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

[Frostmarrow]

A legendary archer would probably have some other feat or power up his sleeve so he'd still be more likely to win an archery contest versus the captain's guards.

 

[LurkAway]

But if you have a regular archer and a legendary archer side by side in an marathon archery contest and both are shooting arrows for several hours at a target, then the legendary archer surely is shooting closer to bullseye.

 

[Frostmarrow]

But if you have a regular archer and a legendary archer side by side in an marathon archery contest and both are shooting arrows for several hours at a target, then the legendary archer surely is shooting closer to bullseye.

D&D has never been the system of choice for Olympic games,

 

[mmadsen]

I don't think the problem comes from bonuses that increase by one per level or one-half per level. I think it comes almost entirely from stacking multiple different bonuses that all increase with level.

If a Fighter's BAB increases with level, his Str bonus increases with level, the "buffs" he receives increase with level, etc., and they all stack, then his total bonus increases much, much faster than his BAB.

 

[Dragonblade]

But if you have a regular archer and a legendary archer side by side in an marathon archery contest and both are shooting arrows for several hours at a target, then the legendary archer surely is shooting closer to bullseye.

Sure, thats a good point. And I think there are two ways you could address that. One is by implementing a smaller bonus like I posted previously.

A +1 per 5 level skill/inherent bonus to represent there is some improvement over time. That sort of reintroduces an ascending bonus of sorts, but a far reduced rate than we have currently.

Alternatively, or in addition to that bonus, being higher level could give you access to stunts and tricks that lower level PCs cannot perform or cannot perform as well. Perhaps a legendary archer gets a Talent called Master Marksmen and when firing an arrow, he always rolls 2d20 and picks the higher roll. Or he can fire two arrows at once, or X times per day they automatically get a natural 20 on any one shot, that sort of thing.

Mearls posted some skill tricks in L&L that you can gain in lieu of a never ending bonus that just keeps climbing up forever. Maybe a higher level climber can just flat out climb some surfaces automatically without needing a check. Or if they fail, they can try to stop their fall in a way a lower level climber cannot.

I have some ideas, but the whole system isn't completely fleshed out. I just wanted to lay down the framework for how you could use a system without ascending bonuses as a foundation to build upon.

 

[LurkAway]

D&D has never been the system of choice for Olympic games,

That's not the point though. The point is that the philosophy that allows you to assume that the in-game world scales in parallel with heroic progression so blatantly is specific to one kind of playstyle (situational based I think it's called vs exploratory) and thus IMO antithetical to a unified D&D.

 

[howandwhy99]

I like how ability score bonuses are siloed from class ability bonuses. I'd do the same for a lot of the game, so some areas the PCs are more or less equivalent (dice generation withstanding), but other areas the PCs have their place to shine, their niche. Fighters are far and away the best combatants, but other classes are pretty good to, just in ways that their classes are good at everything. I think bringing back that thematic play to class (& race) would be an interesting option.

 

[mmadsen]

This issue of how the numbers progress has come up before, and I actually believe that many of the numbers don't progress nearly enough -- at least if we want them to match "realistic" expectations.

In many ways, characters (in 3E, at least) aren't competent enough, given how the d20 combat system and non-combat skill system work. Should a typical young American Indian hunter or Roman auxiliary archer -- presumably a 1st-level Warrior, Fighter, Ranger, or Barbarian, with a +1 BAB -- really only have +1 to hit. If he grew up bow-hunting, he hits a target 55 percent of time rather than 50 percent? And a great archer -- let's say 5th-level -- hits that target 75 percent of the time?

If a 5th-level Fighter is a great knight (or samurai, or whatever), and a 10th-level Fighter is the greatest knight (or samurai) in the land, then I wouldn't find it "unrealistic" for the 5th-level Fighter to more-or-less always hit and always kill 1st-level Fighters, and for the 10th-level Fighter to always hit and always kill 5th-level Fighters -- without magic weapons, magically boosted strength, etc.

I also wouldn't bat an eye at a 10th-level Fighter who was effectively unhittable, even without his magic armor, as long as he had his sword or shield.

What elements of the D&D progression are unrealistic? Really, there's nothing "unrealistic" about a 10th-level thief in AD&D -- except his 10d6 hit dice. And there's nothing "unrealistic" about a 10th-level fighter either -- except his 9d10+3 hit dice. His +10 to-hit isn't implausible at all.

When we look at how (old-school) D&D characters progress, it's fairly odd. Let's look at the fighter:

To-Hit: +1/level
Damage: +0/level
Armor Class: +0/level
Hit Points: +1d10/level, until 9th level​

If we were starting from scratch, we might just as likely come up with something like this:

To-Hit: +1/level
Damage: +1/level
Armor Class: +1/level
Hit Points: +1/level​

A 10th-level fighter might be even more powerful under that progression, but he wouldn't seem "unrealistic".

On the other hand, increasing his hit point total is the one thing practically guaranteed to make him seem "unrealistic" -- at least as long as hit points remain tied to physical toughness and taking damage.

 

[Lordhawkins9]

And what about a 20th level Fighter vs. 20th level Mage in an archery contest?

Under 4E and this proposed system...they tie.

If you want to please the older school D&D players, you have to think about the progression of different classes in their own fields.

Fighters spend their time honing their skill in weapons...wizards spend their time researching new spells. The above contest should not be a contest. The wizard shouldn't even come close.

 

[Frostmarrow]

That's not the point though. The point is that the philosophy that allows you to assume that the in-game world scales in parallel with heroic progression so blatantly is specific to one kind of playstyle (situational based I think it's called vs exploratory) and thus IMO antithetical to a unified D&D.

I agree. That is one of the hurdles a unified system must clear. If D&D Next is supposed to be useful when it comes to decoding statblocks from all editions there are but a few common denominators and the D&D Next rules must single them out and interpret them in a simple yet profound way.