D&D 5E Attack Bonuses

[Dausuul]

It's not hard to make fun and interesting items that don't obliterate basic system math and pave the way for others to do just as bad or worse.

Magic carpets can let you fly and see wondrous things, and change how the game plays. Just don't let them also give you Dex 30, which gives you +10 Init, attack, AC, etc.

As far as I'm concerned, a magic carpet is a much bigger deal than any belt of giant strength. I'm the DM. No matter how big the PCs get, I've always got something bigger, and attack bonus hits a wall anyhow; there's almost no functional difference between +15 to hit and +150. But having the entire party able to fly at will changes the very nature of the game.

The more I think about it, the less I'm worried about this. I've played campaigns where the fighter was guaranteed to hit on anything but a natural 1. It wasn't that big a deal. The problems come up when you've got combatants who have to roll a natural 20 to hit; keeping defenses under control is much more important than controlling attack bonuses. (So if we start seeing items that grant super-high Dexterity, that's an issue.)

 

[Wulfgar76]

I've played campaigns where the fighter was guaranteed to hit on anything but a natural 1. It wasn't that big a deal.

If this happens in D&DN, then the experiment has failed.
Bounded accuracy is the bedrock of a D&D system that actually works.

 

[Dausuul]

If this happens in D&DN, then the experiment has failed.
Bounded accuracy is the bedrock of a D&D system that actually works.

Failed how? How will this make the system not work, exactly?

The highest AC in the entire playtest bestiary is 17. That's the AC of Asmodeus. A 20th-level fighter with Strength 20 already hits Asmodeus on a 7 or better. Throw in a +3 sword, and it becomes 4 or better; that's an 85% chance to hit. Please explain how it's fine if the fighter hits 85% of the time, but the game has failed if the fighter hits 95% of the time.

 

[Wulfgar76]

Failed how? How will this make the system not work, exactly?

Because it makes the random element of dice rolling inconsequential - at which point the game becomes merely narrative story-time whose outcome is never in doubt.
No player I've ever encountered likes auto-hitting with every attack. DMs, even less so.

The highest AC in the entire playtest bestiary is 17. That's the AC of Asmodeus. A 20th-level fighter with Strength 20 already hits Asmodeus on a 7 or better. Throw in a +3 sword, and it becomes 4 or better; that's an 85% chance to hit. Please explain how it's fine if the fighter hits 85% of the time, but the game has failed if the fighter hits 95% of the time.

It's hardly fine. High level monster AC is FAR too low. Asmodeus' AC is a glaring mistake at this point. A mistake that will certainly be fixed.

 

[Starfox]

What happened for fighter equality? I see no problem whatsoever that a lvevel 20 fighter with good magic items hits everything in the game on a 2 as long as there are no penalties involved. That's what he does, basically the only thing he does, and the DM can always complicate things just as much as he likes.

 

[Libramarian]

Not a big deal IMO. In fact I think it's actually kind of lame for an artifact level item. Hitting every time isn't game-breaking. Being unhittable would be.

 

[Dausuul]

Because it makes the random element of dice rolling inconsequential - at which point the game becomes merely narrative story-time whose outcome is never in doubt.

...except for monster attack rolls, damage rolls, spell rolls, saving throws, ability checks, miscellaneous random effects, and the enormous potential for player and DM tactics plus unknown information to swing the balance. Not to mention that it's highly unlikely the entire party will be outfitted with gear that gives them +15 or better to hit. And the fighter only gets the bonus on melee attacks. Et cetera, et cetera.

Heck, a wizard with magic missile can auto-hit at first level, with no magic items at all. The wizard doesn't even have the chance of rolling a natural 1.

We aren't talking about a normal situation here. We're talking about a fighter at the highest level of the game, using an artifact whose only combat benefit is to boost attack and damage. Under the circumstances, I see no problem with a near auto-hit. It does not break the combat math; the subjective player experience is a different question, but frankly I don't think it's a big deal.

 

[Wulfgar76]

We aren't talking about a normal situation here. We're talking about a fighter at the highest level of the game, using an artifact whose only combat benefit is to boost attack and damage. Under the circumstances, I see no problem with a near auto-hit. It does not break the combat math; the subjective player experience is a different question, but frankly I don't think it's a big deal.

I've heard for years how game-breaking and fun-ruining Stat-increasing items are in a game with scaling-accuracy (D&D3.0/3.5/PF). I think forcing them into a system purposefully designed not to have such items is extremely irresponsible for the sake of tradition.

 

[keterys]

The problems come up when you've got combatants who have to roll a natural 20 to hit; keeping defenses under control is much more important than controlling attack bonuses. (So if we start seeing items that grant super-high Dexterity, that's an issue.)

And you're not seeing a clear path from "Let's make an item that gives you 22 - 30 in a stat" to "Let's make an item that gives you 22 - 30 in another stat"?

Or from "We're designing a system so that X will never happen." and "Here's X!"

 

[Jester David]

I've heard for years how game-breaking and fun-ruining Stat-increasing items are in a game with scaling-accuracy (D&D3.0/3.5/PF). I think forcing them into a system purposefully designed not to have such items is extremely irresponsible for the sake of tradition.

How are they forced?

They're included as potential treasure, that a DM might choose to award. Even if they publish modules that given them out like candy, no one is going to slip them to your players without your permission.

They're there for people who want them, and are designed in a way that appeals to people that want them. Removing them impacts the game of the people who wanted the item but does not change the game of the people who did not want them, as they wouldn't have used them anyway. And nerfing the item in some poor compromise satisfies neither party. After all, it's the belt of giant strength no the belt of making the wizard almost as strong as the fighter.

It's like vanilla fans walking into an ice cream store and asking for chocolate to be removed because they don't like chocolate. Just order the vanilla and ignore the chocolate.