D&D 5E Attack Bonuses

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Libramarian]

The question is whether or not belts of giant strength are overpowered, not whether or not DMs can allow overpowered things in their game. Saying "the DM can do it" is completely avoiding the question. If the question had been phrased this way: "do you think it could cause balance problems if I, as the DM, decide to give a player a belt of giant's strength?" would you still consider "it doesn't matter, players don't get to choose their items in Next" to be a valid response to that question?

No, I think the game should help to answer that question with good advice about what impact a magic item will have on the game.

If magic items are player-chosen build components, they should be both balanced and transparent about their effect.

If they are DM-chosen adventure components, they don't need to be as carefully balanced but they still should be transparent.

 

[pemerton]

I favor powerful, dramatic magic items ESPECIALLY artifacts, but I'm not opposed to advice text that says clearly what effect the items will have on the game, so they don't break the game by surprise.

For reasons I don't fully understand there seems to be a reluctance, in D&D rulebooks, to discuss story elements (monster, items, etc) from the metagame rather than the ingame point of view. (Classic D&D would do this a bit; so does 43; but not as much as would be useful.)

The rules would be much better, I think, if they followed your advice.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Interesting. I have just the opposite opinion. I think the mere +1 to +5 you get from your ability score is insignificant compared to the impact of the d20 roll, making the game feel very swingy to me. Though I do agree that adding Con bonus to HP every level is madness; it leads to the insane HP bloat we saw in 3.x.

The reason I feel that way is exactly BECAUSE I want the dice to matter. I want the entire reason to pick up a dice that you have no idea what the result will be.

I found too often in previous editions(especially 3e), rolling the dice was a formality because your bonuses let you succeed automatically or fail without a natural 20. Mainly because bonuses were bigger than the dice you were rolling on.

If we assume that Dice+stat+class bonuses+magic=your total....then I'd like the dice to be a significant contribution to the total. Since the average on a d20 is 10.5, I'd like the total of all the other bonuses to never exceed 15. Anything more than that and the average on the dice drops below a 40 percent contribution. I like a 60/40 split between skill and luck.

That being the case, 5 points from just your stat modifier means that a 3rd of your skill comes entirely from natural talent. At 1st level your still counts for almost nothing. If you aren't strong, you are a BAD fighter. I'd like something closer to a 90/10 or 80/20 split between learned skill and natural talent...with maybe closer to 50/50 at first level. That would mean stats giving you no higher bonus than 3. Preferably 2.

With a max bonus of 2 from stats, a 8th level fighter with a 10 strength would have made up for the disadvantage his strength gave him and can fight comparatively with someone who is extremely strong and 1st level. Even that seems like it takes WAY too much skill to equal a stat.

Ideally, I'd like to see no accuracy given by stats at all. But even if that was the case, I'd like to see skill make up for a lack of talent. If skill adds an average of 3 or 4 to a roll, then stats shouldn't give you more than that.

 

[Craith]

In one of the DDN-articles concerning monsters building it was said that some monsters hit worse then others of their level, the given example was one of the giants. This could be the basis for the Belt of X-Giant Strength giving its normal bonus to everything strength related, but not to attack (something like "You still use your normal strength for attack rolls" in the description)

When I think of a giant, I think of the shadow of a massive weapon, coming down on its prey, who'se only chance for survival is not getting hit - not terribly accurate, but when it hits, it hurts badly

 

[Gorgoroth]

Doesn't matter--players don't get to choose their magic items in DDN.

Amen. And we are back to classic D&D again. Praise the gods! Item wish lists need to die a thousand deaths, cut up and scattered about the 7 Kingdoms and sealed in impenetrable tombs, never again to see the light of day.

It's a meta-game construct for a game that is not inherently fun to play other than during combat or char op.

