D&D 5E Ability Scores Are Different Now?

[Tony Vargas]

The 4e 'treadmill' was, well, it was a very realistic illusion. 4e set out to extend the 'sweet spot' at which D&D was most playable in past eds, and it succeeded. 4e played very well at levels 1-30 vs similar-level enemies.

If you always used same-level enemies (which, even the encounter guidelines didn't tell you to do), you would, if you kept up on everything and were prettymuch 'optimized,' hit about the same and get hit about the same regardless of what that identical level was.

Now, think about that, the system that rates monster challenges, actually delivers the same challenge when you use a same level monsters. This is only shocking and disconcerting to people who have never encountered a system that worked before.

Where the treadmill illlusion is shattered is when you go back and fight something you've taken on a few levels ago. For instance, if you first encounter a 12th level monster when you're 9th level, it seems pretty nasty, it doesn't seem to miss you often, and you're having trouble hitting it and so forth. If you encounter the same kind of monster again at 11th and 15th, you'll notice it's gotten a lot squishier - that the 'treadmill' was an illusion. (As a DM, you can take it a lot further than that - you can take a low level solo and 'demote' it to a higher level elite, standard, or even, 17 levels higher, a minion at the same exp value...)

5e, BTW, still has a treadmill illusion, it's just 2-6 over twenty levels instead of 1-30 over 30, and you can collect magic items and boost stats over and above it. So it's a slower treadmill and that bar on the front that you hold onto has a tendency to break off. ;P

 

[TwoSix]

If you always used same-level enemies (which, even the encounter guidelines didn't tell you to do), you would, if you kept up on everything and were prettymuch 'optimized,' hit about the same and get hit about the same regardless of what that identical level was.

Yea, going back to fight 1st level enemies with Paragon level characters is great way to feel good about your characters. I put my 12th level party against 30 1st level standard goblins, just to see what happened. The wizard and the swordmage wiped them out with area effects. Much like every other edition with wizards and fireballs, come to think of it.

Plus, I think some players just don't grok to the same ogre in the story being a 1st level solo and a 16th level minion, so they don't feel the progress between "the big dude that can take our whole party" and "I dropped the clumsy oaf in one swing" as a measure of their character's growth.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think some players just don't grok to the same ogre in the story being a 1st level solo and a 16th level minion, so they don't feel the progress between "the big dude that can take our whole party" and "I dropped the clumsy oaf in one swing" as a measure of their character's growth.

It is a slight leap that it's the 'same monster' - even if it has the same name, same description, and same exp value (or even if it's the same, specific, named NPC who escaped from the party in an early adventure whom they finally track down later - and is literally, exactly the same individual).

 

[Tormyr]

I jumped in to D&D at the September playtest packet so I don't know this, but how hard was it to be hit by creatures that were lower than your party level vs. at your party level?

EDIT: In 3.5 and 4e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I jumped in to D&D at the September playtest packet so I don't know this, but how hard was it to be hit by creatures that were lower than your party level vs. at your party level?

EDIT: In 3.5 and 4e.

Generally in all editions of D&D, it was pretty hard for much-lower-level (HD in AD&D) monsters to hit you, at all. We're talking natural 20s. In AD&D that was dependent on the random treasure tables coughing up the right magic armor, shields, and other protective devices, while in 3.x & 4e there were wealth/level guidelines that more or less assured you'd get those (and both eds also eventually featured fairly simple options to do away with 'item dependence' for things like attack & AC).

Conversely, you could mop 'em up pretty quickly. Casters could sweep them away with AEs, and AD&D fighters got 1 attack /per level every round/ against less-than-1-HD monsters, while 3e fighters could have WWA or Great Cleave feat-trees completed, and 4e fighters had some Close burst powers.

The one exception to that was that, in 4e, a much-lower-level monster could be re-statted as a 10-levels-higher, but same exp-value, 'minion' (a one-hit-kills monster, with level-appropriate attacks & defenses but fixed damage). That trick resulted in a decidedly lesser enemy that could have a reasonable chance of hitting you or being missed, but could still be quickly dealt with (again, as with contemptible foes in all eds, preferably with an AE of somekind).


In 5e, the design philosophy of 'bounded accuracy' finally settled on giving proficiency bonuses of +2 to +6 over 20 levels, so that's about the variance you'd expect. A monster that you hit on a 13 at 1st level, you'd hit on a 9 or less at 20th (possibly a lot less if your stats have gone up and you have a powerful magic weapon). Similarly, if you have some magic armor or other defenses and/or your DEX went up, it'll have a harder time hitting you. The original idea was not to have any progress at all, just more hps and damage. The final form, though, gives you a sense of progress if you go back and swing at a monster that you used to fight when you were an apprentice, while leaving you some chance of missing, and it some chance of hitting, without necessarily invoking natural 1 or 20 rules.

 

[keterys]

Your ability to hit matters more the greater your chance of missing (that is to say, if you needed a 3 to hit, going to a 2 is not as big a swing as going from needing a 12 to an 11). At least in terms of average damage dealt, how often your character feels successful, and consistent ability to pull through in dangerous situations, all of which feel like reasonable things to care about. Thusly, your ability score matters more in 5E than in many other editions where, for example, you only missed on a 1 sometimes.

