Bounded Accuracy Isn't Bad


Prerelease Discussion

301 to 350 of 376 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

I don't really have anything to add here, it's just that on mobile the final page of the thread somehow has nothing on it and it creeps me out D:


LuniasM wrote:
I don't really have anything to add here, it's just that on mobile the final page of the thread somehow has nothing on it and it creeps me out D:

Not just on mobile. Not sure what's going on there.


Tholomyes wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
I don't really have anything to add here, it's just that on mobile the final page of the thread somehow has nothing on it and it creeps me out D:
Not just on mobile. Not sure what's going on there.

There's a whole lot of off-topic 1-liner posts missing.

On-topic, I do feel that bounded accuracy would be exceptionally poor for the type of game that Paizo appears to be trying to build.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

To be sure, 5th edition has some things that make it a particular system for a certain type of play style. This makes it easy to learn and doesn't get further from the basic rules set forth in the first pages of the PHB.

Bonded Accuracy combined with other aspects of the system makes it so that D&D in it's current form is a low magic campaign. This alone makes me steer away from the brand in it's current incarnation. 6th edition, which will happen at some point, will likely abandon Bonded Accuracy and have the return of high magic campaign like the previous editions (including 4th edition). Items will likely not augment stats or give out bonuses beyond +3 to hit/dmg, much like what PF2 is likely doing, but the magical items will be a part of the game once again, not rare artifacts that a character may get about 10 times in his adventuring career.


what are these "likely" changes to 6E based on?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thaX wrote:
6th edition, which will happen at some point, will likely abandon Bonded Accuracy and have the return of high magic campaign like the previous editions (including 4th edition). Items will likely not augment stats or give out bonuses beyond +3 to hit/dmg, much like what PF2 is likely doing, but the magical items will be a part of the game once again, not rare artifacts that a character may get about 10 times in his adventuring career.

THAT bugs the crap out of me, and why I can't take 5e seriously. Also the lack of specific item prices. I get people don't like MagicMart. But even if the items are once in a lifetime additions, I want a price tag.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
thaX wrote:
6th edition, which will happen at some point, will likely abandon Bonded Accuracy and have the return of high magic campaign like the previous editions (including 4th edition). Items will likely not augment stats or give out bonuses beyond +3 to hit/dmg, much like what PF2 is likely doing, but the magical items will be a part of the game once again, not rare artifacts that a character may get about 10 times in his adventuring career.
THAT bugs the crap out of me, and why I can't take 5e seriously. Also the lack of specific item prices. I get people don't like MagicMart. But even if the items are once in a lifetime additions, I want a price tag.

There is one. It's in the DMG and the price is based on rarity.


Game Master Q wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
thaX wrote:
6th edition, which will happen at some point, will likely abandon Bonded Accuracy and have the return of high magic campaign like the previous editions (including 4th edition). Items will likely not augment stats or give out bonuses beyond +3 to hit/dmg, much like what PF2 is likely doing, but the magical items will be a part of the game once again, not rare artifacts that a character may get about 10 times in his adventuring career.
THAT bugs the crap out of me, and why I can't take 5e seriously. Also the lack of specific item prices. I get people don't like MagicMart. But even if the items are once in a lifetime additions, I want a price tag.
There is one. It's in the DMG and the price is based on rarity.

Magic items exist but the game's core system was designed without magic items in mind so they are broken as hell. If your GM gives the party a +1 speed sword, the fighter has suddenly wasted his feat investment in being great at spears (since he is going to be better with this magic sword than he ever will be with the spears he specialized in).

Belt of Giant Strength is similarly f%*~ed in that system because it replaces the strength score of the wearer. As such, any build based on strength suddenly has a lot of wasted potential.

Not only that, but +X magic items are actually really effective mechanically (especially on fighters who are eventually looking at 4 or 5 attacks at their highest bonus) so they end up making some encounter too easy or buffing certain party members far past their cohorts.

