Bounded Accuracy Isn't Bad


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 150 of 376 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

MerlinCross wrote:

Stupid question;

As someone who's only played about 3 systems, Pathfinder being the main one, just what is Bounded Accuracy and how does it differ from what we have?

Bounded accuracy is the idea that numbers are to be curbed, or kept to a certain level.

WotC made up the idea that it was presented in AD&D (which is actually a falsehood...the TABLES went to a specific point, but that was not the LIMIT of them. A primary example is that AC descended in AD&D and in 2e -10 was normally seen as the lowest AC could be. However, this was demonstrably false as even in the first monsters released, there was at least one that had an AC LOWER than what the tables indicated. In addition, in AD&D 1e (and 2e also, but 1e is famous for this) there were no XP tables that went up to level 20 really...but you had players who had 100 level characters or worse (most call those the munchkin type games...but hey...if people were having fun).

What happens is that in 4e you start having an idea form where you limit how fast or how high one can advance, and how far apart the numbers are. Thus, in 4e, you'd have powers and abilities by level, and each of those powers would have a certain amount of damage allowable on average.

Leveling meant that you would only be able to garner a maximum of +15 to your Attack Bonus from your class (and to your saves).

It wasn't a set in stone idea yet, but it was starting to form

5e created this idea which was formally called Bounded Accuracy. In it, your abilities are curbed and limited so that they cannot exceed a certain amount normally.

This means that No Player's characters can have any ability score that goes above 20 (with one exception, which is basically a class ability).

In addition, Proficiency bonuses which dictate how well you hit and fight are limited to a maximum of +6 (if you play to level 20).

In theory, this is a limitation to keep Attack Bonuses down, so that AC can remain low as well and there is not a race for ever higher numbers.

This means that with a 20 STR, and a +6 AC...the maximum bonus to hit is going to be a +11. This is for Fighters, Wizards, Rogues...whatever class you are.

In addition you are only allowed to attune yourself to so many magic items (ssuch as 3 magic items). This limits how much magic you can utlize on a permanent basis.

Weapons and armor only give out a maximum of a +3, and those are excessively rare. +1 weapons are the norm.

Adding that in, this means that the top attack bonus that the creators generated into the game is a +14.

Now, powergamers and munchkins figured loopholes in the rules (as they always will) where they could get something like up to +30 to attack, and a +45 to AC...but the chances of this actually occurring in most people's games are excessively low to nil. This works because most people don't go out of their way to break the game when they play it.

The idea is that bounded accuracy BINDS how high the numbers can go. It purposefully and artificially limits players advancements as far as certain areas go.

if we were to apply Bounded accuracy to Pathfinder 1e, we would say something like....

The maximum any characters BAB can be...ever...is +5. If you gain something that says it goes above that...you do not. It stays at +5.

In addition, you can never ever have an ability score over 20. If you are in a situation where you can add a point to an ability score and it would go over 20, you must add it to another ability score.

You can only have 3 permanent items, and none of them can have over a +3 maximum bonus.

As you can tell, Pathfinder would be a very different game if we applied Bounded accuracy to it.

However, a game can have some aspects of bounded accuracy, but not be completely bound by it. For example, in theory, one could expand the 5e experience tables higher and thus gain another +1 to hit every four levels over 20th.

Or, 4e, though the total level of characters was bound to 30th level, and thus their bonuses to hit and defenses were limited to a +15 by their class, they were still allowed to increase their ability scores as high as they wanted and other aspects were NOT bound.

Thus, it is possible for a system to have looser or more strict bounded accuracy rules.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Yes, basically bonded accuracy is the idea that the Wizard and the Fighter should have the same chance to hit, and that everything should have a virtually static AC, so that nothing ever becomes easier for the players, and you can kill players with lower level creatures more easily so that the characters never feel as though they've advanced and the game is basically played at first level in perpetuity.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Bounded Accuracy removes player agency from the character design process. It results in homogeneous character design. (Or more accurately, false choices. It no longer matters what you choose, the numbers come out the same.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Yes, basically bonded accuracy is the idea that the Wizard and the Fighter should have the same chance to hit, and that everything should have a virtually static AC, so that nothing ever becomes easier for the players, and you can kill players with lower level creatures more easily so that the characters never feel as though they've advanced and the game is basically played at first level in perpetuity.

Um, no. While you can still be hit by lower level creatures, they are very unlikely to kill you. Your hit points and damage you do still progresses, whereas these low level creatures are still the same. You'll still win every time, unless you're catastrophically unlucky, or mobbed by a huge number of them.

Anyways, the PF2 system uses +level for attack rolls as per the Glass Cannon podcast, so we already know it's going to be across a 20 (well 19) range, vs. the 2-6 range of 5E, so it's "less bounded" at the very least.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Bounded Accuracy removes player agency from the character design process. It results in homogeneous character design. (Or more accurately, false choices. It no longer matters what you choose, the numbers come out the same.)

Yes, a completely different experience than PF, which is a handful of optimal choices and a mountain of trap choices.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Bounded Accuracy removes player agency from the character design process. It results in homogeneous character design. (Or more accurately, false choices. It no longer matters what you choose, the numbers come out the same.)

I found that player agency was massively increased, as every decision became meaningful.

