D&D 5E Attack Bonuses

[Blackbrrd]

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.

Well, it worked out nicely until 3e. In AD&D you got a to-hit bonus and a damage bonus from high strength, and they weren't the same. The highest strength you could start with was 18/00 and it gave +3 to hit and +6 to damage. 25 strength - which was the max - gave +7 to hit and +14 damage.

In 3e they "streamlined" stat bonuses to be (stat-10)/2 and you applied that to everything. In addition they inflated the strength scores of monsters. The Titan went from 25 strength and +7hit/14dmg to 43str and +16hit/dmg. This is the problem.

My conclusion: we don't really need to remove strength bonus to-hit, just going back to the range we had in AD&D would alleviate the problem to a large degree. As you noted, the rapidly increasing damage bonus from high strength feels appropriate, while the to-hit bonus doesn't.

 

[Ferghis]

Honestly, I don't think "you can pretty much always hit, and you deal a little more damage" is that game-breaking for an artifact.

While I agree, I think the bigger point of this thread is that the current numbers pave the way for ever-increasing attack bonuses. I was seriously hoping that attack bonuses would stop at around +10. This is obviously not the case, and I fear a runaway train of bonuses.

A single artifact has no real impact on this point, especially if it's not used, as they are often not. But many other bonuses will, which turns "tough" foes into easy ones, and forces the DM to work harder (although not necessarily hard) to create challenging fights. Hopefully either the bonuses or the monster defenses will be adjusted accordingly, preferably the former. I really like working with smaller numbers, and 4e's escalation of attack vs defense becomes kinda dumb.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

Yeah, this. Stat modifiers on d20 rolls are quite modest, but stat modifiers on hit points are excessive.

 

[KidSnide]

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.

The Belts of Giant Strength are in line with the magic items bonuses. Compared to a "natural max" strength of 20, the non-artifact Stone, Fire and Cloud belts provide a to-hit and damage bonus of +1, +2 and +3, respectively. A high-level, Str 20 fighter gets the same bonus with a legendary Belt of Cloud Giant strength as with a legendary (+3) Vorpal Sword.

As far as I can tell, the only difference is that they stack. (And, of course, the secondary abilities.)

-KS

 

[the Jester]

You can tell when a magic item is too powerful when it becomes a "must have" item or when it's plainly superior to other items. I can't think of any other item I'd rather have for a fighter-type character than this. Nothing else even comes close.

This is only an issue in a game where the players feel entitled to demand specific magic items.

You want it? It's an artifact. Go on a major, 3-level-long quest. Play out your attempts to get it in game. Then we'll see- and if you do end up with the (THE, mind you) girdle of storm giant strength, you'll have earned it.

I really don't think "the 20th level fighter always hits" is a huge problem.

 

[Philousk]

It's hardly fine. High level monster AC is FAR too low. Asmodeus' AC is a glaring mis take at this point. A mistake that will certainly be fixed.

AC only? It should fix many other details about him, because at the moment, Asmodeus reminds me a monster wandering or sleeping bag for romp PC of level 18-20. It is undeniable that he's less powerful than the previous editions. One example is that currently he can cast Wish once a year whereas before he could do it every day! The king of hell deserves better ...

Otherwise, about the attack bonus. In a french forum, he asked the question. In the bestiary, how do you explain the logic of Attack Bonus for Goblin ( Melee Attack - Mace : + 4 to hit ) when his strength (8) gives it -1 malus? The question also arises for human warrior of the same document. I confess I do not know what to say.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Otherwise, about the attack bonus. In a french forum, he asked the question. In the bestiary, how do you explain the logic of Attack Bonus for Goblin ( Melee Attack - Mace : + 4 to hit ) when his strength (8) gives it -1 malus? The question also arises for human warrior of the same document. I confess I do not know what to say.

I agree. Monsters should use the same math as PCs. If they don't, it gets weird when you have class-leveled NPCs--how come the normal Goblin has +4, but this human fighter with the same strength (and more training) only has +0?

(And how does Asmodeus know what a year is, anyway? What calendar do they use in hell?)

 

[Dausuul]

Otherwise, about the attack bonus. In a french forum, he asked the question. In the bestiary, how do you explain the logic of Attack Bonus for Goblin ( Melee Attack - Mace : + 4 to hit ) when his strength (8) gives it -1 malus? The question also arises for human warrior of the same document. I confess I do not know what to say.

The goblin belongs to the Goblin Warrior NPC class. It replaces your ability-based attack modifiers with a flat +4 to melee and +5 to ranged (more at higher levels, as the goblin boss demonstrates). But you only get a d6 hit die, you don't get max hit points at first level, and you don't get much in the way of special abilities.

Yes, I just made all that up. The point is that I could do the same with any monster and any set of stats. "Building" monsters the way you build PCs was one of 3E's worst ideas. Monsters became stupidly complicated, to no benefit. There's a reason no other edition has done it.

 

[Libramarian]

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.

This POV seems lopsided to me. It's so negative--it's the game designer's job to not break the game. I don't look at it like that. To me, it's the game designer's job to make my game more fun, not just to not make it less fun. If they only put boring, predictable items into the game, they're not doing their job. In fact I'm tempted to say that's a worse cop-out.

But anyway, you can have items that are unbalanced but are transparent about it. I favor powerful, dramatic magic items ESPECIALLY artifacts, but I'm not opposed to advice text that says clearly what effect the items will have on the game, so they don't break the game by surprise.

 

[Falling Icicle]

If they only put boring, predictable items into the game, they're not doing their job.

So, if I think the belts of giant strength are too powerful, that means that I only want there to be boring, predictable items in the game? There's quite a large middle ground between "boring and predictable" and "so powerful that it causes problems."