So really, a GM who wants to keep their game balanced needs to police magic items in 5e quite a bit or leave them out all together.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Game Master Q wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
thaX wrote:
6th edition, which will happen at some point, will likely abandon Bonded Accuracy and have the return of high magic campaign like the previous editions (including 4th edition). Items will likely not augment stats or give out bonuses beyond +3 to hit/dmg, much like what PF2 is likely doing, but the magical items will be a part of the game once again, not rare artifacts that a character may get about 10 times in his adventuring career.
THAT bugs the crap out of me, and why I can't take 5e seriously. Also the lack of specific item prices. I get people don't like MagicMart. But even if the items are once in a lifetime additions, I want a price tag.
There is one. It's in the DMG and the price is based on rarity.

Magic items exist but the game's core system was designed without magic items in mind so they are broken as hell. If your GM gives the party a +1 speed sword, the fighter has suddenly wasted his feat investment in being great at spears (since he is going to be better with this magic sword than he ever will be with the spears he specialized in).

Belt of Giant Strength is similarly f@~#ed in that system because it replaces the strength score of the wearer. As such, any build based on strength suddenly has a lot of wasted potential.

Not only that, but +X magic items are actually really effective mechanically (especially on fighters who are eventually looking at 4 or 5 attacks at their highest bonus) so they end up making some encounter too easy or buffing certain party members far past their cohorts.

So really, a GM who wants to keep their game balanced needs to police magic items in 5e quite a bit or leave them out all together.

Just a note, but the Belt of Giant Strength is always good because the max Str you can have is 20 and the belt always gives you a minimum of 21. Which means at worst you lose nothing, and at best (Str 29) you've gained 9 points of Str over your maximum.

That's nothing to sneeze at, and there's no wasted potential.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheFinish wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Game Master Q wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
thaX wrote:
6th edition, which will happen at some point, will likely abandon Bonded Accuracy and have the return of high magic campaign like the previous editions (including 4th edition). Items will likely not augment stats or give out bonuses beyond +3 to hit/dmg, much like what PF2 is likely doing, but the magical items will be a part of the game once again, not rare artifacts that a character may get about 10 times in his adventuring career.
THAT bugs the crap out of me, and why I can't take 5e seriously. Also the lack of specific item prices. I get people don't like MagicMart. But even if the items are once in a lifetime additions, I want a price tag.
There is one. It's in the DMG and the price is based on rarity.

Magic items exist but the game's core system was designed without magic items in mind so they are broken as hell. If your GM gives the party a +1 speed sword, the fighter has suddenly wasted his feat investment in being great at spears (since he is going to be better with this magic sword than he ever will be with the spears he specialized in).

Belt of Giant Strength is similarly f@~#ed in that system because it replaces the strength score of the wearer. As such, any build based on strength suddenly has a lot of wasted potential.

Not only that, but +X magic items are actually really effective mechanically (especially on fighters who are eventually looking at 4 or 5 attacks at their highest bonus) so they end up making some encounter too easy or buffing certain party members far past their cohorts.

So really, a GM who wants to keep their game balanced needs to police magic items in 5e quite a bit or leave them out all together.

Just a note, but the Belt of Giant Strength is always good because the max Str you can have is 20 and the belt always gives you a minimum of 21. Which means at worst you lose nothing, and at best (Str 29) you've gained 9 points of Str over...

The problem with this, is sure, you might not be worse for picking up a Belt of Giant Strength, but since in 5e, the choice is between a Stat Up and a Feat, anyone who pumped their stats into Strength and then finds a Belt of Giant Strength is going to be disappointed because their strength is no better than if they had spent those boosts on a Feat (or even without feats, if they had maybe boosted their Con). Even if they didn't want things to get out of hand due to bounded accuracy, 5E took an approach which doesn't recognize the wasted opportunity cost. If what it did was instead gave you, say, +2 to damage rolls on STR based melee attacks and a greater carrying capacity, it wouldn't affect bounded accuracy, but it would still be as good whether you had 20 strength or 10.

This type of magic item design bummed me out a lot, because I liked the design decisions that they were ostensibly going for, with regards to magic items not being necessary, but because of this, it seems like they created them as an afterthought, and I hope that PF2e is better about this, seeing as their ideals, at least as far as trimming the big 6, are similar (though I still wish +1 weapons/armor/ect were a thing of the past, replaced with neat and interesting versions that weren't just numerical bonuses). From what I've seen, it seems like they are, but I'm not quite getting my hopes up quite yet.