 

[Gorgoroth]

When I think of a giant, I think of the shadow of a massive weapon, coming down on its prey, who'se only chance for survival is not getting hit - not terribly accurate, but when it hits, it hurts badly

Terrific. You actually convinced me that +mod shouldn't apply to-hit, then all of a sudden you have no use for finesse weapon category and the game is simpler and the math even flatter. str mod could apply to damage only, as some have said. If this is a global rule, then the storm giant that towers over you (think The Hobbit) you can dodge just as easily as a regular str human, but it hurts far, far more. I like! Then the 20th level fighter is better because he is more skilled, and can multiply his W damage to scale it up. Another side benefit is that Dex is less of an uber stat, since it won't benefit attack rolls at all. Or should only benefit attack rolls for missiles.

I still want magic items to give +ses to hit, and it's kind of weird that there are no +2 items, only +1 and +3. Kind of odd.

 

[Obryn]

Terrific. You actually convinced me that +mod shouldn't apply to-hit, then all of a sudden you have no use for finesse weapon category and the game is simpler and the math even flatter.

Sure you do - for damage.

Another side benefit is that Dex is less of an uber stat, since it won't benefit attack rolls at all. Or should only benefit attack rolls for missiles.

Nope. It's more of an uber-stat because any defense bonuses you get from it can't be countered by attack bonuses elsewhere.

I still want magic items to give +ses to hit, and it's kind of weird that there are no +2 items, only +1 and +3. Kind of odd.

I'd rather have magic item bonuses only apply to damage. Keeps the bounding a lot more bounded.

-O

 

[Gorgoroth]

I was merely saying if we remove the +mod to-hit, we could still allow the magic items to provide some relief there. I dislike the way a guy with 12 str has the same advantage over a guy with 11 str, as someone with a magic sword does over someone who doesn't. Doesn't sit right with me.

I don't want the math to be completely flat, just let the damage boosts be stat based (not even mod, i.e. I want 15 str to be better than 14 str). So you could have +1 at 15, +2 at 16, +3 at 17, and so on. Or start it at 14, or 13, but every point should count here.

The dex-stat is god argument comes from the fact that I made two characters, both with a 16 and a 14 dex, who had the same AC as a tenth level fighter in plate (with no shield).

My barb : 18 AC = 10 + 3 (dex) + 3 (con) + 2 shield.
My ranger : 18 AC = 10 + 4 (scale) + 2 (dex) +2 shield.
Some fighter who spent 5k like a dumbass : 18 AC, can't hardly move, clanks around the dungeon a lot, will probably drown and fall down the stairs like a stumblin stooge. Gee, thanks Wizards! Another edition with sucky armor rules for plate armor vs dex.

I think the two examples I gave were fine, it's just that Plate should give 20 AC on its own. You spend 5k you should have the best. You should BE the best. By 10th level the same barbarian would have 20 AC, the same ranger would have 19, beating the plate guy by 2 and 1. Maybe they should add plate and field/full plate, being 18 for 400gp like earlier editions, and 19/20 for 5k gp/10k gp. I don't like playing the game feeling like there's only one path to win, and the one I often want to play (the guy in shining armor), well sucks, comparatively.

Dex has been the god stat for precisely this reason, because its proponents are just overall better adventurers in every way that matters, without being penalized hardly at all for investing next to nothing in their armor. It's not balanced, nor realistic.

 

[Stalker0]

My barb : 18 AC = 10 + 3 (dex) + 3 (con) + 2 shield.
My ranger : 18 AC = 10 + 4 (scale) + 2 (dex) +2 shield.
Some fighter who spent 5k like a dumbass : 18 AC, can't hardly move, clanks around the dungeon a lot, will probably drown and fall down the stairs like a stumblin stooge. Gee, thanks Wizards! Another edition with sucky armor rules for plate armor vs dex.

Its not a good comparison when you factor in the shield. A shield is a solid defensive investment, while that fighter is going for more offense. If the fighter had a shield he would have AC 20, still solidly ahead of the dex guys.

Second, the ranger is still wearing decently heavy armor, he still "clanks" around the battlefield.

Third, the barb has invested 2 16s into defense (and that shield), and has just equaled the fighter who spent no stat points at all. That fighter can have a better str than the barb, again going with more offense.