, if the players have chosen to deal with a house cat through no other means than trying to calm it down through a skill they haven't devoted any attention to, they will fail no matter what level they are because Handle Animal is Trained Only. But that's another matter. Let's say it's a skill that isn't Trained only. They will _most likely_ find the task less challenging due to 5 stat increases and a +6 item in the relavant stat by 20th-level.

Under AD&D, if the players have chosen to deal with a house cat through no other means than trying to calm it down through a skill they haven't devoted any attention to in a stat that all of the party is weak in, then the task is relatively no more or less challenging based on the characters' levels. When the stats are higher the chance of success is moderated more. An 18 stat is (without modifier) a 90% success rate in AD&D, while an 18 stat vs. DC 11 is 70%.



Fenes said:


> That a dev would even mention a wooden door as presenting a challenge to a level 20 party means he either has not thought at all about his example (I hope that's it), honestly didn't think that people would not force open a door if they can simply smash it in one blow, or actually doesn't think smashing doors through doing damage should be possible.




More likely he was trying to use an example of a skill and unfortunately chose one that also had a link to hit points so he could be nit-picked. The point he was making seems to be understood by most.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Jun 4, 2012)

billd91 said:


> 2) The d20 will tend to be a bigger determinant in EVERY combat than in previous editions, not just the ones against level-appropriate challenges. That's a potential issue with everything going on in 5e with reduced bonuses. The game may be swingier for important checks and combat.




The game will be no more or less swingy than before unless you change the dice you are rolling. A d20+1 is just as swingy in outcome as a d20+999. A change in dice, or the number of dice would be required to affect swinginess.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 4, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> The game will be no more or less swingy than before unless you change the dice you are rolling. A d20+1 is just as swingy in outcome as a d20+999. A change in dice, or the number of dice would be required to affect swinginess.




You may still have a 20 point range, but the swinginess depends on the target number. If the bonus and the target number increase at the same rate, then, yes, the game retains the exact same swinginess level. If the growth of your bonus outstrips the growth of the target number, however, the results become *less* dependent on the random variable. That's one nice feature of previous editions of D&D. Orcs and other relatively weak humanoid opponents become a lot easier to hit for characters advancing in level. Fights against them are less swingy.

If the attack bonus stays about the same but damage increases, you could end up with results that lurch between feast (a high-damage hit) and famine (a miss). That's pretty swingy in my book.


----------



## Wulfgar76 (Jun 4, 2012)

The more I think about it, 'Bounded Accuracy' has the potential to make D&D Next far and away the best edition ever published.

For me, of the concepts presented so far for 5e, have ranged from average to pretty good – but this is brilliant.


----------



## Tortoise (Jun 4, 2012)

Dragoslav said:


> Great post. It really confirms everything we need to know about their design philosophy for accuracy bonuses, the flat math, etc.
> 
> It does leave me with one question I've been wondering though, and I ask this in all honesty: If we assume that 5 goblins are a challenge to a party of 1st-level characters, how many of you DMs are going to have the patience to manage, let's say, 25 goblins fighting a party of 10th-level adventurers?




While larger numbers of critters means a longer combat, the hoard of rats encounter (18 cave rats and 1 dire rat, coming on the tail-end of a 6 kobold encounter) from this weekends playtest wasn't that bad or that long. I don't foresee any major problem handling that many critters.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jun 4, 2012)

sheadunne said:


> I'm not convinced this will do anything to improve my enjoyment of the game. The last thing I want to be doing is rolling 20d6 damage at level 10 because the monster has 987 hp.



While I seriously doubt this will be the case, it is sort of my concern as well. I think, on the balance, I really like the idea of bounded accuracy. But the HP inflation can't be astronomical to make up for the flattened accuracy. I know there are people who love games like Final Fantasy, but one of the reasons I'm not one of them is hit points numbering in the thousands. To a large extent, this is also why I don't like a lot of MMOs.

In short, I think bounded accuracy with HP increases is great, so long as it's controlled and doesn't go too far out of whack either.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 4, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> While I seriously doubt this will be the case, it is sort of my concern as well. I think, on the balance, I really like the idea of bounded accuracy. But the HP inflation can't be astronomical to make up for the flattened accuracy. I know there are people who love games like Final Fantasy, but one of the reasons I'm not one of them is hit points numbering in the thousands. To a large extent, this is also why I don't like a lot of MMOs.




I hear you. It's like watching the huge numbers pop up in Diablo 3 as well. I can't say I'm really fond of the number inflation there either.


----------



## Tortoise (Jun 4, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> I think this may prove to be the single biggest conceptual Improvement in D&D since its inception. It is odd that something that seems so obvious now has never really been discussed before, but it neatly handles a whole range of issues.
> 
> I'm delighted!




Brother you said it. Flattening the math seems to be putting a lot of issues to bed and leaving everyone more time to play. As a DM I look forward to seeing more of how this works during playtesting.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 4, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> One difficulty I have, is that I don't think I like worlds where the most powerful BBEGs, such as the Tarrasque or its equivalent, can be defeated by armies. I want only heroes to be able to fight these things. Cuz that's cool.




I agree, but the fix for this is quite simple: Damage reduction. Because damage does scale with level, DR renders a monster immune to attack by low-level foes while leaving it vulnerable to high-level ones.


----------



## Estlor (Jun 4, 2012)

Mental snicker at the people who argue this idea is bad because, "The PCs never improve."

Here's a dirty little secret: PCs never improved.  By the time you got that nice double-digit bonus to attack and defenses, the monsters you ran across got it too.  So while you end up throwing 45s on your attacks and sport a 25 AC, those goblins have turned into mindflayers that have an equally higher attack bonus and defenses so your chance to hit is still 45-55% just like it was at level 1.

So all Bounded Accuracy does is remove false improvement and the addition of large numbers from the game.

Also, really, this is the most 4e thing they've shown us so far.  Strip away the 4e scaling bonus of 1/2 level for PCs and 1/level for monsters and you're left with ability mods of +3 - +9 to attack and defense and attacks that deal progressively more damage dice.

Slap some tactical terrain modifiers and forced movement onto the system and you've got a streamlined 4e with the classic D&D fluff put back on it.  And to think a few months ago people were worried DDN was going to be a 3.x clone with none of the trappings of 4e.


----------



## B.T. (Jun 4, 2012)

There is a fine line of balance to walk when dealing with hit points as defense and AC as defense.  If the AC gets too high, attacks don't matter.  If the HP gets too high, attacks don't matter (and it's a pain to deal with combat).  With any luck, the developers will get this right.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jun 4, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> I agree, but the fix for this is quite simple: Damage reduction. Because damage does scale with level, DR renders a monster immune to attack by low-level foes while leaving it vulnerable to high-level ones.



That's an excellent point, and one I'd xp you for if it was turned on.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 4, 2012)

B.T. said:


> There is a fine line of balance to walk when dealing with hit points as defense and AC as defense.  If the AC gets too high, attacks don't matter.  If the HP gets too high, attacks don't matter (and it's a pain to deal with combat).  With any luck, the developers will get this right.




The AC I can get, as when it is sky high, lower level things don't even stand a chance of hitting it or to hit it requires magic and magic gained at an expected level.

But HP? Why don't attacks matter as HP get high? The way I am reading it, the HP goes up for "higher level critters" and the heroes have their attack damage go up as they gain higher level. So their attacks are doing more damage and still bringing the HP total of the creature down in a timely fashion.

What this makes possible is for a band of town citizens to go tackle something otherwise out of their league. They can hit, because the AC isn't all that great. But it has tons of hit points. So individually their attacks are rather pointless. But band together 30 villagers and suddenly the big giant harassing the town has a legitimate concern as even through individually their damage is low, together they can make up for that.

Or am I completely missing the point?


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 4, 2012)

Dragoslav said:


> Great post. It really confirms everything we need to know about their design philosophy for accuracy bonuses, the flat math, etc.
> 
> It does leave me with one question I've been wondering though, and I ask this in all honesty: If we assume that 5 goblins are a challenge to a party of 1st-level characters, how many of you DMs are going to have the patience to manage, let's say, 25 goblins fighting a party of 10th-level adventurers?



I am going to give an answer to this, without having read the thread beyond this post.
I would take a leaf from wargaming and 4e. Make the goblins large swarms of  goblins . The to hit number is the same as per regular goblins but the hit points and damage output is the total of the goblins in the swarm(unit).
Hit point damage to the swarm takes out a number of goblins = total damage/goblin hp round up.
If the swarm suffers 25% losses it makes a morale check (probalely a medium difficulty check), 50% losses it automatically breaks. Each swarm that breaks forces a morale check on each neighbouring unit (probably an easy check).
This is my first thought on the matter. It could be refined when one has a better knolwdge of the system.


----------



## Tortoise (Jun 4, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> It sounds great.
> 
> Now for some good old fashion Minigiant pessimism.
> 
> ...




Have you playtested yet?

Not everything hits/hurts, but the potential to hit/hurt lasts longer for lower level monsters than in previous systems.

You certainly can make a mountain of goblins. My players made a mountain of kobolds and rats Saturday (with some risk involved)

Ability scores aren't as all-powerful as one might expect in this format, while they can be important. Besides, magic (even a measly +1 or +2) will seem quite nice without needing a +5 to feel it is powerful.

Equal strength characters will be close early on, but it appears some separation begins at level 1 and widens slowly over the levels. This makes it easier on the DM to challenge the whole party instead of jacking things out of everyone except the fighter's reach or making the fighter feel like things are too easy.

While I have only seen the first open playtest material and do have reservation about some elements, now that I've had a chance to run it and talk about it post game, I like where things could be headed and want to participate more in the playtesting.

I doubt at present that we have to worry about this becoming Pokemon the RPG.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 4, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> Under 3E, if the players have chosen to deal with a house cat through no other means than trying to calm it down through a skill they haven't devoted any attention to, they will fail no matter what level they are because Handle Animal is Trained Only. But that's another matter. Let's say it's a skill that isn't Trained only. They will most likely find the task less challenging due to 5 stat increases and a +6 item in the relavant stat by 20th-level.




