PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next Taking bounded accuracy seriously



PhoenixPhyre
2022-04-24, 11:45 PM
If I were king of D&D 5e (which I'm not, and everyone should be grateful for that fact), I'd consider doing the following.

1. There are no more stacking, numerical modifiers to attack rolls (of any kind), ability checks, saving throw DCs, saving throws, or armor class OTHER THAN your ability modifier and proficiency. This means that all of these "accuracy" rolls are entirely governed by a static number (calculated from ability scores and proficiency or a fixed armor value) and the dice roll.
2. If multiple effects allows you to add a die other than a d20 to an attack roll, saving throw, or ability check, they don't stack. Bless + Bardic inspiration + guidance? Choose your die. And most of these should grant advantage instead Edit: or just flat go away. Same for die-based maluses. Vicious mockery + bane? don't stack.
3. Special cases:

3a. Cover: Cover no longer modifies your AC. Instead, it imposes disadvantage (1/2 cover) or super-disadvantage (3/4 cover, roll 3d20 take the lowest). Edit: rewordingAdvantage only cancels out one degree of disadvantageAny number of advantage sources only turn super-disadvantage into regular disadvantage (while still acting on regular disadvantage and vice versa normally). If you have super-disadvantage, you ignore any source of disadvantage. So advantage + 3/4 cover is 1/2 cover (disadvantage). Anything that would normally add +5 to your AC instead gives you 3/4 cover. Anything that would give +2 AC (including a regular shield) now gives 1/2 cover. Cover does not stack. There are no effects that allow ignoring cover as such. If you have advantage, you can cancel out some of the effects. Yes, this makes cover better. Good. Cover should be good counter-play against ranged attacks and DEX-save-based things. Instead of basically getting ignored flat out.

3b. Accuracy bonuses just go away, as do saving throw DC bonuses. Flat gone. No replacement (except the Archery fighting style, which can grant something else instead), no bonus, no nothing.

3c. The -5/+10 effects now say "you have disadvantage on the attack rolls to gain +10 damage. This disadvantage cannot be canceled out by any source of advantage".

3d. The paladin aura (currently +CHA to saves) now lets the affected people substitute the paladin's CHA-save modifier for the requested save instead.

The goal of all of this is to remove the last remnants of the situational, stacking modifiers to accuracy (ie determining success/failure). Modifiers to damage are fine. As much as possible should be done via advantage/disadvantage (+ super-disadvantage and theoretically super-advantage) instead, falling back to adding dice-based modifiers (that don't stack) where absolutely necessary. Ideally, the only time you'd need to modify the accuracy modifiers (including defensive ones) on your character sheet is at level up. This is also to remove a major source of distortion of priorities--since +1 AC/ATK (and especially +1 DC) is so distortionary, so relatively powerful, any ability that gives those immediately takes priority over just about everything else. And rapidly narrows the scope of monsters you can use effectively against the party.

I know, this is desperately unpopular. But I think it would be good for the game.

Dienekes
2022-04-25, 12:21 AM
I can see no more stacking of static and bonus dice. I can even see rewriting Paladin's Aura, let's be honest it's too powerful. Though, personally for the bonus dice one, I'd have a "roll them all, pick the best" mentality for it.

But the rest seems kind of going overboard. I don't think Cover was ever a problem. If cover is positioned on encounter board it's meant to be used. Same for the -5/+10. We can argue if they're too powerful or not, if they should be replaced with -Prof Bonus/+2xProf Bonus or something. But what you have just negates any attempt to build around the limitation at all. Great Weapon Master Barbarians are iconic and flavorful, I don't see much a reason to make that worse at doing what it's supposed to be doing.

For the Archery Fighting Style, can just have it ignore half Cover. or mitigate Cover in some way. If you decide to keep Cover as a static bonus, it could be "reduce the bonus to AC gained by cover by 2." If you keep your Disadvantage based Cover, it could be "Ignore the Disadvantage penalty for attacking a target with half cover, and 3/4 cover no longer gives super Disadvantage.

rel
2022-04-26, 12:38 AM
I'm surprised you keep guidance which always struck me as a rather boring busywork mechanic; a bonus that can be applied at pretty much any time as long as the player remembers to say 'I cast guidance' but drop cover bonuses, which reward positioning and tactical play.

