Martial Damage Bonus +20?

So, I suppose that this means that the latest play-test packet has thrown bounded accuracy out the window.

Instead of having a martial damage bonus of +20 for fighters and rogues at high levels, why not follow my advice?

Bonuses should come from 5 areas and be divided equally and be applied to most d20 rolls.

+4 from natural ability -- no, ability should not have a higher bonus than any other factors
+4 from level -- because experience as an adventurer matters just as much as natural ability, constant fighting and casting makes people hit better and do more damage.
+4 from chosen feats/maneuvers
+4 from magic items or spell/prayer effects
+4 from situation modifiers
1d20+20 should be the highest possible attack roll in the game.

armor class should be
10
+6 for plate
+2 for shields
or
+2 for long-handled weapons
+dexterity30(+4)
+level 30(+4)
+4 magic item or effect bonus
ac10+20 should be the maximum armor class

This is as close as we can get with bounded accuracy and deal with some of the boring aspects.


Some people have been playing this game since it first appeared in suburban toy stores. And I want to hear the advice of these people who still play to this day.

You don't really understand how bounded accuracy works, do you? No thanks. Your suggestion is terrible and would create huge problems. Monsters would either be too hard to hit or too easy, and sometimes both (depending on the character). Many of those "optional" attack bonuses would in fact become build taxes. What exists now is much better. Bounded accuracy. Meanwhile, damage and hit points are what is unbounded. That has always been the goal. That is exactly what the game is giving us. And, I think it works great!

I think you're misinterpreting the Martial Damage Bonus. It doesn't add to attack rolls, but to damage rolls.
Just to clarify. Martial damage bonus refers to damage.
Bounded accuracy refers to accuracy. I fail to see the problem your having.
Anyone else remember the bounded accuracy supporters claiming that bonuses in DDN would "mean something" and that you won't get any bonuses "just because" or "because you're higher level"?

Because I remember that being a major argument against BAB/skill ranks. So here we are with characters getting more damage "just because they're higher level". Where are all the complaints about that now?
Anyone else remember the bounded accuracy supporters claiming that bonuses in DDN would "mean something" and that you won't get any bonuses "just because" or "because you're higher level"?

Because I remember that being a major argument against BAB/skill ranks. So here we are with characters getting more damage "just because they're higher level". Where are all the complaints about that now?

Uh, accuracy and damage are different things and have different effects on the game and on monster utility? Is "bounded accuracy" really that difficult for people to understand? It's not about "not getting any sort of bonus for leveling up", it's about the to-hit and AC curves being much flatter. It's really, really uncomplicated.

Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Anyone else remember the bounded accuracy supporters claiming that bonuses in DDN would "mean something" and that you won't get any bonuses "just because" or "because you're higher level"?

Because I remember that being a major argument against BAB/skill ranks. So here we are with characters getting more damage "just because they're higher level". Where are all the complaints about that now?



Accuracy referes to the relationship between attack rolls and AC, plus saving throws. Damage DOES scale in this system. From what I've heard, the +5 is more about them not wanting expertise dice to get out of hand by having too many, so they still give them bonus damage, but no more XD.
My two copper.
Anyone else remember the bounded accuracy supporters claiming that bonuses in DDN would "mean something" and that you won't get any bonuses "just because" or "because you're higher level"?

Because I remember that being a major argument against BAB/skill ranks. So here we are with characters getting more damage "just because they're higher level". Where are all the complaints about that now?

Uh, accuracy and damage are different things and have different effects on the game and on monster utility? Is "bounded accuracy" really that difficult for people to understand? It's not about "not getting any sort of bonus for leveling up", it's about the to-hit and AC curves being much flatter. It's really, really uncomplicated.




I'm not talking about accuracy. I'm talking about the defense of bounded accuracy saying that "all bonuses should mean something and have a reason". I don't see why a different philosophy would be applied to damage vs accuracy for this. 

Why is it having a scaling bonus to hit/skills is unnacceptable, but the same people who feel that is unnacceptable find scaling bonuses to damage perfectly fine? They fill the same purpose, and have roughly the same justification. I want to know what the logic is for saying one is bad and the other is good.
Anyone else remember the bounded accuracy supporters claiming that bonuses in DDN would "mean something" and that you won't get any bonuses "just because" or "because you're higher level"?

