An idea for A bounded accuracy compromise

So it seems to me that this argument over the bounded accuracy is one that is not healthy for the game.  While I for the most part like the effect of it on the game (keep the numbers low and reasonable), I do not like the effect that it has on the fan base (keeps everyone arguing and at odds).

So with that in mind I thought of a compromise that might mollify both sides. 

How about; let the PC's attack bonus go up by say +1 per two levels (like 4th edition) and keep the monster AC's like they are (bounded).  Now of course, that means the PC would start hitting at a more regular rate throughout their careers and would mean wildly swingy at low levels and rarely missing at high levels, which is exactly the point.  Let PCs hit more regularly as they advance, let them feel like they are getting better.  Of course this would mean that you would need to pull back a bit on the damage dealing bonus and re-balance the encounters.  But I feel like this is a more natural feeling system than the one that is being proposed.

Just a thought.

BTW, Don't bother responding with "the system is set in stone".  I know that is probably true but I had to try anyhow if for nothing else but to get this out of my head.
So it seems to me that this argument over the bounded accuracy is one that is not healthy for the game.  While I for the most part like the effect of it on the game (keep the numbers low and reasonable), I do not like the effect that it has on the fan base (keeps everyone arguing and at odds).

So with that in mind I thought of a compromise that might mollify both sides. 

How about; let the PC's attack bonus go up by say +1 per two levels (like 4th edition) and keep the monster AC's like they are (bounded).  Now of course, that means the PC would start hitting at a more regular rate throughout their careers and would mean wildly swingy at low levels and rarely missing at high levels, which is exactly the point.  Let PCs hit more regularly as they advance, let them feel like they are getting better.  Of course this would mean that you would need to pull back a bit on the damage dealing bonus and re-balance the encounters.  But I feel like this is a more natural feeling system than the one that is being proposed.

Just a thought.

BTW, Don't bother responding with "the system is set in stone".  I know that is probably true but I had to try anyhow if for nothing else but to get this out of my head.



The problem is some of us don't want to go back to +1/2 level like 4E. We just don't want there to be bounds. We wouldn't mind if Fighters scaled faster than Rogues. We don't mind that clerics don't scale in magic as fast as Wizards. We do mind that they remove 2 out of 4 variables (attack bonus and AC out of attack bonus, AC, HitPoints, and damage) and shift all the problems and math into the other 2 variables (HitPoints and damage).

We mind that we can only be half as creative and there is little difference between a low level character and a high level character. So while your solution would work, its not the optimal solution...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
There are many things we are at odds about. Take away bounded accuracy and the boards will just argue over something else.
My two copper.
There are many things we are at odds about. Take away bounded accuracy and the boards will just argue over something else.



Great positive post Jenks...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
There are many things we are at odds about. Take away bounded accuracy and the boards will just argue over something else.



Great positive post Jenks...


I was just making sure he knew that stopping the argument about bounded accuracy wouldn't magically stop board rage

I'm all up for comprimising and whatnot. I just wanted to be clear.

Edit: @OP: The design intent is for damage to scale to make the characters feel like they are getting better. There's no reason that you have to have accuracy increases to feel like a superior character. Mainly it comes down to the simple fact that hitting something for little damage, but hitting it often, can be a bit disheartening. But missing something a lot, because defenses and accuracy scale, is downright frustrating. Player frustration is much more likely to make players get up and walk away from the game. So really it's the lesser of two evils, and a good choice in my eyes.

Just like the skills change, damage scaling instead of accuracy will take some time for people to get used to. But in the end, it doesn't make a large difference and actually makes the game less frustrating to play. Win-Win. 
My two copper.
As someone who doesn't like BA and therefore someone I imagine this "compromise" is supposed to bring closer into the fold, I think it's worth pointing out that I actually like this idea less than what we have now.  My problem with BA is not that I don't feel that my character is getting better, and so allowing his accuracy to outpace monster defenses even faster than it does now only makes things worse.  My problem has more to do with the fact that defenses do not go up and that high level non-casters are not capable of doing anything that low-level non-casters can't do besides deal and absorb massive damage.  Making them hit the same ACs more often doesn't solve that, so it isn't much of a compromise.