Consider flipping things around; keep cover and other tactical circumstantial effects and drop guidance and similar uninteresting powers.

If anything, removing +numbers powers should be paired with more varied tactical and circumstantial options.

PhoenixPhyre
2022-04-26, 09:13 AM
I'm surprised you keep guidance which always struck me as a rather boring busywork mechanic; a bonus that can be applied at pretty much any time as long as the player remembers to say 'I cast guidance' but drop cover bonuses, which reward positioning and tactical play.

Consider flipping things around; keep cover and other tactical circumstantial effects and drop guidance and similar uninteresting powers.

If anything, removing +numbers powers should be paired with more varied tactical and circumstantial options.

I don't disagree. I intended to say that many such boring "add numbers" effects could just go away and not be replaced.

And cover is still around, it just doesn't give a flat stacking bonus. Because nothing should, in this ideal world, give flat stacking bonus.

Kane0
2022-04-26, 04:39 PM
What about expertise and Jack of All Trades?

PhoenixPhyre
2022-04-26, 06:50 PM
What about expertise and Jack of All Trades?

Those aren't really flat stacking bonuses--they're effectively "use f(proficiency) here instead of proficiency". They don't stack with proficiency (unlike all the others). And they only change on level up. So I'm (mostly) ok with those.

oogaboogagoblin
2022-04-27, 02:45 PM
honestly my biggest issue with this is sheilds imposing disadvantage, i dont like a lot of the other rulings but i see where they would fit, and i straight up agree with the cover rules, but sheilds giving you basically a +5 to ac as well as the fact you will almost never get crit on is really op

PhoenixPhyre
2022-04-27, 03:15 PM
honestly my biggest issue with this is sheilds imposing disadvantage, i dont like a lot of the other rulings but i see where they would fit, and i straight up agree with the cover rules, but sheilds giving you basically a +5 to ac as well as the fact you will almost never get crit on is really op

Yeah. I wasn't entirely happy with that either.

rel
2022-04-28, 12:41 AM
I don't like stacking advantage / disadvantage as a replacement for +numbers.
For me the main benefit of advantage is how easy it is to implement in game.

what's the bonus for sneaking past the drunk guard? Advantage.
The penalty for trying to fight in handcuffs? disadvantage.
The total bonus / penalty for trying to pick a lock in the dark, having studied it's design earlier while trying to stay quiet using a set of the finest picks? Too complex, just roll.

As a GM I never have to refer to a table come up with a number or tally up the total sources of complication and benefit. I just assign advantage and disadvantage and move on.

How about more purely non-numeric powers as an alternative?
For example shields allowing you to negate a hit or downgrade a crit to a normal hit as a reaction that also breaks the shield.

PhoenixPhyre
2022-04-28, 01:42 PM
I don't like stacking advantage / disadvantage as a replacement for +numbers.
For me the main benefit of advantage is how easy it is to implement in game.

what's the bonus for sneaking past the drunk guard? Advantage.
The penalty for trying to fight in handcuffs? disadvantage.
The total bonus / penalty for trying to pick a lock in the dark, having studied it's design earlier while trying to stay quiet using a set of the finest picks? Too complex, just roll.

As a GM I never have to refer to a table come up with a number or tally up the total sources of complication and benefit. I just assign advantage and disadvantage and move on.

How about more purely non-numeric powers as an alternative?
For example shields allowing you to negate a hit or downgrade a crit to a normal hit as a reaction that also breaks the shield.

I think stacking disadvantage is...tolerable (not great)...if it's limited to one "stacked" state and doesn't actually stack. So you can have super-disadvantage (3d20 take lowest) which cancels out with any number of advantages to give regular disadvantage (2d20 take lowest) which cancels out any number of advantages resulting in a straight roll. But you can't take two regular disadvantages and end up with super disadvantage or take two advantages and end up with super advantage. Only things that say they impose super-disadvantage do so; you can't get there any other way. And that state should be rare. Still not a great solution though, I'll agree.