Because I remember that being a major argument against BAB/skill ranks. So here we are with characters getting more damage "just because they're higher level". Where are all the complaints about that now?


Why would anyone complain? That's always been the model.
Damage scales, accuracy doesn't scale nearly as much.
A few guidelines for using the internet: 1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart. 2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons. 3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves. 4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health. 5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
Anyone else remember the bounded accuracy supporters claiming that bonuses in DDN would "mean something" and that you won't get any bonuses "just because" or "because you're higher level"?

Because I remember that being a major argument against BAB/skill ranks. So here we are with characters getting more damage "just because they're higher level". Where are all the complaints about that now?


Why would anyone complain? That's always been the model.
Damage scales, accuracy doesn't scale nearly as much.




You're ignoring the point. There's several prominent posters who go into every bounded accuracy thread and talk about how it is the greatest thing ever because bonuses that characters get now have to come from somewhere, and they need to mean something, not just keeping up with the math.

I am wondering why it is that this is such a great idea that needs to be applied to accuracy, yet these same people ignore, or even praise, the opposite being done with other aspects of the game. You're still getting meaningless +X bonuses that come automatically when you level up with no justification except your level and the need to keep up with the monster math. Why is this any different? 
Anyone else remember the bounded accuracy supporters claiming that bonuses in DDN would "mean something" and that you won't get any bonuses "just because" or "because you're higher level"?

Because I remember that being a major argument against BAB/skill ranks. So here we are with characters getting more damage "just because they're higher level". Where are all the complaints about that now?


Why would anyone complain? That's always been the model.
Damage scales, accuracy doesn't scale nearly as much.




You're ignoring the point. There's several prominent posters who go into every bounded accuracy thread and talk about how it is the greatest thing ever because bonuses that characters get now have to come from somewhere, and they need to mean something, not just keeping up with the math.

I am wondering why it is that this is such a great idea that needs to be applied to accuracy, yet these same people ignore, or even praise, the opposite being done with other aspects of the game. You're still getting meaningless +X bonuses that come automatically when you level up with no justification except your level and the need to keep up with the monster math. Why is this any different? 


Actually it's not meaningless.  It comes from one's skill at arms.  Hence, the wizard doesn't get any regardless of what level the dress wearing fancy talker is.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.


Actually it's not meaningless.  It comes from one's skill at arms.  Hence, the wizard doesn't get any regardless of what level the dress wearing fancy talker is.



+1.

Actually it's not meaningless.  It comes from one's skill at arms.  Hence, the wizard doesn't get any regardless of what level the dress wearing fancy talker is.



+1.


And that's just the way we like it.
Damage progression is cool, just too aggresive, I could see it dialed back to about 1/2 of what it is now.
If that means other classes need dialed back also, I'm all for it, this just feels all to  

Not sure how I feel about weapon choice being mostly irrelevant. Maybe weapons could effect the die type of martial dice?, but reduced progression?

This is weirdest thing about the playetst IMO.

My mind is a deal-breaker.

Anyone else remember the bounded accuracy supporters claiming that bonuses in DDN would "mean something" and that you won't get any bonuses "just because" or "because you're higher level"?

Because I remember that being a major argument against BAB/skill ranks. So here we are with characters getting more damage "just because they're higher level". Where are all the complaints about that now?


Why would anyone complain? That's always been the model.
Damage scales, accuracy doesn't scale nearly as much.




You're ignoring the point. There's several prominent posters who go into every bounded accuracy thread and talk about how it is the greatest thing ever because bonuses that characters get now have to come from somewhere, and they need to mean something, not just keeping up with the math.

I am wondering why it is that this is such a great idea that needs to be applied to accuracy, yet these same people ignore, or even praise, the opposite being done with other aspects of the game. You're still getting meaningless +X bonuses that come automatically when you level up with no justification except your level and the need to keep up with the monster math. Why is this any different? 


I can see where you are coming from Seerow. It seems like DDN is touting that it doesn't scale, when in fact it just seems that it just switched from attack bonus to damage. I can see that point of view. But in the end, it makes the game fundamentally different.
My two copper.
Damage progression is cool, just too aggresive, I could see it dialed back to about 1/2 of what it is now.
If that means other classes need dialed back also, I'm all for it, this just feels all to  

Not sure how I feel about weapon choice being mostly irrelevant. Maybe weapons could effect the die type of martial dice?, but reduced progression?

