D&D 5E L&L: Mike Lays It All Out
- Thread starter GX.Sigma
- Start date
I think we all just need to get over the "this +1 doesn't do anything!" mentality.
Taking a +1 when you have an even stat isn't "getting nothing"...
Disagree. If D&D Next is a lethal game, you cannot be guaranteed your will live long enough to ever gain any benefit (since you have a wait a few levels to gain the next +1 to get your mod bonus when you do go up to an even score). I like the odds of benefiting from a character choice to approach 1, rather than, say, 50%.
I don't know what the odds are of surviving, but it's only possible to even begin to statistically balance out the trade off of this choice between a +1 and a feat if you have an absurdly high chance of not dying for three more levels. Which is a game I do not want to play.
Anyway, this is all academic, they need to either a) give a +1 to two stats, or b) a +2 to one stat, or, even better, c) make each point give something immediate.
For strength and dex you can easily split the damage and to-hit bonuses between even and odd scores, even = +1 more to hit, odd = +1 more to damage. Or for dex even = +1 AC, odd = +1 to hit/damage. For Strength I think the only solution is to give MORE damage, similar to 2e. I.e. an 18/00 had +3 / +6, but you could easily have +2 / +5 or some other non equal to-hit / damage values. The more I think about it, the more I realize that 2e had a far superior stat system than anything since. I'm super cereal about this, guys.
System shock rolls made nobody want to dump Con. I want stats to simulate more stuff, better, rather than less, and worse. 2e had it right. Each point counts, after 15. We could spread that out a bit, but every point should give something. If we grant regen due to high Con, it should grant it at 21.
So some people think +1 stat is way too powerful, and the other half think its only worth doing if you can hand out 2 +1's per feat... interesting... The statistical probability of a PC dying because that the mod increase didn't kick in vs. having a feat has to be fairly low, although maybe not completely dismissible. If you don't want to take the chance, the option for skipping the attribute increase for a feat might help balance the formula a bit. Its slightly more risky or a level, but the long term pay off might be better.
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
I find this whole topic tough to discuss without knowing a few things.
1) How many stat points is a character expected to gain between 1 and 20? (Or 3 and 15, if feats/stat upgrades are only for Adventurer Tier). This is also considering that a feat is equivalent to a stat point, so an answer of "We don't know 'cause you might pick feats" is irrelevant.
2) What is the level of granularity that is desired for a feat?
3) Is a delayed payoff on selection of a stat upgrade a bug or a feature?
To my mind, delayed payoff is alright if it isn't delayed long. I'd say no more than one level, which would require a stat/feat gain of once per level. This means most character could max out their primary and possibly secondary stat at 20, and also gain a few feats along the way. Accept only the primary at 20, and you're probably going to be able to grab a decent number of feats.
However, if we assume a 1 upgrade per 3 levels rate, then they become rare and precious. Most people will max out their primary, and maybe have room left over for a feat or two. To me, this seems like the more boring option, and there's a long delay in payoff from boosting a stat. (This may serve as a motivation to gain feats which immediately payoff. Trying to steer people away from stat bonuses and towards feats may be considered a design goal.)
If it's necessary to make feats more coarsely grained (to lower the amount of feat design overhead), then maybe a 2 stat points per (2 or 3) levels approach would be better. Make feats more substantial, or maybe have feats that give +1 to a stat PLUS an additional benefit.
1) How many stat points is a character expected to gain between 1 and 20? (Or 3 and 15, if feats/stat upgrades are only for Adventurer Tier). This is also considering that a feat is equivalent to a stat point, so an answer of "We don't know 'cause you might pick feats" is irrelevant.
2) What is the level of granularity that is desired for a feat?
3) Is a delayed payoff on selection of a stat upgrade a bug or a feature?
To my mind, delayed payoff is alright if it isn't delayed long. I'd say no more than one level, which would require a stat/feat gain of once per level. This means most character could max out their primary and possibly secondary stat at 20, and also gain a few feats along the way. Accept only the primary at 20, and you're probably going to be able to grab a decent number of feats.
However, if we assume a 1 upgrade per 3 levels rate, then they become rare and precious. Most people will max out their primary, and maybe have room left over for a feat or two. To me, this seems like the more boring option, and there's a long delay in payoff from boosting a stat. (This may serve as a motivation to gain feats which immediately payoff. Trying to steer people away from stat bonuses and towards feats may be considered a design goal.)
If it's necessary to make feats more coarsely grained (to lower the amount of feat design overhead), then maybe a 2 stat points per (2 or 3) levels approach would be better. Make feats more substantial, or maybe have feats that give +1 to a stat PLUS an additional benefit.
Rhenny
Adventurer
I think the effect/power of an additional +1 to an ability, even to abilities that will give you a +1 to hit and damage may not be that powerful. For one thing, most PCs will begin with a +3 bonus in his or her primary attribute. The first increase may be important because for many PCs it will give him or her a +4 bonus. After that, gaining additional ability increases may not pay off.
For lower level PCs, many of the monsters have such low AC and hit points that a party of adventurers will not feel the benefits of any single PC getting +1 to hit or damage. Most melee classes can kill a kobold or goblin with one attack...with cleave...maybe two, and a burning hands spell can take out a large group of the little buggers even if they save. Then, when melee PCs gain deadly strike, weapon damage dice are added so the damage done by the weapon alone is much more significant than an additional +1 to damage accrued by ability increase. Sure, in corner cases, if a PC is alone and must hit to survive, or if the group is fighting an unusual monster that has higher AC and a lot more HP, the +1 to hit will be a small factor that will add to survivability, but in a group of others, not so much.