PENDANT MODE
[sblock]
That's not entirely accurate. Believe it or not, Handle Animal, by RAW, isn't used to interact with wild animals, it's used to train animals. The skill used to interact with wild animals, in 3e, is Diplomacy (and only via the Wild Empathy class ability). Which means that, in broader terms, you're basically right: anyone who doesn't know how to do this will fail when they attempt to do this. And if Wild Empathy was something anyone could do with a Diplomacy check, the DC remains static, so they do find it easier (which leads to a lot of criticism against non-scaling DC's...but that's another issue). 
[/sblock]



			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> One difficulty I have, is that I don't think I like worlds where the most powerful BBEGs, such as the Tarrasque or its equivalent, can be defeated by armies. I want only heroes to be able to fight these things. Cuz that's cool.




I like dividing this up based on "tiers," which might be conceived of as big, flat, bonuses. Say, everything in Epic Tier gets a flat +20 bonus to everything. Now, no one below that has a chance, and anyone above that can maybe do stuff to each other.


----------



## Tortoise (Jun 4, 2012)

Fenes said:


> In order for an Iron-banded wooden door to be tough to break down for a 20th level party it would need hitpoints on a level equal to a 20th level monster. But that would mean it's near-impossible to break down or damage at low levels (whioch breaks verisimilitude for anyone who ever used an axe)
> 
> Or wooden doors are somehow impossible to be damaged by weapons such as Axes (which destroys verisimilitude, period.)
> 
> ...




That's almost funny, but no, not how it works.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 4, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I like dividing this up based on "tiers," which might be conceived of as big, flat, bonuses. Say, everything in Epic Tier gets a flat +20 bonus to everything. Now, no one below that has a chance, and anyone above that can maybe do stuff to each other.




Yeah, or switch checks to d20 + Ability Scores; the fulfillment of PCs' true potential.


----------



## B.T. (Jun 4, 2012)

IronWolf said:


> The AC I can get, as when it is sky high, lower level things don't even stand a chance of hitting it or to hit it requires magic and magic gained at an expected level.
> 
> But HP? Why don't attacks matter as HP get high? The way I am reading it, the HP goes up for "higher level critters" and the heroes have their attack damage go up as they gain higher level. So their attacks are doing more damage and still bringing the HP total of the creature down in a timely fashion.
> 
> ...



My point is that once hit point bloat sets in, there is little difference between a monster with super-high AC and a monster with low AC but many hit points.  For instance, take a dragon with 50 HP that can only be hit on a natural 20.  If twenty people attack him, each person doing 10 HP on a hit, then it will take an average of five rounds to kill him.  On the other hand, if the dragon can be hit on a 1 but has 1,000 HP, it will still take those twenty villagers ten rounds to kill him.

The goal should be to find a middle ground between the two.


----------



## mlund (Jun 4, 2012)

B.T. said:


> My point is that once hit point bloat sets in, there is little difference between a monster with super-high AC and a monster with low AC but many hit points.




I disagree. There's a ton of difference between "you can't hit me" and "your DPS is pitiful." For one thing, any rider effects on hitting are completely negated by the former but have full effect on the latter.

Also, Armor Class only applies to melee and projectile attacks. High AC won't save you from a Fireball, and high HP can at least give you a Charisma check against getting Dominated.

The two are not interchangeable in terms of what they do. If nothing else, AC is binary while HP is far more granular.

- Marty Lund


----------



## Incenjucar (Jun 4, 2012)

Estlor said:


> Mental snicker at the people who argue this idea is bad because, "The PCs never improve."
> 
> Here's a dirty little secret: PCs never improved.  By the time you got that nice double-digit bonus to attack and defenses, the monsters you ran across got it too.  So while you end up throwing 45s on your attacks and sport a 25 AC, those goblins have turned into mindflayers that have an equally higher attack bonus and defenses so your chance to hit is still 45-55% just like it was at level 1.
> 
> ...




This is a gross misstatement of how the game is expected to be played in 4E. While most encounters, in order to be a challenge, are composed of monsters of your level, DMs are actively encouraged to give PCs a chance at things well below their own ability on occasion, to make it clear to them exactly how much they've improved - you should see the glee on the players' faces when they fight 10 level 2 cultists at level 4, which are identical to the ones they face at level 1 in packs of 5. Move far enough along, and you convert these into minions so that they can still do SOMETHING in the fight, but can now be 20 in number.

Similarly, DCs in 4E are only expected to scale IF YOU WANT A CHALLENGE. Climbing a normal rope in normal conditions never gets any harder. A level 20 fighter in 4E is going to be kicking down that solid oak door without being impeded while that the level 20 5E fighter has to hack away at it. A 4E character might have to hack away at that rune-covered door, but the 5E fighter will probably need a work crew. That's a very different flavor and range of ability, and both are fine in their own way.

Please don't misrepresent past editions. It doesn't help us learn from them.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Jun 4, 2012)

billd91 said:


> You may still have a 20 point range, but the swinginess depends on the target number. If the bonus and the target number increase at the same rate, then, yes, the game retains the exact same swinginess level. If the growth of your bonus outstrips the growth of the target number, however, the results become *less* dependent on the random variable. That's one nice feature of previous editions of D&D. Orcs and other relatively weak humanoid opponents become a lot easier to hit for characters advancing in level. Fights against them are less swingy.
> 
> If the attack bonus stays about the same but damage increases, you could end up with results that lurch between feast (a high-damage hit) and famine (a miss). That's pretty swingy in my book.




I understand your definition now. I think we'll find that the PCs will gain some bonuses with level such that earlier opponents are easier to hit, and indeed, a hit will be sufficient to kill. For the toughest monsters (ancient red dragons, storm giants, etc) the bonuses will bring the PCs into the likelihood to hit range that they had at 1st level against Orcs. Growth in character abilities (breadth) will probably make everything less swingy overall anyway (buffs, ways to gain advantage, more attacks etc).

It's worth noting also that by increasing damage and hitpoints (depth), swinginess is also reduced. Either more dice or static bonuses, random factors are reduced.


----------



## DDogwood (Jun 4, 2012)

ardoughter said:


> I am going to give an answer to this, without having read the thread beyond this post.
> I would take a leaf from wargaming and 4e. Make the goblins large swarms of  goblins . The to hit number is the same as per regular goblins but the hit points and damage output is the total of the goblins in the swarm(unit).
> Hit point damage to the swarm takes out a number of goblins = total damage/goblin hp round up.
> If the swarm suffers 25% losses it makes a morale check (probalely a medium difficulty check), 50% losses it automatically breaks. Each swarm that breaks forces a morale check on each neighbouring unit (probably an easy check).
> This is my first thought on the matter. It could be refined when one has a better knolwdge of the system.




I agree, treating a large number of goblins as a swarm would probably be the best solution. In fact, good swarm rules could be the basis for a mass combat system as well. Morale rules are probably not necessary, as hit points can represent morale easily enough. 

When a swarm runs out of hit points, the surviving creatures disperse and flee. If it contains any fearless members, like a horde of orcs with a few berserkers mixed in, that could be a special effect - e.g. when the swarm is defeated, 2d4 orc berserkers remain while the rest of the orcs flee.


----------



## Tortoise (Jun 4, 2012)

sheadunne said:


> I'm not convinced this will do anything to improve my enjoyment of the game. The last thing I want to be doing is rolling 20d6 damage at level 10 because the monster has 987 hp. Or fighting 84 goblins who die without me needing to roll. And I certainly don't want to be DMing that game. I want less dice not more. If you can't fit the dice in one hand, it's too many dice!
> 
> That said, I look forward to seeing how it shapes up.




Not a Champions player I see! 

I suspect there will be methods suggested in the rules at some point for how to get around the over-flowing cups of dice to roll.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 4, 2012)

B.T. said:


> My point is that once hit point bloat sets in, there is little difference between a monster with super-high AC and a monster with low AC but many hit points.  For instance, take a dragon with 50 HP that can only be hit on a natural 20.  If twenty people attack him, each person doing 10 HP on a hit, then it will take an average of five rounds to kill him.  On the other hand, if the dragon can be hit on a 1 but has 1,000 HP, it will still take those twenty villagers ten rounds to kill him.




Actually, there's a huge difference.

The main difference is that it is possible, however unlikely, that the villagers can kill the first dragon in the first round.

They are completely incapable of doing that to Dragon #2.

Also, the other benefit to low-AC, high-HP combat vs. the reverse is that you can more easily track the "flow" of the combat.  One of the problems with high-AC, low-HP combat is that it's very hard to look at the current status of the participants and determine how things are going - and how much longer things will take.

Ferinstance, three rounds of high-AC, low-HP combat might very well look like "Miss, miss, miss."  Are you winning?  Are you losing?  How much longer until you're defeated?  You don't know and, really, have no way to even estimate, because you have no real information to base your estimate on.

On the other hand, with low-AC, high-HP combat, you're more likely to see something like "Miss, hit, hit," and you can compare the damage from those two hits to your current HP totals and say, "You know, I think this monster will kill me in about 3 more rounds; I should probably run away," or "Hah! Those two hits did a tiny fraction of my hit points; I can stand up to these creatures all day!"  You might be wrong - things like critical hits could make the combat more swingy than you're anticipating - but at least you have an idea.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 4, 2012)

"Bounded Accuracy" sounds like a target number metric with definite top and bottom quantities. Ability scores are bounded at 20 for characters, 30 for monsters. DC numbers are bounded at "10 & less" as trivial (though you could require a roll) and 27 as only possible for mortal *groups* and never mortal individuals. (Though +3 skill & +5 ability score = 28 TN max)

What I don't read this as is: No increases in roll modifiers by class levels for attacks or skill checks. It doesn't mean there must be numerical advancement, but it may be optional and the Target Number Range / "Bounded Accuracy" would be taken into account so it isn't advanced out of. This sounds like early D&D combat matrix tables and their design, which did something a little bit similar though not linearly.

