Does a simple +1 bonus mean more or less with bounded accuracy?
I've seen a lot of people claim that a +1 means a lot more in 5e than 3.X. This is because the DCs are lower, so a simple +1 can have a large effect for beating the DC.
Conversely, due to the lower numbers, a +1 may not mean as much because the +0 still has a decent chance of success.
Has anyone run the numbers? Done any analysis or comprison?
What's your opinion?
I haven't run the numbers, but any kind of bonus in 5E is pretty significant.
In 3.PF, it's so swingy that a +1 might not matter. If the DC is 40 and you only have +10 on the roll, +11 isn't really going to matter. Conversely, if the DC is 15, and you have +20 to the roll, +21 isn't really going to matter either.
But in PF, almost all DCs are possible at any level. AC seems to have the highest DC, and it maxes out (usually) around 22. So even at 1st level, there is a chance to hit it. Conversely, the lowest DC I've seen is 8 (zombie AC), and even at mid to high levels, there is still a chance to miss it.
Also, sources of static bonuses are really rare in 5th Ed, so they're really valuable.
A lot of magic items give out +1 bonuses.
For 10 or 11 levels, my hill dwarf cleric of Life has had a cloak that give him +1 on Constitution saving throws. Even though my 4th level feat was spent on Resilient (Constitution), it has been just the bump to save me on a lot of saving throws!
While I can certainly see the value of a +1 with bounded accuracy - if we flip the coin around - it may not mean as much because you don't really need it as much. In 3.X, you needed as many bonuses as you could get. But in 5e, the DCs are so low that an additional +1 may not mean that much anymore.
For example, do you really need to max out a primary stat and bring your +4 modifier all the way to a +5, or is it just as viable to shore up a different stat that you're weak on - which may not mean as much for your build. In 3.X, the answer was a definite yes - improve that primary stat. In 5e, it may not matter anymore.
There are a fairly large number of abilities that grant bonuses to rolls (ditto penalties) but they're often a die result rather than a single, set bonus, and they often use a limited resource to function. The trick is making sure that permanent bonuses still cut into some form of resource, like magic item attunement.
You can use both a ring and cloak of protection for +2 total to AC and saves, as an example, but that's 2/3 of your attunement slots, so you're trading off for that.
Similarly there's the Archery fighting style and bracers of archery, again cutting into attunement to make that happen.
As far as bounded accuracy is concerned I think a single +1 is more valuable, because it's more likely to be an actual 5% increase in chance of success, like SmiloDan was saying.
The way I would analyze it off-the-cuff would depend on whether it was a "to-hit" bonus or a damage bonus. Taking the to-hit (or ability check bonus) first:
In 5E a +1 increases your chance of success by (almost exactly) 5%.
In Pathfinder there's a good chance it will also increase your chance of success by the same. However, in Pathfinder there is a chance that it will have no effect (you'll still nearly always succeed or nearly always fail).
Thus, I'd say it was slightly less relevant in Pathfinder (purely because you'll more often be in the 'dice don't matter' part of the curve). In most cases though (where you need a 2-19 to succeed) it will increase your success chance by exactly the same in either system.
The analysis is slightly different when it comes to damage: I think the +1 is more significant in 5E (since the numbers are generally lower so that it's more likely that each +1 will end a battle one round early). However, I think it's pretty close and I end up at the same point - it's slightly more significant in 5E, but not in a hugely dramatic way.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The question of "How important is a +1 bonus?" has a different answer depending on the context of the question.
At the macro level, looking at the role of +1 bonuses in general, they're more important in PF than in 5E, because the PF math assumes that you're building your mathwall out of a bunch of +1 bricks. They're central to the system's expectations. If you neglect them, you'll fall behind the curve. But in 5E, the things that grant +1 bonuses lie outside the scope of the baseline math (the baseline consists of stats and proficiency), so the +1 bonuses are kind of just gravy. Not that important.
But at the micro level, where you're looking at a given roll/check and asking whether a single extra +1 bonus. In any given check (assuming that in either system the existing bonus isn't so big or small as to auto-succeed/auto-fail), then the value of one more +1 is actually identical in both systems. In both systems, that +1 means one more possible d20 result that gives a success instead of a failure. Thus, the value is equal.
It depends on the context of the question.
I haven't run the numbers but I wonder how the advantage/disadvantage mechanism would interact with a +1 bonus.
A while ago I did some calculations and found that advantage is roughly equivalent to a +4 bonus for some target numbers.