This is weirdest thing about the playetst IMO.



I agree with this. I always had a problem with what my friend called the "Final Fantasy syndrome". Wherein the player's characters say...700 hp, but are dealing close to 1500 damage. Likewise the monsters have 2500 hp, but deal 100 or so damage. That kind of thing bothers me o_O
My two copper.
Damage progression is cool, just too aggresive, I could see it dialed back to about 1/2 of what it is now.
If that means other classes need dialed back also, I'm all for it, this just feels all to  

Not sure how I feel about weapon choice being mostly irrelevant. Maybe weapons could effect the die type of martial dice?, but reduced progression?

This is weirdest thing about the playetst IMO.


I don't really see it being that aggressive.  Recall that fighters will likely spend their dice on maneuvers and parrying as well.  And since the martial damage bonus (no the dice but the flat bonus) is a once per turn thing, I think it's restricted quite nicely.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Anyone else remember the bounded accuracy supporters claiming that bonuses in DDN would "mean something" and that you won't get any bonuses "just because" or "because you're higher level"?

Because I remember that being a major argument against BAB/skill ranks. So here we are with characters getting more damage "just because they're higher level". Where are all the complaints about that now?


Why would anyone complain? That's always been the model.
Damage scales, accuracy doesn't scale nearly as much.




You're ignoring the point. There's several prominent posters who go into every bounded accuracy thread and talk about how it is the greatest thing ever because bonuses that characters get now have to come from somewhere, and they need to mean something, not just keeping up with the math.

I am wondering why it is that this is such a great idea that needs to be applied to accuracy, yet these same people ignore, or even praise, the opposite being done with other aspects of the game. You're still getting meaningless +X bonuses that come automatically when you level up with no justification except your level and the need to keep up with the monster math. Why is this any different? 


Actually it's not meaningless.  It comes from one's skill at arms.  Hence, the wizard doesn't get any regardless of what level the dress wearing fancy talker is.




You mean like how unless you invested skill ranks in 3.5 you didn't get better at the skill? Or how being in a martial class meant gaining BAB at a much higher rate (to the point where having the 1/2 BAB progression may as well have been 0 progression).
Damage progression is cool, just too aggresive, I could see it dialed back to about 1/2 of what it is now.
If that means other classes need dialed back also, I'm all for it, this just feels all to  

Not sure how I feel about weapon choice being mostly irrelevant. Maybe weapons could effect the die type of martial dice?, but reduced progression?

This is weirdest thing about the playetst IMO.



I agree with this. I always had a problem with what my friend called the "Final Fantasy syndrome". Wherein the player's characters say...700 hp, but are dealing close to 1500 damage. Likewise the monsters have 2500 hp, but deal 100 or so damage. That kind of thing bothers me o_O



The problem is, it solves other problems to do it this way. How do we keep bonuses low, the combats quick, and the monters progressing?

My mind is a deal-breaker.

I agree with Seerow insofar as the suggestion that a change from attack bonus to damage bonus is somehow changing the way the game is played or even making it better.


I don't actually see it as better or worse, just different. It may well change how the game is played, but in terms of encounter building and player challenge it doesn't change much of anything at all. Same dance, different stats.


Anyway I also have to wonder what monster HP is going to look like and I'm not mad about the FF Syndrome (I like this name for it).  I said it before and I'll say it again: bounded accuracy does not and cannot somehow let us ignore character level.



As for the OP: yet another terrible idea. Misses the point, totally bizarrely rationalised, looks totally rubbish to play with.

Actually it's not meaningless.  It comes from one's skill at arms.  Hence, the wizard doesn't get any regardless of what level the dress wearing fancy talker is.



You mean like how unless you invested skill ranks in 3.5 you didn't get better at the skill? Or how being in a martial class meant gaining BAB at a much higher rate (to the point where having the 1/2 BAB progression may as well have been 0 progression).


BAB was different because BAB was about being able to hit.  The martial damage bonus is about a damage bonus, and one that only gets applied once per turn at that (so it's not getting applied to every attack that you could ever make).

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

The problem is, it solves other problems to do it this way. How do we keep bonuses low, the combats quick, and the monters progressing?



By making them improve on all axes rather than one or two. MOAR HP does not equal monster progress, especially if all the PCs are just doing more damage. The treadmill continues, just along a different axis.


