D&D 5e has failed

[Username17]

Bonus inflation or lack thereof is not going to make any difference as to whether you need bonus type discipline. Consider how necessary shields are in 5e. I think we can all agree that bonus inflation in 5e is about as close to no inflation as you can get. Pit Fiends have a +14 to-hit and aren't even off the RNG with respect to goblin brigands.

But of course when a magic shield gives four points of AC you can't get any other way, it's not negotiable. You're looking at having an AC in the twenties, so having an AC that is four points higher means that the incoming damage from the Pit Fiend is reduced by half.

If bonuses off any kind exist, you need to have discipline about their types and stacking. That's not something you can get around by making bonuses smaller. In fact, experience with 4e and 5e shows the reverse is true. If the only things in the game are +2 bonuses, people will lose their shit over getting or not getting a +2 bonus.

-Username17

[Seerow]

If the only things in the game are +2 bonuses, people will lose their shit over getting or not getting a +2 bonus.

Which is exactly what they wanted. To make every +1 more valuable.

[Ghremdal]

But that is fucking stupid. It just encourages one dimensional characters.

A +1 bonus makes a difference on a d20 roll once every 20 times. So for most of the rolls you won't even notice. Where you will notice is when you use that +1 a lot, that is with your primary attribute. So it just encourages every character to max their primary attribute and not give two fucks about the rest.

Yey, now we are in the realm where everyone will have a maxed primary attribute. How exciting.

[Stubbazubba]

If bonuses off any kind exist, you need to have discipline about their types and stacking. That's not something you can get around by making bonuses smaller. In fact, experience with 4e and 5e shows the reverse is true. If the only things in the game are +2 bonuses, people will lose their shit over getting or not getting a +2 bonus.

So if it's ideal to strictly limit bonus types and stacking, won't we just end up with a mad rush to max out what you are allowed, followed by a whole lot of nothing? If AC can only be improved by equipment so much, then won't people max it out relatively early and then stop caring? I can see how that's a little better than having to constantly invest more resources into AC just to stay on the RNG, but it also seems like yet another part of the game you care about at low level and then ignore the rest of the time. Am I missing something?

[Sam]

You can give people bigger numbers at higher level if you want. If players can get an AC bonus from magic spells OR a shield, then not everyone will have a shield. That's true even if the bonus starts at +2 and rises to +10 with levels. But if they can have a magic spell AND a shield, then everyone has a shield even if both give a +1 bonus.

[ACOS]

If bonuses off any kind exist, you need to have discipline about their types and stacking. That's not something you can get around by making bonuses smaller. In fact, experience with 4e and 5e shows the reverse is true. If the only things in the game are +2 bonuses, people will lose their shit over getting or not getting a +2 bonus.

So if it's ideal to strictly limit bonus types and stacking, won't we just end up with a mad rush to max out what you are allowed, followed by a whole lot of nothing? If AC can only be improved by equipment so much, then won't people max it out relatively early and then stop caring? I can see how that's a little better than having to constantly invest more resources into AC just to stay on the RNG, but it also seems like yet another part of the game you care about at low level and then ignore the rest of the time. Am I missing something?

Well, without re-aligning the scale of the allowable bonuses, all you would have to do to avoid this problem is simply slow down the pace at which characters are able to push towards the top of the scale.
There's the 2 levers: scale and speed of access.

[Username17]

If bonuses off any kind exist, you need to have discipline about their types and stacking. That's not something you can get around by making bonuses smaller. In fact, experience with 4e and 5e shows the reverse is true. If the only things in the game are +2 bonuses, people will lose their shit over getting or not getting a +2 bonus.

So if it's ideal to strictly limit bonus types and stacking, won't we just end up with a mad rush to max out what you are allowed, followed by a whole lot of nothing? If AC can only be improved by equipment so much, then won't people max it out relatively early and then stop caring? I can see how that's a little better than having to constantly invest more resources into AC just to stay on the RNG, but it also seems like yet another part of the game you care about at low level and then ignore the rest of the time. Am I missing something?

