D&D 5E A Flat Math Formula for Every Roll
Ah, I see. There is a certain symmetry in having the apex of natural potential match the absolute maximum advantage for training. Personally, I think that someone who began completely average but has completely mastered a "skill" (whether we're talking about combat, lockpicking, or brickmasonry) should be better than someone with no training but great potential. Of course there are other (and arguably better) ways of modeling skill than just a bigger bonus. Special abilities that allow you to do things an untrained person can't, for one.
As far as the magic bonuses, I actually agree with you. I was disappointed the moment I saw a +1 sword. Then I said, "Hey, the +1 sword is iconic in it's own way. I can live with that" Aaaand then I saw they scaled up to +3. Myself, I would prefer that the average "magic blade" offered no bonuses to attack. Just cool special abilities. Then there would be the VERY rare high power magic items that grant a +2 along with their other stuff. When a player got that it would matter, because nothing ever ups your hit. So that sword would feel that much more special.
The biggest problem I see with your idea (just my opinion, of course) is that there's not enough room to customize between characters. Having ability scores add a generic bonus to all checks that have to do with them is simple and a good way to go. (As opposed to loads and loads of charts or multiple different rulesets for different kinds of strength checks). But only allowing the pinnacle of human ability to be 5% more likely to pull off kicking down a door than Joe Wizard makes ability scores not matter enough.
As far as the magic bonuses, I actually agree with you. I was disappointed the moment I saw a +1 sword. Then I said, "Hey, the +1 sword is iconic in it's own way. I can live with that" Aaaand then I saw they scaled up to +3. Myself, I would prefer that the average "magic blade" offered no bonuses to attack. Just cool special abilities. Then there would be the VERY rare high power magic items that grant a +2 along with their other stuff. When a player got that it would matter, because nothing ever ups your hit. So that sword would feel that much more special.
The biggest problem I see with your idea (just my opinion, of course) is that there's not enough room to customize between characters. Having ability scores add a generic bonus to all checks that have to do with them is simple and a good way to go. (As opposed to loads and loads of charts or multiple different rulesets for different kinds of strength checks). But only allowing the pinnacle of human ability to be 5% more likely to pull off kicking down a door than Joe Wizard makes ability scores not matter enough.
We can also see that the flat math fails with a 20th level fighter with a 20 strength. +5 ability bonus +10 weapon attack bonus at 20th level according to the play test. Bonuses were supposed to max under +10.
If we're no longer going to stick to that I would say that a +1 every 3 levels and a +1 with a strength of 13, +2 at str16 etc. is good
If we're no longer going to stick to that I would say that a +1 every 3 levels and a +1 with a strength of 13, +2 at str16 etc. is good
GMforPowergamers
Legend
My flat math idea was to tqke basic 4e, remove half level and expertise, limit stats, and make prof 0 and nonprof a penelty...
That would make a fighter kensi demi god who started with an 18 str end @30th with a 28 str, and a total +11 to hit, meanwhile the wizard with the 8 str would have a +0 at 30th level.
Then I would allow magic + up to a +3 .
I wwould then cap PC and 95% of creatures at a AC 30 with 31 for the most legendary creatures and greater powers... and 32 for 1 or 2 exceptions
That would make a fighter kensi demi god who started with an 18 str end @30th with a 28 str, and a total +11 to hit, meanwhile the wizard with the 8 str would have a +0 at 30th level.
Then I would allow magic + up to a +3 .
I wwould then cap PC and 95% of creatures at a AC 30 with 31 for the most legendary creatures and greater powers... and 32 for 1 or 2 exceptions
Blargh, My post never appeared! Anyways.
I could deal with gaining a +1 for every 3 points above 10 instead of every 2. My issue is with the generic bonuses gained every level. What is their purpose? What do they represent in the game world? It doesn't make sense to me that a character should get better at every single skill/ability check whether he has actively done anything to improve it or not.
I could deal with gaining a +1 for every 3 points above 10 instead of every 2. My issue is with the generic bonuses gained every level. What is their purpose? What do they represent in the game world? It doesn't make sense to me that a character should get better at every single skill/ability check whether he has actively done anything to improve it or not.
Chris_Nightwing
First Post
I don't know where you're getting +10 to hit for being a Fighter at 20th level. The progression is unpredictable, it looks like +1 every 4 levels but then slows down. It could be +6 or +7 from that chart.
You're also plucking the +10 limit out of thin air. The actual number doesn't matter, it's the range from 1st to 20th level that determines how flat the maths are. Currently, at 1st level, your Fighter is probably going to have +6 to hit. At 20th, he's probably going to have +15 to hit. That's a range of 10.
You're also plucking the +10 limit out of thin air. The actual number doesn't matter, it's the range from 1st to 20th level that determines how flat the maths are. Currently, at 1st level, your Fighter is probably going to have +6 to hit. At 20th, he's probably going to have +15 to hit. That's a range of 10.
What.
Similar Threads
