D&D 5E Overcoming Bounded Accuracy

[RangerWickett]

Personally, I much prefer a world where a giant's massive wind up and powerful swing can still be dodged by normal humans. Now, if they hit, the attack should kill them, but I think in most fiction it's actually shown to be easier to dodge a giant's attack than a normal person's. Just because a monster has high HP doesn't mean he should hit easily.

That said, sure, there should be room for bad-ass heroes outright dodging attacks. And bad-ass giants that hit really well.

But mathematically, if you start adding to attack bonuses and defenses (and skills and DCs), you'll throw off the work the designers have done to balance things. Fights will become grindy with high-level foes, and low-level ones will never be dangerous, even in swarms.

How much better do you want high-level characters to be than normal folks? Is 5th level Bruce Willis in Die Hard, 10th level is Arnold Schwarzenegger in True Lies, and 15th level Leonidas in 300? 20th level is, I dunno, Neo at the end of The Matrix?

 

[slobo777]

Actually, maybe giving levels to doors might not be such a bad idea. That might go some way to address the misperception that wooden doors get harder to break down as the characters go up in level. It then becomes that much more obvious that if you want to present a challenge to level 20 characters, you use a level 20 adamantium door instead of a level 4 wooden door.

Sure, 3E also gives levels (CR) to traps and hazards. It didn't bother with simple single-skill-roll items like doors, walls and locks, but it may even of helped a little if it did.

To answer the OP, I think that you can scale skill bonuses but not ability checks in D&D Next, and it would work just fine. Again, it would feel more like 3E.

Another obvious thing is to remove the cap on ability scores, and allow 3E or 4E style increases. That would have knock-on effects of increasing related scores for PCs. You would probably want to also do the same for the monsters, by level.

 

[FireLance]

To me it sounds like Firelance's issue could be addressed if ONLY trained skills advanced with level. (So instead of plus 1 to one trained skill at even levels, take plus one to all of em, with no cap.) And add back in physical skills like Climb of course.

Scaling damage should make combat scale OK; if you're just missing high-level characters with crazy mundane skill, voila.

To answer the OP, I think that you can scale skill bonuses but not ability checks in D&D Next, and it would work just fine. Again, it would feel more like 3E.

Actually, I'm missing high-level characters with big bonuses all round: attacks, defenses, skill checks, ability checks, etc., that are several orders of magnitude more capable than an ordinary man. In another thread, someone said that he didn't want to add +37 to a d20 roll. However, I do.

Another obvious thing is to remove the cap on ability scores, and allow 3E or 4E style increases. That would have knock-on effects of increasing related scores for PCs. You would probably want to also do the same for the monsters, by level.

This would help, but I don't think it goes far enough. Even with 4e-style ability score increases, the difference between a 1st-level character and a 30th-level character is at most +4. That doesn't seem nearly enough for me.

 

[FireLance]

Personally, I much prefer a world where a giant's massive wind up and powerful swing can still be dodged by normal humans. Now, if they hit, the attack should kill them, but I think in most fiction it's actually shown to be easier to dodge a giant's attack than a normal person's. Just because a monster has high HP doesn't mean he should hit easily.

My preference would be to make this a trait of the giant instead of messing with his attack bonuses. Maybe something along the following lines:

Clumsy: The giant only hits with an attack if the natural result of his attack roll is 10 or higher.

But mathematically, if you start adding to attack bonuses and defenses (and skills and DCs), you'll throw off the work the designers have done to balance things. Fights will become grindy with high-level foes, and low-level ones will never be dangerous, even in swarms.

To me, the solution is to match the level of the PCs with the level of their opponents.

How much better do you want high-level characters to be than normal folks? Is 5th level Bruce Willis in Die Hard, 10th level is Arnold Schwarzenegger in True Lies, and 15th level Leonidas in 300? 20th level is, I dunno, Neo at the end of The Matrix?

It depends. What are their attack bonuses?

 

[Dausuul]

It's more of a preference than an actual problem, but I like the idea that high-level characters can regularly succeed at tasks that would be impossible for normal men. Bounded accuracy (as far as I can see from the playtest) puts the capabilities of high-level characters too close to those of normal men for my taste.