On the other hand, notice how people get all "meh" about a +1 to-hit in 3rd edition. If people routinely go off the RNG altogether, then getting a slightly larger bonus doesn't much matter. The more aggressively you fight bonus inflation, the more noticeable min/maxing becomes. Conversely, if you just embrace bonus inflation, min/maxing for another +1 here or there becomes pointless.

The thing where people get more than plenty of bonuses to hit and actually routinely frit them away for damage bonuses in 3rd edition is the most effective anti-min/max tool that any edition of Dungeons and Dragons has ever had. It is literally the only edition of D&D where two fighters can have strength scores four points apart and still have both feel like they are contributing (subject of course to the level caps beyond which fighters of any flavor become replaceable with the Wizard's charm minions).

-Username17

[fectin]

Ideal might be some sort of geometric increase in bonuses, so that wild divergences get obsoleted entirely.

[DSMatticus]

A +1 is 1/20th of a d20 always and forever. Speeding up the rate at which +1's are dropping from the sky will not obsolete divergences, it will accelerate them. You'll have to tinker with the RNG in some way to get the effect you're looking for.

[rapa-nui]

The more aggressively you fight bonus inflation, the more noticeable min/maxing becomes.

This is true (as in 4E) unless you fight it to the point where there's literally no way to gain more than a 5-10% to-hit advantage on a character of equal level and the lost advantage is made up in some relevant way.

3e's way worked, but pushed things into rocket launcher tag mode as you traded those irrelevant +1s into enough damage output to one-shot shit.

[rapa-nui]

A +1 is 1/20th of a d20 always and forever. Speeding up the rate at which +1's are dropping from the sky will not obsolete divergences, it will accelerate them. You'll have to tinker with the RNG in some way to get the effect you're looking for.

Correct, even if the Fighter is getting +421 to hit at level 15, that +1 he got from Weapon Spec. back at level 1 is still relevant if all the other numbers have been tweaked to make the d20 roll meaningful.

Now, if you had some weirdo scheme where past a certain level characters and NPC got abilities that DIVIDED attack bonuses, then it could work.

Eg

FTR 1 has +400 to hit. Encounters hydra with Legendary Defense(40), new baseline is 10 (400/40).

FTR 2 has +413 to hit. Encounters hydra with Legendary Defense(40), new baseline is 10 (413/40 rounded down).

This doesn't sound like a sane system though.

[Lago PARANOIA]

This is true (as in 4E) unless you fight it to the point where there's literally no way to gain more than a 5-10% to-hit advantage on a character of equal level and the lost advantage is made up in some relevant way.

Pffft, good luck with that one. I don't think any game more complicated than, say, FATE Core could maintain that kind of discipline for more than a year. Hell, I think this one is deserving of a Vizzini image macro: You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia," but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never design a rules-heavy TTRPG that falls apart if the bonuses aren't micromanaged!"

[fectin]

A +1 is 1/20th of a d20 always and forever. Speeding up the rate at which +1's are dropping from the sky will not obsolete divergences, it will accelerate them. You'll have to tinker with the RNG in some way to get the effect you're looking for.

Not necessarily - I can turn all the bonuses into stats, then make the RNG be d20+ln(stat). Not that it would be a good system for humans, but it's a clean example.

[rapa-nui]

I don't think any game more complicated than, say, FATE Core could maintain that kind of discipline for more than a year.

Probably true. There is always someone that wants an ability that gives a bigger number. It also makes it really hard to include any kind of Ability Score bonuses AND level bonuses into the calculation without severely restricting character building (e.g. "Fighters must start with 18 or 20 STR, anything else is not allowed.")

[Lago PARANOIA]

It also makes it really hard to include any kind of Ability Score bonuses AND level bonuses into the calculation without severely restricting character building (e.g. "Fighters must start with 18 or 20 STR, anything else is not allowed.")

People have proposed alternate systems that allow these kinds of Char-Gen bulges that don't necessarily dominate the entirety of the campaign -- Stat-XOR.

Unfortunately, even if you do that there's just little to get around the fact that players are going to prioritize the stats that give them the most benefit. You can mix it up a bit by having Cleric Archers and Psychic Warriors, but all you did was just shift the priority. Not the desirability of an 18 or 20.

