D&D 4E Gut 4E's Math

RyvenCedrylle · Feb 21, 2010

These two posts have got me thinking about the math system in 4E and whether it would be possible to 'gut' the math such that you could completely ignore issues like Expertise.

We know that monster attacks/defenses should increase by 1 each level, to +30 across 30 levels. PC attacks/defenses increase by about 25 (15 from 1/2 level + 6 from magic items + 4 from stat bonuses). What if we applied the +1 per level to PCs as well? Eliminate stat increases, 1/2 level bonuses and apply a magic threshold of 1 every 5 levels starting with +1 at level 1? Seems like you would have "balanced" the system at that point.

But we can go a step further. What if we just toss the whole increase system out the window completely? Apply no level bonuses, stat increases or magic item enhancements whatsoever and then normalize monster's attacks and defenses to level. Every PC and monster in the game should have defenses in the range of 7-27(ish.. I admittedly haven't sat down and worked out all the math). At this point you're almost approaching a system that simply uses the required d20 roll as the defense. I'm not entirely sure how to get that last step, though. You could do the same for skill DCs. Damage might be trickier to flatten, but I suspect it's possible.

How would you feel about playing a game like this? Would the lack of steady number increases be boring or would you feel better knowing there are no "holes" in the math?

Blackbrrd · Feb 21, 2010

Not increasing attack/defenses will mean that the first goblin you see and the last dragon you meet have about the same chance to hit you at any time in your career. It's true that since you and the monsters you are fighting level up at the same pace you aren't noticing that you get better to hit, but you know that you get better.

The advantage of your system is that you could use a extremely wide variety of mobs in fights instead of just the level +/- 5 appropriate mobs you can use in 4e without it getting to easy/hard to hit.

I think if you tried it, it would work out pretty well, but it would feel quite differently than regular dnd.

N0Man · Feb 22, 2010

Really, the only reason I can think of that they created the +1/2 Level Attack and Defense is just to make lower level monsters even easier to kill and higher level monsters harder to kill, and for opposed Skill checks to also be affected by level difference.

However, that said, it's a pretty compelling reason. The odd side-effect comes in when skill checks versus the environment climb in difficulty as you level.

ggroy · Feb 22, 2010

Without increasing the attack/defense stats, the two things left differentiating monsters of different levels is the number of hit points they have, and any additional attacks/abilities they have each round. A monster with many more hit points, can outlast the players by attrition. The surviving players may use up a lot more healing surges fighting such higher level monsters.

One way to account for differing levels between the monsters and players, is to add:

(level_monster - level_player)

to the monster's defenses.

ggroy · Feb 22, 2010

RyvenCedrylle said:
These two posts have got me thinking about the math system in 4E and whether it would be possible to 'gut' the math such that you could completely ignore issues like Expertise.

We know that monster attacks/defenses should increase by 1 each level, to +30 across 30 levels. PC attacks/defenses increase by about 25 (15 from 1/2 level + 6 from magic items + 4 from stat bonuses). What if we applied the +1 per level to PCs as well? Eliminate stat increases, 1/2 level bonuses and apply a magic threshold of 1 every 5 levels starting with +1 at level 1? Seems like you would have "balanced" the system at that point.

But we can go a step further. What if we just toss the whole increase system out the window completely? Apply no level bonuses, stat increases or magic item enhancements whatsoever and then normalize monster's attacks and defenses to level. Every PC and monster in the game should have defenses in the range of 7-27(ish.. I admittedly haven't sat down and worked out all the math). At this point you're almost approaching a system that simply uses the required d20 roll as the defense. I'm not entirely sure how to get that last step, though. You could do the same for skill DCs. Damage might be trickier to flatten, but I suspect it's possible.

How would you feel about playing a game like this? Would the lack of steady number increases be boring or would you feel better knowing there are no "holes" in the math?