@lokiare- I don't totally disagree with you about having more slides on the classes that help in differentiating them.  But I actually don’t mind to hit being a big touchstone between classes.  The idea that a wizard is as accurate with a spell as a fighter is with his sword works for me provided the reverse is of course not true as well.  There always has been and will always be bounds, even in 1e the bounds were between wizard and fighter which widened as they went up levels.  It generally didn't matter to the wizard since there were very few spells that required wizards to need to hit anything.  But if you are going to make each class roll to hit something then you need paralleling of skill in that thing.  That is why I am fine with all classes going up at the same rate; it’s the proficiency that is where the change needs to be.

@Jenks- I had no illusions that if I could just get this one thing worked out then everyone would join hands and sing Kumbaya.  I picked a battle in which I had something to say.

On your second point, I think that hitting more often IS a pretty satisfying thing, more satisfying than hitting less often and doing a bunch of damage when you finally connect.  As far as the damage done per attack, I am not thinking that battles would end up being 'pink'-fests that take forever.  On the other hand if you increase the rate of a characters to-hit-ratio something else has to give otherwise you have just made them more powerful than before.  The obvious starting spot is to move the damage slide down a tick but I am open to other suggestions. 

I am a huge fan of shorter combats which is why I didn't like 4e.  So I am not proposing drawing out combats.  If anything I would reduce hit points before a lot of other things.

@powerroleplayer- The whole defense thing is one of the things I thought 4th edition did well.  I am fine with AC going up with levels as well.  But then, I think hit points would have to go down and then you’re dealing with monsters missing a lot and then walloping characters when they finally connect.  The bottom line on that is, I just don't want to go back to monsters having arbitrarily high AC for the sole reason that they need it to face the high-level characters.




Like almost everything else in the game, even the concept of bounded accuracy needs to be tinkered with to find the "sweet spot".

There is no denying that keeping the numbers (ac, to hit, I'd even argue Hit Points and Damage) more contained is easier on the DM.   That's important.

I think WoTC just needs to experiment (playtest) different bounded solutions.    They should start at the highest level and then work their way down to see what makes low level play and higher level play seem most satisfying.      Should AC stretch from 10-20?   10-25?   5-20?    1-20?    Should 20th level fighters have 170 hp?   Should they have 120 hit points?    Should 20th level fighters have a +15 to hit or a +10 to hit?    

When they play with the numbers, I'm sure there will be a point where most levels feel good.   It will just take time to figure it out.


          

A Brave Knight of WTF

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

Like almost everything else in the game, even the concept of bounded accuracy needs to be tinkered with to find the "sweet spot".

There is no denying that keeping the numbers (ac, to hit, I'd even argue Hit Points and Damage) more contained is easier on the DM.   That's important.

I think WoTC just needs to experiment (playtest) different bounded solutions.    They should start at the highest level and then work their way down to see what makes low level play and higher level play seem most satisfying.      Should AC stretch from 10-20?   10-25?   5-20?    1-20?    Should 20th level fighters have 170 hp?   Should they have 120 hit points?    Should 20th level fighters have a +15 to hit or a +10 to hit?    

When they play with the numbers, I'm sure there will be a point where most levels feel good.   It will just take time to figure it out.

I agree. The degree of accuracy boundedness that we currently see might not be the one in the final. R&D are doing a lot of internal stress testing on the game math right now.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

There are many things we are at odds about. Take away bounded accuracy and the boards will just argue over something else.



Great positive post Jenks...


I was just making sure he knew that stopping the argument about bounded accuracy wouldn't magically stop board rage

I'm all up for comprimising and whatnot. I just wanted to be clear.

Edit: @OP: The design intent is for damage to scale to make the characters feel like they are getting better. There's no reason that you have to have accuracy increases to feel like a superior character. Mainly it comes down to the simple fact that hitting something for little damage, but hitting it often, can be a bit disheartening. But missing something a lot, because defenses and accuracy scale, is downright frustrating. Player frustration is much more likely to make players get up and walk away from the game. So really it's the lesser of two evils, and a good choice in my eyes.

