Blackwarder
Adventurer
Than you want them to scale from what?
Warder
Warder
D&D 5E Taking a second look at attack bonuses
keterys
First Post
He said in his post: he wants hit points to be the main difference.
Like if you look at the current playtest monsters, their AC and attack bonuses don't really scale with level. Nor do the PC's. That's just the current paradigm. I suspect it could be changed somewhat, but your way divorces entirely away from it.
Like if you look at the current playtest monsters, their AC and attack bonuses don't really scale with level. Nor do the PC's. That's just the current paradigm. I suspect it could be changed somewhat, but your way divorces entirely away from it.
Blackwarder
Adventurer
1. I meant how did he want attack bonuses to scale.
2. keterys you are not correct, PCs get attack bonus from level attack bonus+ability score and both of them scale up with level.
I agree that AC shouldn't scale with level like it did in 4e but why shouldn't attack bonus scale with level, a higher level fighter should hit more often than a lower level one? that's part of the skill that comes from experiance.
I don't think that my why divorces entirely away from WotC bounded accuracy paradigm, I just think that they went a bit too far for my taste.
Warder
2. keterys you are not correct, PCs get attack bonus from level attack bonus+ability score and both of them scale up with level.
I agree that AC shouldn't scale with level like it did in 4e but why shouldn't attack bonus scale with level, a higher level fighter should hit more often than a lower level one? that's part of the skill that comes from experiance.
I don't think that my why divorces entirely away from WotC bounded accuracy paradigm, I just think that they went a bit too far for my taste.
Warder
The current scaling is: (slightly) from level, stat gain, magic items. I am pretty much fine with this, although I think they should choose either stat gain or from level, instead of having both.
There is no such thing as bounded accuracy when you have +1 at level 3 and +9 at level 12. It's a huge difference which basically makes the level range of appropriate monsters too small for my taste, just like it's in 4e.
Let's take something with AC 18 at level 3, you need to roll a 17 (20% hit chance). At level 12 you hit it on a 9 (60% hit chance). As a DM I wouldn't use even one of the monsters at level 3 because just hitting 20% of the time is something that just gets frustrating as a player since you won't be able to do anything to the monster 80% of the time.
Instead I think adding to the hp - and damage as characters level and monsters get more dangerous works pretty well. A could then use maybe one of the monster at level 3, five at level 7 and eight of them at level 12 to challenge the party.
It also makes it so villages and towns without lots of high level adventurers can protect themselves (at great cost of lives) since even bands of ogres, giants and such can be hit and taken down if there are enough level 0 hunters with bows. In 3e level 0 hunters would stand a chance against any giant, since they wouldn't be able to hit it other than on a natural 20 and because they did very low damage.
tl;dr
In short, I think having nearly no scaling of attack bonuses, and relatively low scaling of hp, more in line with what you had in AD&D, will result in an environment that makes a bit more sense than the current 3e and 4e worlds where commoners just have no chance, no matter the numbers against a level 10+ party.
There is no such thing as bounded accuracy when you have +1 at level 3 and +9 at level 12. It's a huge difference which basically makes the level range of appropriate monsters too small for my taste, just like it's in 4e.
Let's take something with AC 18 at level 3, you need to roll a 17 (20% hit chance). At level 12 you hit it on a 9 (60% hit chance). As a DM I wouldn't use even one of the monsters at level 3 because just hitting 20% of the time is something that just gets frustrating as a player since you won't be able to do anything to the monster 80% of the time.
Instead I think adding to the hp - and damage as characters level and monsters get more dangerous works pretty well. A could then use maybe one of the monster at level 3, five at level 7 and eight of them at level 12 to challenge the party.
It also makes it so villages and towns without lots of high level adventurers can protect themselves (at great cost of lives) since even bands of ogres, giants and such can be hit and taken down if there are enough level 0 hunters with bows. In 3e level 0 hunters would stand a chance against any giant, since they wouldn't be able to hit it other than on a natural 20 and because they did very low damage.
tl;dr
In short, I think having nearly no scaling of attack bonuses, and relatively low scaling of hp, more in line with what you had in AD&D, will result in an environment that makes a bit more sense than the current 3e and 4e worlds where commoners just have no chance, no matter the numbers against a level 10+ party.
What are you worried about with low scaling of to-hit and AC? In my opinion, the scaling of damage and hp will let a level 12 character take on a lot more opponents than a level 3 character, just not in the hundreds.
Not in my game he wont
Not that I expect my players to fight the prince of hell but I don't believe that Wizards will keep the current monster states.
Warder
I think you're allowing your [perception of how things OUGHT to scale] to influence your [expectations of what direction WotC will take]. Assuming the status quo, your change would mean restatting a large number of monsters. It's not not an enormous burden, but it's one more obstacle to a DM that wants to do set something up on the fly.
Similar Threads
