Flattening the math: AC and Attack bonuses idea

[Meophist]

AC values are around 10-20 throughout the entire game and don't increase much. Attack bonuses increase over time. Hitting the AC with an a d20 + attack bonuses roll results in a hit, dealing weapon damage plus modifiers. Hitting intervals(of, let's say, 5) above the target's AC will result in dealing the weapon damage and modifiers again for each interval you hit.

So, for example, a level 1 fighter gets +5 bonus to their attack rolls and deals 1d8 + 4 damage with the longsword. Against AC 15, the fighter needs to roll a 10 to hit and ends up dealing 1d8 + 4 damage for doing so. If the fighter rolls 15 on the d20, for example, the total attack roll goes to 20, which hits the first interval above the AC, and so the fighter deals 2d8 + 8 damage instead. A natural 20 will hit two intervals above the AC, and allows the fighter to deal 3d8 + 12 damage instead(plus whatever the critical hit rules would mean).

Additionally, another idea I have with this mechanic is that a character can do two attacks against two different targets by taking a -5 penalty to the hit rolls. They can attack a third target by taking an additional -5 and so on.

The purpose of this system is allow meaningful character growth across levels while still letting lower-level characters and monsters still be able to pose a threat to the higher-level characters and monsters. I'm not entirely sure about using the number 5 for the intervals, but it seems to work the best I can see while still being simple.

Considering those design goals, I think this system is workable although I'm not sure how well it'll scale. What do you guys think?

 

[Sunseeker]

Slowing numerical growth is a better proposition than adding new and complex subsystems.

Besides, how does this system benefit casters? Doubling or tripling the damage die on something that already does 10d6 is a much more impressive bonus, but giving them only 1d6 more really isn't that big of a deal.

If we are going to have a "you beat the DC by *interval* you get a bonus" might be better to assign flat damage bonuses. +1 damage by each 5 you are over the DC. It's a much smaller bonus, but it relieves us the issue of capping AC and capping to-hits and rewonking all sorts of other systems.

 

[Meophist]

Slowing numerical growth is a better proposition than adding new and complex subsystems.

I've thought of this, but have had quite a bit of difficulty actually figuring out a way to implement it. One character class that's going to be in is the Fighter who takes a weapon and just hits the enemy turn after turn. The Fighter will have access to optional combat maneuvers and such but those will be optional. Therefore, there's going to be a Fighter who gets better and just hitting the enemy turn after turn on level up. What sort of progressions can you really have that'll feel meaningful that won't end up with a decent amount of numerical growth? I can't really figure out a way.

That said, if you have ideas, my ears are open.

Besides, how does this system benefit casters? Doubling or tripling the damage die on something that already does 10d6 is a much more impressive bonus, but giving them only 1d6 more really isn't that big of a deal.

To put it simply, it won't. This system won't be used by casters, they'll use an entirely different system altogether. I think that, for the most part, caster will get more powerful spells as they gain levels so they don't really need a system like this.

If we are going to have a "you beat the DC by *interval* you get a bonus" might be better to assign flat damage bonuses. +1 damage by each 5 you are over the DC. It's a much smaller bonus, but it relieves us the issue of capping AC and capping to-hits and rewonking all sorts of other systems.

Capping AC makes a lot of sense to me. One of the problems of having too variable AC values is that lower-level characters lose the ability to meaningfully contribute against foes of high AC. If AC values are kept low, then they can at least do something. It'll increase the variance in levels that'll remain meaningful.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I've thought of this, but have had quite a bit of difficulty actually figuring out a way to implement it. One character class that's going to be in is the Fighter who takes a weapon and just hits the enemy turn after turn. The Fighter will have access to optional combat maneuvers and such but those will be optional. Therefore, there's going to be a Fighter who gets better and just hitting the enemy turn after turn on level up. What sort of progressions can you really have that'll feel meaningful that won't end up with a decent amount of numerical growth? I can't really figure out a way.