The trick is to allow ALL combat stats to curve: saves, AC, to hit, HP, damage, special abilities. Then you don't have to increase any of them by very much but there is significant growth in spite of a relatively low stat increase in any individual area.

For me level is related to actual increased skill and experience. For me that means that ideally the fighter's weapon attack progression would scale about twice as fast as it does now at a good progression rate of +1 every 2 levels for a max +10 at level 20. The cleric might have an average for a possible +7 at level 20 for both spells and weapons.  The wizards weapon attack progression would be poor with only +4 over 20 levels but he would have a good spell attack progressions with +10 at level 20.  PCs would also have defenses scale by level as well. The scaling would all be pretty minor and set around a good, average, or poor rate.

Monster's on the otherhand would not scale by HD.  Monster HD is more closely related to size and physical durability for monsters whereas it represents skill and experience with PCs.  An Ogre may have 4 HD but has relatively little skill in combat.  I would expect a 4HD Hobgoblin Soldier on the other hand  to be just as offensively and defensively as a 4th level fighter. This would "remove" the treadmill for most people but still allow for equally skilled opponents to remain equals.  A more skilled combatant will also clearly see the benefit of his skill and experience when facing novice enemies.

With the increased rate of scaling, damage could be toned down.  Instead of rolling 1d12+6d6+25 damage, that can simply be reduced to 1d12+6d6+5 damage.  Or even something radical like 6d12 damage with the min result on any die being your Str mod. 

Bonuses to attack are so powerful that having them forced the game to scale up monster AC. This allowed monsters to be used for a smaller amount of time, and created a problem we call “the treadmill.” Moving a lot of that to damage, and toning down just how much a bonus to attack advances, allows the same monsters to be used for longer. Level is not ignored. Damage still grows, as do hit points. This means that lower level monsters can be used, and will still be dangerous against higher level characters, but the higher level the character the more of such monsters you will need to use. This allows for more organic quest building. This is what we are seeing right now...

Stick me firmly in the "I love bounded accuracy" camp. I also think that the size of the damage bonuses used right now are not a problem. It is still less math than any other edition of D&D to date. 

For me level is related to actual increased skill and experience. For me that means that ideally the fighter's weapon attack progression would scale about twice as fast as it does now at a good progression rate of +1 every 2 levels for a max +10 at level 20. The cleric might have an average for a possible +7 at level 20 for both spells and weapons.  The wizards weapon attack progression would be poor with only +4 over 20 levels but he would have a good spell attack progressions with +10 at level 20.  PCs would also have defenses scale by level as well. The scaling would all be pretty minor and set around a good, average, or poor rate.

Monster's on the otherhand would not scale by HD.  Monster HD is more closely related to size and physical durability for monsters whereas it represents skill and experience with PCs.  An Ogre may have 4 HD but has relatively little skill in combat.  I would expect a 4HD Hobgoblin Soldier on the other hand  to be just as offensively and defensively as a 4th level fighter. This would "remove" the treadmill for most people but still allow for equally skilled opponents to remain equals.  A more skilled combatant will also clearly see the benefit of his skill and experience when facing novice enemies.



Oddly, they have left in the +0 to +5 swing for stats to attack rolls, reduced base class bonuses and left in low level-based attack roll modifiers.  Halve the attack bonus from stats and you expand the level-based curve to help get rid of some dead levels.  Judging by the Ac in the bestiary it's not as if level 1 PCs will suffer that much and if they have more hp but lower attack rolls.
I am wondering why it is that this is such a great idea that needs to be applied to accuracy, yet these same people ignore, or even praise, the opposite being done with other aspects of the game. You're still getting meaningless +X bonuses that come automatically when you level up with no justification except your level and the need to keep up with the monster math. Why is this any different? 

Well, characters need to skill somehow if you higher levels are supposed to win over lower levels.  This way, everyone gets a semi-meaningful attack roll before dealing trivial damage, rather than simplifying the bookkeeping by just making those trivial attacks not hit.

Personally, I would propose a balanced approach, where everyone gets a steady +5 to hit/AC over the course of twenty levels, and then apply so-called "meaningful" bonuses on top of that.  Sure, you'd have to design at-level enemies to also have +5 to hit/AC, but because you have this additional avenue for expressing level difference it would mean you don't need quite so much meaningless damage/HP to keep things running.