And I'm not fond of consumable shields. Having a shield should provide some benefit constantly. I could bend the basic principles a little bit and say "your base armor is <base armor + shield if exists> + DEX (as much as applicable)". Effectively, a shield would act like it does, but effectively count as part of the armor. Conversely, you could say that the shield either

* replaces part of the DEX modifier, so if you have leather, +5 DEX and a shield (+2), you don't get any benefit relative to someone who has only a +3 dex. So shields would be for the less dextrous people (basically medium armor people with shields wouldn't need dex much at all for AC). But that wouldn't play nice with heavy armor. Which does fit the original purpose of heavy armor--one of the big benefits of playing in full plate in reality was that you could use big 2H weapons like poleaxes with (relative) impunity, while lighter-armor people need shields.

* augments the DEX modifier maximum. So heavy armor + shield would be <base> + DEX (max 2), light armor wouldn't benefit, and medium armor would be <base> + DEX (max 4). That makes pure-STR types a bit more MAD. But makes SnB more firmly in the medium/heavy armor camp. And weakens the DEX-based people, which is a side benefit IMO.

I do think shields should be able to be used to do things like block/mitigate aoe effects, including for other people. Especially dragons' breath weapons, since that's just so darn iconic. Or could, in principle, also serve an offensive purpose. A bunch of options there.

Composer99
2022-04-28, 09:35 PM
You could adapt something like the boon & bane mechanic from Shadow of the Demon Lord.

For those who aren't familiar:
- If you have one or more boons that apply to a d20 roll, you roll a number of d6 equal to the total number of boons and add only the highest number rolled to the d20 result.
- If you have one or more banes that apply, you follow the same procedure but subtract the highest number rolled.
- Boons and banes cancel each other out one-for-one.

SotDL uses boons and banes in lieu of advantage/disadvantage, and basically all the various die roll bonuses you might see in 5e (bless and the like) and advantage/disadvantage are rolled into the boon/bane mechanic.

An upside is that you can have all these things that modify a d20 roll - guidance, bless, bardic inspiration, or what-have-you - without ever getting past the 1-6 bound of a d6 - which is still a pretty hefty bonus when you get down to it.

A downside is that now you're back to counting up boons and banes. (Although if you use it only to replace those things that grant extra dice - bless, bardic inspiration - or circumstance modifiers - cover, say - and leave advantage/disadvantage intact as is, you might be avoiding the worst of this sort of thing.)

BerzerkerUnit
2022-04-29, 12:04 PM
CCG-style FILO operations do not make for my fun. Stacking adv/disadv is no different me than 4e’s dozen modifiers per roll.

I welcome any idea to hew possible combinations down to the bounds, but think you could probably stop at “every +2 over +11 adds 1 point to the damage of the attack on a hit.”

This means when your level 17 and have Max stat your +3 weapon is now a +4 damage weapon. And another +1 will make it +5 and so on.

Then you could let the stacking go insane and it would not have the kind of impact it does at present bc miss chances would still be possible.

The exception was spell dc bumps. Those do need to scale bc save bonuses for monsters go nuts in late game. Since these cap at ~+3 for most games, that’s not a big deal.

PhoenixPhyre
2022-04-29, 06:02 PM
The exception was spell dc bumps. Those do need to scale bc save bonuses for monsters go nuts in late game. Since these cap at ~+3 for most games, that’s not a big deal.

Strong disagree. For all of it, generally. I've had +X to spell DC items totally wreck games because it meant that anything except things with proficiency to saves couldn't even ever make the save and were just out of the fight at the first CC spell. Of all the +X modifiers, spell DC is the one that absolutely never should have been implemented.

Sure, if all you do is fight solos of CR = level + X, that's a bad thing. But doing so is so far off the intended path that I'm not particularly interested in catering to that sort of thing.

As to the rest, the idea is that you just don't scale the accuracy-related numbers except via
* increased ability modifiers (aka ASI)
* increased proficiency
* expertise

No gear, no spells, nada. Your %success is a static function of your attributes and the enemy's defense number (which also is basically static). This leaves basically advantage and disadvantage as the "levers". With more things being able to boost damage (ie how effective was the hit, not did you hit).

