D&D 5E (2014) 07/29/2013 - Legends & Lore It’s Mathemagical!

[pemerton]

I haven't played Next for a couple of months now but I'll try to answer that

<snip>

My point is, the math was never the make or break thing for our groups, and I suspect that it's the same thing for many more people.

Warder, thanks for the reply.

 

[JonWake]

I keep telling people that the math is easy to work on, and no one ever believed me...

This does a lot of good things, and couple things that might not be as good. But they'll be good enough.

1. It loosens Bounded Accuracy. By opening the expected bonuses from +1 to +12, it allows for class and level to have the majority effect on a bonus while not discounting a high stat.

2. They've been using HPs and Damage as the primary scaling system since the last packet, at least. It works pretty well with Bounded Accuracy. My group faced a Death Knight the other week, and while they all could do damage to it, the sheer amount of damage it could drop meant that it was a definite threat to them.

3. I'm a little bit concerned about the use of Spell DCs, but it looks like the least bad solution to the problem of scaling wizard power. BA will mean it's not a game breaker, but using low level spells against high level creatures will be riskier. On the other hand, it will give a good reason to cast lower level spells as higher slots.

 

[Quartz]

Since AC, attack, and saving throw numbers don't grow too much, low-level monsters can still hit and damage you (though for a smaller portion of your hit points) as you reach higher levels.

This I like.

Saving throws against effects that take you out of the fight, like a ghoul's paralysis, mess up monster scaling. A ghoul is equally deadly to a 3rd- or 17th-level fighter. If either one blows a saving throw, the fighter is out of the battle.

I would like to see such effects 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.

 

[Falling Icicle]

•Saving throws against effects that take you out of the fight, like a ghoul's paralysis, mess up monster scaling. A ghoul is equally deadly to a 3rd- or 17th-level fighter. If either one blows a saving throw, the fighter is out of the battle.
•Our skill DCs are out of whack. They don't match up well with the actual bonuses that characters accrue at all levels.

I'm glad to hear that they realize this and are working on solutions. With so few changes to the game's core math in well over a year, I was afraid that what we had was pretty much set.

•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.
•For characters who are truly experts in some areas, that bonus can go as high as +12 for checks. For example, rangers can hit +12 on Wisdom checks and rogues could hit it on Dexterity checks. You won't reach that height for attacks. We might allow characters to gain that on saving throws if it fits a character archetype. For instance, a dwarf fighter might eventually reach +12 on Constitution saving throws.
• The optional skill system allows you to reach +12, but only for specific checks that map to the traditional D&D skill system as seen in 3rd Edition and 4th Edition. For instance, a 20th-level cleric who maxes out the Sense Motive skill might be at +6 for Wisdom checks and at +12 for Sense Motive checks.

The +1 to +6 bonus sounds fine. +12 does not. That large of a bonus seems contrary to the goal of bounded accuracy. This is very close to the total bonuses in 4e. A 20th level character in next can have a +17 total bonus, assuming a 20 ability score. A 20th level character with a 20 ability score in 4e had a +20 (10 from half level, 5 from skill training, 5 from ability). So a whopping 3 point difference. That's "bounded"? I think not!

I also strongly dislike the class bonus to all checks with an entire ability score (such as Rangers getting a bonus to all Wisdom checks). What if I prefer to have skills in my game? It sounds to me like the +12 bonus is the maximum, so any skill that uses Wisdom would be useless to a Ranger, who already has the maximum bonus for all Wisdom checks. I may be wrong, but that's how it sounds to me.

•We're plotting out monster saving throw DCs by level so that lower level critters have lower save DCs than higher level ones. In other words, a creature's DCs play a big role in determining its level and XP value.

Sounds good, though the number of times monsters can invoke these effects is a much bigger problem than the Save DC. Ghouls, for example, get 3 attacks per round and can inflict paralysis on each and every attack. Even with a low Save DC, when you're having to make a save 3 times a round, you're going to fail eventually. It's worse when you have more than one such creature attacking you. A character with 3 ghouls attacking him might have to make as many as NINE saving throws per round! Even with a low save DC, the odds are good you'll fail at least one of those. This is the bigger problem that needs to be fixed. Also, why are low level monsters ever getting multiple attacks, anyway? If a low level fighter doesn't get to make 3 attacks per round, no low level monster should be able to, either.

•We're pushing the DCs used by player character casters down a bit and factoring effective spell level into the equation. Thus, a high-level wizard has lower saving throw DCs for weaker spells and higher ones for stronger ones.

Lowering caster's Save DCs will no longer be necessary, now that characters are getting a +6 to +12 bonus to saving throws. That more than makes up for the +5 spellcasting bonus that casters get! And factoring the spell level into the Save DC is the worst bit of news I've heard. The level-neutral save DCs was one of the things about Next's magic system that I praised. This is just going to have the same problems it caused in 3e, where low level spells became all but useless.

