D&D 5E Playing with Bounded Stats

[ren1999]

If we say that a being with a toHit of 1d20+0 can hit a being with an AC of 18 on a natural 18, 19 or 20, then the lowest level being would still be a threat to the highest level being in the game.

If the highest level being missed the lowest level being with a toHit of 1d20+8, then he would miss on a natural 1, 2, or 3 trying to hit the lowest armor class of 12.

So based on this, we can come up with some minimum and maximum numbers in the game.

Minimum ability score would be 3 to 12 but there would be no negative penalties, just a +0.
Maximum natural humanoid ability would be 20(+5).
Maximum magic enhanced or monster ability would be 26(+8).

Minimum no armor would be 12.
Maximum natural humanoid armor would be 15.
Maximum magic or monster armor would be 18.

Situation Combat bonuses would be from +1 to +8.
Level/weapon magic save bonuses would be +1 every 3 levels.
Magic bonuses would be from +1 to +8.
But you can only stack all these bonuses for to Hit to a max of +8.
Or maybe you can't stack these but just choose the highest bonus, either the sit bonus, magic bonus, ability bonus, level bonus, or other bonus.

Hit Points would not be bounded.

How about limits to skills and powers(prayers/spells/maneuvers/feats)?
You start with 3 skills and 3 powers.
You only get 1 skill or power, every level-up to level 26.

Weapon damage and HD limits?
Martial only classes have 1d12 HD or 6hp and do 1d12 with any weapon as their main weapon. They do 1d10 with their off-hand weapon.
Rogues have 1d10hd or 5 hp per level and do 1d10 main, 1d8 off-hand.
Martial and Casting classes have 1d8hd or 4 hp per level and do 1d8 main, 1d6 off-hand.
Casting only classes have 1d6hd or 3hp per level and do 1d6 main, 1d4 off-hand with any weapon.

Trade-offs for weapons?
longer weapons, less damage, more armor class bonuses?
faster weapons, less damage, more attacks?
heavier weapons, more damage?

 

[the Jester]

I think putting hard caps on AC and the like is not the way to go. I think simply making it exceedingly difficult to get an AC above about 20 is good, though. Limiting the bonus on magic armor and shields goes a long way, as does capping ability scores.

I don't think peasants should be able to hit Demogorgon on an 18+, nor do I think Demogorgon ought to miss the weakest possible targets on a 1-3. This whole bounded accuracy concept is a tricky one to navigate- making the game open enough for pcs to have meaningful choices in deciding what adventures to undertake and challenges to face while not making an iron golem fodder for 2nd level pcs is going to be one of the hardest parts of the design work, IMHO.

It's very interesting watching your take on the game evolve over time! I know I sometimes come across as a naysayer in your threads, but I really enjoy engaging with you, even when we disagree about things. And you've certainly provoked a lot of thought in my mind. Keep it up!

 

[ren1999]

It's very interesting watching your take on the game evolve over time! I know I sometimes come across as a naysayer in your threads, but I really enjoy engaging with you, even when we disagree about things. And you've certainly provoked a lot of thought in my mind. Keep it up!

Yours too! I get a lot of ideas from you because I know you're actually playing the game.

As it stands, everybody hits on a natural 20 and fails on a natural 1.
If you don't like the natural 3, then how about everybody hits on a natural 19 or 20?

The idea here is to conform all the math in the game to a natural 19 or 20 hit.

If you allow the stacking of bonuses without a cap, bonuses will spiral upward. Also, everyone eventually ends up with a +9 bonus.

 

[the Jester]

Yours too! I get a lot of ideas from you because I know you're actually playing the game.

Thanks!

As it stands, everybody hits on a natural 20 and fails on a natural 1.
If you don't like the natural 3, then how about everybody hits on a natural 19 or 20?

The idea here is to conform all the math in the game to a natural 19 or 20 hit.

I actually played in an "automatic miss on 1-3" campaign back in 2e. I didn't care for it then, but would be willing to try it out with the "hit on 18-20" rule as well. But I don't think I'd like it- I do think there should be times when the power disparity is so great that your only hope is a natural 20. But they should be very rare- on the order of that "Demogorgon vs. peasant" instance.

(Of course, even then, add disadvantage and the odds drop from 1 in 20 to 1 in 400... hmm.)

If you allow the stacking of bonuses without a cap, bonuses will spiral upward. Also, everyone eventually ends up with a +9 bonus.

I agree that this is a concern, but how are you figuring that everyone ends up with +9? If enhancement bonuses top out at +3 (and that for very rare or artifact level items), the best I see is +6 from +3 armor and +3 shield, and that assumes a lot- namely, that all pcs wear armor and use shields.