The math was worked out partially in a previous post and thread:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5061101-post14.html

Mustrum_Ridcully · Feb 22, 2010

The XP values would probably need fixing. It would be easier to fight higher level monsters than it is now, and thus you might get more XP than "deserved".

A 10th level monster has about 80 hit points from its level. A 15th level monster has 50 % more hit points from level. But it will give about 140 % more XP. (500 XP vs 1.200 XP)

DanmarLOK · Feb 22, 2010

I remove +1/2 level from attacks and defenses across the board on both sides. This has several good results for me. it reduces the disparity in growth by 1/2 and negates the need for special math fixes to any significant extent. I can use monsters outside that 'narrow band' since the PC's can hit higher level monsters now with some reasonable chance of success. And lower level monsters can hit the PC's with some reasonable chance of success. Anything that broadens the usability range of any one monster against the PC's is a very good thing for me personally.

Because both sides have identical amounts reduced from both attack and defenses it doesn't change the percentages narrow range. A character that needed to roll a 7 to hit a creature before the change still needs a 7 to hit the creature after the change.

Not saying it's for everyone but it's worked very well for me. I don't have to worry about level much. I tossed a level 10 hill giant runt with assorted level 1-2 goblins at a group of level 4 PC's and it played out very well. At level 6 I'm still able to use level 2 slaver minions against the group and it's not a complete blowout. (other than everyone has AOE's now...)

I use the standard experience budgets and haven't run into any issues with battle complexities. I typically do level +2-4 now and I did the same thing before and haven't noticed any significant issues.

As far as experience goes, I tossed that out the window and they level up every 2 or 3 sessions at appropriate plot points.

eamon · Feb 22, 2010

Any system that reduces scaling by level will dramatically affect the viability of low or over-level opponents. That means that the DMG/MM encounter building guidelines mostly go out of the window. For instance, many low level critters may end up being much more difficult than expected (lots of extra actions but no to-hit penalty), and few high-level opponents easier (not that such encounters are particularly wise anyhow...)

Any system that changes primary/secondary stat advancement seriously impacts a variety of class features and other abilities. While this might not be a huge problem, it does mean that the relative balance between classes/builds at higher levels will change, and (assuming you use low-level stats) over-all high level power will drop.

Now, neither of these issues is particularly serious per se. However, they're also not necessarily particularly good; and they do lead to another problem that is quite real to me anyhow: compatibility with the base system. I think it's definitely worth something to be able to take off the shelf encounters or to discuss your PC builds and encounter experiences with others. And while I'm frustrated at WotC's occasionally poor design choices, I'm positive their play-testing - and that of other early adopters online - is better than nothing, which is the playtesting you'll get if you make radical choices and use a balance that's totally different from the base scenario.

korjik · Feb 22, 2010

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
The XP values would probably need fixing. It would be easier to fight higher level monsters than it is now, and thus you might get more XP than "deserved".

A 10th level monster has about 80 hit points from its level. A 15th level monster has 50 % more hit points from level. But it will give about 140 % more XP. (500 XP vs 1.200 XP)

Technically, the XP value is set by needing a specific amount of fights per level divided by the exp needed for the next level. Other than the level of the encounter, it is inherently independent of the difficulty of any specific encounter.

Since the end result of tweaking the level increases is to get the to hit numbers to work out the way they are supposed to (i.e. 10 to hit equal level monster at any level), then the fights really shouldnt get easier.

korjik · Feb 22, 2010

The idea I have been working on is to make it 1/2 per level for both monsters and characters, pull the stat increases, and pull the semi-mandatory enhancement bonus increases.

This would make even fairly low enhancement bonuses much more powerful, as they would change the to hit and to be hit probabilities the same amount at any level (i.e. a +1 sword makes your chance to hit an equal level monster from 50% to 55% no matter what level, as opposed to needing a +1 sword to get to 50% at 6th level, or a +6 weapon to get to 50% at 30th level)

It also flattens the power curve to allow lower level creatures to have some chance, but still gives a real benefit to the higher level creatture.