The perception of how much it matters and guidance to keep things reasonable may well have decreased.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I jumped in to D&D at the September playtest packet so I don't know this, but how hard was it to be hit by creatures that were lower than your party level vs. at your party level?

EDIT: In 3.5 and 4e.

In 3.5e whether you could be hit by lower level creatures was kind of random. You might find a creature with a much lower CR than your party that happened to be a melee enemy with a huge strength in which case they could have a huge bonus to hit and hit you easily. Or you could be fighting an enemy with almost no bonus to hit that was the same level as you.

In 4e, the progression was almost always precisely 1/2 attack bonus per level of the monster added or subtracted. So, 6 levels lower meant about 3 less to hit than monsters at your current level.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm going to disagree with you here and say that maximising your attack stat is more essential in D&D Next than in both 3.X and 4e.

True. I have a very hard time conceiving a 5E character whose primary stat I would not max before doing anything else. The critical difference is that in Next, you can max a primary stat before the end of your career.

In 3.X and 4E, the absence of a stat cap meant every time you got a stat bump, you were expected to pump that primary stat. There was never a point where you stopped and did other things. Your primary stat just kept climbing and climbing. This was especially true since you couldn't trade stat bumps for anything else.

In 5E, you can max out your primary stat by level 8 at latest (assuming point buy). After that, it's wide open. Invest in secondary stats? Pick up feats? There are a lot of options, and no one best answer.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In 3.5e whether you could be hit by lower level creatures was kind of random. You might find a creature with a much lower CR than your party that happened to be a melee enemy with a huge strength in which case they could have a huge bonus to hit and hit you easily. Or you could be fighting an enemy with almost no bonus to hit that was the same level as you.

In 4e, the progression was almost always precisely 1/2 attack bonus per level of the monster added or subtracted. So, 6 levels lower meant about 3 less to hit than monsters at your current level.

CR was often pretty badly off, yeah. But, when you're talking a big level difference - say 10 or so - it probably didn't make much of a difference. That CR3 Ogre might be really strong (+8 with it's big ol' club), but it wasn't going to pound through your +5 mithral full plate and +4 large shield (AC 30+) anymore than the CR 1/4 kobold was going to tag you with it's sling (+3 to hit). The 4e 'math' was a little more precise & simple, though you did get it wrong (1/2 level is the PC progression).

True. I have a very hard time conceiving a 5E character whose primary stat I would not max before doing anything else. The critical difference is that in Next, you can max a primary stat before the end of your career.

It's an important difference. You can't get too super-human in 5e.

In 3.X and 4E, the absence of a stat cap meant every time you got a stat bump, you were expected to pump that primary stat. There was never a point where you stopped and did other things

Well, in 4e, each stat bump applied to two different stats, so you couldn't put /everything/ in your primary the way you could in 3.x, but, yes, the only time you wouldn't bump your primary was when you didn't expect to bump it again (due to being high epic or expecting the campaign to end first), and bumping it would give you an odd value, But, you were just also bumping a secondary stat, as well or perhaps alternating between two of 'em.

In 5E, you can max out your primary stat by level 8 at latest (assuming point buy). After that, it's wide open. Invest in secondary stats? Pick up feats? There are a lot of options, and no one best answer.

Invest in other stats and pick up feats are both the lot of options we know about so far, yes, and one of them isn't automatically an option. So, really, after you've maxed out your primary your shore up your save stats or any other secondary you may have. It's a slightly different dynamic but still one dictated by mechanics more than anything else.

What any version of D&D has yet to do is make the well-rounded character viable. Y'know, the one that starts with all 12's and 14s and and evenly distributes his stat bumps, so he's not actually bad in any one area. Which's kinda sad, actually, as a lot of genre and action heroes are often not the absolute strongest or fastest or toughest or smartest out there, but they are often reasonably strong, fast, tough, observant, smart & natural leaders - all at once. OTOH, there are serious specialists out there in genre & myth/legend, too. It'd be nice of D&D could some day figure out how to make 'em both work - to date, though, between class and handling stats it's always favored the specialist.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

CR was often pretty badly off, yeah. But, when you're talking a big level difference - say 10 or so - it probably didn't make much of a difference. That CR3 Ogre might be really strong (+8 with it's big ol' club), but it wasn't going to pound through your +5 mithral full plate and +4 large shield (AC 30+) anymore than the CR 1/4 kobold was going to tag you with it's sling (+3 to hit). The 4e 'math' was a little more precise & simple, though you did get it wrong (1/2 level is the PC progression).

CR 3 Ogres might not but if we're talking about CR 15 monster when you are level 20...there's certainly a possibility that they hit more often than some of the CR 20 monsters by having bigger bonuses.

As for the math, it's not precisely 1/2 level. It is about 1/2 level for monsters with bumps at certain levels to account for an increase in stat modifiers and magic weapons and armor from the PCs. The math was designed so that PCs had about the same chance to hit a monster of equal level at level 1 as level 30. Which meant it was more precisely 1/2 per level with a bonus of 13 or so extra spread out over 30 levels, or about +0.93 bonus to hit per level.

The quick and dirty rules said to just add 1 for every level. But the reason it fell apart after about 5 levels is because 1 per level isn't correct(mostly because the extra 13 isn't spread out evenly amongst the levels and comes in bursts).

Either way, I was trying to simplify. I didn't think a precise number was necessary in this case.