My players absolutely loved it compared to PF, and we played PF for about 5 years.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Bounded Accuracy removes player agency from the character design process. It results in homogeneous character design. (Or more accurately, false choices. It no longer matters what you choose, the numbers come out the same.)

I found that player agency was massively increased, as every decision became meaningful.

My players absolutely loved it compared to PF, and we played PF for about 5 years.

Alternately, every decision becomes meaningless as there is no differentiation with everything the same.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Bounded Accuracy removes player agency from the character design process. It results in homogeneous character design. (Or more accurately, false choices. It no longer matters what you choose, the numbers come out the same.)

I found that player agency was massively increased, as every decision became meaningful.

My players absolutely loved it compared to PF, and we played PF for about 5 years.

Alternately, every decision becomes meaningless as there is no differentiation with everything the same.

That would be true if everything was the same. But everything isn't the same. Only the numbers are.

PF distinguishes characters through numbers. 5e does not.

5e distinguishes characters through their features. PCs gain abilities that no one else can do, and that's how they grow stronger and become better and unique.

I've found that everyone who bashes 5e either ignores or is ignorant of this fact.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kerrilyn wrote:
Anyways, the PF2 system uses +level for attack rolls as per the Glass Cannon podcast, so we already know it's going to be across a 20 (well 19) range, vs. the 2-6 range of 5E, so it's "less bounded" at the very least.

This sounds much better for us. Our problem with bounded accuracy was literally that the numbers never get high enough.

If we were going to bound accuracy, I'd want to spend a lot of time in the +10 to +12 range. It lets the unskilled character win out rarely in opposed roles, but gives a bonus that isn't completely swamped by the d20.

I wouldn't call 1-20 bounded accuracy at all, honestly. A difference of +19 as you level is such a different beast than +4 that I don't think they're comparable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Bounded Accuracy removes player agency from the character design process. It results in homogeneous character design. (Or more accurately, false choices. It no longer matters what you choose, the numbers come out the same.)

I found that player agency was massively increased, as every decision became meaningful.

My players absolutely loved it compared to PF, and we played PF for about 5 years.

Alternately, every decision becomes meaningless as there is no differentiation with everything the same.

That would be true if everything was the same. But everything isn't the same. Only the numbers are.

PF distinguishes characters through numbers. 5e does not.

5e distinguishes characters through their features. PCs gain abilities that no one else can do, and that's how they grow stronger and become better and unique.

I've found that everyone who bashes 5e either ignores or is ignorant of this fact.

As an engineer, I read that as: "Only the internals of the machine are the same. The facades are completely different!" For many players, the numbers, the internal mechanics, are the vital parts. The fluff, the facade, the UI, that is important, but entirely secondary to the internal mechanics, the numbers. For others, of course, it is the reverse, and, still others, they are on equal footing.


Landon Winkler wrote:

[

I wouldn't call 1-20 bounded accuracy at all, honestly. A difference of +19 as you level is such a different beast than +4 that I don't think they're comparable.

Right, 1-20 is the 4E model. It allows larger numbers baked into the leveling system. It breaks out of the D20 range being significant like BA does.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Remember that in the case of this game, we should see Bounded accuracy in the context of the different members of the same adventuring party.

The issue with PF1 was that 2 party members already had ridiculously lopsided skillsets even from like level 6, so that non-specialized characters in the same group were useless at certain tasks (such as hitting monsters). It wasn't really about low level mons vs high level dudes.

With adding level to your rolls, it means characters of the same power level don't have such a gulf betwen their abilities. The Rogue may be lucky to have +8-10 on Disable Device over the wizard. Although this does mean some DCs scale ridiculously high, at least you get rid of "I can only succeed on nat 20/I can only fail on nat 1 (both same level)" situations. Both of them are in another dimension over lower level characters, either way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KahnyaGnorc wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Bounded Accuracy removes player agency from the character design process. It results in homogeneous character design. (Or more accurately, false choices. It no longer matters what you choose, the numbers come out the same.)

I found that player agency was massively increased, as every decision became meaningful.

My players absolutely loved it compared to PF, and we played PF for about 5 years.

Alternately, every decision becomes meaningless as there is no differentiation with everything the same.

That would be true if everything was the same. But everything isn't the same. Only the numbers are.

PF distinguishes characters through numbers. 5e does not.

5e distinguishes characters through their features. PCs gain abilities that no one else can do, and that's how they grow stronger and become better and unique.

I've found that everyone who bashes 5e either ignores or is ignorant of this fact.

As an engineer, I read that as: "Only the internals of the machine are the same. The facades are completely different!" For many players, the numbers, the internal mechanics, are the vital parts. The fluff, the facade, the UI, that is important, but entirely secondary to the internal mechanics, the numbers. For others, of course, it is the reverse, and, still others, they are on equal footing.

And that's why engineers usually get so much wrong when they step outside their field.

There's more to things than the math. Point in case, D&D isn't actually a machine. A lot of the abilities can't be quantified with a numerical value. Claiming that features aren't a part of the internal workings is just flat out wrong.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:


Point in case, D&D isn't actually a machine. A lot of the abilities can't be quantified with a numerical value.

Some of us see those as bugs, hopefully to be worked out.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
bookrat wrote:


Point in case, D&D isn't actually a machine. A lot of the abilities can't be quantified with a numerical value.
Some of us see those as bugs, hopefully to be worked out.

