Lvling-Up Vs Flat Math

[Charwoman Gene]

I am actually pretty sure it's going to be +0 over 100 levels.

 

[Campbell]

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.

I guess where this falls down for me is that I don't see starting Adventurers as novices. The novice thief does not belong on a caper that involves infiltrating monster dens. He belongs on the streets still perfecting his craft. The novice warrior is a conscript or squire. Not a professional soldier or knight.

Keeping in mind that ability scores in 5e represent a combination of training and raw talent Here's what I see as a novice thief on their way to being an adventurer:

Novice Thief
Neutral Humanoid (Human)
Initiative +2
AC 12
HP 11
Str 9(-1) Dex 14(+2) Con 11(+0)
Int 12(+1) Wis 11(+0) Cha 9(-1)
Stealth +1
Open Locks +2
Space/Reach 5/5
Melee Attack(dagger)+2 1d4+2
Ranged Attack(dagger)+2 20 ft 1d4+2
Equipment: dagger, thieve's tools, 5 silver

 

[triqui]

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.

But also means that when the group tries to sneak past the guards, those who aren't the specialized rogue with uber stealth, automatically fail.

We have a game in pathfinder. Recently a character died, and a new PC cames. He is a Bard. He has 43 in diplomacy-related stuff. Even other seasoned characters (the rogue, which is king, and has maxed diplomacy, or the sorcerer with high charisma and maxed ranks) have +18 to their rolls. The other guys are a decent charisma cleric (which has a lot of ranks in diplomacy as well), which has around +15, and a dwarven fighter that has 0.

The bard CAN'T FAIL in any roll that HEAVILY INVESTED characters have maxed ranks and more than decent ability. The dwarven fighter can't even try what the rest of the group rolls for.

 

[justinhalliday]

I am actually pretty sure it's going to be +0 over 100 levels.

HA!

That's the thing. I'm so conditioned to expect this +1 per level development, that I'm not sure how I'll feel without it!

 

[Kzach]

I am actually pretty sure it's going to be +0 over 100 levels.

I'm predicting that there will be some increase simply due to the DC progression table in the how to play guide. But I don't think it'll be more than +5 over 20 levels (I have a feeling they're going to go back to 20 levels instead of 30).

My guess would be +1 every six levels for a maximum of +3 with weapons going back to a +1 magical bonus, +2 if it's special (sword of sharpness, etc.) and +4 vs. specific creatures, ala 1e/2e. I'm also guessing that there will be specialisation for fighters for an additional +1.

I also don't believe they'll be doing automatic stat bumps but rather going back to the Tome and Wish/Miracle paradigm.

 

[thalmin]

I am actually pretty sure it's going to be +0 over 100 levels.

As the rules aren't all written yet but are being developed by the playtest feedback, I am not pretty sure about much of anything yet. There have been many big changes made since the "Friends and Family" playtesting.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Just think that in D&D characters with high hit points have the ability to change hits into near misses. Thus, if you can deliver a lot of damage with a single shot (which seems that high level characters will be able to do instead of getting +X to hit), you have just achieved the ability to change near misses into hits. In narrative terms, it's basically the same. In terms of math, though, it makes the game easier and better, in my opinion.

Cheers,

 

[Minigiant]

I guess where this falls down for me is that I don't see starting Adventurers as novices. The novice thief does not belong on a caper that involves infiltrating monster dens. He belongs on the streets still perfecting his craft. The novice warrior is a conscript or squire. Not a professional soldier or knight.

I didn't mean novice as bumbling buffoon. A level 1 character is trained but barely professional. Equivalent to a bench player on a high school sports team (+6 to the check). He can do the motions but a professional sports level star would DESTROY him (+21 to the check).

With time and multiple chances the 1st level can do the upper level items a 15th level can do. But there are many out of reach.

 

[Dausuul]

As I understand it, the main goal is to extend the working "lifespan" of monsters. So at low levels, you fight maybe one orc per PC. At high levels, you could fight one storm giant per PC; but you could also fight ten orcs per PC, or twenty.

In previous editions, this got very wonky due to the disparities in attack and defense. The orcs could hit the PCs only on a 20, the PCs could miss only on a 1. D&DN is seeking to remove all, or almost all, of the attack/defense scaling. Increased skill will be represented through a) more combat options and b) higher hit points and damage.

This also has the nice side effect that D&DN can mostly dispense with monster categories like "solo," "elite," "regular," or "minion." If an orc has 5 hit points, then as soon as you're dealing a minimum 5 damage per hit, the orc has become effectively a minion.

Unfortunately, the no-scaling approach runs into a problem with skills. With combat, you have hit points and damage to represent increasing proficiency, but there is no equivalent for skills. So PCs get better at fighting, but their skills remain largely fixed across the level range. Worse, the variance between high skill and low skill is distressingly small. Imagine a fighter with Int 3, playing chess against a wizard with Int 18 and the Chess Master background (+3 to play chess). The fighter will win 9% of the time. Not cool.

 

[Reaper Steve]

They didn't leave space in the play test rules for (+ level modifier.) Everywhere it says how to make a check or attack, it mentions to add things like ability modifier, class feature, skill, spell, etc., but there is no mention of level.

I think the new model is: characters improvement is shown through the ability to deal more damage, not through a higher to hit modifier. They will still improve their overall ability to hit, just in indirect methods, such as:
-- an ability increase (STR or DEX) yields a higher ability modifier to the attack roll.
-- more circumstances will grant the character advantage
-- the character may gain additional attacks

This is a huge improvement, IMO. Honestly, the d20 is the worst part of the d20 system. As others have explained, a model that constantly adds modifiers to a d20 roll quickly creates a system that some always succeed at tasks that others would always fail. With no 'to hit' modifier, AC doesn't have to scale, either. What's the difference between +5 to hit AC 15 and +25 to hit AC 35? Less math for the same result is all. I'd rather have my character earn a second attack or other useful ability instead of +10.