 

[Dausuul]

Hmm. They're letting out the "bounded accuracy" belt a couple of notches. I trust they will be keeping a close eye on that. I don't want to end up back in the 3E/4E days with attack bonuses in the 30+ range and defenses to match. These numbers seem fine, just don't let them creep upward.

Good to see they're cranking back the save DCs for spellcasters. Casters are too strong right now IMO (and I say this as a wizard player). I share Falling Icicle's concern about level-based save DCs, but we'll see how it plays out. Adding the full spell level to the save DC, 3E-style, would be way too much, but something like +0 for cantrips, +1 for 1st to 3rd level, +2 for 4th to 6th, and +3 for 7th to 9th could be okay.

I'm skeptical of their solution to the "ghoul problem." I think the real issue is that I just don't like all-or-nothing saves, except in a very small handful of cases. I think such effects should be given only to monsters that are supposed to be Extra Scary, not handed out to grunt monsters like ghouls.

Mearls writes:

our playtest data is showing that while people notice this issue, it isn't distorting the game as a whole​

I find this interesting, and a little surprising. I would have thought getting this stuff right is a big deal, and something you'd try and sort out early rather than late. How can you judge whether a fighter plays over- or underpowered, for instance, if you're not testing the real system maths which gives you a real sense of how often s/he hits and how often s/he saves. Mutatis mutandis for thieves and skill checks.

It is a big deal, but it's something to sort out late rather than early. Trying to tweak the system math when the system itself is still in flux is what we in the software biz call "premature optimization." There's no point carefully adjusting the balance of a mechanic that you might rip out tomorrow and replace with something totally different. As long as it's in the right ballpark, that's good enough in the early stages. Once you're confident that your core system is what you want it to be, that's when you start calibrating the math.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Balance and usability of low level monsters are good.

I'm not sure, though, about increased power being reflected by increased hit points. That seems very passive; I'd prefer something active that scales with increasing power. For example, if damage output also increased with increasing power, that would be something actively employed, and would balance with the increased hit points as well as with keeping accuracy and saves bounded.

So:
1. low level: low attack bonus, AC, damage, saves hit points.. Low level on low level are equal.
2. High level: low attack bonus, AC saves; High damage and hit points. High level on high level are equal.
3. Single low level on high level is outclassed -- it can hit but not survive for very long. Multiple low levels on a single high level, though, could win based on the sum of many small attacks.

 

[Dausuul]

Balance and usability of low level monsters are good.

I'm not sure, though, about increased power being reflected by increased hit points. That seems very passive; I'd prefer something active that scales with increasing power. For example, if damage output also increased with increasing power, that would be something actively employed, and would balance with the increased hit points as well as with keeping accuracy and saves bounded.

The part about increasing hit points isn't new information. We've already seen this in practice, and it involves scaling both hit points and damage output, while keeping attack and defense modifiers tightly controlled.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The part about increasing hit points isn't new information. We've already seen this in practice, and it involves scaling both hit points and damage output, while keeping attack and defense modifiers tightly controlled.

Exactly. This has been the selling point of Bounded Accuracy since the very beginning of the playtest. Attack and AC don't go as high... damage and hit points do.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

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

 

[DEFCON 1]

And as far as the +6 / +12 thing... I wonder if that resulted from a perception thing for the playtesters more than anything else?

When the max ability score was 20 and a +5... it meant that for those that worked hard to start the game with an 18 / +4 only had one spot to go before they maxed out. With the number of times we're probably getting the "+1 to a score" bonus... it might've bothered people to max out that quickly. Two bonuses... 18 to 20... finished by probably level 8 and now all the additional level bonuses have to go to other scores.

So the options were either to force all starting characters to have a lower potential beginning score (like a 16 / +3 max)... or to raise the highest score you could go to (in this case it looks liked maybe a 22 / +6?). I imagine that the former idea probably lost a lot of support very early in the process for two reasons: One, it basically changed the fundamental sacred cow of D&D ability scores that they start between 3-18. And two, it meant that because a human character gets a +2 to one score *and* an additional +1 from his class... it meant the most you could go up to was a 13 to start with (because those last 3 points from race and class would take you to 16). That probably REALLY rubbed people the wrong way. No more rolling 3d6 for ability scores... you almost would need them to start with just 2d6 instead. And telling people the highest you could start with prior to race and class bonuses was a *13* rightly probably freaked them out.

But perhaps by raising the maximum potential to like 22 and a +6... you had more wiggle room to advance via stat increases while still allowing the players to start upwards of an 18.

Just a guess at any rate.