Highest total bonus at level one to a d20 roll

[Mengu]

Depends on some decisions based upon tiers of play. If there will be an apprentice tier, then I can see a lower maximum, like 5 or 6, if heroic is where we are going to start, then 10 or 11 is a good starting point.

Maybe something like

+6 at level 1 of apprentice tier. (gain about +1 per apprentice level)
+11, at level 1 of heroic tier. (gain about +0.5 per heroic level)
+16, at level 1 of paragon tier. (gain about +0.5 per paragon level)
+21, at level 1 of epic tier. (gain about +1 per epic level)

And these would be maximums, including a "bonus". I am against stacking as many bonuses as 4e has. I don't want to see +2 from background, +2 from race, +2 from theme, +2 from class feature/power/stance, +2 from item, +2 from paragon path, +2 from epic destiny, creating a discrepancy of 10+ points between two max stat trained characters. I would like to see a non-stacking rule for skill bonuses. If you get a racial bonus, you can't also have a background/theme bonus to the same skill. Pick a different skill. Or I might be fine with mechanics that maybe let you reroll, or roll two dice, on a skill you already have a bonus in, possibly with some conditions/caveats.

 

[Recidivism]

5 range in my opinion. (Whether that's +0 to +5 or +5 to +10 doesn't matter.)

There's no reason to inflate the numbers excessively, that's one of the big problems I have with 4E in general.

If you get more than 5 away, it gets to the point where either one person automatically succeeds regardless of roll, or the other person automatically fails unless they roll a 20. Neither situation is ideal. I've got that situation at my table currently since my players are specializing in different directions and have different levels of powergaming -- It's not fun, and I'd prefer to limit the effectiveness of powergaming / system mastery.

 

[Sunseeker]

And these would be maximums, including a "bonus". I am against stacking as many bonuses as 4e has. I don't want to see +2 from background, +2 from race, +2 from theme, +2 from class feature/power/stance, +2 from item, +2 from paragon path, +2 from epic destiny, creating a discrepancy of 10+ points between two max stat trained characters. I would like to see a non-stacking rule for skill bonuses. If you get a racial bonus, you can't also have a background/theme bonus to the same skill. Pick a different skill. Or I might be fine with mechanics that maybe let you reroll, or roll two dice, on a skill you already have a bonus in, possibly with some conditions/caveats.

There should be some mechanical benefit to choosing a background, but I feel a better solution than telling people they can't have a background that matches their class or archetype because it gives the same benefit would be solved by smaller benefits. +1 instead of +2, especially to skills since +2 is basically +4 to an ability score related to that skill.

If there NEEDS to be a limit to bonus stacking, I'd say that you could have only 2. That way if you're a rogue who picks a pickpocket theme/background because they go together mathematically and flavor fully, you're not being denied choices that were clearly designed to mesh.

 

[Minigiant]

5 range in my opinion. (Whether that's +0 to +5 or +5 to +10 doesn't matter.)

There's no reason to inflate the numbers excessively, that's one of the big problems I have with 4E in general.

If you get more than 5 away, it gets to the point where either one person automatically succeeds regardless of roll, or the other person automatically fails unless they roll a 20. Neither situation is ideal. I've got that situation at my table currently since my players are specializing in different directions and have different levels of powergaming -- It's not fun, and I'd prefer to limit the effectiveness of powergaming / system mastery.

I never got this argument.
The base chance of success is made by the DM. They control if a single character autopasses or autofails. As for variance between characters, maybe not at low levels, but at higher levels there should be challenges that certain characters breeze through. 7th level Rangers dont get lost. 8th level clerics can name every death in the battle between the deities and the titans.

And some things should be autofails for some characters. I can't tell if a painting is a forgery and neither can Swiftmoose the barely literate barbarian.

The issue is lingering on the specialist aspects and allow every character to get access to decent competence if the player is willing/allowed to sacrifice a few resources.

If my ten year old cousin's idiot fighter with negative Cha rolls another 18 on Diplomacy or Bluff I swear...

 

[the Jester]

+4 to +5 at first level.

I favor drastically flattening the math for a number of reasons. I'd like to see a character with a maxed out attribute (19) only get +1 or +2 from it, for starters.

Average task DC at first level: For an easy task, don't bother to roll unless there's a consequence of failure. If there's a need to roll, DC 5-8 works. For a task that's moderately difficult, DC 10-12. For a hard task, DC 15 or higher.

Hitting a monster in combat should be moderately difficult or hard in most cases.

 

[Recidivism]

I never got this argument.
The base chance of success is made by the DM. They control if a single character autopasses or autofails. As for variance between characters, maybe not at low levels, but at higher levels there should be challenges that certain characters breeze through. 7th level Rangers dont get lost. 8th level clerics can name every death in the battle between the deities and the titans.

And some things should be autofails for some characters. I can't tell if a painting is a forgery and neither can Swiftmoose the barely literate barbarian.

The issue is lingering on the specialist aspects and allow every character to get access to decent competence if the player is willing/allowed to sacrifice a few resources.

If my ten year old cousin's idiot fighter with negative Cha rolls another 18 on Diplomacy or Bluff I swear...

What's there not to get when you've got a player with +10 to hit at the same table as the guy with a +2 to hit? A monster with AC 21 might be even odds to hit for the first guy, but is pretty unfair to the second. I don't see any way to resolve this situation except having the monster have different ACs versus different players, but I'm pretty sure my players wouldn't go for that.

 

[Zireael]

I think max bonus at level 1 should be between +5 and +10. +8, maybe?

 

[Minigiant]

What's there not to get when you've got a player with +10 to hit at the same table as the guy with a +2 to hit? A monster with AC 21 might be even odds to hit for the first guy, but is pretty unfair to the second. I don't see any way to resolve this situation except having the monster have different ACs versus different players, but I'm pretty sure my players wouldn't go for that.

Either the monster is overlevel and the first character is specialized enough to hit it OR the second character should be casting spells and not trying to punch out a frost giant.

The first is a gotcha encounter. The second is correct usage of tactics.

 

[triqui]

[MENTION=29358]MENTION=7]Grazzt[/MENTION] +5 seems entirely too low for a max bonus to any common d20 roll for a powergamed 1st level character.

Compared to what?

I see no difference between a system where optimized fighters have +5 attack and optimized defenders have +5 defense, and other where optimized characters have +15 attack and optimized defenders have +15 defense.

 

[Dragonblade]

I think this entire thread is based on a tail wagging the dog premise. Trying to design the game around what a bonus a 1st level PC should have is completely backwards.

First, for skills decide what the average success or failure rate a first level PC should have with trained vs. untrained skills vs. various DCs.

In combat, determine what dice you will use for various damage expressions (since that has huge impact on PC and monster durability and damage output), how often monsters and PCs should be able to do that damage.

Also keep in mind that on average, for a combat to not feel frustrating, players should be hitting approximately 60-70% of the time, on average, against an opponent of equal level. Factor that into what kind of durability a PC should have.

Then once you have that figured out, you will know what a reasonable bonus and DC should be for skills. And you'll know what a reasonable attack bonus and defense should be for a typical 1st level PC. Once you have that baseline, you can adjust as appropriate for different expectations that different classes should have, etc.

In other words, the bonus a given PC has should emerge naturally from a solid underlying mathematical foundation for the game.