To me, it seems as though the value of the feat gained will outweigh the ability bonus most of the times, especially if the feats are more substantial than the current ones. Right now, even if I were playing a fighter, I'd want to take cleave and/or improved initiative before adding a +1 to my ability (especially if it doesn't change the overall bonus). In fact, improved initiative is so crucial for spellcasters too. Being able to cast burning hands before anyone else really changes the encounter.
I think that WoTC will have a tough time making the simple PC that only takes ability increases as powerful or as fun to play as the feat taking PC.
For lower level PCs, many of the monsters have such low AC and hit points that a party of adventurers will not feel the benefits of any single PC getting +1 to hit or damage. Most melee classes can kill a kobold or goblin with one attack...with cleave...maybe two, and a burning hands spell can take out a large group of the little buggers even if they save. Then, when melee PCs gain deadly strike, weapon damage dice are added so the damage done by the weapon alone is much more significant than an additional +1 to damage accrued by ability increase. Sure, in corner cases, if a PC is alone and must hit to survive, or if the group is fighting an unusual monster that has higher AC and a lot more HP, the +1 to hit will be a small factor that will add to survivability, but in a group of others, not so much.
To me, it seems as though the value of the feat gained will outweigh the ability bonus most of the times, especially if the feats are more substantial than the current ones. Right now, even if I were playing a fighter, I'd want to take cleave and/or improved initiative before adding a +1 to my ability (especially if it doesn't change the overall bonus). In fact, improved initiative is so crucial for spellcasters too. Being able to cast burning hands before anyone else really changes the encounter.
I think that WoTC will have a tough time making the simple PC that only takes ability increases as powerful or as fun to play as the feat taking PC.
I'm very pleased at these proposed changes, and feel that they point 5e in the right direction. However, I would like to see a column that explains just what paragon paths and prestige classes are in 5e terms.
Previously they were floating round the idea of Basic D&D classes getting skill bonuses based on their "prime requisite" (e.g. Strength for fighters). So a fighter would get a bonus on all his or her Strength checks. With a little work, this could be a viable option for groups that don't want the full skill system. Your PC gets a bonus on all checks of one particular attribute, which may be assigned, a choice of two, or just chosen by the player. The advantage of building a character with the skill system then becomes the flexibility of being able to pick skills across different abilities.
Previously they were floating round the idea of Basic D&D classes getting skill bonuses based on their "prime requisite" (e.g. Strength for fighters). So a fighter would get a bonus on all his or her Strength checks. With a little work, this could be a viable option for groups that don't want the full skill system. Your PC gets a bonus on all checks of one particular attribute, which may be assigned, a choice of two, or just chosen by the player. The advantage of building a character with the skill system then becomes the flexibility of being able to pick skills across different abilities.
It depends on the range of ACs.
If I am trying to hit a fixed AC, then the greater the value of X, the less difference the increase from +X to hit, to +X+1 to hit, makes to my expected damage output.
So if "bounded accuracy" means "enemies ACs don't grow by very much over the course of the game", then increased bonuses to hit deliver ever-diminishing returns.
The reason that a +1 to hit is so good in 4e is that accuracy is constant across the game, due to scaling: the chance to hit is always around 10/20 to 15/20 (depending on details of build, level and role of opponent faced, etc) and so a +1 to hit is adding as much as 10% to the expected output and the expected chance of landing powerful efffects (forced movement, debuffs etc).
But D&Dnext so far seems to have fewer powerful effects (at least for martial types, who are slated to get more of these feat/stat boosts), and bounded accuracy may mean that as you go up in level your chance to hit approaches 18 or 19 in 20, at which point the benefit of another +1 to hit is pretty marginal.
Good point, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION].
Maxing your primary attribute is definitely important, but less than in 3e and 4e.
Conversely, +1 AC gets more and more valuable in such a system (goiing from being hit 50% of the time to 45% is a 10% cut on your opponent damage output, whereas going from, say, 20% to 15% is a 25% decrease).
This feature is, imho, a bug when considering the various uses of Expertise dice : +1 offense / +1 defense / +1 dmg are grossly unbalanced.
Maxing your primary attribute is definitely important, but less than in 3e and 4e.
Conversely, +1 AC gets more and more valuable in such a system (goiing from being hit 50% of the time to 45% is a 10% cut on your opponent damage output, whereas going from, say, 20% to 15% is a 25% decrease).
This feature is, imho, a bug when considering the various uses of Expertise dice : +1 offense / +1 defense / +1 dmg are grossly unbalanced.
It's not a question of dying because the mod didn't kick in, it's a question of dying before it kicks in. If you hit level 6 and increase your Strength from 18 to 19, you're now gambling that your character will survive until your next "feat level" and the campaign won't end before then. If either of those things happen, you wasted your feat slot. (And if you're a wizard boosting Intelligence, it's even worse.)
Personally, I would like to see each point in an ability score mean something. I don't know if we're going to have stuff with ability prerequisites, but if we do, the prerequisites should all be odd numbers, as in 3E.
Similar Threads