Just like the skills change, damage scaling instead of accuracy will take some time for people to get used to. But in the end, it doesn't make a large difference and actually makes the game less frustrating to play. Win-Win. 



Its true... that stuff is frustrating... that's why D&D has never been a popular TTRPG.  Because that steep power scale is too frustrating.

The proof is in the pudding.  1e, 2e and 3e all had a pretty steep accuracy scale, 4e cut this pretty much in half, and 4e then became the most popular edition of D&D ever made.  See?  It makes perfect sense.

I agree with Plaguescarred and Lord_Malkov. I think there is a sweet spot and I probably haven’t nailed it but I do feel that the current iteration hasn't nailed it either.  I feel that as it stands it is too shallow and they are leaning too hard on this notion that characters should have about a 50% chance to hit anything they are fighting that will challenge them. 

While we are at it, I feel the armor classes of the monsters seem too tightly bounded.  It seems like they are afraid to go lower than 10 or higher than 19 which is a pretty small range.  Now I am not saying it should go up as the monsters get tougher like previous edition's (3e and 4e I'm looking at you), but dragons need to have some of the highest AC's of the game, not the basically the same as an armored up orc.  On the same note, a mind flayer with its gooey, rubbery skin should have an un armored human type AC.


Just a thought.



Going back to a 1/2 level bonus would make the math needlessly high again and that wasn't good in the last edition.
I would be willing to settle for +1 lvl bonus every 5 levels applied to all rolls except off-hand damage rolls.

And if that is granted, I demand that all ability rolls are reduced to a maximum of +5 ability bonus.

I will also grant you all the land from here to the sea if you enforce the king's will. Kidding.


@powerroleplayer- The whole defense thing is one of the things I thought 4th edition did well.  I am fine with AC going up with levels as well.  But then, I think hit points would have to go down and then you’re dealing with monsters missing a lot and then walloping characters when they finally connect.  The bottom line on that is, I just don't want to go back to monsters having arbitrarily high AC for the sole reason that they need it to face the high-level characters.




Thats the balance you have to find.
1e, 2e and 3e all had a pretty steep accuracy scale, 4e cut this pretty much in half, and 4e then became the most popular edition of D&D ever made.



Is this an April Fools thing?




Ooh, yeah I guess the sarcasm may have been missed there....   I thought it was pretty obvious, but I always do from the keyboard side.

Yeah that was a cynical sarcastic post.... sorry for any confusion. 
As someone mostly just observing the playtest packets I really like the goal of Bounded Accuracy, and the way it allows substanially weaker or stronger monsters or characters to share a field without making one side seem pointless.

The main complaint that seems to come up about it is that the differences in bonuses between characters just seem too small, or their isn't enough difference etc.. With the common solution being to suggest increasing the rate the numbers change. It isn't the only soultion though. The reason the current numbers feel small is because of the variance and range of a d20 is so large. So an alternative (one I would wager someone has said before but I don't see mentioned very often, if ever in here) would be to roll something other than a d20. Call it a "Curved Rolling" or "Precision Checks" module and instead of rolling a d20 roll something else. The common alterantive I know of is to roll 3d6, the average reult is the same and the range is similar, but the variance is a lot smaller meaning you will see a lot more 10s and 11s than 8s or 13s, which can make those +1s a lot more valuable, and turn a small advantage into a large one.  For example, if you have a +6 and need a 14, rolling a d20 you have a 65% chance of sucess of success, while rolling 3d6 you have a 84% chance of succes. While a farmer (or what have you) with a -1 and needing a 14 has a 30% of success rolling a d20 and a 9% chance of success rolling 3d6. You could also do something like roll 3d4+3 or d6+7 both have the same average as a d20 but reduce the variance and range of outcomes.

