[RPG] Does bounded accuracy effectively increase randomness in D&D 5e, compared to previous editions

dnd-5estatistics

I have been reading D&D 5e for a forthcoming campaign and I have a small concern with bounded accuracy: Proficiency bonus growth at a low rate (a level 20 character has only a +6 proficiency bonus. whereas in previous incarnations of D&D, this would be a higher bonus in almost any case). Also magic weapons were nerfed (a Holy Avenger is a +3 sword, where in previous versions, it was a +5 sword).

All in all I think that the designed outcome is that a high level character has a lower bonus to their rolls. I have read the benefits of this and while I agree in some points my concern is that since the bonus have shrinked the d20 has a bigger weight in the action outcome.

Does bounded accuracy increase randomness compared to previous editions? If so, are there any mechanisms in-game to control it?

Best Answer

Yes, the d20 has a higher impact than it might've had in earlier editions. Regardless of what level you're at, a bad roll can make you fail at something you're good at, whereas a good roll can make you succeed even in something you're mediocre or bad at. This is intentional. You're not really meant to overcome it. It's just part of how the game works. This is the reason for the common advice to not let the outcome of a campaign or the party come down to a single skill check.

Note that some classes (notably Rogues with Reliable Talent, barbarians with Undomitable Might and any caster if they have the right sort of spell for the situation) do have ways to pretty much always guarantee success for certain things, but for the most part it is normal and accepted that there is an element of chaos and things might not go as expected.

If this is a big problem for you I'd suggest looking into games that are less reliant on dice rolls (or even eschew dice entirely).