D&D 5E Attack Bonuses

jadrax · Mar 30, 2013

DonAdam said:
This is way anti-traditional, but I'd be much happier if belts of giant strength increased damage but not attack rolls.

TBH, I have never been that happy about Strength adding to attack rolls full stop.

Falling Icicle · Mar 30, 2013

Libramarian said:
Doesn't matter--players don't get to choose their magic items in DDN.

This "balance doesn't matter because the DM controls the game" argument has never been satisfactory. It's not just the players that benefit from a balanced and well-designed game, DMs do too. It makes the DM's job a lot easier if he doesn't have to worry about using any of the magic items in the rulebooks for fear of breaking the game. After all, not every DM is an expert game designer, and most aren't going to know that a particular item is going to be a problem until they give one to their players and the game falls apart. Saying "oh it's okay, because it's up to the DM" is a cop out in game design of the very worst kind. The game rules are supposed to be there to help the DM, not to create additional pitfalls for him or her to have to avoid.

KidSnide · Mar 30, 2013

Falling Icicle said:
This "balance doesn't matter because the DM controls the game" argument has never been satisfactory. It's not just the players that benefit from a balanced and well-designed game, DMs do too. It makes the DM's job a lot easier if he doesn't have to worry about using any of the magic items in the rulebooks for fear of breaking the game. After all, not every DM is an expert game designer, and most aren't going to know that a particular item is going to be a problem until they give one to their players and the game falls apart. Saying "oh it's okay, because it's up to the DM" is a cop out in game design of the very worst kind. The game rules are supposed to be there to help the DM, not to create additional pitfalls for him or her to have to avoid.

One of the tricky balancing acts that D&DN is trying to walk is to preserve the "system produces a predictable level of difficulty" aspect of 4e (and to a certain extent 3.5) while also giving the "feel free to run off the tracks" feeling of 1e/2e (and to a certain extent 3.0).

In the particular case of the Belt of Storm Giant Strength, I think it's fine to run off the tracks. Radically changing character power is part of any successful artifact design, and I don't see how what is in effect a massive damage boost goes beyond the pale of an artifact-level effect. For the other belts of giant strength, it's an empirical question of whether they are substantially better than the other magic items of the same rarity. Maybe there is a stacking issue, but -- on the face of it -- the more powerful belts don't look out of scale with the magic weapons.

-KS

Crazy Jerome · Mar 30, 2013

Yes, it's the stacking issue. It's ok for an artifact to go off the rails on stacking, but it is not ok for the stacking to be borked in the first place.

So one of the dials that they should really consider is the mix of magic items and ability bonuses. I want to be able to run a game where:

A. There are no increases in ability scores and magic is exceedingly rare, meaning very little boosts to attack bonuses.

B. There are no increases in ability score, but magic is handed out like candy. You hit hard at higher levels because you've got the bling.

C. There are increases in ability scores, but magic is rare. You hit hard at higher levels because you are all that and a drum of monkeys.

D. The waahoo game where it all stacks, and you throw an artifact onto the mix at the end to send it over the top.

I don't mind being responsible for setting the dials, but I damn well want the dials to have a few settings that work. You'll note that this indicates, practically speaking, that the total stack of attack bonus is not a hard limit, but the dial itself. Set the dial where you want, then pick the mix of skill and equipment (and spells I guess) that makes it work out.

Li Shenron · Mar 30, 2013

DonAdam said:
This is way anti-traditional, but I'd be much happier if belts of giant strength increased damage but not attack rolls.

It certainly feels more "realistic" to expect a giant to hit hard rather than hit more often, but that's mostly because of their size rather than strength.

But alas, the fundamental rules of the game say that Strength applies to melee attack rolls... I don't think we want to start changing that, but I wouldn't mind having belts that work like you suggest. OTOH I wouldn't mind either if they worked like now. Higher hitting rate is not that different from higher hitting damage, they both equate to killing monsters faster. There are some corner cases of course, but the main effect is not that different.

Li Shenron · Mar 30, 2013

Crazy Jerome said:
A. There are no increases in ability scores and magic is exceedingly rare, meaning very little boosts to attack bonuses.

This is probably my favourite, where almost all boosts to attack bonuses come from class levels, which means essentially from competence.

Given the bounded accuracy, I am not worried about an artifact that gives +20 on attacks. I am more worried about trinkets that give you +1, because clearly a DM is going to think a lot before giving out the first, but will easily give out the second believing that the consequences are minor.

Majoru Oakheart · Mar 30, 2013

Yeah, the problem is that stat bonuses scale too quickly in general, not just Strength. The difference between a 20th level character with 10 con and 20 con is 100. That can be more than what you actually rolled on the dice. The difference between a 10 Strength character and a 20 Strength character is already so great that you are almost guaranteed to hit everything with a 20 Str,

Stat modifiers need to be made smaller.

Falling Icicle · Mar 30, 2013

Majoru Oakheart said:
Stat modifiers need to be made smaller.

Interesting. I have just the opposite opinion. I think the mere +1 to +5 you get from your ability score is insignificant compared to the impact of the d20 roll, making the game feel very swingy to me. Though I do agree that adding Con bonus to HP every level is madness; it leads to the insane HP bloat we saw in 3.x.

DonAdam · Mar 30, 2013

Li Shenron said:
But alas, the fundamental rules of the game say that Strength applies to melee attack rolls... I don't think we want to start changing that, but I wouldn't mind having belts that work like you suggest. OTOH I wouldn't mind either if they worked like now. Higher hitting rate is not that different from higher hitting damage, they both equate to killing monsters faster. There are some corner cases of course, but the main effect is not that different.

Not necessarily trying to get rid of the str bonus to attack in general, but magic items by their nature can be ad hoc exceptions to the baseline rules. Magic not science.

I'd rather patch the rules in corner cases than have the rules dictate the fiction. I suspect the representative or modal fiction of heroic fantasy would be that if you got a belt that made you super strong you wouldn't be appreciably more accurate.

Falling Icicle · Mar 30, 2013

KidSnide said:
One of the tricky balancing acts that D&DN is trying to walk is to preserve the "system produces a predictable level of difficulty" aspect of 4e (and to a certain extent 3.5) while also giving the "feel free to run off the tracks" feeling of 1e/2e (and to a certain extent 3.0).

I actually think they're being more conservative with magic items than they have in any prior edition. This is the first edition of the game where there are no +4 or +5 (or higher) magic weapons and armor. They've taken a "less is more" approach to the number bonuses on items, emphasizing cool abilities instead. The belts of giant strength are an odd exception.