Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8195808" data-attributes="member: 6987520">Sure, 30 can work, 40 would just be my preference. shrugAs I've said before, it is an easy fix, and something we do in my online game:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">All AC is +4 (or +5 if you want...)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">All HP is half</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">PCs get CON bonus at level 1, and then just HD until level 10, then just a static bonus (+1 to +4) for levels 11-20.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Everything is proficient in all saves. If you already had a proficient save, you gain advantage instead.</li> </ol>Done. Issue solved. None of these are hard fixes and it makes the game so much better in many ways: faster, magic is more powerful, mook monsters are mook monsters again, etc. It works very well for us and I am considering moving it to our live game as well.FWIW, as is, the typical hit probability is actually 65% across all levels (+/- 5%). With extra attack, the chance of scoring at least one hit is about 87%. Way too high, IMO, and it makes the game boring, slow, and tedious. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" /> I prefer hitting less (like 35-45%) but when you hit, it counts for a lot more (with lower HP...).This was something I considered before just deciding on a flat +4-5 AC bump. But you make a great point and I might revisit the idea. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />It would all be adjusted to compensate for the greater range of course. Like others, I don't want to return to 3E and +40 or more on an attack roll, but I like the idea of 40 cap since the d20 is half that. It means, at maximum, the die roll can at most count half of the result instead or more than half. With a 30 cap, the d20 swinginess is felt a lot more IMO.Yeah, it is terrible when it comes to skills! Which is why (for skills) a lot of tables change to either a 2d10 or 3d6 roll, so the curve is re-introduced into the equation.This is the debate IMO. 5E treats ability scores as not just natural talent, but also a limited amount of training or exposure, and the swinginess of the d20 compared to the cap 30 adds in the other random elements (such as the barbarian growing up near crystal caves).The problem with relying on the swinginess of the d20 is unless you track your successes and how you account for them (without having actual proficiency), the next time you roll for something similar or even the same subject, the roll could go the other way and you know nothing or fail, etc.It creates too much inconsistency for me, but I know the designers wanted to favor as simply a system as they could while allowing for some decision points. In that respect, they succeeded, but personally I am not thrilled with the results.</blockquote>

Verification