You will never be able to. These are called "soft" and opposed to the "hard" numerical items.

I was thinking about this yesterday as I sat my desk watching a webcast of my CEO. He was talking about "how do we know we're doing well as a company?"

There's two important things to look at. The first are KPI (Key Performance Indexes) and Metrics; these are line items that can be measured and quantified. Things such as failure rates, customer shipping commitment dates, profits, etc. The second are unquantifiable - "soft" items that improve quality without being able to track. These are things like ensuring employees are happy, have a good work-life balance, are able to control their anger when they get frustrated, and genuinely care about making the company better. Or customer satisfaction. They may be able to be measured somewhat, but it's very challenging.

Likewise, we have Hard and Soft sciences. The Hard Sciences - physics, chemistry, biology, etc - are all things that can be mathematically quantified, or have mathematical proofs, with hard evidence and data. The Soft Sciences - psychology, political science, sociology, etc - are fields where it's very difficult to get good measurements and very challenging to quantitate.

And again we see it in education. Hard and Soft Skills. We can teach students Hard Skills and test it in English, math, science, etc. In fact, in the US school performance is based on how well students do in the Hard Skills. But Soft Skills are extremely important and we no longer teach those, mostly because we cannot easily measure them. These are things like emotional management, how to deal with anger, creative thinking, ability to work well with a team, effective communication, conflict resolution, etc.

Again and again we see these two types: hard categories which can be quantified, and soft categories which is very challenging or impossible to quantify.

And here in D&D we see it. DPR, KPR, Builds are all Hard, as they can easily be quantified and compared. But there are many features where they would be considered Soft, because of how difficult it is to quantify them. Abilities that contribute to social and exploration pillars, abilities which are used infrequently, abilities which don't directly contribution it to how fast they can kill a monster, etc. These soft abilities are extremely important to the game and play a critical role in class balance, but it's very difficult to quantify them. As such, many people trying to do a comparison ignore them, because it's too challenging to quantitate.

They're not alone. Many people try to ignore or brush aside items in the Soft Categories for the same exact reason. But it's also true that when you ignore them because it's too challenging, whatever analysis you're doing will be wrong.

Failure to account for the soft categories leads to business failure, social failure, school failure, failure of governmental programs, and many other problems. So, too, does it lead to a failure in analysis here in D&D.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:


That would be true if everything was the same. But everything isn't the same. Only the numbers are.

PF distinguishes characters through numbers. 5e does not.

5e distinguishes characters through their features. PCs gain abilities that no one else can do, and that's how they grow stronger and become better and unique.

I've found that everyone who bashes 5e either ignores or is ignorant of this fact.

I am gonna agree with this. I ran PF for years, I ran pbp here on this forum, I ran games IRL and now I run 5e. Every single class in the games I have been involved with feel different. Sure the math is the same or close too it, but non of them feel the same.

And people go on and on about "Oh the wizard and the fighter have the same chance to hit" which is both true and false. The caster my have the same chance to hit ranged, but as someone playing a melee cleric, I will tell you the fighter, paladin and Barbarian all outclass me in melee. I can match them for a few rounds by burning though powers, but not all session.

In the end, this "oh they have the same chance of hitting" misses the whole point


KahnyaGnorc wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Bounded Accuracy removes player agency from the character design process. It results in homogeneous character design. (Or more accurately, false choices. It no longer matters what you choose, the numbers come out the same.)

I found that player agency was massively increased, as every decision became meaningful.

My players absolutely loved it compared to PF, and we played PF for about 5 years.

Alternately, every decision becomes meaningless as there is no differentiation with everything the same.

That would be true if everything was the same. But everything isn't the same. Only the numbers are.

PF distinguishes characters through numbers. 5e does not.

5e distinguishes characters through their features. PCs gain abilities that no one else can do, and that's how they grow stronger and become better and unique.

I've found that everyone who bashes 5e either ignores or is ignorant of this fact.

As an engineer, I read that as: "Only the internals of the machine are the same. The facades are completely different!" For many players, the numbers, the internal mechanics, are the vital parts. The fluff, the facade, the UI, that is important, but entirely secondary to the internal mechanics, the numbers. For others, of course, it is the reverse, and, still others, they are on equal footing.

The abilities are part of the engine that drives the character, not part of the facade.

For a 3P example compare the Barbarian to the Fighter. Similar numbers but the abilities make a huge difference.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

I am gonna agree with this. I ran PF for years, I ran pbp here on this forum, I ran games IRL and now I run 5e. Every single class in the games I have been involved with feel different. Sure the math is the same or close too it, but non of them feel the same.

And people go on and on about "Oh the wizard and the fighter have the same chance to hit" which is both true and false. The caster my have the same chance to hit ranged, but as someone playing a melee cleric, I will tell you the fighter, paladin and Barbarian all outclass me in melee. I can match them for a few rounds by burning though powers, but not all session.

In the end, this "oh they have the same chance of hitting" misses the whole point

I couldn't disagree more.

In fifth ed the Paladin, the Battle Cleric, and the Battle Bard all play virtually identical.

I had a bard and a cleric at the same time in two different games and they felt like identical characters.

There was a Paladin in the group with my cleric and a battle cleric in the group with my bard (both played by the same fellow player)- this only confirmed to both of us that all three "classes" were essentially identical.