BerzerkerUnit
2022-04-29, 08:21 PM
Strong disagree. For all of it, generally. I've had +X to spell DC items totally wreck games because it meant that anything except things with proficiency to saves couldn't even ever make the save and were just out of the fight at the first CC spell. Of all the +X modifiers, spell DC is the one that absolutely never should have been implemented.

Sure, if all you do is fight solos of CR = level + X, that's a bad thing. But doing so is so far off the intended path that I'm not particularly interested in catering to that sort of thing.

As to the rest, the idea is that you just don't scale the accuracy-related numbers except via
* increased ability modifiers (aka ASI)
* increased proficiency
* expertise

No gear, no spells, nada. Your %success is a static function of your attributes and the enemy's defense number (which also is basically static). This leaves basically advantage and disadvantage as the "levers". With more things being able to boost damage (ie how effective was the hit, not did you hit).
On spells:
My solution was exactly that, but granted value for stacking over that number. If you're at max stat+prof, then all your additional bonuses are divided by 2 and add to damage on a hit. The extra bonuses don't make it any easier to hit that stat+prof, but they all still have value rather than A) wholly rewriting scads of features and effects or B) just becoming worthless if you're at cap.

And my experience in high level play has 2 major points: 1) high level casters have options that do not bother with saves. Wall of Force/Stone (if you divide the room), Force Cage, Contagion, and more are nerf bats that bypass saves altogether and they see a lot of use because 5th+ slots are short in supply and players want them to matter. I love Phantasmal Killer in concept but it's fairly weak. Primo options- Hold Monster, etc. Those target a generally higher save and by higher, I mean on CR monsters have a 50%+ chance to render the caster's turn wasted.

Insisting save DCs remain capped while NPC bonuses continue to scale beyond that cap or remain harshly competitive turn Combat casters into damage machines. They pew pew and focus on DPR upholding HP attrition as the only real solution and all other spells that aren't ally buffs turn into RP fodder. That is a type of game, just not my preference. And if you're arguing that NPC save bonuses should be reigned in too, more power to you, but I'm not rewriting the game.

On bonuses in general:
In general I don't disagree with the notion of bringing some numbers back down to earth, but FILO adv/disadv isn't anymore a viable answer to me. You end up with nearly every encounter applying blanket modifiers which have to be accounted for with every attack and players working their brains to find ways to stack advantage to offset. If you want a deeper tactical minis game, there are better, crunchier systems for it, but having a table discussion every turn about which modifiers have been applied and whether that overcomes the general darkness disadvantage and whether the enemy they're already attacking blind has a shield or cover...

When I started playing with my current group they were initially of the opinion this was the intended rule and it made the rogue's player a godsforsaken nightmare every turn. The system was built to be breezy. Shooting on a pitchy boat in a storm at night with high winds, ally uses help, all penalty negated.

PhoenixPhyre
2022-04-29, 11:12 PM
On spells:
My solution was exactly that, but granted value for stacking over that number. If you're at max stat+prof, then all your additional bonuses are divided by 2 and add to damage on a hit. The extra bonuses don't make it any easier to hit that stat+prof, but they all still have value rather than A) wholly rewriting scads of features and effects or B) just becoming worthless if you're at cap.

And my experience in high level play has 2 major points: 1) high level casters have options that do not bother with saves. Wall of Force/Stone (if you divide the room), Force Cage, Contagion, and more are nerf bats that bypass saves altogether and they see a lot of use because 5th+ slots are short in supply and players want them to matter. I love Phantasmal Killer in concept but it's fairly weak. Primo options- Hold Monster, etc. Those target a generally higher save and by higher, I mean on CR monsters have a 50%+ chance to render the caster's turn wasted.

Insisting save DCs remain capped while NPC bonuses continue to scale beyond that cap or remain harshly competitive turn Combat casters into damage machines. They pew pew and focus on DPR upholding HP attrition as the only real solution and all other spells that aren't ally buffs turn into RP fodder. That is a type of game, just not my preference. And if you're arguing that NPC save bonuses should be reigned in too, more power to you, but I'm not rewriting the game.

