D&D 5E IDEA: Actually bounded accuracy

[Argyle King]

There are a number of ways to accomplish what the OP is talking about, but they're typically a radical enough departure from how D&D works that you're better off with a different system.

Though I'm not suggesting it cannot be done. I remember the E6 (or was it L6?)
discussions about the 3.5 rules.

There are systems which use bell curves rather than a flat roll. This can be done in 5th Edition by using 2d10 instead of 1d20. You might also consider using the optional rule for Proficiency Dice instead of flat bonuses.

There are systems which don't have D&D style levels at all. I'm not quite sure how you'd do this in 5th Edition, but looking at how E6 was accomplished with the 3.5 rules might be a good place to start.

 

[RCanine]

I have to admit I prefer games with more logarithmic leveling curves than 5E, so it's no surprise folks that want a bigger power curve disagree. But my primary concern is how to keep the game reasonably predictable power-balance-wide and to stop build choices that break the game's math from being a dominant strategy.

 

[Horwath]

Cap the abilities at 18. Add another light armor at AC 13 plus dex to compensate.

limit attack bonuses and AC bonuses of magical items at +1. Add more utility or other kind of bonuses instead.

 

[transtemporal]

I think you need to establish what your baseline is first. Assigning arbitrary boundaires without knowing your baseline is not a good idea. For example, if you set your max attack bonus as +9 and you want to regularly throw AC26 monsters against your party, they are not going to have a fun time.

 

[Jester David]

My thinking is that by capping stats fairly low, players won't be incentivized to focus on a single ability. A 16 Str or Dex is enough to cap your attack bonus, so there's no need to dump all of your ASIs into a single stat. Similarly, small investments in stats have a higher value (percentage-wise).

True. So the fighter will move from Str into Dex and then Con and then - at endgame - they'll have ASI they feel are wasted by going into other stats. A +2 bonus to an ability score you never use isn't a bonus. It's like giving the class proficiency in a skill they never use or a free spell they'll never cast.
Gaining a level shouldn't feel sad or anticlimactic.

Also, this is an issue that really only comes at endgame. Levels 15+. Which few campaigns ever reach. Even if there is diminishing returns/ a lower cap, the cap will likely be high enough that levels that see play are unaffected.

 

[abirdcall]

I have to admit I prefer games with more logarithmic leveling curves than 5E, so it's no surprise folks that want a bigger power curve disagree. But my primary concern is how to keep the game reasonably predictable power-balance-wide and to stop build choices that break the game's math from being a dominant strategy.

This sounds like an oxymoron to me.

You want to play at high level, but you don't want high level characters to be powerful.

It sounds like the solution is to not play high level games.

The campaigns I play are designed to end around level 10. The highest level I think I would ever play is up to around 15.

 

[Dualazi]

This sounds like an oxymoron to me.

You want to play at high level, but you don't want high level characters to be powerful.

It sounds like the solution is to not play high level games.

The campaigns I play are designed to end around level 10. The highest level I think I would ever play is up to around 15.

I don't think that's what he's getting at. IIRC in 2e after players hit level 9-10 ish they didn't roll for HP anymore, instead receiving a small static bonus based on their class. This is probably what RCanine is going for; the idea that there's a compression in the difference in effectiveness between a 12th level fighter and a 16th, and one that is less significant than the difference between 4th and 8th level.

Conceptually it's something I support somewhat, the idea that higher level characters should have a wider suite of options available, but not a dominating difference in raw numbers.

 

[Awesome Adam]

I have to admit I prefer games with more logarithmic leveling curves than 5E, so it's no surprise folks that want a bigger power curve disagree. But my primary concern is how to keep the game reasonably predictable power-balance-wide and to stop build choices that break the game's math from being a dominant strategy.

Give everyone the same stats.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It sounds like the solution is to not play high level games.

Not a very satisfying solution, but sometime the only way to win is not to play...

The premise here is that it's possible to "cap" some stats fairly early in the game, encouraging players to diversify their builds. These caps are also low enough that players can never mathematically obviate any encounters.

Hard caps provide diminishing returns in a different way. A 16 STR you cap attack with +2 weapon at once your proficiency bonus reaches +4. Additional investment in STR increases your damage and attack bonus with less powerful weapons, and your athletics skill, but not your primary weapon.

Another way you could allow some return for over-investing in something past the cap would be to make more use of penalties - and apply them before applying the cap. So if you had an attack cap of +9, a character who would otherwise have a +12 could absorb a -2 penalty with no effect (he'd still be +9 when he rolled), and would only be reduced to +7 by a -5 penalty.

 

[RCanine]

I have to admit I prefer games with more logarithmic leveling curves than 5E…

This sounds like an oxymoron to me.

You want to play at high level, but you don't want high level characters to be powerful.

Power is all relative. For example, your DPR could increase by the square root of your level, linearly with level or double every level. Each of those decisions has some different gameplay impact. If you've ever played Space Alert with its expansion, the leveling curve is almost completely static — beyond level 3 or so you get no more powerful, but you gain far more options, allowing you to diversify your role quite a bit.

This is basically a difference between depth-based power (getting better at somethin) and breadth-based power (getting better at more things). 5E doesn't really incentivize breadth much; the dominant strategy is generally to find a schtick and optimize your party around doing that schtick every fight.

4E was interesting in that it had both depth and breadth happening at the same time; you were getting ever increasing numbers, but also broadening your ability set. However, I think (one of the places) where 4E failed is that their levels 11 and 21 didn't change the game enough. Your paragon paths / epic destiny aught to have you leading armies and ruling nations, not still walking up to slightly tougher bad guys and popping them in the nose. I mean, that could still have existed, but the game needed an alternate type of progress.

Since we also don't get that in 5E, I'm interested in ways that can keep the game from becoming schtick-driven as you increase in level; something beyond making everything the PCs encounter immune to their schticks.