D&D 5E Taking a second look at attack bonuses

[Blackwarder]

Hi all.

I've been looking at the basic attack bonus charts of the latest playtest packet and i'm not sure about them.

First of all it got no apparent structure and secondly it seems too flat, now I'm firmly in the camp that believe that ability score bonuses should be maxed at +3 and that attack bonuses should come mainly from the class.

So I've been making my own based on older editions, which I intend to use when the next packet comes out:

Level​ Fighter Attack Bonus​ Rogue Attack Bonus​ Cleric Attack Bonus​ Magic User Attack Bonus​ 1​ +0​ +0​ +0​ +0​ 2​ +1​ +0​ +0​ +0​ 3​ +1​ +1​ +1​ +0​ 4​ +2​ +1​ +1​ +1​ 5​ +3​ +2​ +2​ +1​ 6​ +3​ +2​ +2​ +1​ 7​ +4​ +3​ +3​ +2​ 8​ +5​ +3​ +3​ +2​ 9​ +5​ +4​ +4​ +2​ 10​ +6​ +4​ +4​ +3​ 11​ +7​ +5​ +5​ +3​ 12​ +7​ +5​ +5​ +3​ 13​ +8​ +6​ +6​ +4​ 14​ +9​ +6​ +6​ +4​ 15​ +9​ +7​ +7​ +4​ 16​ +10​ +7​ +7​ +5​ 17​ +11​ +8​ +8​ +5​ 18​ +11​ +8​ +8​ +5​ 19​ +12​ +9​ +9​ +6​ 20​ +13​ +9​ +9​ +6​ Apprentice Tier​ Adventuring Tier​ Legacy Tier​

And I'm going to use this Ability score modifiers:

Ability Score​ Bonus​ 3​ -3​ 4-5​ -2​ 6-8​ -1​ 9-12​ +0​ 13-15​ +1​ 16-17​ +2​ 18​ +3​

Because I want to encourage my players to take feats instead of +1 to ability score.

What do you think?

Warder

p.s you got to be impressed with my cunning use of tables in this post

 

[Falling Icicle]

Because I want to encourage my players to take feats instead of +1 to ability score.

What do you think?

Perhaps you should wait and see what the new feats are like before changing the abilities.

I suspect that feats will be a more popular choice, since you only benefit from every 2 points of ability increases, and even then, a +1 or +2 bonus isn't a huge deal. You can still be quite effective with "only" a 16 in your primary stat.

 

[DogBackward]

So basically you're saying "Despite the fact that bounded accuracy is a huge design goal of this edition, I think we need to have class-based attack bonuses scale way too high like they always have." When numbers get that big, there are problems with the math, that's the entire reason they scaled the numbers back. The biggest draw for me with Next is the flat math and the fact that these numbers won't be scaling to ridiculous levels. It'll be easier to balance things, and easier to make sure that the math doesn't get out of hand.

 

[Blackwarder]

That is not what I'm saying at all.

you need to remember that my attack bonuses go hand in hand with the ability bonuses I added below a fighter with 18 Str will have a total attack bonus of +9 at 10th level the same fighter in the current playtest packet will have a total attack bonus of +7 and considering the fact that I don't mind having the fighters in my games dominat combat I honestly don't see what's all the fuss is about.

For me bounded accuracy means that low level monsters can still be a threat to the PCs at higher levels, I translate it controling the AC numbers more than anything else.

Btw, +6 for fighters, +4 for rogues and clerics and +3 for wizards at level 10 doesn't seems all that high to me.

Warder

 

[GMMichael]

Just make Attack a skill. Fighters get a d10 skill die, clerics d8, rogues d6, mages d4.

 

[Warbringer]

For me bounded accuracy means that low level monsters can still be a threat to the PCs at higher levels, I translate it controling the AC numbers more than anything else.

Btw, +6 for fighters, +4 for rogues and clerics and +3 for wizards at level 10 doesn't seems all that high to me.

Warder

At 10th, all else equal, your system isn't out of wack, by 20th, it is: +21 vs +13 (assuming +3 weapon and no str adj), over 50% improvement in damage output. That throws off monster balance, caster damage comparison, relative value of non damage maneuvers ...

For me, bounded accuracy is about average damage output per hit, not just the to hit.

 

[Blackwarder]

At 10th, all else equal, your system isn't out of wack, by 20th, it is: +21 vs +13 (assuming +3 weapon and no str adj), over 50% improvement in damage output. That throws off monster balance, caster damage comparison, relative value of non damage maneuvers ...

For me, bounded accuracy is about average damage output per hit, not just the to hit.

Oo How the hell did you reached +21 from +13? Even with +3 weapon and +3 Str you only reach +19 attack bonus.

Warder

 

[Warbringer]

Oo How the hell did you reached +21 from +13? Even with +3 weapon and +3 Str you only reach +19 attack bonus.

Warder

Oops, sorry, added the the current +5 for str, not your +3, so a 46% increase in damage output.

Essentially same outcome, nearly 50% damage inflation for the fighter in relation to every other class.

Now in fairness, you said you don't mind fighters dominating combat; with this, they will

 

[the Jester]

I'm with the peanut gallery- I don't think your changes would improve the game, at least for my playstyle.

For yours, it might- but it certainly looks to me like you're eliminating "Miss" from the high-level fighter's vocabulary.

 

[Blackwarder]

And why is that a bad thing? Not that I agree with you but what's wrong with having a super fighter with maxed strength and magic weapon missing only once every 20 swings?

Warder