D&D 5E New Spellcasting Blocks for Monsters --- Why?!

[GMforPowergamers]

Starting at +1 is a bad Idea, because it is not significant enough. But I think that would have been the right direction.
I'd start at +3 and then add 6 or even 7 over the levels.

I don't know why a +1 isn't 'enough' it is a small increase that goes up fast... but starting at +2 like 4e did would be fine by me too

all of the 'where to start where to end' is actually not important. You can start at +1,001, and end at +1,016 or start at +0 and end at +15 and it is the same thing

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don't know why a +1 isn't 'enough' it is a small increase that goes up fast... but starting at +2 like 4e did would be fine by me too

all of the 'where to start where to end' is actually not important. You can start at +1,001, and end at +1,016 or start at +0 and end at +15 and it is the same thing

No, it is not, since the d20 only has integers.

And no, +1 is so insignificant, that trained and untrained makes no significant difference. I think even +2 is not enough, so I'd like to start at +3.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I have atleast for small throw away games played basic, 1e,2e, 2e with all splat add ons, 3e,3.5, 4e. 4e+essentials, 5e, 5e+tasha add ons, and at least 3 retro clones based on the 3e engine... of all of them 3.0 is the worst (IMO) with 3.5 being a close second... 4e was the best 2e was the second best and 5e (with tasha's add ons) is the third best... and I keep hopeing 6e/5.5/anniversary edition will be more 4e and less 3e. (all of this i IMO, I don't know why i have to add this but please don't start edition wars based on my feelings)

I didn't really count the half editions, but 3e/3.5 is still probably second or the two are tied.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So I don't know how you are not using the ranger nova spells by mid levels.

There is no way you'd use half your spell if you don't.

1) we have a lot of non-combat encounters.

2) My players are not interested in combat optimisation, they choose abilities on what they think most suits their characters.

 

[Maxperson]

I have atleast for small throw away games played basic, 1e,2e, 2e with all splat add ons, 3e,3.5, 4e. 4e+essentials, 5e, 5e+tasha add ons, and at least 3 retro clones based on the 3e engine... of all of them 3.0 is the worst (IMO) with 3.5 being a close second... 4e was the best 2e was the second best and 5e (with tasha's add ons) is the third best... and I keep hopeing 6e/5.5/anniversary edition will be more 4e and less 3e. (all of this i IMO, I don't know why i have to add this but please don't start edition wars based on my feelings)

I've played years worth of campaigns for 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e. Skipped 4e, because there was just too much that I didn't like for me to invest in a new edition.

For me 3e/3.5 was by far my favorite edition, even though I acknowledge that it had a number of flaws. I first and foremost play character concepts and the sheer number of classes, prestige classes, feats and skills allowed me to achieve pretty much any concept I could imagine. After that edition I think 2e was my favorite. The sheer amount of settings and the depth and richness of the lore for just about everything made that edition for me. 5e is third(though I still like it a whole lot), 1e fourth and 4e is fifth.

My group plays 5e right now, because three of my players like the simplicity of it over 3e. If it were up to myself and the last player, we'd have been back at 3e a year ago.

 

[Minigiant]

1) we have a lot of non-combat encounters.

2) My players are not interested in combat optimisation, they choose abilities on what they think most suits their characters.

So your experience would not be representative of a mid to high level ranger using all their resources in one combat.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

For me 3e/3.5 was by far my favorite edition, even though I acknowledge that it had a number of flaws. I first and foremost play character concepts and the sheer number of classes, prestige classes, feats and skills allowed me to achieve pretty much any concept I could imagine. After that edition I think 2e was my favorite. The sheer amount of settings and the depth and richness of the lore for just about everything made that edition for me. 5e is third(though I still like it a whole lot), 1e fourth and 4e is fifth.

even though we revirse on 4e/3e I find it funny we have so much in common with the 2e love

 

[GMforPowergamers]

No, it is not, since the d20 only has integers.

if I add +1 to the roll at 1st level and +7 at 20th or if I add +1,001 at first level and +1,007 at 20th the diffrence is the same 6

it's like comparing a yugioh card to a MTG card. yeah a 'weak' monster has 300 attack and 200 def in Yugioh but a strong monster in MTG has +8/+8 you can't just say 'bigger number that 8 is comparing to 20hp and the 300 is comparing to 8,000 lp
so a good rule of thumb s multiply by 400...or divide to work from yugioh.

so the Blue eye white dragon at 3000/2500 is 7.5/6.25 still powerful... but you can scale them now.

And no, +1 is so insignificant, that trained and untrained makes no significant difference. I think even +2 is not enough, so I'd like to start at +3.

+1 for trained at 1st level is +5% success

 

[Campbell]

On bounded accuracy. In of itself the idea that the game's math should be constrained within a certain range isn't terrible. Inconsistent scaling is a pretty big deal from my perspective. This is especially true when it comes to saving throw proficiencies where relative weaknesses become worse over time.

See Expertise as well where the gap between characters gets wider and wider as levels go up.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

if I add +1 to the roll at 1st level and +7 at 20th or if I add +1,001 at first level and +1,007 at 20th the diffrence is the same 6

it's like comparing a yugioh card to a MTG card. yeah a 'weak' monster has 300 attack and 200 def in Yugioh but a strong monster in MTG has +8/+8 you can't just say 'bigger number that 8 is comparing to 20hp and the 300 is comparing to 8,000 lp
so a good rule of thumb s multiply by 400...or divide to work from yugioh.

so the Blue eye white dragon at 3000/2500 is 7.5/6.25 still powerful... but you can scale them now.

+1 for trained at 1st level is +5% success

This is not how math works...
Edit: No, I am sorry. I was dumb and too fast.
In Germany we use a "," where in USA you use a "."
So i misread 1,001 as 1.001.

I still stand by my assertion that a +1 (5%) bonus is not enough to distinguish proficiency from non proficiency, and +1001 (so +5005%) is too much.
I think 3 is the right number.