Abilities Capped at 20 Won't Work

[Fifth Element]

^This is a strawman. Also this tradeoff would be meaningless only if he knew he would eventually see an item, in the campaign, that made said decision superfluous. Otherwise he made his decision for either gain or to hedge his bets.

I got the impression that trancejeremy was operating from the standpoint of rolling for abilities, by your post you did too.

No, if you read my post I was clearly referring to point-buy. Like in the part where I said you'd presumably be using point-buy, for example.

But thanks for the dismissiveness!

(And no, the tradeoff would not be meaningless only if he knew he would see such an item. The simple existence of such an item in the game for any ability score changes the balance of the tradeoffs.)

 

[Balesir]

Then play book makes it quite clear the DM should be adjudicating what is and is not a contest. I would not be allowing contests against gods without excellent narrative. IE, I expect my genius wizard with 20 int might actually be able to pull a fast one on the mighty-yet-dumb god of thunder, for instance, but my STR 20 fighter will be pulverised if he attempts to match the 30 STR of same god.

Riiiight... So, what you are saying is that this rule system isn't really a rule system, it's just there for... what, exactly? I mean, why write all this guff down if the actual rules are some undisclosed and arbitrary handwave? Writing is meant for communication and information recording; if nothing lasting is being either communicated or recorded, why are we writing it down at all?

 

[variant]

Riiiight... So, what you are saying is that this rule system isn't really a rule system, it's just there for... what, exactly? I mean, why write all this guff down if the actual rules are some undisclosed and arbitrary handwave? Writing is meant for communication and information recording; if nothing lasting is being either communicated or recorded, why are we writing it down at all?

The rule system includes rule 0.

 

[Balesir]

The rule system includes rule 0.

Which is precisely what I'm saying doesn't make sense. Role 0 was always a social control and power politics thing, anyway, rather than a proper rule. I'm contending that it was and is unnecessary and broken, also, if we are clear about what exactly are "rules" and what are guidelines and rules of thumb for play.

Example: "The Athletics skill covers climbing and the DC to climb a regular, rough stone wall is 15" is a rule. It communicates to a player (part of) what they can expect their character with a +5 Athletics skill to be able to do.

"A party of 5 level 5 characters should typically face ten challenges of around level 5 (plus or minus up to 3 levels) before levelling up" is not a rule - it's a guideline for the GM about what is reasonably pacticable, fun and balanced for that party. It communicates nothing to the players about what they can confidently expect in the game world - it should communicate only that the range and types of challenges their characters may face is wholly unknown to them.

 

[VannATLC]

It is a conflict resolution methodology. Explicitly determined by your DM as suitable in the narrative, or not.

 

[NotAYakk]

Ability score increases, and other modifications to the d20 resolution roll, have exponential impact on relative character power. And I don't use exponential lightly.

We'll measure "power" as "number of opponents you could defeat in a row", and I'll ignore expendable resources for now. (going to "in parallel" just takes the square root of the power stat above, basically).

Character build A and B are identical -- they each take (say) 100 hits to kill each other. They start with a 50-50 chance to hit each other.

About 100 of each will die to each other (in a row), showing that they have the same power.

Now, we'll try out A_1 through A_5. A_n has a +n to all defences and attacks over A (and hence B).

A_1 hits B .55 times per round, and is it .45 times per round. 122 Bs die to 100 A_1s. Roughly.

For A_2, .6/.4 or 150 B's for 100 A_2s.
185 Bs for 100 A_3s.
233 Bs for 100 A_4s.
300 Bs for 100 A_5s.
...
900 Bs for 100 A_8s.

ln(# of Bs killed by 100 A_ns)/100n = {0.20, 0.20, 0.21, 0.21, 0.22} for n = 1 through 5. Or , #Bs killed by 1 A_n =~ e^(n/5) =~ 1.22^n.

1.22^n is exponential growth. And you'll note that the effect is actually larger than exponential -- by n=8, my exponential curve predicts only a 5-fold increase in power, but we actually get a 9-fold increase.

Now, with slow growth in bonuses the exponential curve can be overwealmed by other increases (in HP/damage/options). And a +/-10 defence/attack bonus is enough to cap the effect of these bonuses (so between any two combatants, they never grow larger than a factor of 10 or so). But if you compare to creatures "within hitting distance" and allow the power ratios to commute, you get exponential (or higher) power growth.

One of the goals of D&D next was to eliminate the massive power growth problems of 3e/4e, and allow level 1 opponents to "work" against higher level foes. This requires restrained attack/defence bonuses, and hence restrained attribute bonuses (if they apply to attack/defence).

