Avoiding numbers bloat.

[Gundoggy]

One thing I really disliked about 1E and subsequently 2E, 3.X and even C&C is the bonus bloat that occurs with attributes, magic items, to hit progression and class features.

For example: 10 th level fighter with 17 str, +3 sword would have +15 to hit (this is not even counting weapon specialization)

I have made some changes in my game.

1. To hit bonuses are normal until about level 11 or so, then slow down until fighters max out at +15 at level 20, other warrior types max out at +14 at level 20.
2. Maximum AC of 30.
3. Magic weapon bonuses max out at +3 to hit, damage bonus can reach +5. I also made a lot more of the +1/+2 or +3 vs. some subtype of monster weapons available rather than just handing out +2 or +3 (which should be rare).
4. One change I haven't implemented yet is to reduce to to hit bonus for strength for +1 at Str 13 - 17. +2 at 18. The damage bonus would progress as usual. The +3 at 18 and +2 at 16-17 in the rules as written basically overpowers the bonus from a +1 weapon which should be special.
5. specialization gives +1/+1 only.
6. Monsters retain the hit dice = to hit bonus...it's the only advantage they have since they don't have str bonuses, etc.

[Arduin]

One thing I really disliked about 1E and subsequently 2E, 3.X and even C&C is the bonus bloat that occurs with attributes, magic items, to hit progression and class features.

For example: 10 th level fighter with 17 str, +3 sword would have +15 to hit (this is not even counting weapon specialization)

1st & 2nd edition D&D didn't have that type of combat number figuring by level (your example above). 1st Ed had charts for class & level. 2nd Ed had THAC0. I don't think you were playing those versions of D&D but some other game at that time?

[mbeacom]

One thing I really disliked about 1E and subsequently 2E, 3.X and even C&C is the bonus bloat that occurs with attributes, magic items, to hit progression and class features.

For example: 10 th level fighter with 17 str, +3 sword would have +15 to hit (this is not even counting weapon specialization)

1st & 2nd edition D&D didn't have that type of combat number figuring by level (your example above). 1st Ed had charts for class & level. 2nd Ed had THAC0. I don't think you were playing those versions of D&D but some other game at that time?

Correct.
Numbers bloat is a direct result of switching to the D20 system. 1E and 2E used attack matrices or Thac0 which were precalculated to avoid numerical bloat. The bloat was baked into the chart to you rarely added more than a weapon or situational modifier. It's funny, back then with no bloat, we were all jealous when someone was adding 6 to their die roll for whatever reason because it was crazy high. Now, I lament that I rarely add such small numbers to the die roll.

[serleran]

It makes no difference if the numbers are factored into a chart to look up or the player has to add them - they are still there. They have always been there. Some players, apparently, like looking at saying "gee, I get a +12 to that; it must be something I'm good at since all my other options are +2." In this way, the bloat easily identifies core competencies, or archetypal applications... and it is a good thing. Whether the bloat itself is +1 or +4876347234671829364978623784 is a matter of subjection. In percentile games, including the thief abilities in AD&D (both editions), getting a +30% from race, Dexterity, and armor is pretty damn "bloaty."

So... pick your bloat. A game without it seems.... boring.

[jdizzy001]

That is one thing i like about 5e. There was a very real effort to reduce number bloat. To fight it in c&c, I cap out campaigns around lvl 12 and limit magic items to a +1/+1. To counter act that, I make an effort to ensure the weapon does something cool in addition to the extra dmg.

[Arduin]

It makes no difference if the numbers are factored into a chart to look up or the player has to add them

it does make a difference. How an equation is structured can have a great effect on time to calculate.

[Gundoggy]

To clarify, it's not the calculation time that is the issue. It's the rapid progression of bonuses that make high level play boring unless you have monsters with extremely high AC. 1E had as the fighter's THACO or (number on the matrix) rapidly progressed beyond the maximum THACO that monsters had at about 16 hitdice....the table in Isle of the Ape addressed this somewhat. Add strength, magic and specialization and realistically they only miss on a 1 vs. most monsters in the 3 1E books as most monsters did not have super AC...Even many devils/demons/dragons had AC of around -2 or worse (22 Ascending AC), and the to hit bonuses rapidly outclassed the AC.

It's personal preference, I find it boring if success is almost guaranteed. It wasn't until I looked at the rules in S&W and how the 'to hit bonus' maxed out at around 13 at level 19 (S&W had optional ascending AC rules). This kept the game challenging even at high levels and the str and magic bonuses weren't as overwhelming.

I haven't read 5E books yet but the limit on to hit bonus and limits on magic weapon +, is very appealing, varying them with neat little attributes makes them useful, but keeps game challenging.

