Community

Mar 2, 2013 -- 7:03PM, Plaguescarred wrote:

Mar 2, 2013 -- 5:44PM, Rhenny wrote:

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

Mar 3, 2013 -- 1:41AM, pauln6 wrote:

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.

Mar 3, 2013 -- 5:04AM, wrecan wrote:

Mar 2, 2013 -- 12:02PM, T_rex wrote:

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...