Page 1 of 1

Split from: [5e] Bounded Accuracy Design Philosophy

Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:43 pm
by shesheyan
MODERATOR NOTE (by Big Mac): Split from this post in the [5e] Bounded Accuracy Design Philosophy topic.
talsine wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:48 pm
shesheyan wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:00 am
willpell wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:50 pm
It probably surprises nobody that I'm rather not a fan of Bounded Accuracy (beyond the fact that it was nice of the developer to admit his philosophy outright, even if it was wrong IMO).
I really enjoy Bounded Accuracy because it allows me to do Low Fantasy with D&D. I tried in the past but the 3e and 4e «treadmills» always got in my way. My current group of level three characters only have 1 magic item for the party - an intelligent sword. I handed it out for narrative purposes only, not because the game forced me to do it. Very refreshing.
D&D isn't ment to do Low Fantasy though, that was never the design intent. If you want Low Fantasy, they are better games for it than D&D. Bounded Accuracy just means that your characters never see real, meaningful improvement. And yes, as someone else mentioned, it means that low level monsters remain a threat throughout the life span of a character. This is a bug, not a feature as far as I am concerned. I don't want to have to worry about goblins the entire life span of my character and, worse, i hate the fact that high level monsters are more sacks of hit points than they are meaningful threats. 5E hits a sweet spot between levels 7 and 10, which is where most people stop anyway, but that doesn't mean people don't want to go beyond that.

While i understand Bounded accuracy, and i even understand why some people might like it, it is one of the main reasons that I returned my PHB the day after i bought it. i knew it would never be a game I would want to play, and time has only borne this out.
I don't like 4e. It's full of bugs that you see as features. Let's agree to disagree.

Re: [5e] Bounded Accuracy Design Philosophy

Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:09 am
by talsine
shesheyan wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:43 pm
talsine wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:48 pm
shesheyan wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:00 am
willpell wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:50 pm
It probably surprises nobody that I'm rather not a fan of Bounded Accuracy (beyond the fact that it was nice of the developer to admit his philosophy outright, even if it was wrong IMO).
I really enjoy Bounded Accuracy because it allows me to do Low Fantasy with D&D. I tried in the past but the 3e and 4e «treadmills» always got in my way. My current group of level three characters only have 1 magic item for the party - an intelligent sword. I handed it out for narrative purposes only, not because the game forced me to do it. Very refreshing.
D&D isn't ment to do Low Fantasy though, that was never the design intent. If you want Low Fantasy, they are better games for it than D&D. Bounded Accuracy just means that your characters never see real, meaningful improvement. And yes, as someone else mentioned, it means that low level monsters remain a threat throughout the life span of a character. This is a bug, not a feature as far as I am concerned. I don't want to have to worry about goblins the entire life span of my character and, worse, i hate the fact that high level monsters are more sacks of hit points than they are meaningful threats. 5E hits a sweet spot between levels 7 and 10, which is where most people stop anyway, but that doesn't mean people don't want to go beyond that.

While i understand Bounded accuracy, and i even understand why some people might like it, it is one of the main reasons that I returned my PHB the day after i bought it. i knew it would never be a game I would want to play, and time has only borne this out.
I don't like 4e. It's full of bugs that you see as features. Let's agree to disagree.
I didn't once mention 4E...

Re: [5e] Bounded Accuracy Design Philosophy

Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2019 11:42 am
by shesheyan
talsine wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:09 am
shesheyan wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:43 pm
talsine wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:48 pm
shesheyan wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:00 am
willpell wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:50 pm
It probably surprises nobody that I'm rather not a fan of Bounded Accuracy (beyond the fact that it was nice of the developer to admit his philosophy outright, even if it was wrong IMO).
I really enjoy Bounded Accuracy because it allows me to do Low Fantasy with D&D. I tried in the past but the 3e and 4e «treadmills» always got in my way. My current group of level three characters only have 1 magic item for the party - an intelligent sword. I handed it out for narrative purposes only, not because the game forced me to do it. Very refreshing.
D&D isn't ment to do Low Fantasy though, that was never the design intent. If you want Low Fantasy, they are better games for it than D&D. Bounded Accuracy just means that your characters never see real, meaningful improvement. And yes, as someone else mentioned, it means that low level monsters remain a threat throughout the life span of a character. This is a bug, not a feature as far as I am concerned. I don't want to have to worry about goblins the entire life span of my character and, worse, i hate the fact that high level monsters are more sacks of hit points than they are meaningful threats. 5E hits a sweet spot between levels 7 and 10, which is where most people stop anyway, but that doesn't mean people don't want to go beyond that.

While i understand Bounded accuracy, and i even understand why some people might like it, it is one of the main reasons that I returned my PHB the day after i bought it. i knew it would never be a game I would want to play, and time has only borne this out.
I don't like 4e. It's full of bugs that you see as features. Let's agree to disagree.
I didn't once mention 4E...
What you write in other threads matters. So far, since your arrival on this forum, you have said several times that you love 4e. Stated very clearly that you hate 5e and have recently developed a strong liking to PF2.

One man's bug is another man's feature and vice versa.

MODERATOR NOTE (by Big Mac): The moderator team would appreciate it if posters refrain from making strawman arguments about the motivations of other forum members who they disagree with.