TheFinish wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Game Master Q wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
thaX wrote:
6th edition, which will happen at some point, will likely abandon Bonded Accuracy and have the return of high magic campaign like the previous editions (including 4th edition). Items will likely not augment stats or give out bonuses beyond +3 to hit/dmg, much like what PF2 is likely doing, but the magical items will be a part of the game once again, not rare artifacts that a character may get about 10 times in his adventuring career.
THAT bugs the crap out of me, and why I can't take 5e seriously. Also the lack of specific item prices. I get people don't like MagicMart. But even if the items are once in a lifetime additions, I want a price tag.
There is one. It's in the DMG and the price is based on rarity.

Magic items exist but the game's core system was designed without magic items in mind so they are broken as hell. If your GM gives the party a +1 speed sword, the fighter has suddenly wasted his feat investment in being great at spears (since he is going to be better with this magic sword than he ever will be with the spears he specialized in).

Belt of Giant Strength is similarly f@~#ed in that system because it replaces the strength score of the wearer. As such, any build based on strength suddenly has a lot of wasted potential.

Not only that, but +X magic items are actually really effective mechanically (especially on fighters who are eventually looking at 4 or 5 attacks at their highest bonus) so they end up making some encounter too easy or buffing certain party members far past their cohorts.

So really, a GM who wants to keep their game balanced needs to police magic items in 5e quite a bit or leave them out all together.

Just a note, but the Belt of Giant Strength is always good because the max Str you can have is 20 and the belt always gives you a minimum of 21. Which means at worst you lose nothing, and at best (Str 29) you've gained 9 points of Str over...

But I could have built my barbarian with a strength of 12/14 or whatever and then put those resources into Con/Dex/Wis since my belt does the heavy lifting for me. It's overpowered, janky, and marginalizes character creation decisions.

Tholo ninja'd me -w-


1 person marked this as a favorite.

By that same logic, one should never work a day in their life, in case they win the lottery. After all, winning the lottery means you've wasted all that potential that you could have put into other aspects of life.

So quit your job, drop out of school, and start playing the lottery, otherwise your potential will be waited.


Game Master Q wrote:

By that same logic, one should never work a day in their life, in case they win the lottery. After all, winning the lottery means you've wasted all that potential that you could have put into other aspects of life.

So quit your job, drop out of school, and start playing the lottery, otherwise your potential will be waited.

They don't take all your stuff away when you win the lottery, my dude. You get that money on top of what you already have. Also if we are talking IRL character optimization, playing the lottery is a waste of money since the expected value of a ticket is generally lower than the cost of that ticket.


When I saw the new mechanics for the Belt of Giant Strength I was really happy. In general 5e cuts waaaay down on things stacking, and I like that.

In order to buy magic items, there are optional rules in XGE page 126. DMs who love low magic might want to skip these.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:


Bonded Accuracy combined with other aspects of the system makes it so that D&D in it's current form is a low magic campaign. This alone makes me steer away from the brand in it's current incarnation. 6th edition, which will happen at some point, will likely abandon Bonded Accuracy and have the return of high magic campaign like the previous editions (including 4th edition). Items will likely not augment stats or give out bonuses beyond +3 to hit/dmg, much like what PF2 is likely doing, but the magical items will be a part of the game once again, not rare artifacts that a character may get about 10 times in his adventuring career.

Given the popularity/success of 5th Ed, I doubt they will go back to a losing formulae.


Weather Report wrote:
thaX wrote:


Bonded Accuracy combined with other aspects of the system makes it so that D&D in it's current form is a low magic campaign. This alone makes me steer away from the brand in it's current incarnation. 6th edition, which will happen at some point, will likely abandon Bonded Accuracy and have the return of high magic campaign like the previous editions (including 4th edition). Items will likely not augment stats or give out bonuses beyond +3 to hit/dmg, much like what PF2 is likely doing, but the magical items will be a part of the game once again, not rare artifacts that a character may get about 10 times in his adventuring career.
Given the popularity/success of 5th Ed, I doubt they will go back to a losing formulae.

3.x certainly wasn't a losing formulae, and as far as I heard neither was 4e.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, 4e got its ass kicked by a nobody company who's product name is more recognizable as a type of car, so...


Arachnofiend wrote:
I mean, 4e got its ass kicked by a nobody company who's product name is more recognizable as a type of car, so...