On bonuses in general:
In general I don't disagree with the notion of bringing some numbers back down to earth, but FILO adv/disadv isn't anymore a viable answer to me. You end up with nearly every encounter applying blanket modifiers which have to be accounted for with every attack and players working their brains to find ways to stack advantage to offset. If you want a deeper tactical minis game, there are better, crunchier systems for it, but having a table discussion every turn about which modifiers have been applied and whether that overcomes the general darkness disadvantage and whether the enemy they're already attacking blind has a shield or cover...

When I started playing with my current group they were initially of the opinion this was the intended rule and it made the rogue's player a godsforsaken nightmare every turn. The system was built to be breezy. Shooting on a pitchy boat in a storm at night with high winds, ally uses help, all penalty negated.

I'm not seeing where you're getting any kind of advantage/disadvantage stacking. Regular advantage/disadvantage work as stock. 1 of either cancels out any number of the other, leaving you at neutral. Only 3/4 cover gives super-disadvantage, which cancels out with any number of advantages to regular disadvantage. Those are the only options. There's no other stacking. You either have

---same as stock
any number of advantage and no disadvantage of any kind ==> advantage
any number of disadvantage and no advantage of any kind ==> disadvantage
any number of both advantage and disadvantage ==> neutral
----two possible additional cases
3/4 cover and anything except any number of advantages ==> super disadvantage
3/4 cover and any number of advantages (ignoring disadvantages entirely) ==> regular disadvantage.

And 3/4 cover comes up rarely enough that it's not a major thing. And with everything that normally gives +X to AC giving 1/2 cover instead, all those normal ways to stack your AC no longer stack. Have the shield spell up? You don't get anything for being in 1/2 cover. Or being prone vs ranged attacks. Etc.

And all those +X items? Flat gone. No longer exist. No benefits. Make actually interesting items instead. So you can never have an attack bonus bigger than proficiency + modifier. Period. Full stop. No need to do math to add half the extra to damage, it's just not an option.

Edit: ok, re-reading the OP, I can see what might have led you to that conclusion--I said "advantage only cancels out one degree of disadvantage." What I meant was that it only converts super-disadvantage (a second "degree" of disadvantage) into regular disadvantage, not to a straight roll. But 1 advantage cancels out any number of disadvantages and vice versa, and disadvantage doesn't matter at all if you have super-disadvantage--it's just entirely ignored and you only look at advantage/super-disadvantage.

And yes, high-level enemies will need you to be able to flex your saves. Because frankly, the only saves that get really high are
* WIS: Average +7 over CR 10-30 (range of -2 - 16)
* CON: Average +9 over CR 10-30 (range of 1 - 16, no particular correlation with CR except the really high ones are CR 21+)

Dex saves stay sucky through high levels. CR 10-30 has an average dex save modifier of +5. CON doesn't hit +10 until CR 20. WIS doesn't hit +10 until CR 21, and never goes above +12, averaging +9 over CR 10-30. STR stays 7 or below until CR 19 (which is an outlier, just like CR 18 is an outlier with an average STR save of -1). INT maxes out (on average) at 8 (CR 18). So no, enemy save bonuses don't actually go that high. Unless you're exclusively facing legendary creatures like named Demon Princes from level 10-ish. Because the variance is huge as well. And I'm totally ok with that. High-power enemies should actually be hard to fight, not pushovers. Fighting something at CR = level +2 should be a real risk of losing your character permanently. Not something you can do 6+ times a day while not really breathing hard.

Edit 2: and there's always the option of buffing your allies/summoning things. The only thing you really need high DCs for is the really nasty CCs...which tend to be boring anyway. They're either "yay, it's trivial" or "ok, did nothing." Personally (and unpopularly), I think hard CC should be a hard thing to stick against any kind of major boss-class[1] monster.

[1] and yes, everything above CR 12 is pretty much a boss-class monster. And those things at CR 21+? The ancient dragons and named Archdevils/demon princes? Yeah, those are end-of-campaign monsters. You shouldn't be able to trivially CC Zariel. If she were that weak, she'd have fallen millennia ago. Even level 20 PCs just aren't that special. Strong, but not demigod class. Not by stock design anyway. Their power is that they work together.

