PDA

View Full Version : DnD Next - Bounded Accuracy and E6



Weltall_BR
2013-08-07, 03:56 PM
One of the design guidelines of D&D Next is bounded accuracy -- if you don't know what this is, you can read about it here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120604). You can easily see how this works by observing the progression of the attack bonus: while Fighters got to +20 in the 3rd, they now get to +6. The lack of a skill points system has the same effect.

My question is: how well does this synergizes with level caps? In a first thought, it seems to me that both ideas synergize pretty well. According to E6 (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/E6_(3.5e_Sourcebook)), 6th level characters should be able to face enemies in the range of CR 7-10 (and later, CR 7-12). With bounded accuracy, characters may be able to go even past these CR levels without much loss to the gritty feel of E6.

What do you people think?

erikun
2013-08-07, 04:36 PM
I am unclear what your question means. The article indicates that higher level means more HP, more damage, and more abilities. (only) In that case, limiting characters to low level to fight higher level opponents probably isn't what you are looking for; unless they have some way to stun-lock or trap an opponent to where it cannot attack, they will end up dead due to the damage it deals.


This article isn't quite what I think of when the term "Bounded Accuracy" is used. When I hear the term, I think of something like AD&D, with a "soft bounded accuracy" because there were simply limits on the bonuses you could receive, or something like Mutants & Masterminds, where there is a hard limit on bonuses equal to the current character level. D&D3e would be a game without bounded accuracy, and where the bonuses could (and frequently did) run unimpeded and give absurd values.

This doesn't sound like bounded accuracy. Rather, it sounds like unchanging accuracy. That is, you have the same attack bonus at 1st level as you do at 20th.


I'd probably have two big issues with this situation. First, there are some things a character can do that do involve levels but don't involve damage. What about a character who is trying to become a leader of men in his world? What about someone who wishes to study and create a new realm of wizardly knowledge? With a system as described, they have just as much a chance to succeed at 1st level as they do at 20th. Leveling up might grant them a few extra bonuses, such at ability score increases or magic items doing the same, but that is mostly it. If a character could assemble a wizard college or talk with people well enough to establish a thieves guild once they hit 20th level, then they could probaby have done the same at 1st. Is there any point in (mechanical) progression at that point?

The other is that the d20 is a large variable range, and current ability bonuses range from -5 to +5 in most situations. While I'm sure that +5 with advantage is far better than -5 with disadvantage, I'm not sure that +5 wiht advantage is much better than just +2 normally. This gets even worse if your character can "specialize" and get advantage at first level. Is +2 advantage really that far off from the top-tier of capabilities a character can acquire? This is only 14 in a stat and training in a skill, and hardly that far fetched for a character to possess.

JusticeZero
2013-08-09, 12:37 AM
Honestly, it looks like an attempt to replicate the E6 dynamic spread over 20 levels.

Weltall_BR
2013-08-09, 01:11 PM
Honestly, it looks like an attempt to replicate the E6 dynamic spread over 20 levels.

Indeed. Do you think that an E6 DnD Next would be redundant, then? To me it looks like they would work great together. Due to bounded accuracy (at least as DnD Next designers use the concept) a 6th level DnD Next character could face more challenging encounters than a 6th level 3rd ed character, effectively increasing E6's scope. The fact that there are few dead levels in the 1st-6th range in DnD Next (only primary spell casters have a significant number of dead levels, but then again their levels are not really dead as their spellcasting capacity increases) only contributes to this.

Person_Man
2013-08-09, 01:13 PM
To answer the questions directly, I think it has no impact on E6. If anything, it makes it slightly easier for you to import higher level class features/spells/etc into low level play, since the math should be less wonky.

RE: Bounded Acuracy in general, in theory I'm a big fan.

When you gain levels, you should be gaining new and different abilities, not just a higher modifier on existing abilities. It makes it much more difficult to break the underlying game math. (In that you can't optimize a Skill/Attack Roll/Damage Roll/Saving Throw/AC/etc to always succeed). And it keeps low level monsters relevant throughout the game (which means you don't have to have monster advancement rules, and DMs can use any monster they please for any campaign without worrying about whether or not they'll challenge the PCs, and in general it's a lot easier to balance encounters).

As erikun correctly points out, it does not allow you to simulate some styles of high fantasy games. But I'm ok with that. Most games for most players need a game with math that can't easily be broken, so that they can roleplay, explore, and fight in small tactical combats in a fun and reasonable fashion.

That's the theory anyway.

But each iteration of the D&D Next Playtest has moved further and further away from Bounded Accuracy. For example, the most recent version gives everyone a +10 to one Lore/Knowledge of your choice. Also, Ability Score Bonuses gained from levels and Feats are interchangeable (you either gain +1 to an Ability Score or gain a Feat).

So critics of Bounded Accuracy have nothing to fear, because they're slowly undoing it.