I agree with all the points he highlights and view them as improvements too.

Increased odds is actual increased ability in the game world. 
Every PC has a fighting chance within the bounds. 
Challenges can be met early, if desired, and older ones can never be ignored. 
Converting new material becomes easier for DMs the more they run their game. 
Creatures en masse increase their challenge level more than the sum of each apart. 
A consistent DM enables player comprehension of the traits of his or her world, the creature's powers, the difficulty of an area, etc. (one of the most important aspects of the game and definitely adventure design). 
And lastly, it's good for verisimilitude (whatever that means for you).

Another selling point: This also means different level characters can play together in the same adventure. Equipment and the environment improves a characters odds separately from class level, but it still depends to be seen whether magic items and other possible resources do too. Either way it would be a lot easier to kit bash now. 



> "If players have the means of breaking down the super difficult adamantine door, it's because they pursued player options that make that so, and it is not simply a side effect of continuing to adventure."



 To me this is only part of the story. It's also every decision made in game changing who the characters are in relation to the world too. And that they all can go beyond that door no matter their current player options, it will simply be more or less difficult to do.


----------



## Tortoise (Jun 4, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> I am still afraid.
> 
> Skills are stripped from class and made into Backgrounds
> Styles are stripped from class and made into Themes
> ...




Have you playtested yet? Things you say have to be there ARE there, and class can and in some cases does have an effect on accuracy. Playtest it.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 4, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> That is my preference as well. Everything goes up... slowly.  I like people who at better than others at something to actually be much better and to continue to make a gap as they level... just slowly.
> 
> But _some people _hate big numbers.




Well, somethings gotta give. If attacks, HP, AC AND damage all aren't going up, nothing stopping first level PCs from picking fights with balors...


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 4, 2012)

Tortoise said:


> Have you playtested yet? Things you say have to be there ARE there, and class can and in some cases does have an effect on accuracy. Playtest it.




I did playtest it. 

But without the creation rules I cannot playtest two characters that are identical except for class.


----------



## B.T. (Jun 4, 2012)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Actually, there's a huge difference.
> 
> The main difference is that it is possible, however unlikely, that the villagers can kill the first dragon in the first round.
> 
> ...



All good points.  I'm still not sure how I feel about the "flat math" thus far, but your observations are accurate.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 4, 2012)

"Everything goes up slowly" is the same as "Things don't go up as slowly as they would if only some things went up slowly."   At least that's true if you want to take into account that we probably are not going to have things like +0.25 to attack.  So given integer math, a set of bounds imposed somewhat by the desire to keep a d20 in a certain range of relevant, and wanting to keep the numbers down--there's only so much attack/defense bonus you can afford.


----------



## Tortoise (Jun 4, 2012)

Fenes said:


> And how on earth can any developer think this should be a challenge, even a minor one, for a level 20 party?




What's with all the people fixated on giving doors hit points? It's simple, they have a break DC. It doesn't matter how you describe the method, Nodwick's head, Conan's shoulder, etc, it just has a target number to roll to enter "status - broken".

Unless of course the door is actually a mimic . . .


----------



## Tortoise (Jun 4, 2012)

Dedekind said:


> One of the implications I love is that the party no longer needs to be all the same level for everybody to contribute. Long ago, we houseruled that everybody gets the same XP so that everybody levels up at the same time.
> 
> In 2e, we made Resurrection easier to get so you wouldn't lose a level.
> 
> ...




I've always liked mixed level parties both as a player and DM. With the flatter math it won't be a bad thing to have new characters join the party with a lower level for a wider stetch of play.


----------



## Walker N. Waistz (Jun 4, 2012)

My favorite Legend & Lore thus far. Bravo. I am significantly more excited for D&D Next than I was before I read this.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jun 4, 2012)

Love the concept, really do.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jun 4, 2012)

Since damage increases with level, my only worry is how many damage dice will we have to roll and add up, not to mention static damage bonuses we may get to help with increased damage?

Might as well skip the rolls and deal % for damage.  Fighting lower level creatures, you deal a higher percentage of HP damage.

Just seems like they are replacing multiple d20 to hit rolls with extra damage die as you level.  Still a lot of math involved.  The kind of math that slows down combat.


----------



## Tortoise (Jun 5, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> I did playtest it.
> 
> But without the creation rules I cannot playtest two characters that are identical except for class.




Have you tried adjusting character abilities and then adding up the plus to hit and plus to damage? If you actually do the math with the sheets you will discover some bonuses included for certain characters that don't appear to have a cause. These will be revealed when the playtest of character creation comes out in a few months. Meanwhile there will definitely be differences in the to hit and damage areas even if the stats are identical.

The reason according to Mearls and others in chats, interviews, podcasts, and articles on the Wizard's site - class and race modifiers.

So yes, you could playtest characters with identical ability scores without having the character creation rules in hand. Admittedly, it would be more fun to have those rules to mess around with, but to see what we've been discussing you don't need them.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 5, 2012)

DDogwood said:


> I agree, treating a large number of goblins as a swarm would probably be the best solution. In fact, good swarm rules could be the basis for a mass combat system as well. Morale rules are probably not necessary, as hit points can represent morale easily enough.
> 
> When a swarm runs out of hit points, the surviving creatures disperse and flee. If it contains any fearless members, like a horde of orcs with a few berserkers mixed in, that could be a special effect - e.g. when the swarm is defeated, 2d4 orc berserkers remain while the rest of the orcs flee.



Ya know, if XP was not disabled I Xp you for the Orc berserkers idea.
As for the no morale version, then I would know some fraction off the total hitpoints of the swarm to represent the point at which morale would collapse and note it in the statblock. 
Also units noted for discipline might shake off individuals as a rear guard to cover the retreat of the rest of the unit.


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 5, 2012)

Tortoise said:


> Have you tried adjusting character abilities and then adding up the plus to hit and plus to damage? If you actually do the math with the sheets you will discover some bonuses included for certain characters that don't appear to have a cause. These will be revealed when the playtest of character creation comes out in a few months. Meanwhile there will definitely be differences in the to hit and damage areas even if the stats are identical.
> 
> The reason according to Mearls and others in chats, interviews, podcasts, and articles on the Wizard's site - class and race modifiers.
> 
> So yes, you could playtest characters with identical ability scores without having the character creation rules in hand. Admittedly, it would be more fun to have those rules to mess around with, but to see what we've been discussing you don't need them.





Invalid option. The character sheets have hidden mechanics. There might be unexpected change I know not of.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 5, 2012)

I am of two minds about this.

On the positive side, it's the unique bit that gives Next its identity.  Which is awesome.  Right now, it has very little to recommend it over existing editions of D&D.

On the negative side, I have concerns.

(1) Does this make your primary attack stat even MORE important than it is in 4e?  Will a character with a 16 be effectively gimped compared to one with an 18?

(2) How are magic items in this?  Are they crucial to your accuracy?

(3) What are the mechanics for getting better at a skill?

(4) At higher levels, honestly I'd like my powerful Rogue to hit a kobold more often than they did at level 1.

...So I'll need some convincing, but I'm glad Next is finally showing me something that other editions didn't do better.

-O


----------



## Hawke (Jun 5, 2012)

Obryn said:


> (4) At higher levels, honestly I'd like my powerful Rogue to hit a kobold more often than they did at level 1.




I wonder if the additional _options_ you have at level is really what leveling up means for them.  Sorry for the MMO reference, but like in swtor if you do pvp it levels you up to 49. Ignoring some higher level pvp gear, the big difference you end up with is more options in your toolkit for different situations or more big cooldown powers to go through before tapping out and going back to your basic attack. 

But then we hear about how 4E had too many options and slowed things down.

I don't know - it seems incompatible - if you want a swing and roll and repeat kind of game, it seems like that's exactly where you wouldn't want bounded accuracy so you could run through and feel cool beause that Orc chieftan that was a pain is suddenly easy in the context of a war.

On the other hand, if you like a game with power cards and many options for combat as the driver of advancement (like 4E?), bounded accuracy seems to better fit that game.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 5, 2012)

Tortoise said:


> What's with all the people fixated on giving doors hit points? It's simple, they have a break DC. It doesn't matter how you describe the method, Nodwick's head, Conan's shoulder, etc, it just has a target number to roll to enter "status - broken".
> 
> Unless of course the door is actually a mimic . . .




It makes no sense that a wooden door would be as difficult to damage at level 1 as at level 20 even though you do much more damage to monsters. If doors are unable to be damaged with weapons, and can only be "broken" through a strength check then we just wrecked immersion, disregarding all real life examples of people using axes to destroy doors.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 5, 2012)

Tortoise said:


> That's almost funny, but no, not how it works.




What is "funny" is that the devs actually seem to think a wooden door should be a challenge for an epic party if they don't have weight lifters among them. Which means "Epic Party" is somewhat less adept at destroying doors than your average firefighter with an axe.

What is "funny" in a sad way is that there are actual people here who seem to believe an epic party should not be able to casually destroy a door with a single swipe from an weapon that can go through a dragon's hide or an iron golem's arm and instead have to try to force it open using brute strength.

Let me repeat it: If in DDN I can't use my magic axe to do to wooden doors what real life firefighters use their axes to, but are expected to force doors open, then that's not helping immersion, but wrecking it.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 5, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> Similarly, DCs in 4E are only expected to scale IF YOU WANT A CHALLENGE. Climbing a normal rope in normal conditions never gets any harder. A level 20 fighter in 4E is going to be kicking down that solid oak door without being impeded while that the level 20 5E fighter has to hack away at it. A 4E character might have to hack away at that rune-covered door, but the 5E fighter will probably need a work crew. That's a very different flavor and range of ability, and both are fine in their own way.




A game where the highest level heroes have trouble with a wooden door doesn't feel like D&D at all.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Jun 5, 2012)

Ok, seriously, there's so much discussion of this wooden door that I think we may have a new contender for 'simplest possible adventure'. So much for an Orc with a pie, now the pie is simply BEHIND A WOODEN DOOR!