Besides, given a lack of magic item expectation by level, the 1e dynamic of equipment damage being a fairly common thing can return. Things balance themselves out when the dm isn't afraid to destroy the magic items that create balance problems for his game.

 

[ren1999]

Good point, Jester. If magic maxed out at +3, it would be less of a problem.

What about this?
Ability scores will be from 3 to 20.
You get a +1 with an ability score of 3.
You get a +9 with an ability score of 20.
All bonuses to a 1d20 roll will be from +1 to +9
AC will be from 11 to 20.
Static defenses such as "versus constitution score" will be from 11 to 20.

Situation Combat Modifiers to Hit or to Save,
Magic Modifiers to Hit or to Save,
Ability Modifiers to Hit or to Save,
Feat Modifiers to Hit or to Save,
Level Weapon, Magic Attack Modifiers to Hit or to Save,
all totaled can not exceed +9 to Hit or +9 to Save.

Or, you could take out ability modifiers to Hit and to Save.
Sit Mods max at +3
Lvl Mods and Feat Mods would be combined and max at +3
Magic Mods max at +3

DCs could work the same way.
The minimum DC for the easiest task would be 11.
The maximum DC for a near impossible task would be 20.
Skill ranks would not exceed +9

Skills
+3 if you are trained
+3 from feats or level-ups
+3 from situation mods

Your ideas?

 

[the Jester]

Good point, Jester. If magic maxed out at +3, it would be less of a problem.

That seems to be what's indicated so far, at least from what I've seen.

What about this?
Ability scores will be from 3 to 20.
You get a +1 with an ability score of 3.

Nah, low stats should give penalties IMHO... or else we should eliminate stat bonuses altogether. (I know, that's probably too radical.)

You get a +9 with an ability score of 20.
All bonuses to a 1d20 roll will be from +1 to +9
AC will be from 11 to 20.
Static defenses such as "versus constitution score" will be from 11 to 20.

Situation Combat Modifiers to Hit or to Save,
Magic Modifiers to Hit or to Save,
Ability Modifiers to Hit or to Save,
Feat Modifiers to Hit or to Save,
Level Weapon, Magic Attack Modifiers to Hit or to Save,
all totaled can not exceed +9 to Hit or +9 to Save.

I don't like putting hard caps on most of the numbers. I prefer the flatten the math without absolutely restraining it via numeric caps like that.

Or, you could take out ability modifiers to Hit and to Save.

Hey, didn't I just say something like this??

Sit Mods max at +3

I'm really liking the idea of most situational modifiers being advantage or disadvantage instead of + or - a given value.

DCs could work the same way.
The minimum DC for the easiest task would be 11.
The maximum DC for a near impossible task would be 20.
Skill ranks would not exceed +9

Well, if we keep ability bonuses, then a DC 20 task only requires a 16+ for a character with an 18 stat and no training. With training at +3, he only needs a 13+. With another +3 from level gains, feats, etc. he only needs to roll a 10+ to accomplish a nearly impossible task- that doesn't sound very impossible at all! That's why I don't like hard caps on the numbers for DCs.

The playtest document, I think, sets DCs about right up to the 16ish range, but really hard tasks should go higher. I sometimes set task DCs by asking, "Who should succeed on this check half the time?" So let's say we're talking about a character trying to piece together a shattered clay tablet before the troll breaks through the door and enters the room. I might say to myself, "He's got about a minute and dozens of bits to fit together like a 3D jigsaw. Half the time, a guy with an Int 18 who is trained for this kind of thing could probably pull it off. That guy would have +7 to his check... he'd need to roll an 11... so my final DC is 18." That kind of thing.

So yeah, a lock that would challenge the god of thieves should be higher than DC 23 or whatever they top out at in the playtest doc, IMHO.

 

[ren1999]

Thanks for the ideas.

 

[ren1999]

Here are my latest minimums and maximums as a result of your comments. I know that you don't like caps but I'm testing them on existing NPCs from our Pathfinder game and the encounter seems to be more challenging.

This time the goal is not to achieve a true hit on a natural 20 in 20 or a true miss on a natural 1 in 20 but it is close.

Maximum Magically Enhanced or Monster AC20
Maximum Humanoid Natural AC17
Maximum Magically Enhanced or Monster Ability 20(+5)
Maximum Humanoid Natural Ability 17(+3)
Maximum Character Level and Monster Hit Dice 20

To Hits can stack in this way.
0? Ability Modifier -5 to +5
+
1 Maximum Magic Bonus -3 to +3
+
2 Maximum Situation Modifier -3 to +3
+
3 Maximum Feat, Level, Magical Effect -3 to +3

Test my stat binding ideas yourself with my play-test tracker.
kira3696.tripod.com