There was also player with a one level fighter dipped Wizard- who eventually always out damaged the Paladin, the Bard, either cleric in melee-- but ALL of those were basically useless because in 5E Barbarian is overpowered and you basically shouldn't play anything that ever intends to swing a melee weapon that isn't Barbarian.


Nathanael Love wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

I am gonna agree with this. I ran PF for years, I ran pbp here on this forum, I ran games IRL and now I run 5e. Every single class in the games I have been involved with feel different. Sure the math is the same or close too it, but non of them feel the same.

And people go on and on about "Oh the wizard and the fighter have the same chance to hit" which is both true and false. The caster my have the same chance to hit ranged, but as someone playing a melee cleric, I will tell you the fighter, paladin and Barbarian all outclass me in melee. I can match them for a few rounds by burning though powers, but not all session.

In the end, this "oh they have the same chance of hitting" misses the whole point

I couldn't disagree more.

In fifth ed the Paladin, the Battle Cleric, and the Battle Bard all play virtually identical.

I had a bard and a cleric at the same time in two different games and they felt like identical characters.

There was a Paladin in the group with my cleric and a battle cleric in the group with my bard (both played by the same fellow player)- this only confirmed to both of us that all three "classes" were essentially identical.

There was also player with a one level fighter dipped Wizard- who eventually always out damaged the Paladin, the Bard, either cleric in melee-- but ALL of those were basically useless because in 5E Barbarian is overpowered and you basically shouldn't play anything that ever intends to swing a melee weapon that isn't Barbarian.

This doesn't come close to matching my experience with 5e. Not even a little. At our table the paladin significantly outperforms the barbarian in terms of dealing damage, whereas the barbarian is able to TAKE way more damage, while also giving everyone advantage. It's a flip of their expected support vs. damage roles in other editions, to be sure, but the idea that a 5e paladin is 'useless' is completely ludicrous.


Nathanael Love wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

I am gonna agree with this. I ran PF for years, I ran pbp here on this forum, I ran games IRL and now I run 5e. Every single class in the games I have been involved with feel different. Sure the math is the same or close too it, but non of them feel the same.

And people go on and on about "Oh the wizard and the fighter have the same chance to hit" which is both true and false. The caster my have the same chance to hit ranged, but as someone playing a melee cleric, I will tell you the fighter, paladin and Barbarian all outclass me in melee. I can match them for a few rounds by burning though powers, but not all session.

In the end, this "oh they have the same chance of hitting" misses the whole point

I couldn't disagree more.

In fifth ed the Paladin, the Battle Cleric, and the Battle Bard all play virtually identical.

I had a bard and a cleric at the same time in two different games and they felt like identical characters.

There was a Paladin in the group with my cleric and a battle cleric in the group with my bard (both played by the same fellow player)- this only confirmed to both of us that all three "classes" were essentially identical.

There was also player with a one level fighter dipped Wizard- who eventually always out damaged the Paladin, the Bard, either cleric in melee-- but ALL of those were basically useless because in 5E Barbarian is overpowered and you basically shouldn't play anything that ever intends to swing a melee weapon that isn't Barbarian.

My lizardfolk TWF champion fighter with 14 strength and 14 dex - a character who optimizers claim you should never play - was often the MVP of society games, even with paladins and barbarians right along side him.

People liked that PC so much that I would get requests to play him, even over other more powerful PCs I kept around.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ian Bell wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

I am gonna agree with this. I ran PF for years, I ran pbp here on this forum, I ran games IRL and now I run 5e. Every single class in the games I have been involved with feel different. Sure the math is the same or close too it, but non of them feel the same.

And people go on and on about "Oh the wizard and the fighter have the same chance to hit" which is both true and false. The caster my have the same chance to hit ranged, but as someone playing a melee cleric, I will tell you the fighter, paladin and Barbarian all outclass me in melee. I can match them for a few rounds by burning though powers, but not all session.

In the end, this "oh they have the same chance of hitting" misses the whole point

I couldn't disagree more.

In fifth ed the Paladin, the Battle Cleric, and the Battle Bard all play virtually identical.

I had a bard and a cleric at the same time in two different games and they felt like identical characters.

There was a Paladin in the group with my cleric and a battle cleric in the group with my bard (both played by the same fellow player)- this only confirmed to both of us that all three "classes" were essentially identical.

There was also player with a one level fighter dipped Wizard- who eventually always out damaged the Paladin, the Bard, either cleric in melee-- but ALL of those were basically useless because in 5E Barbarian is overpowered and you basically shouldn't play anything that ever intends to swing a melee weapon that isn't Barbarian.

This doesn't come close to matching my experience with 5e. Not even a little. At our table the paladin significantly outperforms the barbarian in terms of dealing damage, whereas the barbarian is able to TAKE way more damage, while also giving everyone advantage. It's a flip of their expected support vs. damage roles in other editions, to be sure, but the idea that a 5e paladin is 'useless' is completely ludicrous.

Yeah, it really sounds like he's never actually played 5e if that's the conclusion he walked away with.

Paladins have the best spike damage in the game, with smite. Barbarians are able to soak the most damage with rage. Fighters get the most number of attacks per round.

A war cleric can get two attacks early on, but it costs them their bonus action every round. But then, so can everyone else just by fighting with two weapons.

And that only compares the classes. It completely ignores how race and background alter characters and their impact on the game. Backgrounds in particular add a unique form of narrative power that can really help in the social and exploration pillars.