----------



## Fenes (Jun 5, 2012)

An orc is simpler still - not even WotC apparently thinks a single orc should be a challenge for a level 20 party, but apparently a single wooden door could be a challenge in DDN.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 5, 2012)

I am not real sure how we became fixated on a wooden door. But it seems a mountain is being made out of a molehill. If you as DM have a party of 20th level characters encounter a simple wooden door - just make it an automatic success or something. There is no need for it to be a challenge.

Why are people thinking the designers want a wooden door to be a challenge at level 20?


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 5, 2012)

Doors have a static Break DC, a static Unlock DC if it has a lock, hit points and DR/Hardness.

The unlock and break DCs are static and unless you get better at them, they are as difficult at first and twentieth level.

The HP is also static. But in 5E, damage scales with level so destroying the door is easier.

Note: The Break DC shouldn't be to actually break the door. It should be to pop it out the hinges and lock and knock it t the ground.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 5, 2012)

IronWolf said:


> I am not real sure how we became fixated on a wooden door.




Neither do I, certain barriers are always a pain to break through, I do not think a high level/Str fighter should just huff, and puff, and blow your house down.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 5, 2012)

This sounds like a good idea. I see enough potential pitfalls that I want to see how it's implemented before I sing praises. But, I suspect those praises will be coming.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 5, 2012)

IronWolf said:


> I am not real sure how we became fixated on a wooden door. But it seems a mountain is being made out of a molehill. If you as DM have a party of 20th level characters encounter a simple wooden door - just make it an automatic success or something. There is no need for it to be a challenge.
> 
> Why are people thinking the designers want a wooden door to be a challenge at level 20?




Haters gonna hate.

I find it all highly ironic, btw.

Poster1: WAH! In 3e it was too easy to beat DCs and skill checks were pointless at high level!
Poster2: WAH! 4e DCs scaled with level, so it progressively got harder to do mundane things!
Poster3: WAH! Now the math is flat I can I can't beat DCs without trying anymore!


----------



## Fenes (Jun 5, 2012)

IronWolf said:


> I am not real sure how we became fixated on a wooden door. But it seems a mountain is being made out of a molehill. If you as DM have a party of 20th level characters encounter a simple wooden door - just make it an automatic success or something. There is no need for it to be a challenge.
> 
> Why are people thinking the designers want a wooden door to be a challenge at level 20?




Because that's what they wrote in the Blog?



> It's good for verisimilitude. The bounded accuracy system lets us perpetually associate difficulty numbers with certain tasks based on what they are in the world, without the need to constantly escalate the story behind those tasks. For example, we can say that breaking down an iron-banded wooden door is a DC 17 check, and that can live in the game no matter what level the players are. There's no need to constantly escalate the in-world descriptions to match a growing DC; an *iron-banded door is just as tough to break down at 20th level as it was at 1st, and it might still be a challenge for a party consisting of heroes without great Strength scores*. There's no need to make it a solid adamantine door encrusted with ancient runes just to make it a moderate challenge for the high-level characters. Instead, we let that adamantine door encrusted with ancient runes have its own high DC as a reflection of its difficulty in the world. If players have the means of breaking down the super difficult adamantine door, it's because they pursued player options that make that so, and it is not simply a side effect of continuing to adventure.




They really seem to think that unless you have a really strong character in the party who is able to force a door open, a wooden door will be a challenge for a level 20 party. Which means they apparently do not think all the other ways to deal with a door, mainly, hacking it to pieces, are applicable.


----------



## Grazzt (Jun 5, 2012)

Fenes said:


> Because that's what they wrote in the Blog?
> 
> 
> 
> They really seem to think that unless you have a really strong character in the party who is able to force a door open, a wooden door will be a challenge for a level 20 party. Which means they apparently do not think all the other ways to deal with a door, mainly, hacking it to pieces, are applicable.




Hacking it to pieces should be different than breaking it down. Break DC should be for unhinging and shattering the door through brute force. AC, hp, hardness, whatever should be for when the PCs want to chop it to pieces.

Another alternative since we are fascinated with doors. Tie the halfling to the door. Knock. Run. See what eats him. Good way to know if what behind the door is worth checking out.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 5, 2012)

Fenes said:


> They really seem to think that unless you have a really strong character in the party who is able to force a door open, a wooden door will be a challenge for a level 20 party. Which means they apparently do not think all the other ways to deal with a door, mainly, hacking it to pieces, are applicable.




They say it *might* still be a challenge. So if you have a party who did nothing along the way to improve their strength then yes, breaking the door down might still be a challenge. 

Why should a non-strong character in a party be able to break the door down? Just because they are 20th level? Isn't that sort of like saying "I have a 10 strength, but because I am 20th level I choose to break the door down."

Further, do we know that doors and objects aren't going to have hit points and hardness values? Break usually only means if you are trying to break the door down with force - not with damage. So if the fighter (who lets face it, is going to have the strength to break it down anyways at 20th level) wants to hit it with his axe I suspect that is a viable option. Or if the wizards wants to fireball the door down.  Or have they said objects won't have hit points in 5e?

In either case - I hardly see this as an issue to get all fired up over. Ultimately, as the playtest has said so far, the DM is in the position to adjust things as needed. If you want your party at 20th level to be able to bust down doors - done! Don't require a check. 

The DM Guidelines doc states up front that the rules are not in charge. Make the decision that makes the game fun for your game. A line in the sand has not been drawn on this issue.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 5, 2012)

Fenes said:


> They really seem to think that unless you have a really strong character in the party who is able to force a door open, a wooden door will be a challenge for a level 20 party. Which means they apparently do not think all the other ways to deal with a door, mainly, hacking it to pieces, are applicable.




I think you're making huge assumptions on very little information. Yes, using Strength to force open a door may still be a challenge if they don't have anyone well-invested in strength. That's pretty much all they're saying yet you're jumping to the conclusion that there will be no other way to force open a door in the final game. 

You need to chill out a bit. Pace yourself. There's a long way to go before this is all done.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 5, 2012)

The point is that the dev who blogged it was does not realize that any level 20 party able to kill a dragon will not, in no way, be challenged by a wooden door. Not at all. No matter their strength scores. If you can kill a dragon you can destroy a wooden door without trying. Otherwise something is very, very wrong with the game - or the dragons.

So, I do hope the dev simply was sloppy and did not think his example through before posting - sloppy, but not damning as having wooden doors be meant to challenge level 20 parties would be.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 5, 2012)

billd91 said:


> I think you're making huge assumptions on very little information. Yes, using Strength to force open a door may still be a challenge if they don't have anyone well-invested in strength. That's pretty much all they're saying yet you're jumping to the conclusion that there will be no other way to force open a door in the final game.
> 
> You need to chill out a bit. Pace yourself. There's a long way to go before this is all done.




Using strength to open a door is obsolete at level 20. The example is stupid, and hopefully a mistake.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 5, 2012)

Actually, I think the example is great. There's a lot I love about 4e, but the need to rationalize the rising DCs isn't included.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 5, 2012)

Remathilis said:


> Haters gonna hate.





You know, folks, it is terribly easy, and therefore tempting, to lump all people who hold a position you don't agree with into one group, and slap a label on them that insinuates some failure of character on their part, so that you can dismiss them.

It is easy.  It is also insulting and _ad hominem_.  So, rude *and* rhetorically weak.  Not a winning combination.  Avoid this in the future, please.

Questions?  Please take them to e-mail or PM with the moderator of your choice.  Thanks!


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 5, 2012)

Fenes said:


> Using strength to open a door is obsolete at level 20. The example is stupid, and hopefully a mistake.




I agree, some things are difficult all of your life.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 5, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> I agree, some things are difficult all of your life.




Like arguing on the internet.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 5, 2012)

Piratecat said:


> Actually, I think the example is great. There's a lot I love about 4e, but the need to rationalize the rising DCs isn't included.




Oh, no, that the DC remains at 17 without scaling according to the party level is very good. No probem there.

That a dev seems to think forcing a wooden door open with brute strength alone is anything anyone might care about at level 20 is what is bad. If the party is able to deal with level 20 foes, then a door should not be any challenge at all. It just breaks immersion if our characters can hack a Dragon to pieces, but can't casually, without trying, destroy a door.

As an example of the problem: Treating a bleeding wound should keep the same DC for a heal check no matter your level. But no one sane would expect anyone to care about it at a level where you'll have spells and potions galore.

(Excepting constructed "no, you're naked and have no gear or spells" scenarios.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 5, 2012)

Fenes said:


> The point is that the dev who blogged it was does not realize that any level 20 party able to kill a dragon will not, in no way, be challenged by a wooden door. Not at all. No matter their strength scores. If you can kill a dragon you can destroy a wooden door without trying. Otherwise something is very, very wrong with the game - or the dragons.
> 
> So, I do hope the dev simply was sloppy and did not think his example through before posting - sloppy, but not damning as having wooden doors be meant to challenge level 20 parties would be.



No, they will be strength-challenged by it, not "knock"-challenged or "disintegrate"-challenged. 

Mustrum "The German Who Went Up a Mountain But Came Down a Molehill" Ridcully


----------



## Fenes (Jun 5, 2012)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> No, they will be strength-challenged by it, not "knock"-challenged or "disintegrate"-challenged.
> 
> Mustrum "The German Who Went Up a Mountain But Came Down a Molehill" Ridcully




That is an interpretation that does not fit the text posted. The text claims that if the party has no one with a high strength score, then a wooden door might present a challenge at level 20. 

As I said, I hope the dev simply was sloppy, and posted that line without thinking it through, and meant to actually write "a level 20 party without someone with exceptional strength might finding it a small challenge to force open a with door with strength alone, not that they would do that anyway, since they can destroy it far more easily at that level."


----------



## Balesir (Jun 5, 2012)

Fenes said:


> That a dev seems to think forcing a wooden door open with brute strength alone is anything anyone might care about at level 20 is what is bad. If the party is able to deal with level 20 foes, then a door should not be any challenge at all. It just breaks immersion if our characters can hack a Dragon to pieces, but can't casually, without trying, destroy a door.