Not everyone likes this, one player in my group still missed doing over 130 hp of damage in one round with a barbarian using a greataxe....that flavor of gaming led to DM burnout for me almost 10 years ago until I switched to C&C. High level play is important to my group as we do have PC's converted to C&C from decades of play at levels ranging between 13 to 16 at this moment

[mbeacom]

We play 3d6 stats and are somewhat stingy with the magic items. That makes a huge difference. If your fighters all have 17-18STR strength and +3 swords, yeah, it's gonna be easy for Fighters to hit, but that's not the way the game was intended. So that's not really bloat since it's a groups choice to escalate things that much. If you play a more typical Fighter with a 16 strength and a +2 sword, you're still only hitting AC0 on a 7 at level 12. Fighter SHOULD hit most of the time at that level. Your cleric is only hitting AC0 on a 9 at level 15 with those stats. Your Thief needs an 11 at level 16. But beyond that, If you're still swinging a sword by level 12+, I'd say that may be the problem. At higher than those levels in AD&D, you should be commanding armies, establishing a church, taking over a guild and assaulting cloud castles guarded by half a dozen dragons. All things that require a lot more RP, Planning and tactics, not just accuracy with a weapon. High level D&D, I think was never intended to be played the same as low level D&D, but maybe that was just my perception. Our games were very different after level 10 or so and completely different after level 15. If you want to play low level style D&D but with dragons replacing Lizard Men, yeah, I'm not even sure C&C will be your best bet. But I hope you find what you're looking for. I would definitely give 5E a look. They've decreased a lot of the scaling. And while that helped the end game not be a cakewalk for accuracy, it still leaves a lot of the levels with easy ACs to hit.

If you're not concerned with actual numerical bloat (meaning the numbers get big), I would take a look at 4E. That system was designed with the intent to make the "sweet spot" where you'd hitting on a 10 or so last the entire level range. Whatever other problems it had, that wasn't one of them. The monsters scaled at a very similar rate to PC capabilities. Some people hated it, but people who didn't like being too strong relative to monsters at the end game liked it quite a bit. Some people reflexively hated 4E but it addressed a lot of these criticisms of early editions. Also, your guy who liked doing 130HP on an attack will be thrilled by level 20, that's not even that big of a deal in 4E. He could do that while stun locking a couple guys and pushing a few more 20 feet away over a cliff. The powers and abilities get pretty ridiculous. But some really love the super powered heroics of it all. I played it for years and if you can get over the core things about D&D that it altered, it's a pretty cool system.

[Rigon]

Just be aware, that while 5e limits pluses, it also limits AC. I just did a quick look through of the 5e MM and there are only a few things in there that have ACs of 20 or better and only one thing that went as high as AC 25. So, they did make a concerted effort to limit number bloat, but they did it across the board.

R-

Edit: There were also several things listed in the MM that had ACs less than 10. More so than things with ACs 20+.

R-

[mbeacom]

Just be aware, that while 5e limits pluses, it also limits AC. I just did a quick look through of the 5e MM and there are only a few things in there that have ACs of 20 or better and only one thing that went as high as AC 25. So, they did make a concerted effort to limit number bloat, but they did it across the board.

R-

Edit: There were also several things listed in the MM that had ACs less than 10. More so than things with ACs 20+.

R-

You're absolutely right. I probably could have included more info on my comment about 5E above. But this is exactly what I was referring to that that a good chunk of the game has, what I consider, too low ACs. I've been running 5E for nearly 2 years now and I think you can safely raise Monster AC by 2 pretty much across the board. That doesn't fix it completely but it makes the game play more like I expect it to.

[Arduin]

1E had as the fighter's THACO or (number on the matrix) rapidly progressed beyond the maximum THACO that monsters had at about 16 hitdice

In 1st Edition a 14th level fighter had a 7 to hit AC0. A 14 HD creature hit AC0 on an 8. You are thinking of a different game.

[mbeacom]

1E had as the fighter's THACO or (number on the matrix) rapidly progressed beyond the maximum THACO that monsters had at about 16 hitdice

In 1st Edition a 14th level fighter had a 7 to hit AC0. A 14 HD creature hit AC0 on an 8. You are thinking of a different game.

And that's just fighters, which had, by far the most beneficial hit progression in the game. The non-fighter type classes lagged well behind.

[serleran]

If you max out the critter and PC AC at 30, cut armor bonuses by half (though a +1 should remain a +1) and modify the BtB awards (around half - 2/3rd current), you'd have a much less bloated game.

Or, you could change how BtB works and go with a comparison chart. In this case, Strength/Dexterity shouldn't matter much for whether there is a hit but rather the severity of one when it does.

Really, there are several options to retain C&C-ness but make it look like another game....and I say that because all C&C truly is is the SIEGE Engine (and there are hundreds of ways to tweak it around; ask anyone who has done it....). Combat is not related.

[jdizzy001]

I've considered removing BtB and taking a 5e approach. PC's are awarded a proficiency bonus equal to 1/2 their total HD. However, as many of the baddies in C&C have pretty high AC, this doesn't work super well.