As far as I heard (and I could be wrong), 4e was outselling PF most of its lifetime, it's brand recognition was just that strong. It just didn't hit profit benchmarks Hasbro was aiming for, that's where the unsuccessful part comes from.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
necromental wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I mean, 4e got its ass kicked by a nobody company who's product name is more recognizable as a type of car, so...
As far as I heard (and I could be wrong), 4e was outselling PF most of its lifetime, it's brand recognition was just that strong. It just didn't hit profit benchmarks Hasbro was aiming for, that's where the unsuccessful part comes from.

Actually, as you can find from citations in this wikipedia article, Pathfinder was better selling than 4E throughout most of 2011-2014 (varying somewhat by quarter).

That does mean that 4E's name recognition carried it for a few years, but Pathfinder managed to overtake it even before the announcement of 5E.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Game Master Q wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
thaX wrote:
6th edition, which will happen at some point, will likely abandon Bonded Accuracy and have the return of high magic campaign like the previous editions (including 4th edition). Items will likely not augment stats or give out bonuses beyond +3 to hit/dmg, much like what PF2 is likely doing, but the magical items will be a part of the game once again, not rare artifacts that a character may get about 10 times in his adventuring career.
THAT bugs the crap out of me, and why I can't take 5e seriously. Also the lack of specific item prices. I get people don't like MagicMart. But even if the items are once in a lifetime additions, I want a price tag.
There is one. It's in the DMG and the price is based on rarity.

No, there is not. There is a chart that lists a suggested price range for the DM to pick within. That is, in fact, a lack of a specific item price, and the source of my annoyance.


necromental wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
thaX wrote:


Bonded Accuracy combined with other aspects of the system makes it so that D&D in it's current form is a low magic campaign. This alone makes me steer away from the brand in it's current incarnation. 6th edition, which will happen at some point, will likely abandon Bonded Accuracy and have the return of high magic campaign like the previous editions (including 4th edition). Items will likely not augment stats or give out bonuses beyond +3 to hit/dmg, much like what PF2 is likely doing, but the magical items will be a part of the game once again, not rare artifacts that a character may get about 10 times in his adventuring career.
Given the popularity/success of 5th Ed, I doubt they will go back to a losing formulae.
3.x certainly wasn't a losing formulae, and as far as I heard neither was 4e.

Okay, these conversations go on and on until they end badly, so, to put it another way, with such a successful formulae, I don't think they'll drop it.


I've never liked 5e's implementation of BA.

I understand the appeal of trying to keep the numbers flatter, but it always seemed to me that you'd get the same effect more easily by simply paring the game down to Levels 1-6 and increasing the amount of XP required to advance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:

I've never liked 5e's implementation of BA.

I understand the appeal of trying to keep the numbers flatter, but it always seemed to me that you'd get the same effect more easily by simply paring the game down to Levels 1-6 and increasing the amount of XP required to advance.

Not really the same thing, you still make choices and/or gain things for levelling, it's just your BAB/THACO is really low, but so is AC.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Weather Report wrote:


Given the popularity/success of 5th Ed, I doubt they will go back to a losing formulae.

5th editions popularity has nothing to do with it being a low magic campaign (which can be ignored with some effort) or the use of bonded accuracy. It is the ease of use and how easy it is to learn the game. Another thing I have seen is that there seems to be a rotation of players who end up leaving the brand for other RPG's with more ummph, such as Dragon Age, Pathfinder, and others.

When I see a new edition that would come forth, some of the things that would keep a player may come into it's formation, such as having room for magic items, having additional classes, and growth beyond the main three books. Setting up the rules to have more variety for the player, better interactions within the class structure and not having the system break because of other aspects of the game (such as introducing magic items as normal items instead of artifacts) that should have been a part of the system as a whole.

This is something that PF2 is doing, improving things, restructuring, and modernizing. Bonded Accuracy is a balancing tool that does not work with the class system that D&D and Pathfinder are. When you have to limit a player's choices to try and keep it from breaking, it is a bad design and just to fragile a balance.


thaX wrote:
Weather Report wrote:


Given the popularity/success of 5th Ed, I doubt they will go back to a losing formulae.

5th editions popularity has nothing to do with it being a low magic campaign (which can be ignored with some effort) or the use of bonded accuracy.