[Seerow]

It also makes it really hard to include any kind of Ability Score bonuses AND level bonuses into the calculation without severely restricting character building (e.g. "Fighters must start with 18 or 20 STR, anything else is not allowed.")

People have proposed alternate systems that allow these kinds of Char-Gen bulges that don't necessarily dominate the entirety of the campaign -- Stat-XOR.

Unfortunately, even if you do that there's just little to get around the fact that players are going to prioritize the stats that give them the most benefit. You can mix it up a bit by having Cleric Archers and Psychic Warriors, but all you did was just shift the priority. Not the desirability of an 18 or 20.

I was working on a thing a while back where the +X bonus to RNG stuff capped out relatively early (like somewhere between +3 and +5), but every attribute had a few other factors:

1) A +X bonus that does not directly relate to the RNG (ie stuff like hit points, where getting more is nice, but not necessary to enjoyment of the game like being able to hit your target, or not failing every saving throw ever is).

2) 3 skills tied to each attribute, and skill rating restricted by your attribute modifier (each skill rating was much more impactful, such that having a rating 4 or 5 skill made you a badass and 6+ is genuinely epic stuff)

3) The feat equivalents of the system were tied to attributes. Every time you gained an odd attribute number, you gain one feat associated with that attribute (basically all feats were divided into 7 categories. One category for each attribute and a 7th universal category with a few generic choices. Some more powerful/epic feats would have higher attribute prerequisites)


This was combined with the attribute enhancement via leveling working on a scaling point buy system (so if a starting character has a 20 point buy, a level 20 character might have a 120 point buy, just as an example), which makes buying really high attributes expensive compared to buying a number of lower ones.

The idea was to encourage players to have a more diverse attribute array, while still providing a benefit to stacking a single stat if you wanted to go that way. Someone who stacks a single stat is going to be really good at things related to that stat, without just breaking the RNG on everything forever; while someone who takes a more diverse approach is going to be pretty decent at everything and have a deep toolbox made up of lots of tricks.

[Krakatoa]

unlike 4e, it does have issues.

Okay that's not exactly fair. 4E has plenty of issues too. But IMO 5E simply has the problem of not being very well thought-out. It seems like they were too busy trying to make it 'feel like D&D' that they forgot to make it mechanically sound.

[Mistborn]

Okay that's not exactly fair. 4E has plenty of issues too. But IMO 5E simply has the problem of not being very well thought-out. It seems like they were too busy trying to make it 'feel like D&D' that they forgot to make it mechanically sound.

Madokami in heaven! One of the 4e trolls came back to agree with us. I think that's a sign of the apocalypse. On the other hand I don't think that bounded accuracy can be laid at the feat of "feel like D&D". That one is Mearls breaking new ground on failure.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Hang around 2E D&D grognards more. When they're pressed into talking about the merits of their edition, once you tear down the 'blargh, we had useful fighters back then!' talking point the whole 'you kids are spoiled with your +30 attack rolls these days' talking point isn't far behind.

The lower numbers and constant DM-taintlicking because you can't reliably do or surpass anything definitely 'feels' like classic D&D. In much the same way that rum, sodomy, and cat o' nine tails 'feels' like the classic British Navy. And bounded accuracy is a pretty good way to enforce that feeling.

[Mistborn]

Hang around 2E D&D grognards more. When they're pressed into talking about the merits of their edition, once you tear down the 'blargh, we had useful fighters back then!' talking point the whole 'you kids are spoiled with your +30 attack rolls these days' talking point isn't far behind.

Wait didn't 2e fighters go off the RNG as they leveled that same way their 3e counterparts did? I thought that 2e fighters had what was essentially 1/1 bab.

The lower numbers and constant DM-taintlicking because you can't reliably do or surpass anything definitely 'feels' like classic D&D. In much the same way that rum, sodomy, and cat o' nine tails 'feels' like the classic British Navy. And bounded accuracy is a pretty good way to enforce that feeling.

I think I want to sig this anyway.

[OgreBattle]

Wait didn't 2e fighters go off the RNG as they leveled that same way their 3e counterparts did? I thought that 2e fighters had what was essentially 1/1 bab.