Personally I could see using something like the above for skill checks or skill competitions (like an archery contest) where you want characters to be more reliable but still involve chance, and stick to the d20 for combat where the "swingy-ness" can feel more appropiate.  
I think it's sensible to wait to see what the final maths turns out like before judging whether the system is a success or failure.  Early editions had a step curve but they were rarely played all the way to the top.  The rapidly scaling XP tables of new editions and cool stuff for all classes at the top makes that a more desirable goal so they have to work to make sure the system still stands up.

My personal view is that looking at 1e AC ranks is a better guide for DDN because a lot of the monsters seem to have been scaled back to those HD but with lower ACs and higher damage.  If you tease up the character attack rolls and tease the upper limit of monster AC ranks you can regain some element of scaling but it would be a huge mistake to think the scaling from 4e could work alongside the damage scaling we have in DDN. 

My personal preference (subject to seeing the final maths) would be to halve the attack roll bonus gained from ability scores.  Once the maximum bonus is +2 at 20 stength etc, you have an additional 3 points to feed back into scaling.  Increase high end martial characters to +2 attack roll at level 2, and every other level after and you end up with +11 at level 20 with +2 from stats and a max of +3 from magic, for +16 (compared to +5+5+3 = +13 at the moment).  Second tier attacks can be +2 at level 3 and every 3 levels thereafter for +8 at level 20 and low end attacks can be +1 at level 4 and every 4 levels for +5 at level 20.  Then if for example Asmodeus' AC is teased up to say AC24 (with an upper cap of AC25 based on the theory of max natural armour +10, max dex bonus +10, size bonuses and penalties, and an increase of +1 to natural armour if wearing light armour, +2 if wearing medium (max dex +2) and +3 heavy (no dex) or the armour AC, whichever is better) you would move from hitting him on a roll of 4 to hitting him on a roll of 8, while average level 1 characters move from hitting him on a roll of 13 to hitting only on a natural 20.  I think there needs to be different ways to reach the cap but AC25 is a sensible place to pitch a cap.

There is enough guidance behind the curtain in 3e to work out figures.  Some monster ACs were artificially high with massive natural armour bonuses in 3e just to be challenging for the massive attack bonuses.  Compare the silly ones to tough monsters from the first 3e MM and cap natural armour at +10 (with damage resistance if you still want the monster to be really tough - just avoid hp inflation as well) and I reckon most monsters will come out ok.

FYI halving attack bonuses also takes care of the belt of giant strength problem since the additional bonus to attack ends up being +4 or something.

One other possibility is to add in an additional +1 to attack rolls at level 1 either across the board or for proficient weapons to front load attack rolls a bit more and maybe +1 to all saves at levels 10 and 20

I'm not sure how the maths will work out overall and they still need to sort out damage inflation but I think meeting bounded accuracy in the middle could work with minimal effort.

I will also grant you all the land from here to the sea if you enforce the king's will. Kidding.



I was getting ready to take you up on that offer.  And that's even assuming that you'd be the king!  Wink
How about; let the PC's attack bonus go up by say +1 per two levels (like 4th edition) and keep the monster AC's like they are (bounded).


By 10th level, martial characters would hardly ever mss anything.  Just to keep things challenging, you'd have to start scaling monster AC.  Also, to keep things challenging, you'd have to scale monster attack bonuses. 

Also, I don't think it would improve the internet fanbase. All you'd be doing is appeasing some people who currently don't like BA, and offending some who currently do.
Like almost everything else in the game, even the concept of bounded accuracy needs to be tinkered with to find the "sweet spot".

There is no denying that keeping the numbers (ac, to hit, I'd even argue Hit Points and Damage) more contained is easier on the DM.   That's important.

I think WoTC just needs to experiment (playtest) different bounded solutions.    They should start at the highest level and then work their way down to see what makes low level play and higher level play seem most satisfying.      Should AC stretch from 10-20?   10-25?   5-20?    1-20?    Should 20th level fighters have 170 hp?   Should they have 120 hit points?    Should 20th level fighters have a +15 to hit or a +10 to hit?    

When they play with the numbers, I'm sure there will be a point where most levels feel good.   It will just take time to figure it out.