I never said it was, and I would not call 5th Ed low magic, magic is pretty ubiquitous, and you still have wish and other outrageous spells and what-not.


Weather Report wrote:
thaX wrote:
Weather Report wrote:


Given the popularity/success of 5th Ed, I doubt they will go back to a losing formulae.

5th editions popularity has nothing to do with it being a low magic campaign (which can be ignored with some effort) or the use of bonded accuracy.
I never said it was, and I would not call 5th Ed low magic, magic is pretty ubiquitous, and you still have wish and other outrageous spells and what-not.

Earlier he defined Low Magic as magic items not readily available. It's not a common definition, to be sure, nor even what most RPG players think of when they think Low Magic, but that's how he defined it.

So by that definition, it's kind of correct. I mean, 5e can be a monty haul campaign if you want it to be. It's true the normal magic assumption is that magic items really aren't part of the game until level 10+ (even if every adventure published to date has magic items at very low levels), but there is a more limited number than PF1.

But yeah, you're right. 5e still has 9th level spells, it still has wish and Simulacrum and true polymorph and meteor storm and other crazy powerful spells. It's really only "low magic" if you redfine what low magic is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Weather Report: I understand that it's not the same thing, but I do think it would have kept the numbers low while mitigating some of 5e's flaws.

@thaX: The game's underlying math isn't a player choice by any means. Actually, however, I maintain that 5e would be improved immensely by removing the small number of very specific archetype options and just having a more broadly applicable core. Of course, whether that would constitute adding or restricting player choices is a matter of perspective.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
No, there is not. There is a chart that lists a suggested price range for the DM to pick within. That is, in fact, a lack of a specific item price, and the source of my annoyance.

On the other hand, as soon as you list discrete magic item prices and/or discrete formulas for all magic item creations, you have the return of Magic Mart, because people are people. Even back in AD&D 1st edition, people were buying and selling magic items in some campaigns; it wasn't as wide-spread because Gary Gygax's influence and the influence of the first generation of of RPG gamers was still a pretty strong one, but given the influence of both online ordering and computer RPGs, as soon as discrete prices come in, Magic Mart returns widescale, IMO.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
But I could have built my barbarian with a strength of 12/14 or whatever and then put those resources into Con/Dex/Wis since my belt does the heavy lifting for me. It's overpowered, janky, and marginalizes character creation decisions.

The return to AD&D-style absolute ability scores from ability score boosting items was one I was glad to see, because by contrast, the Gauntlets and Belts of 3e always felt very useless to me, UNLESS you were in the top STR tiers. If you have a 10 STR, and put on "Gauntlets of Ogre Power," you have.... 12 Strength? A Belt of Giant Strength helps you carry luggage to your car without being winded? :-) They gave anyone without a STR bonus no reason to desire them, and instead want to sell or trade them for something else immediately.

*Wizard player gets a Belt of Giant's Strength +6. the MIGHTIEST Strength-granting item of the utmost rarity* --> "Ooh! This will let me buy that STAFF of Fire I've always wanted!" That outcome always felt pretty lackluster to me.

However, a better medium might be something like a minimum ability gain for someone with a stat below a threshold, and for anyone with a stat already at that level, it adds a + bonus. Say Gauntlets of Ogre Power should grant anyone below an 18 up to an 18, and if you have 17 or higher without the gauntlets, it grants a +2 STR, or similar. Same for the Amulets, Headbands, etc. Now the wizard player is all in on a stake in the Gauntlets or Belt because it sends visions of the Golarion equivalent of Charles Atlas comics running through their head.


ENHenry wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
But I could have built my barbarian with a strength of 12/14 or whatever and then put those resources into Con/Dex/Wis since my belt does the heavy lifting for me. It's overpowered, janky, and marginalizes character creation decisions.

The return to AD&D-style absolute ability scores from ability score boosting items was one I was glad to see, because by contrast, the Gauntlets and Belts of 3e always felt very useless to me, UNLESS you were in the top STR tiers. If you have a 10 STR, and put on "Gauntlets of Ogre Power," you have.... 12 Strength? A Belt of Giant Strength helps you carry luggage to your car without being winded? :-) They gave anyone without a STR bonus no reason to desire them, and instead want to sell or trade them for something else immediately.