If you think doors are tough, wait 'til you have to face a gazebo!



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> No, they will be strength-challenged by it, not "knock"-challenged or "disintegrate"-challenged.



And I would add, "nor Axe challenged", lest this start to look like "well, obviously the mundanes will struggle with it, but _magic_ is special..."


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 5, 2012)

Fenes said:


> Oh, no, that the DC remains at 17 without scaling according to the party level is very good. No probem there.
> 
> That a dev seems to think forcing a wooden door open with brute strength alone is anything anyone might care about at level 20 is what is bad. If the party is able to deal with level 20 foes, then a door should not be any challenge at all. It just breaks immersion if our characters can hack a Dragon to pieces, but can't casually, without trying, destroy a door.




Depends. If there are no high-strength characters in the party, I see no reason why they should be able to break open a door without breaking a sweat, high levels or not. Probably not gonna stop them longer than a turn or two, but with the Armies of Hell hot on their heels, those can be expensive. Anyway, one of the casters should be able to blow it up. Or teleport to a different continent.


----------



## B.T. (Jun 5, 2012)

> They really seem to think that unless you have a really strong character in the party who is able to force a door open, a wooden door will be a challenge for a level 20 party. Which means they apparently do not think all the other ways to deal with a door, mainly, hacking it to pieces, are applicable.



That is a rather ungenerous way of interpreting the article.  Personally, I read it more favorably, as the party wizard won't be able to force down the door with a Strength check (but that doesn't mean he won't have other options for getting around it).


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 5, 2012)

Fenes said:


> That is an interpretation that does not fit the text posted. The text claims that if the party has no one with a high strength score, then a wooden door *might* present a challenge at level 20.




They say might, not will.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 5, 2012)

IronWolf said:


> They say might, not will.




Can you honestly imagine a level 20 D&D party that might be held up by a wooden door? In any edition? A party that can take a level 20 foe, but can't destroy a wooden door as easily as a sheet of paper?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 5, 2012)

Fenes said:


> Can you honestly imagine a level 20 D&D party that might be held up by a wooden door? In any edition? A party that can take a level 20 foe, but can't destroy a wooden door as easily as a sheet of paper?




Yep, I can. People in real life don't always choose the easiest way to accomplish their goals. Players sometimes like to take unconventional routes. So even though the 20th-level party full of 10 STR characters has a ton of other options to get through that door the players might just say "what the heck" and attempt to throw their shoulder into it. Maybe to challenge themselves. Maybe to preserve resources. Maybe to flex and brag when they succeed or laugh when they fail miserably. It's the players' choice, not yours.

This was an assumption that 4E made. That your character would use the _something_ that made up that +1/2 level bonus to always open that door. I still defend that approach and enjoy it. But it isn't necessary for the game and I understand how many people took issue with it.

Edit: You have taken the assumption that the author ignored other factors. And you extend that assumption to make other assumptions about the direction the game is headed. I think it is quite foolish to laser-focus in on one example that explains the effects of bounded accuracy as a damning feature of a game not yet complete.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 5, 2012)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Yep, I can. People in real life don't always choose the easiest way to accomplish their goals. Players sometimes like to take unconventional routes. So even though the 20th-level party full of 10 STR characters has a ton of other options to get through that door the players might just say "what the heck" and attempt to throw their shoulder into it. Maybe to challenge themselves. Maybe to preserve resources. Maybe to flex and brag when they succeed or laugh when they fail miserably. It's the players' choice, not yours.




Willingly taking a break to do some exercise is not "being held up". Challenging yourself is not teh same as being challenged by something else.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 5, 2012)

Fenes said:


> Willingly taking a break to do some exercise is not "being held up". Challenging yourself is not teh same as being challenged by something else.




Well, luckily, Rodney Thompson never said it would result in the party "being held up." What he said was:



> There's no need to constantly escalate the in-world descriptions to match a growing DC; an iron-banded door is just as tough to break down at 20th level as it was at 1st, and it might still be a challenge for a party consisting of heroes without great Strength scores.




He did not specify whether it might be a challenge that the group presented itself with or one that was caused by something else. So, basically, you just continue to put words into his mouth that he did not say.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 5, 2012)

It boggles the mind that people can't simply say "Yeah, a wooden door should be no challenge at level 20. Now, about this other point..." and instead have to keep defending such stupidity.


----------



## vagabundo (Jun 5, 2012)

I'm waiting for the inevitable thread title in a few years: "My 20th lvl Party was TPKed by a Wooden Door!!"


----------



## Fenes (Jun 5, 2012)

vagabundo said:


> I'm waiting for the inevitable thread title in a few years: "My 20th lvl Party was TPKed by a Wooden Door!!"




"My game was ruined when a wizard animated a wooden door and had it fight all my NPCs!"


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 5, 2012)

vagabundo said:


> I'm waiting for the inevitable thread title in a few years: "My 20th lvl Party was TPKed by a Wooden Door!!"




...a _Vile_ Wooden Door...they'll get ya...*in the voice of Ron Burgundy*


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 5, 2012)

Fenes said:


> It boggles the mind that people can't simply say "Yeah, a wooden door should be no challenge at level 20. Now, about this other point..." and instead have to keep defending such stupidity.




I was having a similar thought, only reversed. But that seems like a good point for moving on.


----------



## Siberys (Jun 5, 2012)

RangerWickett said:


> I like the article, but I feel like a lot of people bring up this sort of complaint against 4e DCs, and it's just completely against how I interpreted the rules.




[MENTION=63]RangerWickett[/MENTION] - Man, I miss the XP system.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 5, 2012)

Fenes said:


> "My game was ruined when a wizard animated a wooden door and had it fight all my NPCs!"




I had two PCs killed by an animated rug in 3.5...


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 5, 2012)

Jokes about animated doors aside - 'cause those are funny - I'm going to call a moratorium on the whole "door" discussion. No more, please. Let's get back to discussing the point of the article.


----------



## Tortoise (Jun 5, 2012)

Fenes said:


> It makes no sense that a wooden door would be as difficult to damage at level 1 as at level 20 even though you do much more damage to monsters. If doors are unable to be damaged with weapons, and can only be "broken" through a strength check then we just wrecked immersion, disregarding all real life examples of people using axes to destroy doors.




What wrecks immersion is the idea that someone becomes Superman just because they are higher level. So if I try breaking a door today, why would that exact type of door be any easier for me in another year just because I slaughtered some goblins?

And what's wrong with the DM applying modifiers for various methods used? There is no rule saying various tools can't be used. Besides, if my players say we're breaking the door down by using an axe or crowbar or Nodwick's head, I tell them if it works right away or not and see if they decide to continue, then give them a time frame for completion. If they outright say we go till we're done, I tell them how long it takes. There is no reason to have something like that spelled out to the last detail in the rulebooks.

Sure the tools can add variables, but why waste book space when a couple examples to help guide DM's is all you need.


----------



## Tortoise (Jun 5, 2012)

Piratecat said:


> Jokes about animated doors aside - 'cause those are funny - I'm going to call a moratorium on the whole "door" discussion. No more, please. Let's get back to discussing the point of the article.




Sorry Kevin, didn't see this till getting to the actual forum. Went to notifications first and replied to quotes directly. Will watch closer next time around.


----------



## PowerWordDumb (Jun 5, 2012)

Fenes said:


> stupidity.




You keep using that word...

_Back on topic, please! -- PCat_


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 5, 2012)

never mind, saw mod comment.


----------



## darjr (Jun 5, 2012)

I think the article spells out exactly why bounded accuracy is important for the game. Brilliant. I worry that the 'other' stuff for PC's advancement would escalate things in new and heretofore unseen bad ways. But I think, from what I've been reading, they are probably looking out for this as well.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 5, 2012)

Tortoise said:


> What wrecks immersion is the idea that someone becomes Superman just because they are higher level. So if I try breaking a door today, why would that exact type of door be any easier for me in another year just because I slaughtered some goblins?




Have you ever played D&D? Any edition? Where you struggle with an orc at level 1, yet after a year of slaughtering monsters, killing the exact same type of orc is now easy? That's called leveling up.

This is rude and insulting. Knock it off. -- PCat

At the highest level you are supposed to be superman, kicking demonlords around. 4E even has a "demigod" path to take.

Do you really want your character to not advance in any way at all? To never progress from a young fighter to a grizzled swordmaster? From apprentice mage to archwizard?


----------



## KidSnide (Jun 5, 2012)

I curious what folks think will be the unintended consequences of bounded accuracy.  

We've already discussed the logistical challenges of handling dozens (or hundreds!) of weak opponents with the same stats.  I suspect that D&DN will need a horde/swarm mechanic much as prior editions did (but maybe the math will be easier?).

I'm concerned that low modifiers will generate either a tyranny of ability scores.  For example, if you want to play an idiot who still knows a lot about a particular subject, it used to be possible to invest heavily in skill points (or skill focus) and mitigate a weak ability score.  As described, an Int 18 sage who never strayed out of the library will still be better at wilderness knowledge.  Obviously, a good DM will solve a lot of this with role-playing, but it's an unsatisfying simulation.

Another (related) possibility is that we see a ton of "off-stat" use of skills.  To pick an obvious example, Strength may become more common than Charisma in using the interrogate skill, just because the characters training in Intimidate will tend towards a higher Strength.  Strictly speaking, I'm not sure this is a problem, but its a change and I'm not sure what the effect will be.  I think about high Charisma characters using Cha to stealth/disappear in a crowd, and its strikes me as awesome -- not problematic.  But maybe it be even more effective for characters to specialize in a single ability score if they can "shift" more roles to that ability?