The metagame is not the game.


Let me try this example. If I have misunderstood something somewhere please correct me; but I think this is what it's about.

Say controlling the flow of DPS is controlling water from a faucet. In older editions, this flow was controlled with both accuracy and damage, so basically you had two valves that could be turned. This created some odd things. If something had AC that was too high, it would completely shut off the accuracy valve and stop any progress of damage. (Run away!) Sometimes combos could be made where both accuracy and damage was high, basically unloading hundreds of damage in one turn. (In 3.5, was it shock trooper build or something? I forget.)

Controlling two valves like that was a mess to manage. Bounded accuracy is the act of removing the accuracy valve so damage is all they're managing. Sure, there are still a few touch ups to accuracy, but they are very minor and the system isn't designed around controlling its flow. KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid. (Such a mean saying, oh well.)


So yes, they are just moving those numbers that once were in accuracy over to damage. The reason why that is going to make it a better game is because it is way easier to control one valve than it is to manage two. Not to mention, the damage valve can't be shut off "crits only" style like accuracy could. So there's not really a point when it's hopeless for the PCs, nor a point when those low level mobs are nothing more than insufficient distractions. (Odds super against? Yes. Hopeless? No.)
Level is not ignored. Damage still grows, as do hit points. This means that lower level monsters can be used, and will still be dangerous against higher level characters, but the higher level the character the more of such monsters you will need to use.

Sorta.  Under this scheme, monsters 'fall of the cliff,' as it were, once they become so low-hp that they die to failed saves and other forms of auto-damage, becoming even less significant than 4e minions.  They become essentially minions when they become one-hit-kills, which, with so much damage scaling, could happen pretty quickly.  They're just slightly harder to manage minions, since they may still take 'half damge' and so forth, still roll damage themselves, etc.  It seems a little less absolute than in the old days when your AC pushed you up past 'natural 20 to hit,' on a lower-level monster's attack matrix, but it amounts the same thing.  Monsters may remain useable, but they very rapidly become trivial - indeed, it seems like a lot of them start out trivial, and that's also part of the design intent, as it makes combats quicker if challenges are trivial...



 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

The damage scale is an arbitrary increment used as a counterweight for a bland proof in scripted math. Or maybe I'm just over analyzing. Kadim nailed it.

You don't really understand how bounded accuracy works, do you? No thanks. Your suggestion is terrible and would create huge problems. Monsters would either be too hard to hit or too easy, and sometimes both (depending on the character). Many of those "optional" attack bonuses would in fact become build taxes. What exists now is much better. Bounded accuracy. Meanwhile, damage and hit points are what is unbounded. That has always been the goal. That is exactly what the game is giving us. And, I think it works great!




I think hit points should be unbounded but damage needs to be bounded if we have multiple attacks per turn.
I think you're misinterpreting the Martial Damage Bonus. It doesn't add to attack rolls, but to damage rolls.



I'll clarify that the same bonuses should apply to damage that apply to hit except the situation combat modifier bonuses.

My problem with all this is that the martial damage bonus is +20 and that is terrible.
I think I can safely dismiss your complaints about my suggestions.

Having a +20 bonus to damage is ridiculous and 5th edition will completely fail.

There are so many obviously wrong turns in this latest play-test that I may be tempted to start talking to Wizard's executive staff, who are personal friends of mine, again in order to shake things up.
I think I can safely dismiss your complaints about my suggestions.

Having a +20 bonus to damage is ridiculous and 5th edition will completely fail.

There are so many obviously wrong turns in this latest play-test that I may be tempted to start talking to Wizard's executive staff, who are personal friends of mine, again in order to shake things up.


Yeah, and take that "I don't like it so it will make DDN fail" attitude with you when you talk to them.  Cuz it makes you suuuper productive.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Well the +20 is a patch for the math.

I did some estimations for an average level fighter going all out againt an equal monster.
 
You average ~50-65% accuracy with each hit dealing ~20-35% of the enemy's HP in damage.

The problem...

High level monsters have 130-250 HP.

Weapons based PCs have to swing for 30-50 damage an attack with 1d8 weapons.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

If I'm understanding this correctly, the complaint is that to hit modifiers are lowered due to the so-called bounded accuracy, but we're still seeing inflated numbers due to HP and and damage bloat?