So... why are you worried about doors then? It sounds as if "high-level PCs can brush aside wooden doors like tissue paper, while low-level PCs can't even touch adamantine doors" is exactly what you're aiming for.

I don't see the problem with simply adding some fraction of PC level to PC ability scores, defenses, saves, and attacks.

 

[FireLance]

So... why are you worried about doors then? It sounds as if "high-level PCs can brush aside wooden doors like tissue paper, while low-level PCs can't even touch adamantine doors" is exactly what you're aiming for.

I guess I wasn't being very clear. I'm assuming that there will be break DCs for doors in the base game, set at some level that wooden doors are fairly easy to get through (maybe DC 18) and adamantium doors are harder, but still possible for the PCs (maybe DC 25). If I simply add some level-based number to the PCs' Strength checks, even adamantium doors quickly become irrelevant. Now, with monsters (who have a level) I can simply add the same level-based number to their attack rolls and defenses. Hence, I was thinking that one thing WotC could do to make it easier to convert the bounded accuracy system to an escalating bonus system would be to assign a level to doors so that a similar adjustment can be made to the break DC.

 

[Kinak]

I have a related but slightly different problem. I don't mind bounded accuracy between levels, but it bugs be a lot between characters.

When we're talking about a d20, a +3 bonus separating skilled and unskilled characters is just not enough in my opinion.

To put it another way, if you're going to bother having a skill system, why only have it count in 1/7th of skill checks? Even in a skill-heavy session, like tense negotiations or sneaking into an enemy camp, having a skill will probably effect one result. Seems like a lot of bother for no real effect.

There's just no way on a d20 that +3 can be a character shining in their specialty. Even the monster equivalent of skills (check the bugbear) is +5.

I think the proper answer to "we need to identify these strange runes" should be "get the wizard" or, at least, "get the person with the sage background." It's not "have everyone look at it and see who rolled highest."

But the game needs a real bonus to do that, probably along the lines of +10 for a trained skill. If they're going to provide choices, they should make them actually matter.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Remathilis]

Doesn't seem too hard.

Add +1/2 per character level to AC, Ability Checks/Saves, Attacks, and Skill/Save DCs or all monsters and levels in addition to whatever bonuses they normally get. Monsters get it based on HD/level, and Skills/Traps get it based on an arbitrary "level" you set the dungeon at.

Viola! Infinitely Upward Scaling Numbers that doesn't overly screw the math.

 

[slobster]

I have a related but slightly different problem. I don't mind bounded accuracy between levels, but it bugs be a lot between characters.

When we're talking about a d20, a +3 bonus separating skilled and unskilled characters is just not enough in my opinion.

Well the difference between a competent character (trained in a skill and has a 16 in the stat) and a normal adventurer (untrained, 10 in the stat) is a +6 bonus. That helps a bit. The difference between a very competent (stat 18 or 20) and an incompetent character (untrained, 6 to 9 in the stat) is even wider, up to +10.

That doesn't even get into what happens when a character truly masters a skill (rogue skill mastery).

 

[Kinak]

Well the difference between a competent character (trained in a skill and has a 16 in the stat) and a normal adventurer (untrained, 10 in the stat) is a +6 bonus. That helps a bit. The difference between a very competent (stat 18 or 20) and an incompetent character (untrained, 6 to 9 in the stat) is even wider, up to +10.

That's absolutely true but, to me, just speaks to the problem. The attribute is the more important part and even that gets drowned out by the d20 in normal cases.

I feel that, if we're talking about the difference between your competent and incompetent character, one of them should be forced off the d20. If an incompetent blacksmith has a 10% chance to make a horseshoe (not just getting a lucky 20, succeeding just because it has a low DC), why does the competent blacksmith still have a 40% chance of failure?

It's worse if we take two characters with the same attributes. Their skill training is irrelevant unless they're rogues. Depending on the skill and your play style, a change in one out of seven rolls might matter once a session or may not come up during the whole campaign.

Which comes back to the question of why we're tracking skills at all. I like skills and think they add something to the game, but they don't provide enough of a mechanical benefit to distinguish characters.

Cheers!
Kinak