D&D 5E New Q&A: Starting Gold, Paragon and Prestige Paths, and bounded accuracy vs. Feats

[keterys]

*curious* So, looking just at Strength for a moment - let's say you got to add your Strength score, not (Score-10)/2, to your attacks, damage, saves, and checks, but your attack bonus capped at +15 from that?

Yes, this would bump everything by 10. But it has a lot of other improvements and it's more streamlined which makes the game easier to understand.

Anyhow, you'd then do the same to the rest of the stats but there's a big question mark on Dex because _Dex does too much_ and Con because +Con mod to hp each level is already dubious but clearly won't work with a much higher #. You'd probably want the same 15 cap on save DCs as for attack, since save DCs are just a roundabout attack bonus.

 

[Blackbrrd]

*curious* So, looking just at Strength for a moment - let's say you got to add your Strength score, not (Score-10)/2, to your attacks, damage, saves, and checks, but your attack bonus capped at +15 from that?

Yes, this would bump everything by 10. But it has a lot of other improvements and it's more streamlined which makes the game easier to understand.

Anyhow, you'd then do the same to the rest of the stats but there's a big question mark on Dex because _Dex does too much_ and Con because +Con mod to hp each level is already dubious but clearly won't work with a much higher #. You'd probably want the same 15 cap on save DCs as for attack, since save DCs are just a roundabout attack bonus.

The difference between 16 and 20 strength would be even bigger for attacks (assuming a d20 attack dice), and most people don't like adding two double digit numbers together.

I actually prefer AD&D's tables when it comes to stats. Instead of this uniform (stat-10)/2 they actually changed it around for the different stats. For instance even 18/00 didn't give more than +3 attack. 99% of characters would have +0, +1 or +2 to hit from strength. Much less than the current +0 to +5.

 

[keterys]

The difference between 16 and 20 strength would be even bigger for attacks (assuming a d20 attack dice), and most people don't like adding two double digit numbers together.

Umm, it'd be 0 difference. That's the point of capping the attack bonus at 15.

Also, you'll be adding double digits at higher level regardless. That's been true since 3e broke THAC0 out into BAB, so people will be pretty used to it too. There is a loss in processing speed on some events, it is true, but there's also the loss of "Okay, what is my mod" or - for the AD&D style table - "Okay, wait, what does that improve?" It's not perfect, but I think it caters to a large number of objections.

The real question is whether people would whine incessantly that going from 15 to 20 didn't improve their attack value.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I didn't comprehend the "cap attack bonus at 15". Why would you do that? What's the point of the stat if there is no difference when increasing it? In my opinion, a much better take on it is to do as in AD&D and use tables for stats instead of a formula like this.

Something like:
(a = attack bonus, d = damage bonus)
str a d
13 0 1
14 0 2
15 1 2
16 1 3
17 1 4
18 2 4
19 2 5
20 3 6

 

[Sage Genesis]

Umm, it'd be 0 difference. That's the point of capping the attack bonus at 15.

The standard array of ability scores included a 15. What is the purpose of having a calculation that caps out at 15, if practically every PC in the world will have 15 right at first level? A +15 wouldn't be the maximum, it would be the standard value that everybody has. You'd get unnecessary math and would be better off just not factoring in ability scores at all.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't see a problem with PCs taking a huge Dragon's hoard with them. By the time they can kill a dragon like that, they probably have a Bag of Holding.

I've yet to meet the bag of holding with a capacity in the hundreds of tons. The top end in 3E is 1500 pounds. You'd need a portable hole, and those are a good deal less common.

 

[the Jester]

*curious* So, looking just at Strength for a moment - let's say you got to add your Strength score, not (Score-10)/2, to your attacks, damage, saves, and checks, but your attack bonus capped at +15 from that?

Yes, this would bump everything by 10. But it has a lot of other improvements and it's more streamlined which makes the game easier to understand.

Anyhow, you'd then do the same to the rest of the stats but there's a big question mark on Dex because _Dex does too much_ and Con because +Con mod to hp each level is already dubious but clearly won't work with a much higher #. You'd probably want the same 15 cap on save DCs as for attack, since save DCs are just a roundabout attack bonus.

Personally, I don't think this would improve anything; it would rejigger the bounds on math in a way I think is counterproductive, it would inflate all the numbers (hit points, AC, attacks, etc) and I just don't see any gain to be had.

 

[keterys]

I didn't comprehend the "cap attack bonus at 15". Why would you do that?

Because they're attempting to bound accuracy. It's exactly why the belt of giant strength is a problem and why you're currently limited to a 20 stat now - to keep your attack stat at +5 max.

What's the point of the stat if there is no difference when increasing it?

There's a difference to everything _except_ attack bonus? Much like when you increase _every_ other stat, since only one affects your hit chance? Except still better, cause it also probably increases your damage.

Personally, I don't think this would improve anything; it would rejigger the bounds on math in a way I think is counterproductive, it would inflate all the numbers (hit points, AC, attacks, etc) and I just don't see any gain to be had.

It wouldn't necessarily inflate numbers except by 10 once, and frankly I'd be okay if it didn't inflate hit points over the long haul, just very initially.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Because they're attempting to bound accuracy. It's exactly why the belt of giant strength is a problem and why you're currently limited to a 20 stat now - to keep your attack stat at +5 max.

There's a difference to everything _except_ attack bonus? Much like when you increase _every_ other stat, since only one affects your hit chance? Except still better, cause it also probably increases your damage.

It wouldn't necessarily inflate numbers except by 10 once, and frankly I'd be okay if it didn't inflate hit points over the long haul, just very initially.

Do you like your own suggestion? Would it make 5e better in your opinion?

 

[Szatany]

I didn't comprehend the "cap attack bonus at 15". Why would you do that? What's the point of the stat if there is no difference when increasing it? In my opinion, a much better take on it is to do as in AD&D and use tables for stats instead of a formula like this.

Something like:
(a = attack bonus, d = damage bonus)
str a d
13 0 1
14 0 2
15 1 2
16 1 3
17 1 4
18 2 4
19 2 5
20 3 6

It's pretty good but I'd start at value of 11.
str a d
11 +0 +1
12 +0 +2
13 +1 +2
14 +1 +3
15 +1 +4
16 +2 +4
17 +2 +5
18 +2 +6
19 +3 +6
20 +3 +7
A bonus is for attack rolls and strength saves, D bonus is for damage and strength checks. Same table should be true for other abilities. Dex A would be for attack rolls and AC and dexterity saves, Dex D for initiative and dexterity checks. etc.