There are options for martial improvement that don't involve increasing your ability to hit. While it won't be DDN, as they've already said that characters scale modestly, I can imagine a system where attack and defense are static and never change. You add the same number to your 1d20 roll at level 1 as you do at level 20.

However, that doesn't at all preclude improvement. The fighter can still gain bonuses to damage, and increase his hit points. Even though his accuracy doesn't improve, at level 20 he might hit like a freight train when compared to level 1. There are other options as well. Bonus attacks (which I don't particularly care for) are one. The fighter might also become better at general combat maneuvers (assuming they exist). For example, assume that anyone in DDN can charge, but most suffer a penalty to AC for doing so. Perhaps the no frills fighter negates that penalty over time, and even gains other bonuses to charging (additional movement or whatever). Another possibility is that he might negate penalties for wearing armor. There are numerous passive bonuses that are perfect for a "simple" fighter.

The point is, there are a quite a number of options for increasing even a simple fighter's capabilities without utilizing attack roll bloat. Attack bloat is not a good mechanic in my opinion. Either defenses scale with attack (rendering improvements relatively meaningless when fighting opponents of your level) or they don't and your attack bonus quickly exits the "sweet spot". (In case you're unfamiliar, studies have shown that a success rate somewhere around 70% typically results in the greatest amount of enjoyment, without the player becoming bored due to excessive ease or frustrated due to excessive difficulty.) As such, neither is a great option (though, IMO, the scaling is preferable to wonky math).

 

[BobTheNob]

However, that doesn't at all preclude improvement. The fighter can still gain bonuses to damage, and increase his hit points. Even though his accuracy doesn't improve, at level 20 he might hit like a freight train when compared to level 1. There are other options as well. Bonus attacks (which I don't particularly care for) are one. The fighter might also become better at general combat maneuvers (assuming they exist). For example, assume that anyone in DDN can charge, but most suffer a penalty to AC for doing so. Perhaps the no frills fighter negates that penalty over time, and even gains other bonuses to charging (additional movement or whatever). Another possibility is that he might negate penalties for wearing armor. There are numerous passive bonuses that are perfect for a "simple" fighter.

This is good. Your post in general is well said.

The entire idea of constantly upping numbers dates back to 1e when it was as simple as this. Over time, more definition has come to the martial role and with this definition I find it question that we need scaling any more.

4e tackled this except that
a) Its still had scaling numbers
b) It modeled martial capability in the power system (except charge and grapple)

I like martial to sit in the real world. Hey, in a pitched fight I can pick up an axe and swing in in a rediculous arc potentially hitting multiple people. I wouldnt be good at it, most likely missing everyone (penalty to hit for trying) stopping on the first guy I hit (no ability to follow through) and throwing off my balance (granting CA till start next action?). Then the experienced fighter comes in...he keeps his balance, successfully hits and hits multiple. Its not a single stacking bonus, it refinement of what everyone could attempted badly.

So the fighter is not a guy with stacking numbers and he is not a guy with a mage like power structure. He is the guy who does what the rest of us can do...just better.

 

[Meophist]

There are options for martial improvement that don't involve increasing your ability to hit. While it won't be DDN, as they've already said that characters scale modestly, I can imagine a system where attack and defense are static and never change. You add the same number to your 1d20 roll at level 1 as you do at level 20.

However, that doesn't at all preclude improvement. The fighter can still gain bonuses to damage, and increase his hit points. Even though his accuracy doesn't improve, at level 20 he might hit like a freight train when compared to level 1. There are other options as well. Bonus attacks (which I don't particularly care for) are one. The fighter might also become better at general combat maneuvers (assuming they exist). For example, assume that anyone in DDN can charge, but most suffer a penalty to AC for doing so. Perhaps the no frills fighter negates that penalty over time, and even gains other bonuses to charging (additional movement or whatever). Another possibility is that he might negate penalties for wearing armor. There are numerous passive bonuses that are perfect for a "simple" fighter.