BerzerkerUnit
2022-04-29, 11:47 PM
I'm not seeing where you're getting any kind of advantage/disadvantage stacking. Regular advantage/disadvantage work as stock. 1 of either cancels out any number of the other, leaving you at neutral. Only 3/4 cover gives super-disadvantage, which cancels out with any number of advantages to regular disadvantage. Those are the only options. There's no other stacking. You either have

---same as stock
any number of advantage and no disadvantage of any kind ==> advantage
any number of disadvantage and no advantage of any kind ==> disadvantage
any number of both advantage and disadvantage ==> neutral
----two possible additional cases
3/4 cover and anything except any number of advantages ==> super disadvantage
3/4 cover and any number of advantages (ignoring disadvantages entirely) ==> regular disadvantage.

And 3/4 cover comes up rarely enough that it's not a major thing. And with everything that normally gives +X to AC giving 1/2 cover instead, all those normal ways to stack your AC no longer stack. Have the shield spell up? You don't get anything for being in 1/2 cover. Or being prone vs ranged attacks. Etc.

And all those +X items? Flat gone. No longer exist. No benefits. Make actually interesting items instead. So you can never have an attack bonus bigger than proficiency + modifier. Period. Full stop. No need to do math to add half the extra to damage, it's just not an option.

And yes, high-level enemies will need you to be able to flex your saves. Because frankly, the only saves that get really high are
* WIS
* CON

Dex saves stay sucky through high levels. CR 10-30 has an average dex save modifier of +5. CON doesn't hit +10 until CR 20. WIS doesn't hit +10 until CR 21, and never goes above +12. STR stays 7 or below until CR 19 (which is an outlier, just like CR 18 is an outlier with an average STR save of -1). INT maxes out (on average) at 8 (CR 18). So no, enemy save bonuses don't actually go that high. Unless you're exclusively facing legendary creatures like named Demon Princes from level 10-ish. Because the variance is huge as well. And I'm totally ok with that. High-power enemies should actually be hard to fight, not pushovers. Fighting something at CR = level +2 should be a real risk of losing your character permanently. Not something you can do 6+ times a day while not really breathing hard.

Notably, I also find pure +X items boring as hell and never give them out. What you're describing though misses, and I say this speaking for no one but myself, two important factors.

1. You're taking one aspect of the game's math (accuracy bonuses) and trying to balance it by also tweaking another aspect of the game's math too (in this case cover and other defense bonuses), something I think is safe to assume was balanced with your desired cap in mind. Cover is a good bonus and easy to get, handily offset by bless or the Archery fighting style, the most common accuracy boosters. Shield is OP, the designers have said it's OP and no one thinks other spells should be balanced against it. BUT the designers have also never scaled it back. It's great and whiteroom optimizers/"high optimization tables" will dip caster for it, but I do a fair amount of optimization and haven't bothered with it for my last 3 wizards, I'd rather save the time ritualing detect magic and use that shield slot to cast it instead. But that's me.

2. People like stacking bonuses. 4e went way overboard with bonuses and penalties, 5e is manageable. Even outside those white rooms players are excited to see big numbers. They like them even more when those big numbers have meaning. Your system looks like it tells players to ignore all the numerical widgets and replace them with two forms of defense buff and ignore all the numerical widgets in favor of no accuracy buff. That's probably somewhere in the area of 5% of the book. My way says "keep everything as is, but once you get past +X (based on tier) to hit, it's all damage gravy. Their big numbers and existing strategies remain the same. They actually get even better.

And as an aside, I have mercilessly prevented players from taking +X items in the past and discovered the following: It does nothing to enhance the fun of the game. I get to be a little more creative, but it's unfair to demand the same of the players. If their fantasy is to be a walking fortress, hard capping their AC because... I have an arbitrary opinion of how the math should play out? All that does is cut out one of their motivations to continue playing and rising in level and getting new items. The QUEST TO HAVE HIGHEST AC EVAR is exactly as valid as whatever fiction I came up with if it gets them to the table for a good time.

And what's worse? A player that can get a +1 sword or bow might skip their next ASI in favor of a feat, a widget that makes their character more their own.