-KS


----------



## darjr (Jun 5, 2012)

GURPS has had that issue, ability score tyranny, at least for me, I think, and varying the stat used for a particular skill given the situation it's used in does help.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 6, 2012)

Fenes said:


> Have you ever played D&D? Any edition? Where you struggle with an orc at level 1, yet after a year of slaughtering monsters, killing the exact same type of orc is now easy? That's called leveling up.
> 
> At the highest level you are supposed to be superman, kicking demonlords around. 4E even has a "demigod" path to take.
> 
> Do you really want your character to not advance in any way at all? To never progress from a young fighter to a grizzled swordmaster? From apprentice mage to archwizard?



Some people don't they like grim and grritty all the way. Sometimes i like agame like that, though for those occasions I generally play something else like warhammer rpg. 

However, it is easy to modify a low powered game to something more high powered than to make a high powered game more low powered.


----------



## Lwaxy (Jun 6, 2012)

Another reminder to keep on topic, and keep it civil.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 6, 2012)

ardoughter said:


> Some people don't they like grim and grritty all the way. Sometimes i like agame like that, though for those occasions I generally play something else like warhammer rpg.
> 
> However, it is easy to modify a low powered game to something more high powered than to make a high powered game more low powered.




It's not about grim and gritty, it's about progression. In every D&D edition characters at least could do and take more damage as they gained more levels. Which means that things that were hard to destroy or kill at level 1 ceased to be so at higher levels.

Who here really wants to have a level 1 and a level 20 party have the same difficulty in killing a level 1 orc?


----------



## GX.Sigma (Jun 6, 2012)

It'll take me some time to get used to this idea. I just like the concept of a high level caster casting _hold person_ on a low-level character, who is then completely at the caster's mercy. It's a classic fantasy moment, and it's a shame that it won't happen in D&DN.

Similarly, no matter how good you are at magic, you'll always have the same chance to _charm _a random orc.

Maybe you can cast them with higher spell slots to increase the HP threshold or the save DC, or maybe you'll need to have magic items to actually be better at stuff.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 6, 2012)

Fenes said:


> Who here really wants to have a level 1 and a level 20 party have the same difficulty in killing a level 1 orc?





Do you really believe that in 5th Ed a 20th level fighter will have a problem killing a level 1 orc?

Oh, looks like monsters don't even have levels in 5th Ed - woo-hoo!


----------



## IanB (Jun 6, 2012)

Fenes said:


> It's not about grim and gritty, it's about progression. In every D&D edition characters at least could do and take more damage as they gained more levels. Which means that things that were hard to destroy or kill at level 1 ceased to be so at higher levels.
> 
> Who here really wants to have a level 1 and a level 20 party have the same difficulty in killing a level 1 orc?




Er, characters in 5e will also do and take more damage as they gain more levels.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 6, 2012)

IanB said:


> Er, characters in 5e will also do and take more damage as they gain more levels.




That was my understanding as well. Since stuff doesn't level with the PCs, and since PCs take and deal more damage the higher level they are, anything they struggled to kill/destroy at level 1 should be trivial at level 20. But some people seem to have issues with the "level up and get better" mechanic, and don't think things should get easier to kill/destroy "just because you slaughtered a few goblins".


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 6, 2012)

Fenes said:


> That was my understanding as well. Since stuff doesn't level with the PCs, and since PCs take and deal more damage the higher level they are, anything they struggled to kill/destroy at level 1 should be trivial at level 20. But some people seem to have issues with the "level up and get better" mechanic, and don't think things should get easier to kill/destroy "just because you slaughtered a few goblins".




Some people seem to not care whether the end result on a d20 is to roll a 13, as long as they get +53 to the roll, they are happy.

Rolling for a fumble or critical sucks donkey balls, IMO.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 6, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> Some people seem to not care whether the end result on a d20 is to roll a 13, as long as they get +53 to the roll, they are happy.
> 
> Rolling for a fumble or critical sucks donkey balls, IMO.




That's not going to matter in 5E, since BAB doesn't go up. But at level 20 rolling a die won't really matter anyway when fighting an orc because you have enough hitpoints to ignore the damage he can do, and do enough damage to obliterate it once you hit - which you'll do sooner or later. 

It's not the mechanic, it's the idea that the single orc you fought at level 1 won't matter at level 20 which some people oppose - but which is an inherent, unavoidable result of having damage and hitpoints go up with level.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 6, 2012)

KidSnide said:


> I curious what folks think will be the unintended consequences of bounded accuracy.



Good question.



KidSnide said:


> I'm concerned that low modifiers will generate either a tyranny of ability scores.  For example, if you want to play an idiot who still knows a lot about a particular subject, it used to be possible to invest heavily in skill points (or skill focus) and mitigate a weak ability score.  As described, an Int 18 sage who never strayed out of the library will still be better at wilderness knowledge.  Obviously, a good DM will solve a lot of this with role-playing, but it's an unsatisfying simulation.



I'm not sure about the idiot. But it seems that skills give a +3 bonus - so a character with a 12 INT plus Forbidden Law +3 will be as good as the INT 18 sage, and better than the INT 16 sage.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "solving problems with roleplaying", but one approach to this, as far as lore is concerned, is to bring backgrounds into play more fully.

Page 1 of the DM's Guidelines for the playtest talks about deeming certain tasks impossible. It seems open to the GM to say that a certain piece of Forbidden Lore - say, the secret name of the leader of a particular dark cult - cannot be known except by someone who has read the cult's writings. And then, unless you have a background that let's you stipulate that your PC has read those writings (eg because it gives you training in Forbidden Lore) your PC will actually have to discover the writings in the course of play in order to be given a chance to make a check and work through them to extract the secret name.

The general idea is to use backgrounds and training to do more than just provide bonuses - they open up options that other characters can only open up by actually undergoing a certain experience in the course of play.

Ideally, this would sit within a broader discussion of when to say yes, when to say no, when to say "roll the dice", and how much narrative freedom the players have in respect of all of this. The 4e DMGs have a bit to say about this, but I don't think it's all that strong. At least as far as lore skills are concerned, I think the advice on GMing "Wises" (= Lore) skills in the Burning Wheel Adventure Burner is pretty good, and could usefully be cribbed by the WotC designers.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 6, 2012)

Fenes said:


> That's not going to matter in 5E, since BAB doesn't go up. But at level 20 rolling a die won't really matter anyway when fighting an orc because you have enough hitpoints to ignore the damage he can do, and do enough damage to obliterate it once you hit - which you'll do sooner or later.
> 
> It's not the mechanic, it's the idea that the single orc you fought at level 1 won't matter at level 20 which some people oppose - but which is an inherent, unavoidable result of having damage and hitpoints go up with level.




And...?

Sorry, but your argument is baffling me.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 6, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> And...?
> 
> Sorry, but your argument is baffling me.




What exactly is unclear? I am stating that as long as damage and hitpoints grow with levels, low-level targets such as an orc will become insignificant at higher levels.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jun 6, 2012)

The article leaves me feeling optimistic. I don't know if what they are planning will work out the way they want it to, but I admire their design goals.

... and who knows? Maybe the Wooden Door will one day be as feared a monster as the legendary Gazebo.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 6, 2012)

Fenes said:


> What exactly is unclear? I am stating that as long as damage and hitpoints grow with levels, low-level targets such as an orc will become insignificant at higher levels.



Absolutely. I don't think anyone disagrees or is arguing that. They remain relevant for longer, though. A bunch of orcas at 5th level become glass cannons, but they can still dish out significant damage with great axes.

EDIT: I just noted my typo, but it's making me grin so I'm just going to leave it in. Also, I totally want a killer whale cannon.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 6, 2012)

Piratecat said:


> Absolutely. I don't think anyone disagrees or is arguing that. They remain relevant for longer, though. A bunch of orcas at 5th level become glass cannons, but they can still dish out significant damage with great axes.
> 
> EDIT: I just noted my typo, but it's making me grin so I'm just going to leave it in. Also, I totally want a killer whale cannon.



Orcas with frigging missile launchers under their fins! *
[sblock]





[/sblock]

*) May not be a level-appropriate challenge for 5th level characters.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 6, 2012)

TarionzCousin said:


> The article leaves me feeling optimistic. I don't know if what they are planning will work out the way they want it to, but I admire their design goals.
> 
> ... and who knows? Maybe the Wooden Door will one day be as feared a monster as the legendary Gazebo.




I'm going to be disappointed now if they don't do a marketing bit with a Wooden Door saying, "I'm a monster.  Rawwwrrrr!".  Preferably with a gnome woodcarver sidekick.


----------



## Najo (Jun 6, 2012)

It's unfortunate that the intentions of mentioning the iron bound door got misunderstood. The point in the article was that if you don't improve any area of your character, then it won't automatically improve with your level. Characters remain weak if they don't work on strength. They remain ignorant if they don't learn a skill or raise their wisdom or intelligence. Honestly this was one of the best articles out of wotc yet.

My question to all of you, how do you think they should flatten the math? Should we do away with level bonus altogether or just shrink it? If done away with, how would you handle the bonuses to attack rolls, saving throws and non-skill checks? If skills still have ranks or other bonuses, but no bonus from level, then how should attacks and such get bonuses without becoming mandatory feat or class feature taxes? What do you guys think is the best way to handle it?


----------



## Campbell (Jun 6, 2012)

Najo said:


> My question to all of you, how do you think they should flatten the math? Should we do away with level bonus altogether or just shrink it? If done away with, how would you handle the bonuses to attack rolls, saving throws and non-skill checks? If skills still have ranks or other bonuses, but no bonus from level, then how should attacks and such get bonuses without becoming mandatory feat or class feature taxes? What do you guys think is the best way to handle it?




My preference would be to not have accuracy bonuses on a set schedule and not delivered in the same way for all classes.

Fighters would gain a persistant bonus to all weapon attacks to represent their dedication to martial training.
War domain clerics depend on personal buff spells.
Rogues acquire abilities that help them to more readily hide/gain advantage.
Pure magic users don't become better with weapons but get better with their magical attacks - increased saves.
Rangers could gain a redesigned hunter's quarry. Their single minded devotion to hunting down their prey let's them attack a designated target with extra ferocity, but remains in effect until the target dies or they have a chance to clear their mind (a minute of quiet contemplation). You could even tie it into an almost supernatural ability to track down their foes.
Paladins channel divine might through their steel. If I was going to design a paladin that was different from a battle cleric I'd have them fully embrace Channel Divinity with different blessings based on chivalrous virtues.