*Wizard player gets a Belt of Giant's Strength +6. the MIGHTIEST Strength-granting item of the utmost rarity* --> "Ooh! This will let me buy that STAFF of Fire I've always wanted!" That outcome always felt pretty lackluster to me.

However, a better medium might be something like a minimum ability gain for someone with a stat below a threshold, and for anyone with a stat already at that level, it adds a + bonus. Say Gauntlets of Ogre Power should grant anyone below an 18 up to an 18, and if you have 17 or higher without the gauntlets, it grants a +2 STR, or similar. Same for the Amulets, Headbands, etc. Now the wizard player is all in on a stake in the Gauntlets or Belt because it sends visions of the Golarion equivalent of Charles Atlas comics running through their head.

The one magic item for PF2e we have seen, THE GAUNTLET, does exactly that. Has a minimum amount of STR it boosts you up to and a +2 bonus if you're already beyond that.

Liberty's Edge

Indeed, The Gauntlet gives either Str 18 or +2 Str, whichever gets you a better Str score.

That seems like a really nice compromise between the two options, making the item really cool for everyone (even the Str 8 guy), but also strongly rewarding the Str-focused guy (who can get a 24 or so with that item).


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Indeed, The Gauntlet gives either Str 18 or +2 Str, whichever gets you a better Str score.

That seems like a really nice compromise between the two options, making the item really cool for everyone (even the Str 8 guy), but also strongly rewarding the Str-focused guy (who can get a 24 or so with that item).

Thanks for the reminder -- I thought I saw something like that before now, if it's confirmed then it makes me a happy camper.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ENHenry wrote:
Thanks for the reminder -- I thought I saw something like that before now, if it's confirmed then it makes me a happy camper.

It's technically not proven for any items but that one (which won't be in the book), but given that The Gauntlet was to some extent an example of what a high-end item looked like, I suspect other items will follow suit.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ENHenry wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
No, there is not. There is a chart that lists a suggested price range for the DM to pick within. That is, in fact, a lack of a specific item price, and the source of my annoyance.
On the other hand, as soon as you list discrete magic item prices and/or discrete formulas for all magic item creations, you have the return of Magic Mart, because people are people. Even back in AD&D 1st edition, people were buying and selling magic items in some campaigns; it wasn't as wide-spread because Gary Gygax's influence and the influence of the first generation of of RPG gamers was still a pretty strong one, but given the influence of both online ordering and computer RPGs, as soon as discrete prices come in, Magic Mart returns widescale, IMO.

Agreed, but I actually don't have a problem with that. I can simply ban magic items, or magic items above a certain rarity (that part I like in the 5e approach, and look forward to seeing spells treated the same in PF2).

Assuming I'm going for that flavor, anyways.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't agree that making the Belt of Giant Strength attractive to characters who invested nothing into being strong is a good thing. A Pearl of Power still does nothing for a Fighter, after all, nor should it.

Sovereign Court

The belt of Giant Strength is an artifact and should never be assumed it will be found in any 5E campaign. Making the argument that stat boosting items are good or not, shouldn't include it.


I don't like Bounded Accuracy, it limits choice too much. I think some level of numbers crunching is reasonable so that things don't get out of hand and so that high level play isn't broken, but in general I don't like BA. One of the things that pissed me was when I read that in 5ed some kinds of AC protections just didn't stack, I don't remember the example exactly, but something like a monster's natural armor wouldn't stack with manufactured armor should that monster decide to wear it, because you either calculated it one way or another. Although 3.X/Pathfinder has something similar with the "bonus of a same type don't stack" it doesn't even feel like a limitation like with BA and it's much more "organic".


ENHenry wrote:
However, a better medium might be something like a minimum ability gain for someone with a stat below a threshold, and for anyone with a stat already at that level, it adds a + bonus.

That isn't a medium between the two poles ("it sets your strength to X" vs "it adds +Y to strength"), it's a further extreme to the adding pole. The medium, which would be a bad compromise, would be ("it adds +Y to strength, but capped at a strength X"). No one would want that though.

In essence that would be "add +Y to strength but at least bring it up to X", i.e. "add at least +2 to strength, if that would bring it up to less than 18, then bring it up even more".