If anything it seems like in AD&D2e it was a lot more straight forward and less fiddly to make a Fighter that could kill things through sheer hitpoint damage:

Bow Optimization

-Sylvan Elf - Get a +1 to Strength and Dex and -1 to Con and Charisma on top of the +1 to Dex and -1 to Con being an elf gets.

-Elves Racial ability - +1 to hit with a bow

-Strength of 18 gets you +1 to hit, +2 to damage while 18/00 is +3 to hit and +6 damage.

-Dexterity of 18 gets you +2 to hit. No bonuses for 18/00.

-Bow Specialization (Fighter's Handbook) pg 58 - You get +1 to hit and +2 to damage, but specializing in bows requires two slots. When firing at a range of 6-30 feet, you get an additional +2 to hit and if there is a enemy in sight, you can fire a shot off before initiative is rolled. (only fighters, paladins and rangers can take this.)

-Weapon Specialization (Player's Handbook) pg 52 - +1 to hit and +2 to damage. With a bow, you gain a point blank category (6-60 feet). In this range, you get +2 to attack. (Essentially the same as Bow Specializtion).

-Double-Arrow Shot (Complete book of Elves) pg 73 - Take a +1 penalty to initiative and -1 to hit & damage to fire two arrows at the same time. Both arrows can directed towards the same target.

-Archer Kit (Complete book of Elves) pg 84 - Can fire faster at 5/2 rather than 2/1. If you stand still, you can increase the rate of fire to 3/1. If you want to do a trick shot, you not only gain the usual bonus for specialization and high Dexterity but a +1 to attack for every 4 experience levels. If you care for your bow and arrow for more than a month (aka, they aren't new) then your arrows cause an additional 1hp in damage each attack.

-Enspelled Arrows - (Complete book of Elves) pg 105 - Fire Seeds: When the arrow strikes the target, the seeds detonate for 2d8 damage in a 10 foot radius. If the arrow hits an enemy, they take 1d4 damage as well as the 2d8 from the fire seed. The victim doesn't get a saving throw for half-damage. [You'll have to find this as you can't make them, maybe a druid can?]

-Bowyer/Fletcher, Crude Skill (Complete Barbarian's Handbook) - lets you make your own incendiary/poison arrows. 5 of them a day. (Incindiary arrows do 1 extra point of fire damage with a save vs. death magic, Poison Arrows do 2d4 damge with a save vs. poison to negate.

-Player's Handbook Bowyer/Fletcher - pg 58 - You can create your own bow that adds your Strength bonuses to attack and damage, the range is increased 10 yards as well.

-Weapon Specialization - pg 18 (Unearthed Arcana) - Point blank is still +2 to hit but now any damage you do against a target within point blank range does double damage (plus bonuses from strength).

-Double Specialization - pg 18 (Unearthed Arcana - Normally only melee fighters can take this but in the games I've played before, I was able to get this as a ranged fighter. Gives an additional +3 to hit and +3 to damage.

-Weapon Mastery (Skills & Powers) - You gain +2 attack on all ranges beyond point blank. At point blank range, you gain +3 attack and damage.

-Sheaf Arrows (Skills & Powers and I think in the PHB as well) - 1d8 damage and cost 3 silver for 6 instead of 3 silver for 12 like normal arrows.

-Quick Fire (Complete book of Elves) - Faster Rate of Fire. The first shot in a round is made at no penalty. The second shot is at -2. The third is at -4.The fourth is at -8, fifth shot penalty for it is -16. The archer gets off two shots on his first attack sequence. When all combatants have finished their first attacks, the archer may take the next two. Finally, after everyone has completed their second attacks, the archer may take one final shot. In such magically enhanced cases with haste, the first two shots are without penalty. The third and fourth are at -2. The fifth and sixth are at -4. The seventh is at -8. The eighth (and final) is at -16.

Your rate of fire is 5/2 (5 attacks every other round, 2 attacks every round [ex: your first barrage of arrows, you fire 2, next round, you fire 5, round after that, you fire 2 and so on]). In total, you'll be firing extra arrows per shot which is essentially 4 for the odd rounds and 10 for the even rounds.