I agree. The degree of accuracy boundedness that we currently see might not be the one in the final. R&D are doing a lot of internal stress testing on the game math right now.



I really hope you are right
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
How about; let the PC's attack bonus go up by say +1 per two levels (like 4th edition) and keep the monster AC's like they are (bounded).


By 10th level, martial characters would hardly ever mss anything.  Just to keep things challenging, you'd have to start scaling monster AC.  Also, to keep things challenging, you'd have to scale monster attack bonuses. 

Also, I don't think it would improve the internet fanbase. All you'd be doing is appeasing some people who currently don't like BA, and offending some who currently do.




well wotc has a tradition of offending some to appease others with alignment, at will casting, healing of hps by every character class, modern multiclass system. now some of these things worked but things like healing and multiclassing led to insane character combinations with some characters having 5 or 6 classes how can this be realistically done
I think it's sensible to wait to see what the final maths turns out like before judging whether the system is a success or failure.  Early editions had a step curve but they were rarely played all the way to the top.  The rapidly scaling XP tables of new editions and cool stuff for all classes at the top makes that a more desirable goal so they have to work to make sure the system still stands up.

My personal view is that looking at 1e AC ranks is a better guide for DDN because a lot of the monsters seem to have been scaled back to those HD but with lower ACs and higher damage.  If you tease up the character attack rolls and tease the upper limit of monster AC ranks you can regain some element of scaling but it would be a huge mistake to think the scaling from 4e could work alongside the damage scaling we have in DDN. 

My personal preference (subject to seeing the final maths) would be to halve the attack roll bonus gained from ability scores.  Once the maximum bonus is +2 at 20 stength etc, you have an additional 3 points to feed back into scaling.  Increase high end martial characters to +2 attack roll at level 2, and every other level after and you end up with +11 at level 20 with +2 from stats and a max of +3 from magic, for +16 (compared to +5+5+3 = +13 at the moment).  Second tier attacks can be +2 at level 3 and every 3 levels thereafter for +8 at level 20 and low end attacks can be +1 at level 4 and every 4 levels for +5 at level 20.  Then if for example Asmodeus' AC is teased up to say AC24 (with an upper cap of AC25 based on the theory of max natural armour +10, max dex bonus +10, size bonuses and penalties, and an increase of +1 to natural armour if wearing light armour, +2 if wearing medium (max dex +2) and +3 heavy (no dex) or the armour AC, whichever is better) you would move from hitting him on a roll of 4 to hitting him on a roll of 8, while average level 1 characters move from hitting him on a roll of 13 to hitting only on a natural 20.  I think there needs to be different ways to reach the cap but AC25 is a sensible place to pitch a cap.

There is enough guidance behind the curtain in 3e to work out figures.  Some monster ACs were artificially high with massive natural armour bonuses in 3e just to be challenging for the massive attack bonuses.  Compare the silly ones to tough monsters from the first 3e MM and cap natural armour at +10 (with damage resistance if you still want the monster to be really tough - just avoid hp inflation as well) and I reckon most monsters will come out ok.

FYI halving attack bonuses also takes care of the belt of giant strength problem since the additional bonus to attack ends up being +4 or something.

One other possibility is to add in an additional +1 to attack rolls at level 1 either across the board or for proficient weapons to front load attack rolls a bit more and maybe +1 to all saves at levels 10 and 20

I'm not sure how the maths will work out overall and they still need to sort out damage inflation but I think meeting bounded accuracy in the middle could work with minimal effort.



So then strength bonuses would be more like 2e bonuses a smaller bonus to hit and a bigger bonus to damage.  I could see that.


@powerroleplayer- The whole defense thing is one of the things I thought 4th edition did well.  I am fine with AC going up with levels as well.  But then, I think hit points would have to go down and then you’re dealing with monsters missing a lot and then walloping characters when they finally connect.  The bottom line on that is, I just don't want to go back to monsters having arbitrarily high AC for the sole reason that they need it to face the high-level characters.




Thats the balance you have to find.