The point is, there are a quite a number of options for increasing even a simple fighter's capabilities without utilizing attack roll bloat. Attack bloat is not a good mechanic in my opinion. Either defenses scale with attack (rendering improvements relatively meaningless when fighting opponents of your level) or they don't and your attack bonus quickly exits the "sweet spot". (In case you're unfamiliar, studies have shown that a success rate somewhere around 70% typically results in the greatest amount of enjoyment, without the player becoming bored due to excessive ease or frustrated due to excessive difficulty.) As such, neither is a great option (though, IMO, the scaling is preferable to wonky math).

I've tried thinking of simple Fighter that actually has some sort of noticeable progression for each level, but it seems rather difficult to do so. Using the math I proposed, it becomes possible to have +hit points and +attack bonus at each level. That sort of thing would feel meaningful and it'll be kept simple. What sort of progression would you have for, let's say, the first ten levels?

 

[Sunseeker]

I've thought of this, but have had quite a bit of difficulty actually figuring out a way to implement it. One character class that's going to be in is the Fighter who takes a weapon and just hits the enemy turn after turn. The Fighter will have access to optional combat maneuvers and such but those will be optional. Therefore, there's going to be a Fighter who gets better and just hitting the enemy turn after turn on level up. What sort of progressions can you really have that'll feel meaningful that won't end up with a decent amount of numerical growth? I can't really figure out a way.

I'm not sure what's wrong with a "decent" amount of numerical growth. Higher-level threats should possess higher numbers and characters of appropriate challenge-level should have similar numbers.

The idea that a level 1, fress out of the academy soldier is going to have the same skills, the same strength, the same equipment, as a level 20 campaign veteran, is simply unrealistic.

To put it simply, it won't. This system won't be used by casters, they'll use an entirely different system altogether. I think that, for the most part, caster will get more powerful spells as they gain levels so they don't really need a system like this.

So instead of one system, we're going to have multiple for each different type of fighting? that seems...needlessly complex.

Capping AC makes a lot of sense to me. One of the problems of having too variable AC values is that lower-level characters lose the ability to meaningfully contribute against foes of high AC. If AC values are kept low, then they can at least do something. It'll increase the variance in levels that'll remain meaningful.

I still fail to understand the logic in making levels so meaningless that lower levels can take on higher level threats as thought they weren't really higher level.

 

[educaon999]

That said, if you have ideas, my ears are open.

 

[Minigiant]

Flattening the math is a noble goal, it doesn't take in the factor of player entitlement.

Many players like their characters to grow with levels.

Many players like to have noticeable different proficiencies between their characters and other characters.

(I know I'd be upset for my character barely changed with level)

Something with have to bloat. In 3.X, attack and damage rolls ratios increased by level. In 4E, attack rolls values went up but only damage ratios raised*.


As DDN/5E will be a unity edition, I think there will only be a few combat statistics. Attack, AC, Damage, HP, and Number of Attacks will probably be it for core. The Attack/AC ratio and/or Damage/HP ratio will have to have to change with level or the point of even having character sheet would be lost.


*Attack and AC increased equally as long as you took the feat taxes and keep up with the right gear.

 

[Starfox]

I'm using 3.5 paradigms for this post.

Let me give you a practical example. Assume an opponent with AC 20 and a fighter class that gets +1 per level - no other bonuses. This is how it works out at level 0, 5, 10, 15, and 20.

level 1 - 10% hit
Level 5 - 30% hit (300% increase)
Level 10 - 55% (83% increase)
Level 15 - 80% (45% increase)
Level 20 - 105% (31% increase)

Of course a 105% chance to hit isn't really meaningful, but I kept it in to show the trend - that because of how the d20 DC mechanics work, there is a diminishing return on success probability as it increases.

Note that this is not the whole truth - sometimes the chance to NOT MISS matters more. Like when you use Great Cleave and the damage is enough to automatically slay each opponent - suddenly the difference between a 75% chance to hit and a 95% chance to hit is very telling in the average number of kills per round.