D&D 5E No ascending bonuses: A mathematical framework for 5e

[kitsune9]

I like Dragonblade's idea. The scaling down on the math is a valid point which can make playing at 1st level to 30th level an easy challenge if there isn't so much of it.

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

I think that the model os only increasing damage and HPs can work using 4e as a base, we already have feats that increase attacks and defenses and also the abilities increases by level. I think that a +7 at first level vs a +13 at level 30 is enough to differentiate a inexperienced archer and the best one.

 

[howandwhy99]

Seeing that we are all talking about a roll vs. TN system that is only linear, why don't we just increase the granularity to satisfy lots of people? d100 perhaps?

This satisfies both gradual, yet constant attack bonuses increases that remain virtually static with equal level combatants. It means we can include all the fiddly stacking bonuses.

The drawback is all our little point tracking is just that: little. It feels like penny pinching and our bonuses feel just as agonizingly slow in advancement. There's a reason levels bunched up advancement rewards. The delayed gratification meant a far bigger catharsis.

The thing is, we could use bigger bonuses on this finer scale, but something inevitably is going to be short changed. Otherwise, why not keep the d20?

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Someone above mentioned one of the mechanics led to lower lever PC's and monsters taking 3 hits to kill, and higher level taking 6, and asked if we wanted it.

We do, due to things like area of effect spells and sneak attack damage. Fighters deal a steady amount of damage at a predictable rate. Other classes deal damage in larger chunks or over a larger number of enemies. Wizards in particular have always dealt tremendous amounts of total damage when they effectively use their spells, and the amount that those spells out-damage the fighter increases with level.

 

[mmadsen]

What ever happened to sucking it up?

While I agree with the sentiment, we have to face facts. If you're going to face dozens of lethal encounters, you're either going to get really, really consistently lucky or die.

If every encounter is 20-to-1, in the party's favor, they only have 50-50 odds of winning a dozen fights in a row.

So we need a system that maintains the illusion of danger well above the actual threat of death.

 

[Nebulous]

DM: "The Ogre hits you for a massive 52 points of damage and stuns you."
Player: "No he doesn't. I play my "You Dodge the Attack" card.

What's the point of playing the game?

I think immediate interrupts can add to the fun of the game, but I'm not impressed with the "all or nothing" type of "I teleport away" or "get out of jail free" ones. They're mini-cheats. But if they occur during the attack roll and the DM doesn't throw out too much information before rolling the dice, the player doesn't necessarily know everything what was going to happen to the PC, so he's not quite sure if he teleported away on the Ogre's wimpy attack, or his mega-attack. Meh, but not so egregious.

But, I really don't like the concept of some sort of "you find out all that happens to your PC, you negate it" type of system and/or having every PC have these types of abilities and having it be part of the standard rules. Talk about player entitlement. Maybe the DM should make sure that the player gets a comfy chair, some soda, and some pizza while he is at it. After all, the player is entitled to make this the best gaming experience ever and having his PC stunned takes away from that. snort

What ever happen to sucking it up?

yes, yes and yes. I LOATHE that style of gameplay, i don't even like CARD games that employ this. As a DM, it is infuriating, and makes the game less fun for me, although players seem to relish that kind of legal cheating.

 

[mmadsen]

I think there are a number of things to be said for having a set of "dodge an attack" chits.

D&D doesn't have "dodge an attack" chits, but it does have "it's just a flesh wound" chits.

Hit points could easily expand to fill both roles -- and to provide protection against save-or-die effects, too -- if we allowed them to provide a bonus to defense rolls, after the fact.

 

[mmadsen]

It really depends on what else you can do with a hit. Once you start factoring in any appreciable additional effects besides damage output things start to change rapidly. A 4e character that can hit 30% more often is a lot more than 1.15x more effective at attacking, its more like he's probably 1.5x more effective at low level and maybe up to as much as 2.5x more effective at high levels.

You make an excellent point that with 4E's powers a hit can trigger an effect that effectively bypasses hit points -- and those effects become more useful the higher the opponent's hit points.

(Thus, hit points become intangible protection from killing blows, but nothing else.)

By the way, I'm not sure how you're doing your math. A character who can hit 30 percent more often should do 30 percent more damage per round -- or cause 30 percent more power effects. A character with a +6 bonus, which is a 30 percentage point bonus, should hit, say, 60 percent more often, if he was starting from a 50 percent chance to hit.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

So we need a system that maintains the illusion of danger well above the actual threat of death.

I think perhaps the root of a lot of the disagreement is the nature of the system that maintains the illusion of danger. You've got everything from "It's not an illusion--run away as much as you can" to "we'll supposedly play the system as written, but DM will fudge like mad" to "hey, let's use a metagaming mechanic to work around and only have a feel of danger" to "use a metagaming mecahnic or other resource so that the danger is one of running out of resources--i.e. plot points, fate chips, etc."

Some of those are built into the overt system, and others are only the "actual system of play" in game design terms--i.e. everything that goes on at the table to make it work regardless of whether in the printed rules or even written down. I think if you did a study, you'd find a high correspondence between those who supplement with unwritten rules and preference for an ostensibly deadly system. Not perfect, but high.

 

[mmadsen]

I think that a +7 at first level vs a +13 at level 30 is enough to differentiate a inexperienced archer and the best one.

A level-30 archer is presumably the greatest archer to have ever lived, putting Robin Hood and Legolas to shame. He shouldn't miss. Ever.

To model that properly, I would think he'd need a +20 bonus, at least, so that anything an ordinary archer can hit (with a natural 20), he will hit (except perhaps on a natural 1).