(Again, I like the "it becomes at least 18" as it is, without the "or then add even more". I love the lack of stacking generally. Stacking leads to CoDzilla. Like when Merlin and Madame Mim fight, they don't go "I'm the size of a dragon PLUS a rhino".)


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Game Master Q wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
thaX wrote:
6th edition, which will happen at some point, will likely abandon Bonded Accuracy and have the return of high magic campaign like the previous editions (including 4th edition). Items will likely not augment stats or give out bonuses beyond +3 to hit/dmg, much like what PF2 is likely doing, but the magical items will be a part of the game once again, not rare artifacts that a character may get about 10 times in his adventuring career.
THAT bugs the crap out of me, and why I can't take 5e seriously. Also the lack of specific item prices. I get people don't like MagicMart. But even if the items are once in a lifetime additions, I want a price tag.
There is one. It's in the DMG and the price is based on rarity.
No, there is not. There is a chart that lists a suggested price range for the DM to pick within. That is, in fact, a lack of a specific item price, and the source of my annoyance.

They provided a more proscriptive algorithm in Xanathars Guide To Everything (not really a pricelist, but a couple of downtime activities - one for buying, one for selling). It’s a combined process for generating what’s available as well as perceived value, so the price can vary - it’s via diceroll rather than DM fiat, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
The belt of Giant Strength is an artifact and should never be assumed it will be found in any 5E campaign. Making the argument that stat boosting items are good or not, shouldn't include it.

Yes, in 5th Ed you are generally not building characters around an assumed magic item. Though I don't DM PF1 that way, either.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Weather Report wrote:
Pan wrote:
The belt of Giant Strength is an artifact and should never be assumed it will be found in any 5E campaign. Making the argument that stat boosting items are good or not, shouldn't include it.
Yes, in 5th Ed you are generally not building characters around an assumed magic item. Though I don't DM PF1 that way, either.

You can certainly run PF1 without assumed magic items, but that's not how the game is designed, as a big chunk of math and adventure writing assumes big six and access to certain types of magic at certain levels.


Gorbacz wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Pan wrote:
The belt of Giant Strength is an artifact and should never be assumed it will be found in any 5E campaign. Making the argument that stat boosting items are good or not, shouldn't include it.
Yes, in 5th Ed you are generally not building characters around an assumed magic item. Though I don't DM PF1 that way, either.
You can certainly run PF1 without assumed magic items, but that's not how the game is designed, as a big chunk of math and adventure writing assumes big six and access to certain types of magic at certain levels.

Yeah you have to use that progression system in unchained for them to be able to keep up, or some other method to make up for the difference at higher levels.


Gorbacz wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Pan wrote:
The belt of Giant Strength is an artifact and should never be assumed it will be found in any 5E campaign. Making the argument that stat boosting items are good or not, shouldn't include it.
Yes, in 5th Ed you are generally not building characters around an assumed magic item. Though I don't DM PF1 that way, either.
You can certainly run PF1 without assumed magic items, but that's not how the game is designed, as a big chunk of math and adventure writing assumes big six and access to certain types of magic at certain levels.

Absolutely (without variants/houserules), something they seem to be addressing in PF2.


Weather Report wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Pan wrote:
The belt of Giant Strength is an artifact and should never be assumed it will be found in any 5E campaign. Making the argument that stat boosting items are good or not, shouldn't include it.
Yes, in 5th Ed you are generally not building characters around an assumed magic item. Though I don't DM PF1 that way, either.
You can certainly run PF1 without assumed magic items, but that's not how the game is designed, as a big chunk of math and adventure writing assumes big six and access to certain types of magic at certain levels.
Absolutely (without variants/houserules), something they seem to be addressing in PF2.

Addressing, but not eliminating unfortunately. The math will be designed not around the big six as we know them, but we do know that +X Armor and Weapons will still be a thing, and even more of a thing in PF2e, given that +X weapons means +XdY to damage. For the Playtest, I don't mind that being the case, but I hope by the CRB full launch they have rules that get rid of the +X (and corresponding WBL for that case). IMO, there's nothing more boring about Pathfinder magic items than the fact that a +X sword not only competes with more interesting and flavorful magic weapons, but is downright just better and assumed by the math.

301 to 350 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