That would be far more flavorful and lead to classes that really played differently with differing strengths/weaknesses. The idea is that different classes get better at their core competencies through leveling, not everything.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Jun 6, 2012)

Najo said:


> My question to all of you, how do you think they should flatten the math? Should we do away with level bonus altogether or just shrink it? If done away with, how would you handle the bonuses to attack rolls, saving throws and non-skill checks? If skills still have ranks or other bonuses, but no bonus from level, then how should attacks and such get bonuses without becoming mandatory feat or class feature taxes? What do you guys think is the best way to handle it?




It seems that level bonuses are just gone, as are level-derived bonuses to attack rolls, saving throws, and other checks. (That is to say, classes won't come with a BAB/saves table.) Skills don't necessarily have ranks, but I think someone from WOTC mentioned that the skill bumps from your background improve at higher level (so that +3 to Handle Animal and Folklore and stuff for the commoner goes up to +5 at level 5, let's say).

That said, I'm betting that class abilities will bump up various numerical values over time. My guess is that the bonuses will be wrapped into class abilities rather than put into tables, because (for example) a wizard may NEVER get a class bonus to hit. (He might get other numerical bonuses instead, like to Wis/Int saves for example, or to saves vs. spells, or to save DCs for his own spells.) 

I'm guessing this falls under the category of "mandatory feat or class feature taxes," which I'm not sure is such a bad thing. Every fighter probably SHOULD get better at hitting things with weapons as he progresses. Every wizard probably SHOULD get better at resisting mental domination as part of his training. And having those improvements be class-specific makes them more special.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 7, 2012)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> No, they will be strength-challenged by it, not "knock"-challenged or "disintegrate"-challenged.




There go the wizards putting rogues out of a job again. What's wrong with starting with a pick boy? Why not start off with a nice little lockpick? You don't have to go leaping straight to disintegrate like a bull at a gate.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 7, 2012)

Fenes said:


> That was my understanding as well. Since stuff doesn't level with the PCs, and since PCs take and deal more damage the higher level they are, anything they struggled to kill/destroy at level 1 should be trivial at level 20. But some people seem to have issues with the "level up and get better" mechanic, and don't think things should get easier to kill/destroy "just because you slaughtered a few goblins".



I am not sure you understand what bounded accuracy means:

I understand it in this way:

1. Armor has a meaning: if you see someone in heavy armor, you know he is not easy to hit for a commoner, or a mage or a non combat character with his normal attack.

2. If someone has better armor, he is most surely protected by magic.

3. A fighter at higher level has means to overcome those magical protections and someone without them is not so hard to hit.

4. A high level fighter hits like a truck. Even when he is hit, he can suck up the damage without going down. His HP protect him from annoying status effects.

What it does not mean: a fighter does not hit better as he levels up.

The consequence of 4 is: Without magical protections, a swarm of lvl 1 orcs will get some hits in and over time will do enough damage to kill a level 20 fighter. But with all his resources, surges, cleaves, perhaps some multiattacks and some hp recovery abilities, a lot of orcs will fall against the single fighter. Most probably it will be ranged attacks that bring him down.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 7, 2012)

UngeheuerLich said:


> What it does not mean: a fighter does not hit better as he levels up.




Since AC doesn't change, the only thing that changes as you raise in levels are damage and hitpoints. If the fighter does not deal more damage - a lot more - as he levels up - then the entire class is invalid at higher levels when dealing with higher level monsters (See 66 hp Ogre, 132 hp minotaur).

And in case anyone missed it, the Blog explicitely states that character do more damage as they level up (bolded by me):



> The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game that the player's attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. *Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal,* and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster's hit points; likewise, the character can now stand up to a few hits from that monster without being killed easily, thanks to the character's increased hit points. Furthermore, gaining levels grants the characters new capabilities, which go much farther toward making your character feel different than simple numerical increases.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 7, 2012)

Fenes said:


> Since AC doesn't change, the only thing that changes as you raise in levels are damage and hitpoints.




Wrong. Why? See below.



Fenes said:


> And in case anyone missed it, the Blog explicitely states that character do more damage as they level up (bolded by me):




You conveniently stopped bolding before "and the various new abilities they have gained." So damage and hit points are *not* the only thing that changes as you raise in levels. The various new abilities a fighter gets could be additional to-hit bonuses, damage mitigation, multiple attacks, superior mobility, etc. All things that make you better against those same orcs you faced at 1st level.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 7, 2012)

Fenes said:


> It's not about grim and gritty, it's about progression. In every D&D edition characters at least could do and take more damage as they gained more levels. Which means that things that were hard to destroy or kill at level 1 ceased to be so at higher levels.
> 
> Who here really wants to have a level 1 and a level 20 party have the same difficulty in killing a level 1 orc?



In the general run of htings I would agree, but an orc that has found some wierd ritual that creates a null magic zone and a fantastic DR would be acceptable as a one off change of pace. Something to fighten the PC once in a while.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 7, 2012)

Fenes said:


> Since AC doesn't change, the only thing that changes as you raise in levels are damage and hitpoints. If the fighter does not deal more damage - a lot more - as he levels up - then the entire class is invalid at higher levels when dealing with higher level monsters (See 66 hp Ogre, 132 hp minotaur).
> 
> And in case anyone missed it, the Blog explicitely states that character do more damage as they level up (bolded by me):





And wrong, because of this (quoted from the actual article)



> *Getting better at something means actually getting better at something.*  Since target numbers (DCs for checks, AC, and so on) and monster  accuracy don't scale with level, gaining a +1 bonus means you are  actually 5% better at succeeding at that task, not simply hitting some  basic competence level. *When a fighter gets a +1 increase to his or her  attack bonus, it means he or she hits monsters across the board 5% more  often. This means that characters, as they gain levels, see a tangible  increase in their competence, not just in being able to accomplish more  amazing things, but also in how often they succeed at tasks they perform  regularly.*




Or I could be wrong and they are only hypothetically speaking...

No, The fighter will gain:

damage, accuracy, amazing things (like beeing able to attack twice or thrice several times per day)

And this is what makes him stand out against all other classes. True bonuses, that are simple and effective. No need to have a magic weapon.
If you have a magic weapon, great, but even without one, others can´t reach your ability, even with magic weapons, or special tactics (like the thief sneak attack)


----------



## Fenes (Jun 7, 2012)

UngeheuerLich said:


> damage, accuracy, amazing things (like beeing able to attack twice or thrice several times per day)
> 
> And this is what makes him stand out against all other classes. True bonuses, that are simple and effective. No need to have a magic weapon.
> If you have a magic weapon, great, but even without one, others can´t reach your ability, even with magic weapons, or special tactics (like the thief sneak attack)




So, instead of the fighter being useless, the paladin, barbarian and ranger are useless, since they cannot come close to the fighter? As long as a magic weapon makes you better at hitting things it is needed for characters who hit things as their main combat stick, or they are inadequate compared to those who have magic weapons.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 7, 2012)

Fenes said:


> So, instead of the fighter being useless, the paladin, barbarian and ranger are useless, since they cannot come close to the fighter? As long as a magic weapon makes you better at hitting things it is needed for characters who hit things as their main combat stick, or they are inadequate compared to those who have magic weapons.



No: Rangers and Paladins are fighters... But they gain some less general attack bonuses, but have other advantages...

here, another quote:



> *Nonspecialized characters can more easily participate in many scenes. *While  it's true that increases in accuracy are real and tangible, it also  means that characters can achieve a basic level of competence just  through how players assign their ability bonuses. Although a character  who gains a +6 bonus to checks made to hide might do so with incredible  ease, the character with only a naked ability bonus still has a chance  to participate. We want to use the system to make it so that specialized  characters find tasks increasingly trivial, while other characters can  still make attempts without feeling they are wasting their time.




Which means: even characters who are not specialists are good enough, if you put your ability points right:

so, a paladin with fighter like strength will most probably be competent enough. Look at the moradin cleric. He has put a good score in strength and does contribute well to a fight. Even without an extra bonus. He also has a spell which he can use for one fight, which brings him close to the fighter power.

The rogue uses dexterity and does well in the fight, but with advantage on his attack, he will really do impressive damage.
So while everyone can participate within a bounded accuracy system, and more importantly noone falls behind, this does not mean the expert can´t get ahead.
Its just the contrary: an expert should get ahead, and not because of finding magic weapons.

Fighters are the best in combat. Period. Rangers, Barbarians, Paladins are great in combat, but not the best. Only in special cases: Paladin vs evil, fearsome things, Barbarians while raging, Rangers while in favourite terrain against favourite enemies.

But in a straight up fight, the fighter should, you know, be the guy who fights best.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Jun 7, 2012)

Fenes said:


> So, instead of the fighter being useless, the paladin, barbarian and ranger are useless, since they cannot come close to the fighter?




They might have their attack bonus a bit lower, but they'll make up for it in other ways. The barbarian will start raging and have a crazy Strength bonus, the ranger will have cool bonuses to mobility, ranged combat, and/or two-weapon fighting, and so on. 



> As long as a magic weapon makes you better at hitting things it is needed for characters who hit things as their main combat stick, or they are inadequate compared to those who have magic weapons.




I'm guessing that a either +2 longsword will no longer add +2 to hit, or the +x magic item system will go away altogether. At the very least, while I expect that SOME magic items will still give bonuses to attack rolls or AC, it won't be expected that a level 15 character have a +x weapon to stay competitive.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 7, 2012)

ZombieRoboNinja said:


> At the very least, while I expect that SOME magic items will still give bonuses to attack rolls or AC, it won't be expected that a level 15 character have a +x weapon to stay competitive.