Advantage/Disadvantage is plus or minus 5 if the required roll is 11 and declines in effect to be roughly plus or minus 1 as the "net target number" (ie after applying all modifiers and distilling it down to just the roll) approaches 1 or 20.
So looking at advantage - if you need a 11 (a base 50% chance to succeed) you'll now have a 75% chance to hit. It's equivalent to a +5.
If you need a 20 to hit (base 5%) you'll now have a 9.75% chance. It's equivalent to (almost) a +1.
If you need a 2 to hit (base 95%) you'll now have a 99.75% chance. Again (almost) the same as a +1.
The disadvantage calculations are similar.
It's hugely significant in the case of a coin toss but not that important in very easy or very hard situations.
I haven't run the numbers but I wonder how the advantage/disadvantage mechanism would interact with a +1 bonus.
A while ago I did some calculations and found that advantage is roughly equivalent to a +4 bonus for some target numbers.
The math has been done here.
The question of "How important is a +1 bonus?" has a different answer depending on the context of the question.
The context was that I saw someone with all 14s for stats (except one 11), and someone else claimed that they were effectively dead weight because they didn't have a 16+ in their primary stat.
And it made me think: does an extra +1 modifier really matter that much? Especially when the trade off is that you don't have any other weaknesses. So far, the universal answer I've seen to that is "yes - it really does matter because a +1 means a lot more in this edition."
But I'm not so sure.
Maybe I'll test it out next time I'm a player instead of a GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question of "How important is a +1 bonus?" has a different answer depending on the context of the question.The context was that I saw someone with all 14s for stats (except one 11), and someone else claimed that they were effectively dead weight because they didn't have a 16+ in their primary stat.
And it made me think: does an extra +1 modifier really matter that much? Especially when the trade off is that you don't have any other weaknesses. So far, the universal answer I've seen to that is "yes - it really does matter because a +1 means a lot more in this edition."
That's not my answer - I think a +1 means a little bit more in 5E than PF but not much more.
In terms of "Does playing a crap character matter so much?", I think the answer is no but I don't think it's the significance of the +1 which matters. I think classes in 5E have a lot of their power built in via class features (the fighter is the obvious example here - their proficiency bonus isn't any better than other classes, but they are nonetheless better at putting on armor, picking up a sword and just having at it).
As such, I think all classes derive a higher (relative) power level before the modifiers are included and then increase by less based on stats/items/development. Any +1 forgone crimps the increase between two otherwise identical characters, but not the 'raw power' of a class (which is what you tend to notice at the table - it doesnt matter if your fighter isnt as good as he could be - as long as he's better at fighting than the cleric, the magicuser or the thief).
I routinely make suboptimal choices in PC creation - what we've found in 5E is that I'm noticably less effective than the other PCs but, unlike prior editions, I'm still able to do something - I'm weaker but not a total waste of space.
The only way I've really successfully been crap is when I made ludicrous stat assignments (a caster with a very weak casting stat is severely hampered - obvious stuff like that).
Does a simple +1 bonus mean more or less with bounded accuracy?
I've seen a lot of people claim that a +1 means a lot more in 5e than 3.X. This is because the DCs are lower, so a simple +1 can have a large effect for beating the DC.
Conversely, due to the lower numbers, a +1 may not mean as much because the +0 still has a decent chance of success.
Has anyone run the numbers? Done any analysis or comprison?
What's your opinion?
The total percentage of successes increases by 5 with or without bounded accuracy, so in general it doesn't mean more or less as long as the roll moves within the bounds of having any chance of both success and failure. However in 3rd edition and PF you often have cases where either the DC or the bonus outruns the other, usually when you have someone untrained in a skill try a skill check against something at high levels or when someone who is trained and high level makes a skill check against almost anything, and you are dealing with 100% chances, where the +1 can do literally nothing or in some rare cases make an impossible roll just very unlikely. Since such cases are much less frequent (though not impossible, with say a character in full plate, with a shield and the defense fighting style and defensive duelist feat) a +1 almost always makes a difference.
Within 5e bound accuracy system, a +1 is a nice boost to you ability, but the system still allow characters that have not maximized their main attribute to still be able to hit or achieve success on a skill check.
So in 5e a character that decide to specialized and put up is main attribute will be more effective, but he will still have chances to succeed at skill check related to its lower ability scores. And a character that favor versability might not be as good as the specialized character in its main stat, but he will have better chance to succeed overall and will still be effective for what his class is best at.