The balance I want is the ability to have a stone golem with an 25 AC that is hard to hit enough to damage it and has 30 HP yet be able to have a hill giant that has a 12 AC but have 65 HP. I want the flexibility to use all the variables to make monsters that take different tactics to defeat. I want that golem to hit AC 14 on a 10 and deal average damage while I want that hill giant to hit AC 14 on a 16 but deal a lot of damage. I want the monsters to be differentiated. I want to use all the variables instead of just two (damage and hit points). That and the ability to see the difference between fighting an Orc at level 1 and level 5 and feeling like I got better because I gained a few levels is what I want and bounded accuracy doesn't allow that...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
How about; let the PC's attack bonus go up by say +1 per two levels (like 4th edition) and keep the monster AC's like they are (bounded).


By 10th level, martial characters would hardly ever mss anything.  Just to keep things challenging, you'd have to start scaling monster AC.  Also, to keep things challenging, you'd have to scale monster attack bonuses. 

Also, I don't think it would improve the internet fanbase. All you'd be doing is appeasing some people who currently don't like BA, and offending some who currently do.



All I'm asking for is an advanced module that fixes this problem for those of us that want heroic games instead of gritty games. I don't think my request is unreasonable, unfortunately Mearls appears to think it is...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.

Just a thought.



Going back to a 1/2 level bonus would make the math needlessly high again and that wasn't good in the last edition.
I would be willing to settle for +1 lvl bonus every 5 levels applied to all rolls except off-hand damage rolls.

And if that is granted, I demand that all ability rolls are reduced to a maximum of +5 ability bonus.

I will also grant you all the land from here to the sea if you enforce the king's will. Kidding.



well this pretty much already in the game with the weapon attack and spelcasting bonuses.
having these already is a consesion to having more scaling then going fully bounded.

if they went fully bound it might have looked somthing like this.
weapons have a proficiency bonus like a flat +3 to hit with a weapon in witch you are proficient instead of the weapon attack bonus.
There would be increases but only within the bounds for example with ability score increases but the maximum of 20 for a ability score would be maintained being unable to increase a ability score above that.
so the maximum to hit that could be achieved would be +8  (+5 ability score +3 proficiency).
If the players manage to get magical weapons this could increase to +11 but the bonus from magic would not be taken into acount when designing monsters.
 

@wrecan, would it be such a bad thing that high level characters hit pretty regularly?


The attack damage and/or monster hit points would have to be bumped to remain a challenge but that is the whole point of this thread. To go from wildly swingy at early levels to hits pretty regularly at higher levels feels like progression to the player and allows the monster's stats to remain a little more flat.


Now having said that, i still do feel that there does need to be a bigger range in monster's AC to give them a more individual feel and maybe some maneuvers for the PC's that bump the to-hit while sacrificing damage (maybe advantage to attack, disadvantage to damage or vice versa) this would allow them to be able to take on a wider range of AC's.




@wrecan, would it be such a bad thing that high level characters hit pretty regularly?



I think it would make it very difficult to create challenging encounters. You have to exponentially increase monster hit points and that can make combats feel like slogs.

That's always the danger, but I would counter that danger by reducing the steep damage bump that the classes get.  This should fix the damage creep and it  might even get rid of it.  I have not been a real big fan of the damage bump anyhow, it feels to artificial to me.
How about; let the PC's attack bonus go up by say +1 per two levels (like 4th edition) and keep the monster AC's like they are (bounded).


By 10th level, martial characters would hardly ever mss anything.  Just to keep things challenging, you'd have to start scaling monster AC.  Also, to keep things challenging, you'd have to scale monster attack bonuses. 

Also, I don't think it would improve the internet fanbase. All you'd be doing is appeasing some people who currently don't like BA, and offending some who currently do.



All I'm asking for is an advanced module that fixes this problem for those of us that want heroic games instead of gritty games. I don't think my request is unreasonable, unfortunately Mearls appears to think it is...



You will have to wait.... someday they will try to make a modular D&D ruleset that will attempt to appeal to all playstyles and fans of all editions. Yell