Yes, as I have previously said, the idea of +1 magic weapon being huge is interesting.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jun 7, 2012)

*When does this become "careers"?*

Hi,

Not disliking the flattened math (one of my almost immediate desires, with 4E, is to cancel out all of the per level bonuses), but, if you entirely remove the per level bonuses, you seem to end up with a career based advancement, with smallish increases as particular benefits purchased with experience.

I think that that is a valid advancement scheme, however, it does seem to move away from the simple level based advancement that has been at the heart of D&D.

In my view, a game like WHFRP (the newest edition) goes entirely to the career based scheme, while 4E went entirely to a per level advancement scheme.  With the new scheme be a bit more of a hybrid?

TomB


----------



## Thalain (Jun 8, 2012)

As good as bounded accuracy is with a new party created for 5E, one of the biggest problems with this system is portability - an issue already painfully neglected in the 3E to 4E conversion. There was just no way to bring an old character into the new world and exactly the same thing will hold for 5E if the early indications hold true - any character beyond 7th or 10th level (and those are the ones we invested lots of time and energy into) can't make the transition, meaning it just isn't possible to convert your campaign as it was done from 2E to 3E where you could adjust sheets and monsters and make the switch mid-campaign and even mid-adventure. In an edition meant to unify all play styles, I would expect conversion be one of the main selling points: taking your characters and campaigns into the new game and never looking back.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 8, 2012)

Thalain said:


> As good as bounded accuracy is with a new party created for 5E, one of the biggest problems with this system is portability - an issue already painfully neglected in the 3E to 4E conversion. There was just no way to bring an old character into the new world and exactly the same thing will hold for 5E if the early indications hold true - any character beyond 7th or 10th level (and those are the ones we invested lots of time and energy into) can't make the transition, meaning it just isn't possible to convert your campaign as it was done from 2E to 3E where you could adjust sheets and monsters and make the switch mid-campaign and even mid-adventure. In an edition meant to unify all play styles, I would expect conversion be one of the main selling points: taking your characters and campaigns into the new game and never looking back.




The conversion from 2e to 3e wasn't actually that smooth. A mid level 2e fighter could hit just about anything multiple times, with a good Constitution score had hp that matched the strongest monsters in the game, had an AC in plate that rivaled many high HD monsters, almost always made their saves and had plenty of NWPs. The 6th level Dwarven Fighter I play in a 2e game right now would change dramatically if the game converted to 3e.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 8, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> One difficulty I have, is that I don't think I like worlds where the most powerful BBEGs, such as the Tarrasque or its equivalent, can be defeated by armies. I want only heroes to be able to fight these things. Cuz that's cool.




That is what Damage Resistance and Regeneration is good for, as a coarse means to qualitatively separate the men from the boys.

I think armies usefully _assisting_ the real heroes fight the Tarrasque is a great thing, and it would be very sad such were outright impossible.

I always imagined that the original inspiration around Chainmail/proto-D&D was silly ideas like "What if William the Conqueror were facing the Necromancer Harald and his elite vampire bodyguard?  Good thing Grendel is here to help."


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 8, 2012)

ZombieRoboNinja said:


> They might have their attack bonus a bit lower, but they'll make up for it in other ways. The barbarian will start raging and have a crazy Strength bonus, the ranger will have cool bonuses to mobility, ranged combat, and/or two-weapon fighting, and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing that a either +2 longsword will no longer add +2 to hit, or the +x magic item system will go away altogether. At the very least, while I expect that SOME magic items will still give bonuses to attack rolls or AC, it won't be expected that a level 15 character have a +x weapon to stay competitive.



I in no way believe, they will do away with magic weapons. But magic weapons should be back to where they used to be: a magic weapon +1 is terribly exciting.

Actually it was Baldur´s gate that made low magic weapons very common. And I noticed players, who played that game expecting to get them very early on.

I would also like drow weapons lose their magic again if they are exposed to sunlight. I really did like that flavour (hated it as a PC... but it was flavourful)

So please, don´t remove magic weapons. They are an essential part of DnD, but also, please make them not the default. Try to integrate magic weapons into the CR system. This way everone can have as much magic as they like.

Something like:
If the party has an average magic item bonus of +1, put an extra monster per 4 PCs into the fight.


----------



## DNH (Jun 8, 2012)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I in no way believe, they will do away with magic weapons. But magic weapons should be back to where they used to be: a magic weapon +1 is terribly exciting.
> 
> Actually it was Baldur´s gate that made low magic weapons very common. And I noticed players, who played that game expecting to get them very early on.
> 
> ...



We should look at what has been happening with magic weapons (and magic items in general) in 4e. We were initially given a vast array of the things, plenty of them in the PHBs and two full hardback volumes too (the AV books), and they were nothing special - just lots of general items, most of them available in several versions (levels of power). Fast forward a bit to later publications (Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium, specifically) and magic items come alive. They are more interesting, have more of a story behind them (many have sidebars accompanying them) and seem to be more ... magical. I am talking fluff, rather than crunch here.

My point is that I hope that this approach, making magic items more magical, continues into the next edition.


----------



## Andor (Jun 8, 2012)

Thalain said:


> As good as bounded accuracy is with a new party created for 5E, one of the biggest problems with this system is portability - an issue already painfully neglected in the 3E to 4E conversion. There was just no way to bring an old character into the new world and exactly the same thing will hold for 5E if the early indications hold true - any character beyond 7th or 10th level (and those are the ones we invested lots of time and energy into) can't make the transition, meaning it just isn't possible to convert your campaign as it was done from 2E to 3E where you could adjust sheets and monsters and make the switch mid-campaign and even mid-adventure. In an edition meant to unify all play styles, I would expect conversion be one of the main selling points: taking your characters and campaigns into the new game and never looking back.




D&D characters have never been as edition portable as, say, Hero system characters are. 

If you want to jump ships mid-stream you do what we've always done. Reinvent your character in the new system. You use the same race and class and after that you fill in the blanks to match your expectation of the character and the level the GM assigned for the switch.

In all probability the new edition will be a better match for the character in your imagination in some ways, and worse in other.


----------



## tlantl (Jun 8, 2012)

Fenes said:


> Have you ever played D&D? Any edition? Where you struggle with an orc at level 1, yet after a year of slaughtering monsters, killing the exact same type of orc is now easy? That's called leveling up.
> 
> At the highest level you are supposed to be superman, kicking demonlords around. 4E even has a "demigod" path to take.
> 
> Do you really want your character to not advance in any way at all? To never progress from a young fighter to a grizzled swordmaster? From apprentice mage to archwizard?





This right here is my biggest problem with any game using levels for advancement. At some point you stop being reasonably normal with a focused skill set to being an unstoppable force that has the capability to run rough shod over the rest of the world. This causes no end of grief for me and other DMs I know. 

If the world stays relevant longer then I don't have to fight the inner war of allowing the game to progress beyond a certain level or starting anew. 3e was so stupid this way that I never had a group go beyond 8th level and eventually stopped playing it. There were a lot of things about 3e that you didn't really see until you played for a while that really irritated me, the assumption that the only complete character was the 20th level character being one of them.

I could really care less if the character gets more than a slight increase in power in those twenty or thirty levels, I'd prefer if they didn't. From the look of this game from it's play test it's not going to be any better than the others, only different. I mean wizards getting +6 attack bonuses at first level and the double digit starting HP are pretty good indicators that this is going to be another "modern suck game".


----------



## Fenes (Jun 8, 2012)

tlantl said:


> This right here is my biggest problem with any game using levels for advancement. At some point you stop being reasonably normal with a focused skill set to being an unstoppable force that has the capability to run rough shod over the rest of the world. This causes no end of grief for me and other DMs I know.




That's D&D for you, since the start, through any edition.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 8, 2012)

Bagpuss said:


> There go the wizards putting rogues out of a job again. What's wrong with starting with a pick boy? Why not start off with a nice little lockpick? You don't have to go leaping straight to disintegrate like a bull at a gate.



Unfortunately, the Rogue stayed in the astral tavern swooning the lady angels. No time to pick any stupid locks.


----------



## tlantl (Jun 8, 2012)

Fenes said:


> That's D&D for you, since the start, through any edition.




Pretty much, some worse than others. 

Piling on powers and abilities every level or so just makes it worse though. 

I really hate when players sit at your table being unhappy and disruptive because they don't have that nifty class ability they took the class for, although it's seven levels away, and in all likelihood they will never be able to use.


----------



## Balesir (Jun 8, 2012)

Fenes said:


> That's D&D for you, since the start, through any edition.



Yes, indeed - and if I want a game without, I play a different system! D&D is the game I play if I want fantasy characters that level up to be epic - HârnMaster is generally the game I play if  I want fantasy characters that don't.



tlantl said:


> I really hate when players sit at your table being unhappy and disruptive because they don't have that nifty class ability they took the class for, although it's seven levels away, and in all likelihood they will never be able to use.



Sounds like a case of GM and players wanting to play different games <shrug>.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 9, 2012)

Fenes said:


> That's D&D for you, since the start, through any edition.



Never had that problem in 1e. Then again, we generally took "name level" as "time to retire and start new characters".


----------



## Nifft (Jun 10, 2012)

Mercule said:


> Never had that problem in 1e. Then again, we generally took "name level" as "time to retire and start new characters".



 Bounded advancement (quitting at level ~10) implies bounded accuracy.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 10, 2012)

Heh.  Maybe one day they'll realize that there's no actual need to separate "did I hit" and "how much damage did I do" into two separate rolls.  This brings us closer and closer to that glorious dawn.

And maybe then they'll drop ability seed values and just use the bonuses.  I can dream!


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 10, 2012)

Cadfan said:


> Heh.  Maybe one day they'll realize that there's no actual need to separate "did I hit" and "how much damage did I do" into two separate rolls.  This brings us closer and closer to that glorious dawn.



That's a legacy issue we might never see the end of.



Cadfan said:


> And maybe then they'll drop ability seed values and just use the bonuses.  I can dream!



It seems they're doing the other thing, which is making the scores something more than just numbers on the character sheet. Determining auto-success based on ability score value, for instance.


----------