And I hate to champion optimization as a rule- but by and large over 30+ years of DnD I have exactly two kinds of player I can't tolerate: The first is a player that uses old fantasy tropes as a means to harass others (usually women or POC, I won't belabor this, we can all just agree that's bad), and the other is one that refuses to be good at the thing the character's rules are made to do.

I don't mind a joke character in a one shot as long as they do the thing they're built to do. A rogue with dex 8 that insists on wielding a greatsword because they're bad at being a rogue... play a fighter, loudly be sad about what a terrible rogue you are as you hew down your foes with your greatsword. Fumble your sneaking because your full plate gets in the way (you would have anyway), but don't just be a boat anchor. A Life cleric that spends every spell slot casting Animate Dead and Inflict Wounds because you're a "terrible healer", be a war/death/grave domain or just go necromancer.

Any character that puts 8s in their prime stats because "it's funny," No Dave, it's not funny when we're still wailing on the dragon an hour from now, all beat to hell because there's no chance of your rogue landing a sneak attack...

But again, speak solely for myself, but looking at any system that would force my fellow players farther down the optimizer's path is probably bad. Your system pretty much mandates the PCs prime state their ASIs at 4 and 8, so most would never look at a feat. And for those that do, maybe because they have a build idea or picture their PC doing a certain thing the feat represents, they shouldn't get slapped with a flat -5% to hit for the privilege of playing a character they like in a game ostensibly about fulfilling power fantasies when +1 sword keeps them competitive where their allies can get a more interesting item like a cube of force.

PhoenixPhyre
2022-04-30, 09:59 AM
I'll be completely honest. This isn't actually a change I'm planning to make. It's more in the order of a rant about how much I dislike the idea of stacking bonuses and playing the "I've got bigger numbers" game.

Honestly? People are totally fine starting with a +2 in their prime stat and only reaching +4 by level 12 or so. Using the game as designed, that is. In fact, most people would do better using those ASIs to shore up weaknesses. Or to help yourself contribute elsewhere.

People complain that 5e all too easy or that you always have to go against super-deadly (by the books) fights. Well, that's because you're playing the numbers games and cutting out giant swaths of the MM. Losing the entire benefit of bounded accuracy and reinventing 3e, but badly.

I'm against all external sources of basic capabilities. Everything the system expects you to have should be baked into the class so you can't miss it. Things like feats and items, etc should be horizontal growth, giving new capabilities, not making you better at your core ones. Vertical growth should be by gaining levels, not finding "exploits" to pump your numbers up. And you shouldn't be able to build characters that don't meet the minimum standards that the system expects.

Kane0
2022-04-30, 05:13 PM
As I understand it the desired goal of Bounded Accuracy was to keep low level creatures relevant and retain some threat against higher level ones (both when the PCs outmatch the enemy and vice versa). HP is then used as the primary method of differentiation in percieved threat levels, but is itself a separate mechanism to Bounded Accuracy it.
So in that respect stacking to-hit, damage and saves numbers is okay, but increasing AC and DC beyond that point of reachability with the d20 is what breaks Bounded Accuracy. A goblin hitting you for 4 damage a pop isnt a big deal at level 12, but when 9 out of 23 goblins are doing that each turn you have to pay attention.

So say Bless granting +1d4 to attacks and saves isnt going to break Bounded Accuracy in its goal, given that the damage is still flowing (most damage saves are X for Half). Its when one side can no longer touch the other at all that Bounded Accuracy has failed (eg Shield + Shield of Faith + Defensive Fighting Style + magical shield and armor)

PhoenixPhyre
2022-04-30, 06:43 PM
As I understand it the desired goal of Bounded Accuracy was to keep low level creatures relevant and retain some threat against higher level ones (both when the PCs outmatch the enemy and vice versa). HP is then used as the primary method of differentiation in percieved threat levels, but is itself a separate mechanism to Bounded Accuracy it.
So in that respect stacking to-hit, damage and saves numbers is okay, but increasing AC and DC beyond that point of reachability with the d20 is what breaks Bounded Accuracy. A goblin hitting you for 4 damage a pop isnt a big deal at level 12, but when 9 out of 23 goblins are doing that each turn you have to pay attention.