If that's the case, I think the obvious choice would be to, you know, lower the HP?  Instead of giving hit points and damage boosts every level, make HP based on constitution score, and make it so extremely large creatures like adult dragons have much higher constitution scores due to size alone.  That should help combat the "HP is abstract" bull that people like myself seem to dislike and deflate the numbers quite a bit.  Wouldn't lower numbers with less modifiers allow for easier math for balance purposes?

Edit:  This could also make damage dice more meaningful and weapon properties like reach and investing that darned 9th level polearm feat to get threatening reach an actual viable option.
If I'm understanding this correctly, the complaint is that to hit modifiers are lowered due to the so-called bounded accuracy, but we're still seeing inflated numbers due to HP and and damage bloat?

If that's the case, I think the obvious choice would be to, you know, lower the HP?  Instead of giving hit points and damage boosts every level, make HP based on constitution score, and make it so extremely large creatures like adult dragons have much higher constitution scores due to size alone.  That should help combat the "HP is abstract" bull that people like myself seem to dislike and deflate the numbers quite a bit.  Wouldn't lower numbers with less modifiers allow for easier math for balance purposes?

Edit:  This could also make damage dice more meaningful and weapon properties like reach and investing that darned 9th level polearm feat to get threatening reach an actual viable option.

This. Yes, please!

Down with inflation in all its forms!

Danny

I think I can safely dismiss your complaints about my suggestions.

Having a +20 bonus to damage is ridiculous and 5th edition will completely fail.

There are so many obviously wrong turns in this latest play-test that I may be tempted to start talking to Wizard's executive staff, who are personal friends of mine, again in order to shake things up.



Oh yeah buddy, and my uncle totally works at Nintendo.
Bonuses to attack are so powerful that having them forced the game to scale up monster AC. This allowed monsters to be used for a smaller amount of time, and created a problem we call “the treadmill.” Moving a lot of that to damage, and toning down just how much a bonus to attack advances, allows the same monsters to be used for longer. Level is not ignored. Damage still grows, as do hit points. This means that lower level monsters can be used, and will still be dangerous against higher level characters, but the higher level the character the more of such monsters you will need to use. This allows for more organic quest building. This is what we are seeing right now...

 Stick me firmly in the "I love bounded accuracy" camp. I also think that the size of the damage bonuses used right now are not a problem. It is still less math than any other edition of D&D to date.



I don't have a problem with the approach in itself and I think their version of it has had some interesting results that I'm interested to see develop. However, I don't believe for one moment that the treadmill will disappear. At best, it'll shift to a different set of numbers (HP/damage). Looking at the beastiary now, I see unique creatures designed to give max level dudes pause that shouldn't in any way be damaged by a level 1 character that can get damaged by a level 1 character.


Asmodeus is a good example here. He's got some great abilities that make the angry mob of farmers not matter, but I still don't like that he can be hit by a nonmagical pitchfork and take damage. If the mob is big enough and have slings, they can and will do significant enough damage to him to make him retreat. Honestly, that's lame.


I take comfort in the fact that this is enough of a debate to reflect as such in the surveys. I hope that enough people call this out as lame so as to force a big ol' red flag and another solution is found. Course, I also know that if they don't I will.

Bonuses to attack are so powerful that having them forced the game to scale up monster AC. This allowed monsters to be used for a smaller amount of time, and created a problem we call “the treadmill.” Moving a lot of that to damage, and toning down just how much a bonus to attack advances, allows the same monsters to be used for longer. Level is not ignored. Damage still grows, as do hit points. This means that lower level monsters can be used, and will still be dangerous against higher level characters, but the higher level the character the more of such monsters you will need to use. This allows for more organic quest building. This is what we are seeing right now...

 Stick me firmly in the "I love bounded accuracy" camp. I also think that the size of the damage bonuses used right now are not a problem. It is still less math than any other edition of D&D to date.



I don't have a problem with the approach in itself and I think their version of it has had some interesting results that I'm interested to see develop. However, I don't believe for one moment that the treadmill will disappear. At best, it'll shift to a different set of numbers (HP/damage). Looking at the beastiary now, I see unique creatures designed to give max level dudes pause that shouldn't in any way be damaged by a level 1 character that can get damaged by a level 1 character.