 

[ren1999]

If a highest level character is evenly matched with a highest level monster.
Then to avoid jumping the RNG(random number generator), all bonuses combined must be 20 or under.

In an arm wrestling match..
1d20(+10str mod) versus 10(+10str mod)
the character has a 50% chance to win against an evenly matched monster

NATURAL BONUS
a maximum ability
3 to 18 from the roll
+1 from a racial bonus
+1 from a class bonus
+1 to a chosen ability score per level-up
+1 from all feats that increase the ability
as long as the level-ups and feats don't stack above 20
for a maximum of 20(+5)
This will be called the Natural Bonus and be applied to all toHits, damages and skill rolls

MAGICAL BONUS
the character's ability score could be increased by a stacking cap of 10 so that the ability score goes to 30(+10) as long as the DM allows such magical weapons to exist. The character could become as strong as a dragon if the DM allowed it. The toHit and damage of that magical weapon would then receive this bonus of +6 to +10 toHit and damage.

magical bonuses could be applied to ability or skill checks if they are relevant. A girdle of Ogre strength could be applied to strength checks.

Here is my idea for limiting all bonuses.
natural ability scores and modifiers for characters 20(+5), racial bonuses will handle the differences between humanoids

natural + magical bonuses 30(+10) as long as the DM allows it.

situation modifiers stack to a limit of +10

20(+5) NATURAL ability score and modifier applied to all toHit, damage and skill rolls

30(+10)MAGICAL natural and magical ability score and modifier applied to the appropriate weapon or skill or ability roll with the aid of the magical item

+10 or -10 SITUATION modifiers

1d20+10 +/- 10 vs 10+10

I think that will satisfy this problem of how characters can level-up and still keep the math flat, reduce power creep and stop jumping the RNG.

leveling up should not increase any toHit directly but rather indirectly through feats and abilities.

Feats should increase abilities which should increase toHit and damage.

No need to add 1/2 level directly to all rolls. As long as 1 ability score increases per level, it will be o.k. People will feel like their characters are improving because they are. And they'll still see a gradual increase in toHit.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

[MENTION=85179]ren1999[/MENTION]

I am finding it difficult to understand your point in that last post. I will try to work it out though:

To begin with, the maximum bonus from an ability will be +5. You propose that magic should increase abilities, making the theoretical maximum bonus +10. This would be terrible, and bring us right back to the 3rd edition mentality of +6 to every ability you can get. Nothing should increase ability scores apart perhaps from level increase (which may or may not exist). Yes, gauntlets of ogre strength might add to Strength checks or saves, or maybe even damage, but let's avoid ability increase.

You then think that there might be +10 situational modifiers. Now so far we've seen +2 from class abilities, +1/+2 from spells, low scale stuff. I hope it stays that way. +10 situational (whether that be through character choice or circumstance) is too great a difference between characters who choose to specialise and those who don't.

Finally you say that people will feel that they are becoming more effective if their to-hit bonuses increase. This isn't true if the AC of your enemies also increases at the same rate (4th edition) - all it does is determine the range of monsters you can currently hit. Far, far better is to have the best monster AC no more than 10 greater than the worst monster AC, and use damage/HP increase to determine which monsters you can fight vs. those that are cannon fodder.

Imagine at 1st level, the best attack modifier you could get was +8 (+5 ability, +2 class, I'll guess a +1 elsewhere). You hit unarmoured commoners with ease. You hit the heaviest armoured king (at the moment) half of the time. You might need an 17 to hit a dragon (AC 25 let's say). The difference is that the commoner and the king have few enough hit points you might need only 1-2 hits to kill them. The dragon, with your paltry 1d8+5 damage, will need more like 20. Fast forward to level 20 (let's say), and you have maybe acquired another +2 to hit, for +10. You hit that dragon on a 15, pretty nice, but now you're doing 1d8+25 damage (+1 per level, made up rules), the dragon only needs 7-8 hits. A tough fight still, but I'm sure you've acquired feats and spells to help out in ways OTHER than +X to hit and +X damage.

 

[ren1999]

And Chris, remember our discussion where it might be possible for a player character to roll a 1d20 instead of taking a 10 on defense. The possible roll would then be

1d20+5 attack roll
+/- combat/sit modifiers
versus
1d20+5 defense roll

if both opponents had a maximum magic bonus in addition to their maximum natural bonus the roll would be

1d20+10 magical weapon strength attack roll
+/- combat/sit modifiers
versus
1d20+10 magical armor and dexterity defense roll