And that reminds me of another issue I always see about people who complain about 5e - they only ever consider the combat pillar. They completely ignore that the game is designed around three pillars.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
bookrat wrote:
Ian Bell wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

I am gonna agree with this. I ran PF for years, I ran pbp here on this forum, I ran games IRL and now I run 5e. Every single class in the games I have been involved with feel different. Sure the math is the same or close too it, but non of them feel the same.

And people go on and on about "Oh the wizard and the fighter have the same chance to hit" which is both true and false. The caster my have the same chance to hit ranged, but as someone playing a melee cleric, I will tell you the fighter, paladin and Barbarian all outclass me in melee. I can match them for a few rounds by burning though powers, but not all session.

In the end, this "oh they have the same chance of hitting" misses the whole point

I couldn't disagree more.

In fifth ed the Paladin, the Battle Cleric, and the Battle Bard all play virtually identical.

I had a bard and a cleric at the same time in two different games and they felt like identical characters.

There was a Paladin in the group with my cleric and a battle cleric in the group with my bard (both played by the same fellow player)- this only confirmed to both of us that all three "classes" were essentially identical.

There was also player with a one level fighter dipped Wizard- who eventually always out damaged the Paladin, the Bard, either cleric in melee-- but ALL of those were basically useless because in 5E Barbarian is overpowered and you basically shouldn't play anything that ever intends to swing a melee weapon that isn't Barbarian.

This doesn't come close to matching my experience with 5e. Not even a little. At our table the paladin significantly outperforms the barbarian in terms of dealing damage, whereas the barbarian is able to TAKE way more damage, while also giving everyone advantage. It's a flip of their expected support vs. damage roles in other editions, to be sure, but the idea that a 5e paladin is 'useless' is completely ludicrous.
...

I played two campaigns- one from first to fifth level and one from first to seventh and I played all three parts of the "core campaign" at GenCon last year.

I'm not a liar, and I don't appreciate being attacked as such.

If your experiences and impressions of fifth edition are different, that's fine- but don't call me a liar and say I "didn't really play" it.

As for the three pillars and backgrounds- my impression was that every 5th ed character (except classes who got perception as a class proficiency) was a Sailor, because, you know- it gave you proficiency in the best skill (by far).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ian Bell wrote:


This doesn't come close to matching my experience with 5e. Not even a little. At our table the paladin significantly outperforms the barbarian in terms of dealing damage, whereas the barbarian is able to TAKE way more damage, while also giving everyone advantage. It's a flip of their expected support vs. damage roles in other editions, to be sure, but the idea that a 5e paladin is 'useless' is completely ludicrous.

You must have not played 5e much t all. I play in a weekly game ( battle cleric here) with both a barbarian and a paladin. There is no way that cleric is out meleeing the other two classes.

1:The Cleric lacks the 2nd attack, sure he can do it few limited times per day, but he is not gonna keep up. I m a great sword using cleric, I m not matching the paladin or the Barbarian in round per round melee damge, I simply lack the number of attacks.

2: The Barbarian will take more damage, All while wearing nothing but his undies. That is his thing, he will also be the most consistent Damage dealer.

3: The paladin is the big hitter, but like the cleric or any other caster, that blows spell slots. Sure, few rounds per fight he is a monster, but he can't keep it up. Over time a barbarian or fighter will have stable damage with more options.


Rather than bounded accuracy, I would love it if Paizo simply gave all characters the same BAB. Just give the frontline fighters some additional bonuses on top of that to show their martial prowess.

If every class had roughly the same bab, we wouldn't have the issue of some classes like rogues being completely unable to hit things in high level games. Having a 10-15 point accuracy difference between rogues and other melee classes (like the fighter and ranger) is just silly. We also would actually be able to use those fancy wizard and arcanist archetypes which give them melee weapons.


Matrix Dragon wrote:

Rather than bounded accuracy, I would love it if Paizo simply gave all characters the same BAB. Just give the frontline fighters some additional bonuses on top of that to show their martial prowess.

If every class had roughly the same bab, we wouldn't have the issue of some classes like rogues being completely unable to hit things in high level games. Having a 10-15 point accuracy difference between rogues and other melee classes (like the fighter and ranger) is just silly. We also would actually be able to use those fancy wizard and arcanist archetypes which give them melee weapons.

Well, they're doing half of what you want. Everyone has the same attack bonus scaling. And the same save scaling. And the same skill scaling. Everything increases automatically with character level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:

Rather than bounded accuracy, I would love it if Paizo simply gave all characters the same BAB. Just give the frontline fighters some additional bonuses on top of that to show their martial prowess.

If every class had roughly the same bab, we wouldn't have the issue of some classes like rogues being completely unable to hit things in high level games. Having a 10-15 point accuracy difference between rogues and other melee classes (like the fighter and ranger) is just silly. We also would actually be able to use those fancy wizard and arcanist archetypes which give them melee weapons.

Well, they're doing half of what you want. Everyone has the same attack bonus scaling. And the same save scaling. And the same skill scaling. Everything increases automatically with character level.

Yay!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matrix Dragon wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:

Rather than bounded accuracy, I would love it if Paizo simply gave all characters the same BAB. Just give the frontline fighters some additional bonuses on top of that to show their martial prowess.

