Lvling-Up Vs Flat Math

[ren1999]

4th Edition rules say that if a character shoots his bow in about 40 battles that he will learn to hit better and earn a +1 to hit after leveling-up 2 levels. It means that constant tries equals practice which equals improvement in scoring a hit. But because 1/2 level adds +15 to all abilities at 30th level, this inflates the math.

In the Play-test, your hit die and your damaging ability increases with level but your hitting ability does not increase at all. I appreciate the zeal for lower modifiers and attack bonuses. There are many benefits. Simplified calculations. No need for scaling monsters as every monster is challenging to the players.

Someone said that we need to have all modifiers less than 20 for the 1d20 to mean anything to the roll. Are their rolling statistics for that?

Convince me why level-ups should not have some kind of to hit bonuses. Feats don't always provide bonuses so that is a poor substitute for characters that spend all day and night practicing hitting stuff.

What am I missing here?

 

[triqui]

If the modifiers are higher than +20 in a d20, there is too much difference between "good" and "experts". When the DM set a DC, the "expert" in the team will be unable to fail (even with a 1) what the rest of the group can't achieve (even with a 20). That make the game trivial for the expert, unless you make encounters that everyone else can't join. Same goes with AC and attack.

An archer that makes 40 battles can be better, without needing to increase the +1 to hit. He might be able to shoot twice in six seconds, do more damage with each arrow, make people bleed, or be able to do called shots that pin or prone them. You don't need to give them +15 to hit. Specially when it is useless, as you also give +15 to AC to the proper CR creatures.

 

[Kzach]

Just assume that the PC's are already about as good as they're going to get. The tricks they learn along the way improve their ability to do their jobs but they're only going to get marginally more accurate.

There are limits to how good you can get at something. Practice doesn't necessarily mean you automatically get better, it just means you don't get worse. So if the PC's are already at the peak of their ability at 1st-level, there's really not that much more room to go other than side-ways. Side-ways is more fun than going up anyway.

 

[ren1999]

So a character with Perception+17 who must succeed versus a DC17 will not enjoy the game because even if they did fail on a 1 the game would no longer be fun for them.

You're saying that if a character got a better to-hit it wouldn't matter because tougher monsters would just have better armor class.

It all makes sense.

DeadPool there, you're saying that leveling-up should be about learning new tricks such as pinning a monster with an arrow or shooting more monsters in a single round.

Well if the designers had explained that in the play-test material I would have been more willing to try it from the start. I'm going to remove 1/2 level bonuses just to test that part.

Thanks for the clarification. But I would also like to hear from others on ENWorld about why they don't want to-hit bonuses when leveling-up.

I have already been testing the ability versus ability rolls and they work very well.

I just removed this Javascript from my game.
levels=Math.floor(characters[x].levels/2)
modifier=Math.floor(modifier)+Math.floor(levels)
Let's see how it works out.

 

[Campbell]

The way I view it is that Adventurers are already capable combatants. A 1st level fighter has already endured rigorous combat training. He understands basic forms, knows how to maneuver in armor, and might have even served in a campaign or two. After all, a 1st level character can start out as a professional soldier or a full fledged knight. What he lacks is significant combat experience. He doesn't know how to maneuver himself , has to avoid the brunt of an attack, lacks the stamina developed in the course of long campaigns, has trouble maintaining his cool under pressure. Likewise he might not be as experienced at landing solid blows in the chaotic melees that real combat includes. Basically embrace the abstract nature of hit points.

The fighter is a capable warrior - just not a heroic figure yet. One does not simply strap on some armor, grab a sword and march into the infested dens of monsters with little to no training. That's damn good way to die. Adventurers are fool hardy, maybe a little insane, but they aren't imbeciles.

 

[Minigiant]

To me, I never got the "expert is too far from the novice" argument. Is that not the point of role playing. Taking on the strengths and weaknesses of a character. So a novice cannot hit a Expert level DC. "To hit" represents chance of threat. "Damage" is amount of threat.

When the master strikes the novice, every strike is a threat. There is little chance of failure. Every swing is a possible knock out blow. The novice cannot hope for misses. The novice must expend stamina, skill, and focus to avoid being crushed.

The master thief can picks effortlessly locks a noob struggles with. A master sage recalls information of new student might have never heard of. The sensei hops always higher than the beltless.

 

[Kzach]

DeadPool there, you're saying that leveling-up should be about learning new tricks such as pinning a monster with an arrow or shooting more monsters in a single round.

You seem to have a weird fixation on my avatar. So I'm going to do you a favour and correct you. It's "Widdle Wade" NOT Deadpool.

 

[justinhalliday]

I wrote a whole blog post about the mechanics of the +1 per level in all previous editions of D&D:

Heroes Against Darkness: Mechanics of Attack Bonus progression in D&D and Heroes Against Darkness

I'm intrigued by the flattening of the maths, but I think that they may have gone too far in the 'flattened' direction (I assume it's going to be +1 per 8 levels). As it stands in D&D Next, your 1st level character is almost as good as it will ever be.

 

[am181d]

I'm intrigued by the flattening of the maths, but I think that they may have gone too far in the 'flattened' direction (I assume it's going to be +1 per 8 levels).

Out of curiosity, why 8? My assumption is that (if they apply bonuses at all) it'd be every 4 or 5, so that players who only make it to 12th level with their characters still see a couple of raises.

 

[justinhalliday]

This is my expectation (based on the pre-gen characters' ability scores not changing up to 3rd Level)

Level 4: +1 to primary attribute (probably increases a stat to and odd number without a change to the mod.)
Level 8: +1 to primary attribute (probably increases a stat to an even number and increases the mod by +1)
Level 12: +1 to primary attribute (probably increases a stat to and odd number without a change to the mod.)
Level 16: +1 to primary attribute (probably increases a stat to an even number and increases the mod by +1)

So at level 16 the character has gained +2 to their primary attack modifier.