Rule of Three: May 22

[jadrax]

How are you getting to 37? I am not aware of any edition of D&D in which it was possible to get an ability score of 37, barring polymorph shenanigans or nonstandard race options. You can get to 36 in 3E if you start with an 18, play a race that gives you +2, put all five of your level-up bonuses into the stat, and get a +6 enhancement item and a +5 tome. In no other edition can you get past the mid- to high 20s.

In 3rd ed you got to add something called a Skill as a modifier to your dice roll as well as the attribute bonus.

 

[jadrax]

Because my first level fighter with 10 hit points will not have a +16 to damage.

There is no chance that this will be in the playtest rules on Thursday.

It will be interesting to see how Strength effects Damage. I don't think its mandated that it will work like 3.5/4th.

 

[Dausuul]

In 3rd ed you got to add something called a Skill as a modifier to your dice roll as well as the attribute bonus.

All indications are that the skill bonus in D&DN will be quite small, on the order of +2 to +5. The designers have been saying they want ability scores to be the main factor. This is especially important if they stick with the plan of making the Background system, which governs skills, into an optional module--an ability check with skill bonus can't be radically different from one without.

 

[Steely_Dan]

How are you getting to 37?

I am not saying that, i'm talking about getting a bonus to your d20 roll to attack in 3rd Ed, which became freakishly easy (what with feats, PrCs etc).

 

[Sunseeker]

I am not saying that, i'm talking about getting a bonus to your d20 roll to attack in 3rd Ed, which became freakishly easy (what with feats, PrCs etc).

As I recall, with my fairly unoptimized 18th level ranger, I had something on the order of a +32 bonus to attack rolls(at least with my first two attacks), but only against Humanoid Undead. I'm sure there are plenty more tricks to bring that up by at least 5 points.

 

[Steely_Dan]

As I recall, with my fairly unoptimized 18th level ranger, I had something on the order of a +32 bonus to attack rolls(at least with my first two attacks), but only against Humanoid Undead. I'm sure there are plenty more tricks to bring that up by at least 5 points.

Yes, and I find it unnecessary and bloating (4th Ed has it too, with that 1/2 level unnecessary action).

If a d20 roll of 13 matters, what difference does it make whether it's +19 or +11?

 

[Sunseeker]

Yes, and I find it unnecessary and bloating (4th Ed has it too, with that 1/2 level unnecessary action).

If a d20 roll of 13 matters, what difference does it make whether it's +19 or +11?

The concepts behind it I don't feel are bloating, but the numbers certainly are.

There should be some form of improvement in your base ability to hit things through level progression. I would say at least once every 5 levels. So, +4-5 by 20th level.
Your primary attribute should also contribute to your ability to hit things, but I believe that attribute progression is already fairly slow, about on the order of the 4-5 over the course of 20 levels.
Some classes may have unique features which will improve their ability to hit things in specific situations, such as "favored enemy". Again, this should range on a 1-5 scale, being maxed out around 5 by 20th level.
Magic items should also maintain a maximum of +5, but their availability or unavailability should not be determined by core. They should be entirely outside the base math.
(if you notice, I feel all bonuses of any kind should never go beyond +1-5, though an additional rules module would be nice for numbers and levels beyond that)

So, a 20th level character would AT BEST in my ideal world get a +15 to attacks, making the best thing they could hit(without magical assistance in the form of magic items or spells), a 35. Which I feel is a fairly reasonable level of defense for even a very high-level thing. I do believe the math would be able to handle the possibility of an extra +1-5 in there if magic items are included, and since various types of temporary buffs will likely be present, I'd say we could move wager the maximum possibility to hit to +20, making 40 the highest defense.

Given that nothing should be unhittable and there's still a +/-20 variance with a d20, I'd say at the end of the day, if DDN gives us math making a 35 roughly the highest defense possible(both on PCs and NPCs), I think they'll have done a good job of flattening the math.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

If you do the simple, sensible thing and have ability checks be "1d20 plus ability score," the math adds up just fine. With a 16 Strength:

1d20+16 versus DC 16: Auto success.
1d20+16 versus DC 17-18: 5% failure chance (assuming natural 1 always fails).
1d20+16 versus DC 19: 10% failure chance.

Et cetera.

I don't think this will be the case. It would make auto-success trivial, with the gap between 'skip this check' and 'roll a dice or take 10 if you're a rogue' quite large. No, I think the point of auto-success is to streamline some aspects of play, and your example is not new, given that you could do the same with DC 1-4 with the current modifier system.

 

[Haldrik]

For a leveling bonus, I would probably go with as little as:

+1/10 levels

Magic items too: Level 30 is when people would generally acquire +3 swords.



Its seems the developers are going with this philosophy tho I doubt they are as extreme as Im suggesting.

It seems hitpoints and damage are the main bonuses while leveling.

 

[SkidAce]

^ I agree with the idea above on magic items, seems clean.

Of course Oriflamme, +6 sword of eternal fire will still exist in my campaign.

But generally speaking I like it.