If every class had roughly the same bab, we wouldn't have the issue of some classes like rogues being completely unable to hit things in high level games. Having a 10-15 point accuracy difference between rogues and other melee classes (like the fighter and ranger) is just silly. We also would actually be able to use those fancy wizard and arcanist archetypes which give them melee weapons.

Well, they're doing half of what you want. Everyone has the same attack bonus scaling. And the same save scaling. And the same skill scaling. Everything increases automatically with character level.
Yay!

No, not yay.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bloodrealm wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:

Rather than bounded accuracy, I would love it if Paizo simply gave all characters the same BAB. Just give the frontline fighters some additional bonuses on top of that to show their martial prowess.

If every class had roughly the same bab, we wouldn't have the issue of some classes like rogues being completely unable to hit things in high level games. Having a 10-15 point accuracy difference between rogues and other melee classes (like the fighter and ranger) is just silly. We also would actually be able to use those fancy wizard and arcanist archetypes which give them melee weapons.

Well, they're doing half of what you want. Everyone has the same attack bonus scaling. And the same save scaling. And the same skill scaling. Everything increases automatically with character level.
Yay!
No, not yay.

Yay!


Good thing its not 2009 anymore!


BA wasn't really a problem for me with 5e as I tend to favour low-level play, but it did seem like a very awkward fix that could have been handled better by imposing a hard level cap instead as we saw in the earliest forms of D&D or at least slowing the rate at which XP was gained. The only explanation I can thing of is that they were trying to make weak encounters sorta seem like threats, but not actually be dangerous which is an alien concept to my own GMing style.

In any case, it doesn't sound like PF2 will be using 5e style BA so it seems unlikely to cause problems. In fact, if anything, I'm more concerned about a proliferation of +Level effects inflating scores and DCs, but hopefully the Skill Feats described will help compensate to some degree.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:

Rather than bounded accuracy, I would love it if Paizo simply gave all characters the same BAB. Just give the frontline fighters some additional bonuses on top of that to show their martial prowess.

If every class had roughly the same bab, we wouldn't have the issue of some classes like rogues being completely unable to hit things in high level games. Having a 10-15 point accuracy difference between rogues and other melee classes (like the fighter and ranger) is just silly. We also would actually be able to use those fancy wizard and arcanist archetypes which give them melee weapons.

Well, they're doing half of what you want. Everyone has the same attack bonus scaling. And the same save scaling. And the same skill scaling. Everything increases automatically with character level.
Yay!
No, not yay.

Why would this be a bad thing? One of the biggest problems with Pathfinder is that the scaling got out of whack at high levels. If you were a level 20 character (who isn't a paladin) and your bad save gets targeted with the right spell from an appropriate leveled enemy you are probably going to instantly die. Giving everyone the same scaling and making the differences stat based was pretty much the only solution.

Admittedly, I am a bit more iffy about skills auto scaling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's more nuanced than that, as there will be penalties to things such as untrained tasks, and bonuses for a character or class that is specialized in said tasks, such as a fighter having a final score of roughly +23 to hit compared to a cleric's +20 with a particular weapon as one of the examples given by a designer.

And to the skills scaling, it actually solves one of the biggest core issues that happened in pathfinder, where a challenge for any particular character with a focus on a skill becomes insurmountable for anyone who hadn't spent the same amount of focus and attention to become good at a task, such as a well trained rogue and his bumbling party sneaking into the castle garden.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
There's more to things than the math. Point in case, D&D isn't actually a machine. A lot of the abilities can't be quantified with a numerical value. Claiming that features aren't a part of the internal workings is just flat out wrong.

There may be more to the game than math, but in the end math is both the starting and ending point.

Not just for Pathfinder, but for nearly everything else in life. If the math supports you, things are going to run much more smoothly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

OH BOY. +3. Yeah, sure, it means more than in PF1 because of the bounded accuracy they're enforcing and from the dumb new crit/fumble system, but that is not something to be proud of.
Untrained is Level + Ability Mod - 1. The other levels are each only 1 better, up to Level + Ability Mod + 3 for Legendary.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bloodrealm wrote:

OH BOY. +3. Yeah, sure, it means more than in PF1 because of the bounded accuracy they're enforcing and from the dumb new crit/fumble system, but that is not something to be proud of.

Untrained is Level + Ability Mod - 1. The other levels are each only 1 better, up to Level + Ability Mod + 3 for Legendary.

It's not like the cleric will have the same strength score as the fighter unless they were specifically building to be a war cleric, and at which point, why does it matter that the difference is so small, they still don't have the combat abilities that a fighter has such as sudden charge, and their spells don't have the same oomph as a proper cleric would, they made that sacrifice intentionally.

Why does there have to to be a massive sea of difference between what two different characters can hit when they've both had combat experience?

It's not like the cleric or numerous other classes didn't come close anyways through spells and class abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:

OH BOY. +3. Yeah, sure, it means more than in PF1 because of the bounded accuracy they're enforcing and from the dumb new crit/fumble system, but that is not something to be proud of.

Untrained is Level + Ability Mod - 1. The other levels are each only 1 better, up to Level + Ability Mod + 3 for Legendary.

I actually like the sound of the system, although a 3 difference sounds a bit small. 3 is probably good between a fighter and a "rouge" (rogue), but it sounds a bit small for the difference between a fightie (or similar) and say, a wizard.