So say Bless granting +1d4 to attacks and saves isnt going to break Bounded Accuracy in its goal, given that the damage is still flowing (most damage saves are X for Half). Its when one side can no longer touch the other at all that Bounded Accuracy has failed (eg Shield + Shield of Faith + Defensive Fighting Style + magical shield and armor)

Bounded accuracy, by the original definition was about both sides. Both the target numbers AND the roll modifiers. There are a lot of monsters that are only relevant because they are hard to hit. There are a lot of monsters that impose negative effects on a failed save.

And something doesn't have to break entirely before it's failed at its purpose.

Rilmani
2022-05-03, 12:51 AM
You could adapt something like the boon & bane mechanic from Shadow of the Demon Lord.

For those who aren't familiar:
- If you have one or more boons that apply to a d20 roll, you roll a number of d6 equal to the total number of boons and add only the highest number rolled to the d20 result.
- If you have one or more banes that apply, you follow the same procedure but subtract the highest number rolled.
- Boons and banes cancel each other out one-for-one.

SotDL uses boons and banes in lieu of advantage/disadvantage, and basically all the various die roll bonuses you might see in 5e (bless and the like) and advantage/disadvantage are rolled into the boon/bane mechanic.

An upside is that you can have all these things that modify a d20 roll - guidance, bless, bardic inspiration, or what-have-you - without ever getting past the 1-6 bound of a d6 - which is still a pretty hefty bonus when you get down to it.

A downside is that now you're back to counting up boons and banes. (Although if you use it only to replace those things that grant extra dice - bless, bardic inspiration - or circumstance modifiers - cover, say - and leave advantage/disadvantage intact as is, you might be avoiding the worst of this sort of thing.)
An interesting system. Thanks for sharing it, I like it. I think this is the optimal way forward, with one adjustment. Should the die in question always be a d6? If we have a stat like Shadowrun’s Edge, I could imagine spending a point of Edge adding one extra Boon die. But if you burn a point of edge, you could change all Boon dice to d8s… or turn Bane dice to d4s. I suppose for 5e it could mess with levels of exhaustion or require a point of inspiration.

Let me start again. Proficiency modifier grows through one’s adventuring career. It can be increased unnaturally through a tiny number of magic items or an epic boon. Similarly, should a character ALWAYS be limited to d6 Boons? Is there no enemy capable of inflicting d8 Banes?

I think if we are ever. So. careful. We could build on the “Xd6, use only the highest die” mechanic. And, though it is more complicated than the Advantage/Disadvantage binary, it surpasses 3.5’s intricate bonus calculus.

One system I think of as a fusion of 5e and 4e is called the 36th Way system. It uses 3d6 instead of 1d20. It has Relationship Dice which work along the lines of the 5e Divination Wizard’s Portent Dice. “Roll Xd6 at the start of the day and record the results. You can replace one of your d6 results with a relationship die result or one of an opponent’s d6 results. If you use a 6 for yourself, you get a minor consequence. If you use a 1 for an opponent, you get a minor consequence.
I’m not saying that level of mechanic should interface with the SotDL bane/boon system. But I am saying players really love portent dice and there is a point where too much randomness (just adding 8 whole d6s from boons yet still not getting a 6 result…) without concrete options can create jaded players.

That is my argument for saying the sweet spot for bane and boon dice could involve a bit of wiggle room on d6 die size.

Kane0
2022-05-03, 07:17 PM
An interesting system. Thanks for sharing it, I like it. I think this is the optimal way forward, with one adjustment. Should the die in question always be a d6? If we have a stat like Shadowrun’s Edge, I could imagine spending a point of Edge adding one extra Boon die. But if you burn a point of edge, you could change all Boon dice to d8s… or turn Bane dice to d4s. I suppose for 5e it could mess with levels of exhaustion or require a point of inspiration.

Let me start again. Proficiency modifier grows through one’s adventuring career. It can be increased unnaturally through a tiny number of magic items or an epic boon. Similarly, should a character ALWAYS be limited to d6 Boons? Is there no enemy capable of inflicting d8 Banes?


Well the DMG has the variant for proficiency die instead of proficiency bonus, you could roll that into the boon/bane system if you wanted scaling die sizes. Or just make a feat that modifies the die sizes (like a redo of Lucky).