Asmodeus is a good example here. He's got some great abilities that make the angry mob of farmers not matter, but I still don't like that he can be hit by a nonmagical pitchfork and take damage. If the mob is big enough and have slings, they can and will do significant enough damage to him to make him retreat. Honestly, that's lame.


I take comfort in the fact that this is enough of a debate to reflect as such in the surveys. I hope that enough people call this out as lame so as to force a big ol' red flag and another solution is found. Course, I also know that if they don't I will.




In a bounded system it should come as no surprise that Asmodeus can be hit by peasants, if theiy are lucky, but he should be able to shrug off their low damage.  Nonetheless, they do seem to be looking at 1e (coupled with the 3e more detailed stats) for inspiration and many of the monsters do seem to have had their ACs lowered a bit too far.  In 1e the Prince of Devils effectively had AC27 and HP199 - but this was based on a rules set where damage was faily low and attack rolls for fighters at level 20 would be about +21 (although Asmodeus was probably a challenge for mid-teen characters).  In 5e if fighter attack rolls will be roughly +11 then AC17 looks right but the problem is that damage has scaled massively and magic resistance has been reduced in potency.  My own view is that they should split the difference and give him AC22 so that those peasants can just about hit in favourable circumstances - i.e. if they gang up to give each other advantage and their local cleric blesses them.  I still think he needs slightly increased hit points though.
.
In a bounded system it should come as no surprise that Asmodeus can be hit by peasants, if theiy are lucky, but he should be able to shrug off their low damage.  Nonetheless, they do seem to be looking at 1e (coupled with the 3e more detailed stats) for inspiration and many of the monsters do seem to have had their ACs lowered a bit too far.  In 1e the Prince of Devils effectively had AC27 and HP199 - but this was based on a rules set where damage was faily low and attack rolls for fighters at level 20 would be about +21 (although Asmodeus was probably a challenge for mid-teen characters).  In 5e if fighter attack rolls will be roughly +11 then AC17 looks right but the problem is that damage has scaled massively and magic resistance has been reduced in potency.  My own view is that they should split the difference and give him AC22 so that those peasants can just about hit in favourable circumstances - i.e. if they gang up to give each other advantage and their local cleric blesses them.  I still think he needs slightly increased hit points though.



22 AC would be totally fine. I'm not sure I agree about increased HP; the goal is to make combat fast. Still, against a mob like Asmodeus it's probably a little too fast.


I find myself falling into the camp of just dropping the martial damage bonus and lowering mob HP to match.

This is how I would change Balor. It isn't drastically different from the latest packet bestiary stats.
I would have 18th level characters conform to this rather than have a save bonus and a weapon attack bonus and a martial damage bonus of +20..

//Balor
Avatar('balor.png')
Race('huge humanoid demon')
Senses('dark vision 20')
Speed('f18 squares , w8')
Alignment('chaotic evil')
Languages('Abyssal, Common')
Xp()
Class('')
Level(18)
LvlMod('+2')
InitBonus('+2')
AC(16)
Str(26)
StrMod('+3')
Con(22)
ConMod('+2')
Dex(20)
DexMod('+2')
Int(20)
IntMod('+2')
Wis(16)
WisMod('+1')
Cha(22)
ChaMod('+2')
MaxHp(102)
CurHp(102)
Notes('multi-attack 2 main 2 off-hand per turn 1 reaction out of turn/ true seeing detect ethereal or invisible or poly-morph/ telepathy 20/immune fire, non-magical DR 10 lightning')
('flaming sword+4 main str vs ac ', '1d20+4', 'slashing fire damage', '1d10+4')
('flaming whip+4 off-hand str vs str', '1d20+4', 'fire damage, on hit, target is pulled 1d6 squares', '1d4+4')
('teleport reaction dex vs dex', '1d20+0', ' reduce damage by 2d6 and teleport to any square on the map', '1d0')

When the bonuses are added, Balor actually gets a +9 with his sword and a +8 with the whip to hit and to damage when you factor in his level bonus of +2 and his strength of +3 or dex of +2

If this Balor battled his clone, they could possibly do a maximum of 4+8, 4+8, 10+9, 10+9=62 damage per turn. If they rolled perfect damage, they could waste each other in 2 turns. Instead of just making up numbers and bonuses for hit points I just rolled 18d10=102