D&D 5E IDEA: Actually bounded accuracy

[RCanine]

Was kicking around an idea, curious what others think: actually bounded accuracy. The idea being that every PC stat that adds to or is opposed by a d20 roll has a maximum, beyond which the PC gains no further benefit. For example:

Attack Rolls: +9 (+4 with SS/GWM)
AC: 20
Initiative: +9
Spell Save DC: 17
Skill Checks: +11
Skill Check DC: 22

The premise here is that it's possible to "cap" some stats fairly early in the game, encouraging players to diversify their builds. These caps are also low enough that players can never mathematically obviate any encounters.

Part of the problem with 5E is that d20 rolls still suffer inflation; a rogue with expertise in a dex-based skill could mount a +17 bonus, while your untrained cleric might still rock a -1; even below level 10 a druid may only have AC 15, while your fighter might be in the mid-20s. These wide gaps make encounters tough to balance; party make up can quickly make something impossible easy or vice versa.

These caps would only apply to PCs; NPCs would be allowed to break these bounds -- rarely -- for dramatic effect.

I imagine some folks may hate this idea; that's ok. But I'd love your thoughts.

 

[Jester David]

Why not just cap ability scores at 18 then? Make 20 magical.

 

[Shiroiken]

Why not just cap ability scores at 18 then? Make 20 magical.

I would much prefer the cap to have been at 18 rather than 20. I may consider houseruling that in to my next campaign.

 

[Flamestrike]

I'm not sure if I like a hard cap. I'd prefer some sort of system of diminishing returns.

That imposes more of a soft cap and encourages diversification.

 

[ad_hoc]

Part of the problem with 5E is that d20 rolls still suffer inflation; a rogue with expertise in a dex-based skill could mount a +17 bonus, while your untrained cleric might still rock a -1; even below level 10 a druid may only have AC 15, while your fighter might be in the mid-20s. These wide gaps make encounters tough to balance; party make up can quickly make something impossible easy or vice versa.

These numbers are higher than what I have seen in my experience except for the god-level Rogue. At the the point that the Cleric is casting spells like Gate and True Resurrection I think that is okay.

I also don't think it is a good idea to have characters diversify. I think it is best if they have specialties and fill roles. This is one of the reasons why I don't play with multiclassing.

 

[Jester David]

I'm not sure if I like a hard cap. I'd prefer some sort of system of diminishing returns.

That imposes more of a soft cap and encourages diversification.

Diminishing returns work in video games, where the math is done for you.
They're trickier in tabletop because they're complicated.
Going from "every even number is a +1 bonus" is simple but 12/13 is +1, 14-16 is +2, 17-20 is +3, 21-25 is +4 is much harder to figure out on the fly.

 

[CapnZapp]

Was kicking around an idea, curious what others think: actually bounded accuracy. The idea being that every PC stat that adds to or is opposed by a d20 roll has a maximum, beyond which the PC gains no further benefit. For example:

Attack Rolls: +9 (+4 with SS/GWM)
AC: 20
Spell Save DC: 17
Skill Checks: +11
Skill Check DC: 22

The premise here is that it's possible to "cap" some stats fairly early in the game, encouraging players to diversify their builds. These caps are also low enough that players can never mathematically obviate any encounters.

Part of the problem with 5E is that d20 rolls still suffer inflation; a rogue with expertise in a dex-based skill could mount a +17 bonus, while your untrained cleric might still rock a -1; even below level 10 a druid may only have AC 15, while your fighter might be in the mid-20s. These wide gaps make encounters tough to balance; party make up can quickly make something impossible easy or vice versa.

These caps would only apply to PCs; NPCs would be allowed to break these bounds -- rarely -- for dramatic effect.

I imagine some folks may hate this idea; that's ok. But I'd love your thoughts.

To me the greatest problem is not that rogue of yours, but the cleric.

That is: even automatic success isn't such a big issue, since A) its fun and B) assuming every other balancing check is still in place (such as a need to still spend an action etc) there's nothing especially broken about it.

The other end, however, is much MUCH more of a problem. And this boils down to saves, since:
Attacks - it's almost impossible to create a character with poor to hit (if martial) or save DC (if caster).
AC - the trivial fix is "put on some armor"
Skill checks - just don't try if you have a -1 modifier and the consequences of failure are great. Chances are somebody else in the party will succeed. And, frankly, most of the time in D&D, you can always kill your way out of a failed skill check... ;-)

Which leaves saves.

Yes, enforcing bounded accuracy to DC 10 - DC 20 would be a good idea.

Having to make a DC 23 save with a +2 modifier isn't fun, because it's impossible to succeed. To me, this is a definite flaw of the 5E design, since it would not have been impossible to avoid in an early design stage.

I have thought about low saves a fair bit recently. My best bet isn't to mess with the DCs, but instead to go "you can always use your proficiency bonus in place for an ability save".

So, if your new character has a -1 Strength save, you still save at +2. This ensures that you will always have at least a small chance of success.

A level 20 character will save at +6 (or better). Still not great against a demon lord's DC 23, but at least not deadeningly dull.

 

[RCanine]

Why not just cap ability scores at 18 then? Make 20 magical.

Capping ability scores alone doesn't solve the problem. A dex 18 ranger can still manage a +12 attack bonus without a magic weapon.

To me the greatest problem is not that rogue of yours, but the cleric.

My thinking is that by capping stats fairly low, players won't be incentivized to focus on a single ability. A 16 Str or Dex is enough to cap your attack bonus, so there's no need to dump all of your ASIs into a single stat. Similarly, small investments in stats have a higher value (percentage-wise).

 

[RCanine]

I'm not sure if I like a hard cap. I'd prefer some sort of system of diminishing returns.

That imposes more of a soft cap and encourages diversification.

Hard caps provide diminishing returns in a different way. A 16 STR you cap attack with +2 weapon at once your proficiency bonus reaches +4. Additional investment in STR increases your damage and attack bonus with less powerful weapons, and your athletics skill, but not your primary weapon.

 

[Sammael]

There is already too little granularity and too little sense of improvement in 5E (every time they level, my players spend more time being sarcastic about the time it took them to level up than the time it actually took them to level up). This would... make things worse.