Matrix Dragon wrote:

Rather than bounded accuracy, I would love it if Paizo simply gave all characters the same BAB. Just give the frontline fighters some additional bonuses on top of that to show their martial prowess.

If every class had roughly the same bab, we wouldn't have the issue of some classes like rogues being completely unable to hit things in high level games. Having a 10-15 point accuracy difference between rogues and other melee classes (like the fighter and ranger) is just silly.

This isn't an issue with varying BAB, it's an issue with giving a combat class the midcaster BAB. Rogues and Monks are Martials with a twist and it's only natural that they would struggle when given Battle Ability Bonus (same effect and acronym, more accurate name) appropriate for a bard or alchemist.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:

OH BOY. +3. Yeah, sure, it means more than in PF1 because of the bounded accuracy they're enforcing and from the dumb new crit/fumble system, but that is not something to be proud of.

Untrained is Level + Ability Mod - 1. The other levels are each only 1 better, up to Level + Ability Mod + 3 for Legendary.

If that is the case, yes, and then you take into account, as I said earlier: class and general feats, powers, gear, ancestry bonuses, and so on. It's hardly a difference of "the Rogue is only 4 points better than the Cleric who decided for some reason to also focus on Stealth." They've also explicitly said that you'll be able to perform feats of prowess that seem quite superhuman at least a higher levels, so the Rogue may be doing stuff like hiding in someone's shadow or running soundlessly or finding handholds in the dungeon wall sufficient to hide above the doorway, etc.

You don't have to like what you hear. You can be as negative as you want about it all. But ignoring whole swathes of context to reinforce your negativity is just being deliberately obtuse.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lady Firebird wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:

OH BOY. +3. Yeah, sure, it means more than in PF1 because of the bounded accuracy they're enforcing and from the dumb new crit/fumble system, but that is not something to be proud of.

Untrained is Level + Ability Mod - 1. The other levels are each only 1 better, up to Level + Ability Mod + 3 for Legendary.

If that is the case, yes, and then you take into account, as I said earlier: class and general feats, powers, gear, ancestry bonuses, and so on. It's hardly a difference of "the Rogue is only 4 points better than the Cleric who decided for some reason to also focus on Stealth." They've also explicitly said that you'll be able to perform feats of prowess that seem quite superhuman at least a higher levels, so the Rogue may be doing stuff like hiding in someone's shadow or running soundlessly or finding handholds in the dungeon wall sufficient to hide above the doorway, etc.

You don't have to like what you hear. You can be as negative as you want about it all. But ignoring whole swathes of context to reinforce your negativity is just being deliberately obtuse.

Personally I want the stealth specialized cleric of norgorber to be capable of almost all of that just as well as a stealthy rogue of the same level and dex score, the Rogue should have had an easier time getting there, and only the rogue would have the traditional rogue benefits for having these abilities.


Lady Firebird wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:

OH BOY. +3. Yeah, sure, it means more than in PF1 because of the bounded accuracy they're enforcing and from the dumb new crit/fumble system, but that is not something to be proud of.

Untrained is Level + Ability Mod - 1. The other levels are each only 1 better, up to Level + Ability Mod + 3 for Legendary.

If that is the case, yes, and then you take into account, as I said earlier: class and general feats, powers, gear, ancestry bonuses, and so on. It's hardly a difference of "the Rogue is only 4 points better than the Cleric who decided for some reason to also focus on Stealth." They've also explicitly said that you'll be able to perform feats of prowess that seem quite superhuman at least a higher levels, so the Rogue may be doing stuff like hiding in someone's shadow or running soundlessly or finding handholds in the dungeon wall sufficient to hide above the doorway, etc.

You don't have to like what you hear. You can be as negative as you want about it all. But ignoring whole swathes of context to reinforce your negativity is just being deliberately obtuse.

They're also making it a point to avoid granting static modifiers most of the time.


MusicAddict wrote:
Personally I want the stealth specialized cleric of norgorber to be capable of almost all of that just as well as a stealthy rogue of the same level and dex score, the Rogue should have had an easier time getting there, and only the rogue would have the traditional rogue benefits for having these abilities.

Yeah, I'd be cool with that. You're depending on godly benefits to do what the Rogue is doing through skill and inherent prowess, but I mean, if you're really focusing on it, that's cool.

Bloodrealm wrote:
They're also making it a point to avoid granting static modifiers most of the time.

But you still have ability score differences and, probably most importantly, class abilities. They have already said that you'll be able to do awesome epic feats, just like in the best fantasy stories. The Rogue might not just be six points better at Stealth, she might also be able to do things with it that her companions can't. In fact, I'd bet on it, given what they've said.

So at least until we know more, I would urge you to try not to worry too much about not being that different from a party member who hasn't specialized in your field. I'm quite sure that it will work out as it should.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady Firebird wrote:
MusicAddict wrote:
Personally I want the stealth specialized cleric of norgorber to be capable of almost all of that just as well as a stealthy rogue of the same level and dex score, the Rogue should have had an easier time getting there, and only the rogue would have the traditional rogue benefits for having these abilities.
Yeah, I'd be cool with that. You're depending on godly benefits to do what the Rogue is doing through skill and inherent prowess, but I mean, if you're really focusing on it, that's cool.