With Quick Draw, you basically get another 8 shots with a slight penalty for the 8th (-4 as taken from the list below). Those 8 arrows are doubled up on each attack so realistically, that's another 16 arrows each doing near full damage (-1 damage from Double Arrow Shot).

This jumps up with haste but I'm not sure how by how much. I think it's an additional attack which would be 2 more arrows with Double Arrow Shot.

In Total, without haste, you'll be firing 12 arrows odd rounds and 34 arrows every even round.

To hit:
Elf +1
Strength 18 +1
Dexterity 18 +2
Bow Specialization +2 or +4 within 60 feet
Archer Kit +1 every 4 levels
Double Specicalization +3
Weapon Mastery +3
Double Arrow Shot -1
Total: 14 (at point blank range and only counting the first level of the Archer Kit)


Damage:
Strength 18 +2
Bow Specialization +2
Archer Kit +1
Bowyer Fletcher, Crude +2d4
Weapon Specialization +2d8 (double the sheaf arrows damage)
Double Specialization +3
Weapon Mastery +3
Double Arrow Shot +1d8 (for the additional arrow)
Double Arrow Shot -1
Total: 10+2d4+2d8 (Min: 14, Max: 34)

Total damage:
Odd Rounds: 12 arrows, Min: 168 damage, Max: 408
Even Rounds: 34 arrows, Min: 476, Max: 1,156

And this is in the edition where the spider demon-queen goddess lolth has 66 hitpoints.

[Ravengm]

Wait didn't 2e fighters go off the RNG as they leveled that same way their 3e counterparts did? I thought that 2e fighters had what was essentially 1/1 bab.

My memory is spotty on this, bearWorld with me if my facts are wrong.

Your THAC0 never really got below a 4, I think. So at worst, you're hitting an AC of -10 on a 14. When you factor in bonuses to hit from STR (+3 at 18/00) and a magic weapon (+5 if we're generous), you still need to roll a 6 to hit AC -10. You could probably find a bullshit bonus or two, but I'm not well-versed enough in 2E cheese to find it. You'd still have to make up for a +6 bonus to actually go off the RNG though.

[hamstertamer]

Hang around 2E D&D grognards more. When they're pressed into talking about the merits of their edition, once you tear down the 'blargh, we had useful fighters back then!' talking point the whole 'you kids are spoiled with your +30 attack rolls these days' talking point isn't far behind.

Wait didn't 2e fighters go off the RNG as they leveled that same way their 3e counterparts did? I thought that 2e fighters had what was essentially 1/1 bab.

The lower numbers and constant DM-taintlicking because you can't reliably do or surpass anything definitely 'feels' like classic D&D. In much the same way that rum, sodomy, and cat o' nine tails 'feels' like the classic British Navy. And bounded accuracy is a pretty good way to enforce that feeling.

I think I want to sig this anyway.

The fighter's "to hit" progression has been the same for Ad&d, 2nd, and 3rd. After that D&d went off the reservation. But before some retard tells you different. Ad&d GM's guide explains all that away... (pg 74)

Special Note Regarding Fighters' Progression: This table is designed to allow fighters to advance by 5% per level of experience attained, rather than 10% every 2 levels, if you believe that such will be helpful in your particular campaign. If you opt for a per level advancement in combat ability, simply use the table but give a +1 "to hit" bonus to fighters who attain the second level of experience shown in each group of 2 levels, i.e.1-2, 3-4, etc. You may, of course, elect not to allow per level combat advancement.

[rapa-nui]

You may, of course, elect not to allow per level combat advancement.

Thanks for that, I actually laughed out loud. Toppest of keks.

This is why people play 3.x/Pathfinder, because it was the first sane system that did things in a way that made any kind of fucking sense.

[Night Goat]

unlike 4e, it does have issues.

Okay that's not exactly fair. 4E has plenty of issues too. But IMO 5E simply has the problem of not being very well thought-out. It seems like they were too busy trying to make it 'feel like D&D' that they forgot to make it mechanically sound.

I'm impressed by how spectacularly you've misread my sentence. Here's the whole thing:

I've played a one-shot of 5e, and while it's a playable game unlike 4e, it does have issues.

I wasn't saying that 5e has issues and 4e doesn't. I was saying that 5e is a playable game and 4e isn't.