D&D 5E 07/29/2013 - Legends & Lore It’s Mathemagical!

JonWake · Jul 29, 2013

I think Mearls mentioned in the podcast that instead of increasing the upper bounds of stats, they're lowering the starting values so there's that room to grow.

Dausuul · Jul 29, 2013

Olgar Shiverstone said:
Mearls' article should have included discussing damage scaling, then, and not just hit points, since they go hand in hand.

He was listing off the goals of the combat system design. Yes, it should have explicitly mentioned damage scaling, but I suppose he saw it as implied; hit points scale both in terms of the amount you have and the amount you knock off with each hit.

Anyway, as I said, we've already seen this in practice and it does involve damage scaling.

Majoru Oakheart · Jul 29, 2013

From my reading of this article, it does not appear they are loosening up Bounded Accuracy. It says each class gets a bonus from +1 to +6 at 20th level. It says it can do up to +12 for CHECKS. It doesn't say it goes up to +12 for to hit bonuses.

My reading is that while skills go up to +12, to hit bonuses are still capped at +6(though that is up from +5 in the current playtest). It also sounds like you can only get +12 to skills if using the optional skill system. My guess is that you get +6 at level 20 to all stat checks from your class. If you are using the optional skill system, you can possibly add another +6.

Kobold Avenger · Jul 29, 2013

I'm very much against having the spell save DCs be based on spell levels again. It not only complicates the game, and makes certain classes with limited spellcasting even weaker, it's the fact that I really hated how 3e needed the Heighten Spell feat in order to make lower level spells with unique effects competitive. Even worse when you consider that 5e is cutting down the number of spells all spellcasters have.

Kinak · Jul 29, 2013

Well, first off: kudos to Mike for providing some concrete examples to talk about. It's hard to provide feedback or even form an opinion without them.

I'm glad that the bonuses for skills are widening out. A +6 bonus is not enough to distinguish between characters unless you make those rolls constantly like attack rolls or, in my games, Perception checks.

It's also good to hear that skill dice might be going away. It's a fine idea for an add-on thing, like a class ability, but making it the core of the skill system is just awkward.

Messing with the saves is good, but I agree with [MENTION=40552]Quartz[/MENTION] that save or out effects are the problem, not really the DC. Going "out" rarely on a bad roll is it's own brand of awful experience.

Something akin to a condition track or even HP tresholds (which could be interesting applied to monsters), certainly work better than straight save and out. And that's doubly true when you're making multiple saves around, as against OGL ghouls.

Cheers!
Kinak

Olgar Shiverstone · Jul 29, 2013

Dausuul said:
He was listing off the goals of the combat system design. Yes, it should have explicitly mentioned damage scaling, but I suppose he saw it as implied; hit points scale both in terms of the amount you have and the amount you knock off with each hit.

Anyway, as I said, we've already seen this in practice and it does involve damage scaling.

Well, I'm quite glad we're seeing it in practice. But it should be explicitly mentioned, because hit point scaling does not necessarily imply damage scaling. One could, in fact, have hit point scaling without damage scaling -- we had that in 1E/2E. Characters would feel very resilient, because it would take a *lot* of blows to bring them down ... but that would also mean that combats would either devolve into boring slug-fests or casters would overwhelm at high levels (both faults seen with 1E/2E).

In any case, it certainly looks like they're on the right design track with the math as far as I'm concerned.

Sadrik · Jul 29, 2013

Mike Mearls said:
We want to focus on growing hit points, rather than attack or saving throw bonuses (or DCs), as the way we reflect growing character power.

I think this is the best approach. Rather than have many high impact scaling variables it is resolved to basically one with the others taking a back seat. Let's hope this one variable is not hyperbolic and grows slowly.

Mike Mearls said:
Our skill DCs are out of whack. They don't match up well with the actual bonuses that characters accrue at all levels.

Good analysis on their part, this has been an issue and the steps they have taken will make an impact I am sure. Mearls says they came to this realization with playtest feedback which is a little disheartening that they did not notice these issues themselves. but they are getting there.

Mike Mearls said:
We're instituting a consistent bonus progression for characters that ranges from +1 at 1st level to +6 at 20th level for attacks, checks, and saving throws.

Is there a real reason that it should be 1 to 6, why not 0 to 5? First level characters do not need a bonus, if all DC are lowered by 1 then the practical effect is the same. +1/3 levels to attacks and saves for all characters is nice and easy though and should make multi-classing a snap. The optional skill system, will limit what you can do with your stats, you can only use your skill for X as opposed to you get +X to all wisdom actions based on level. Not sure if this is how they are defining this or not...

Mike Mearls said:
It's not clear if we'll continue to use a skill die or swap to a flat bonus. We're going to focus on getting data about this question in the next round of surveys.

Please remove the skill die. It is fiddly. Roll the die and add a precalculated bonus, not roll the d20 + some other set die + your stat modifier.

One other thing that I think would be an excellent addition is changing the bonus progression for stats. rather than +1 per 2 points of stats make it +1 for each 3 points of stats, this falls more in line with the progressions of 1e and 2e. It also deemphasizes the importance of high stats for starting characters. Yes this creates some other considerations, however, both methods create considerations, it is just how you tackle them.

DEFCON 1 · Jul 29, 2013

Kobold Avenger said:
t's the fact that I really hated how 3e needed the Heighten Spell feat in order to make lower level spells with unique effects competitive.

In this version, you won't need to take a feat to do it... you'll just be able cast the spell with a higher spell slot automatically.

So you want to use Sleep against higher level foes? Cast it using a higher level spell slot, and thus DC for the enemies to save against goes up to the slot you used. Which is how I think it should be. Casting Sleep with a 9th level spell slot will make the save DC so high that even this 1st level spell maintains effectiveness over the entire course of your career. You just have to give up one of your 9th level spell slots to do it.

the Jester · Jul 29, 2013

I don't like tying spell DCs to spell level; it seems too easy to jack the save DCs up to high levels like that. But of course, we don't know how they'll scale, exactly, so I'll reserve my final judgment on this.

Quartz said:
I would like to see such effects [save or suck] removed completely. Save or out effects are not fun. For example, I think it's easy to recast the ghoul's paralysis as a temporary Dex drain a la 3e Ray of Enfeeblement - drain Dex to 0 and you're paralysed.

They may not be fun for you, but many groups do enjoy them. They should stay in the game but with modules for adjusting the game's lethality.

As for ability damage- no, let's not go there, at least not when your ability scores affect anything else on your character sheet. 3e taught me that bringing the game to a halt so you can refigure your attack stats and damage is a pain in the butt and not worth the hassle for the payoff.

Kraydak · Jul 29, 2013

a) A more eloquent request to get fired for incompetence I have rarely seen. People in the public playtest have known about these issues for what, over nine months now? And these changes will affect the "feel" of the game, so what, exactly, have they been doing?!

b) Look, we all knew that "bounded accuracy" and "scaling from peasant to demon-prince slayer" were in tension. 5 points of scaling over 20 levels was laughably low. 10 points might actually do the job. Congratulations! (read this compliment as being only partially marred by a layer of sarcasm)

c) Well, except for the "except in combat thing". You'll need at least 10 points of scaling for grapple or other non-damaging attacks, obviously. Also, you are still facing the "why bring adventurers when peasants with longbows'll do the job just find" problem. lvl 1 (or heck, 5) monsters don't need to be relevant at level 20. Let it go.

d) Aaaaaaand they don't actually understand the math/gameplay behind Save-or-Suck/Die. Sigh.