I'd be cool with that if the rogue also got other abilities above and beyond what the cleric can do, and those abilities were within the same tier as the clerics entire spell progression.

The problem I have is when a caster can focus all their non-spell stuff to be as good as a martial class, and then have all their spells on top of it.


bookrat wrote:
Lady Firebird wrote:
MusicAddict wrote:
Personally I want the stealth specialized cleric of norgorber to be capable of almost all of that just as well as a stealthy rogue of the same level and dex score, the Rogue should have had an easier time getting there, and only the rogue would have the traditional rogue benefits for having these abilities.
Yeah, I'd be cool with that. You're depending on godly benefits to do what the Rogue is doing through skill and inherent prowess, but I mean, if you're really focusing on it, that's cool.

I'd be cool with that if the rogue also got other abilities above and beyond what the cleric can do, and those abilities were within the same tier as the clerics entire spell progression.

The problem I have is when a caster can focus all their non-spell stuff to be as good as a martial class, and then have all their spells on top of it.

Yeah, I guess I meant more it'd be okay if the Cleric was really focusing on the Stealth (so that includes spells) and could be comparable, but had to build everything toward it. Especially so the Cleric can't just decide to focus on being a Fighter the next day and outdo the actual Fighter. That was the problem 3.x/PF caster supremacy, after all: completely obviating niches for other classes while also having access to powers that most fictional gods can't even match at high levels.

The Rogue should still be better, yes, and have blatantly superhuman or supernatural feats and abilities with stealth. I'm fine with that. If the Rogue can step into one shadow and appear from another nearby, or that kind of thing, well, good. Everyone should be able to do cool impossible things at high levels. If you want a more grounded heroes game, that's what E6 or whatever is for.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
Lady Firebird wrote:
MusicAddict wrote:
Personally I want the stealth specialized cleric of norgorber to be capable of almost all of that just as well as a stealthy rogue of the same level and dex score, the Rogue should have had an easier time getting there, and only the rogue would have the traditional rogue benefits for having these abilities.
Yeah, I'd be cool with that. You're depending on godly benefits to do what the Rogue is doing through skill and inherent prowess, but I mean, if you're really focusing on it, that's cool.

I'd be cool with that if the rogue also got other abilities above and beyond what the cleric can do, and those abilities were within the same tier as the clerics entire spell progression.

The problem I have is when a caster can focus all their non-spell stuff to be as good as a martial class, and then have all their spells on top of it.

That is definitely my main concern. Non-Casters will get crappy class features that are supposedly "equal" to spells, that really just give them options no one cares about that aren't as good as flying/teleporting/mind control/endlessly altering reality like the casters do.

I fear that will be the end result. Fighters and Rogues, if we're all very lucky, will get abilities that let them squeak out the edge in their extremely narrow class focus. And absolutely everything else will again fall to the casters.

Fighters will rightfully say they're technically the best warriors, but Clerics won't care because they're good enough, and they have the extra options of a spell list on top of it.

Hope I'm wrong, but it is what I fear will come to pass. Have to wait for Third Party to get fun non-caster options again... ah, gee whiz...


MusicAddict wrote:

It's more nuanced than that, as there will be penalties to things such as untrained tasks, and bonuses for a character or class that is specialized in said tasks, such as a fighter having a final score of roughly +23 to hit compared to a cleric's +20 with a particular weapon as one of the examples given by a designer.

And to the skills scaling, it actually solves one of the biggest core issues that happened in pathfinder, where a challenge for any particular character with a focus on a skill becomes insurmountable for anyone who hadn't spent the same amount of focus and attention to become good at a task, such as a well trained rogue and his bumbling party sneaking into the castle garden.

I like the variety. It seems those who complain about this at times don't look at the game as it should be, which is that this is a TEAM game.

So what if the Rogue has a +30 to disable Traps and My Sorcerer does not? We are on the same team. As long as SOMEONE in our party has that bonus, it is beneficial to ALL our party. I don't have to waste a skill on that or building it up because someone else in our party already does that!

This builds up team work as opposed to everything being about the ONE person.

This is also why some complain about Arcane or divine magic, because they CAN have big boosts to finding those traps and being silent and stealthy WITHOUT the big investments Rogues or others have to make.

I like the differences though, it means that as long as everyone can find their schtick in the party, each individual is part of the team rather than being the lone superhero that does it all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
Lady Firebird wrote:
MusicAddict wrote:
Personally I want the stealth specialized cleric of norgorber to be capable of almost all of that just as well as a stealthy rogue of the same level and dex score, the Rogue should have had an easier time getting there, and only the rogue would have the traditional rogue benefits for having these abilities.
Yeah, I'd be cool with that. You're depending on godly benefits to do what the Rogue is doing through skill and inherent prowess, but I mean, if you're really focusing on it, that's cool.

I'd be cool with that if the rogue also got other abilities above and beyond what the cleric can do, and those abilities were within the same tier as the clerics entire spell progression.

The problem I have is when a caster can focus all their non-spell stuff to be as good as a martial class, and then have all their spells on top of it.

Presumably that first part is what Class Feats are supposed to provide. The problem would be if the 16th level Rogue was getting a wonderful feat that gave them a huge bonus to disguising themselves, one that was nearly as good as a 2nd level spell provides.

101 to 150 of 376 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Bounded Accuracy Isn't Bad All Messageboards