OSR D&D 5e OSR backwards compatibility

Morrus · Jun 4, 2014

Wyckedemus said:
Either he knows what he is doing, and is trying to paint 5E in a bad light with incomplete info,

I don't understand how an attack progression can be painted in a "good" or "bad" light. It's an attack progression. It has no inherent moral value. Does it matter if it is faster, slower, or similar to other games?

Just not seeing the judgement here. This is a bit of trivia, nothing more. If you don't find it useful, or don't find it interesting, that's fine.

GMforPowergamers · Jun 4, 2014

I guess I am missing something... So is it or is it not comparable?

Gadget · Jun 4, 2014

Morrus said:
I don't understand how an attack progression can be painted in a "good" or "bad" light. It's an attack progression. It has no inherent moral value. Does it matter if it is faster, slower, or similar to other games?

Just not seeing the judgement here. This is a bit of trivia, nothing more. If you don't find it useful, or don't find it interesting, that's fine.

The point is that the data, as Merric observed, is misleading. The base "attack progression" was of vastly different importance to the overall attack power of a character between different editions. While the data itself can be construed an attempt to make an objective "neutral" comparison between editions, the stated purpose and conclusions drawn by the author are very misleading. It does not serve really any useful purpose, certainly not the purpose the author is implying. It's like comparing the average points scored in a professional basketball game to the average goals scored in a professional Hokey game. More points are scored in a basketball game, therefore it must be...? better? Maybe for some people. More exciting? Again, maybe for some. Require more attentive score keepers? Probably? Have better Athletes? But there are more factors that go into these conclusions than are represented in my stats.

Moreover, I would argue that the author is putting value judgments on editions based on faulty logic and misleading data with quotes such as: "the Fighter's combat efficacy is relatively unchanged from AD&D through 3.x, but is adjusted significantly downward in 5th edition". As has been pointed out, the contribution of BAB to "combat efficacy" varies quite a bit between editions, thereby rendering the first part of the quote about the similarity between AD&D and 3E very questionable at best. Furthermore, BAB is measured against AC most of the the time, and I see no data about how ACs have varied or stayed the same from edition to edition. I'm reminded of the old saying: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics". Anyone can put together a spreadsheet with numbers that are technically correct and seem to support a desired conclusion, but the real, useful conclusion is usually a bit more nuanced and harder to see at first.

Morrus · Jun 4, 2014

Gadget said:
The point is that the data, as Merric observed, is misleading. The base "attack progression" was of vastly different importance to the overall attack power of a character between different editions. While the data itself can be construed an attempt to make an objective "neutral" comparison between editions, the stated purpose and conclusions drawn by the author are very misleading. It does not serve really any useful purpose, certainly not the purpose the author is implying. It's like comparing the average points scored in a professional basketball game to the average goals scored in a professional Hokey game. More points are scored in a basketball game, therefore it must be...? better? Maybe for some people. More exciting? Again, maybe for some. Require more attentive score keepers? Probably? Have better Athletes? But there are more factors that go into these conclusions than are represented in my stats.

Moreover, I would argue that the author is putting value judgments on editions based on faulty logic and misleading data with quotes such as: "the Fighter's combat efficacy is relatively unchanged from AD&D through 3.x, but is adjusted significantly downward in 5th edition". As has been pointed out, the contribution of BAB to "combat efficacy" varies quite a bit between editions, thereby rendering the first part of the quote about the similarity between AD&D and 3E very questionable at best. Furthermore, BAB is measured against AC most of the the time, and I see no data about how ACs have varied or stayed the same from edition to edition. I'm reminded of the old saying: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics". Anyone can put together a spreadsheet with numbers that are technically correct and seem to support a desired conclusion, but the real, useful conclusion is usually a bit more nuanced and harder to see at first.

So you think the data is fairly useless. Fine. It may well be; and that's OK. But the only aspersions I'm seeing being cast here are by you towards the author; the author certainly hasn't cast any. I think you're getting emotionally affected by a piece of interesting but fairly trivial trivia. Who is it "misleading"? And why? Who used the word "better" other than you? What import are you assigning this? And, indeed, why?

You need to try pretty hard to assign a value judgment to the sentence ""the Fighter's combat efficacy is relatively unchanged from AD&D through 3.x, but is adjusted significantly downward in 5th edition". You have to want to see it, I think. It may or may not be wrong, or right, or inaccurate, or incomplete, but it's not a value judgement.

Halivar · Jun 4, 2014

Dausuul said:
You know that two owlbears are a "good fight" for a 6th-level party in AD&D, so you would be tempted to conclude that two owlbears are a "good fight" for your 6th-level 5E party.
...
So you might well find that your 6th-level 5E party turns two owlbears into mincemeat without breaking a sweat.

I believe the solution to this conundrum is to preserve the original adventure by making new, custom versions of the monsters therein to better coincide with the party's allowable threat level. If monster construction is as easy as it was in 4E, this should not be a problem at all.

Dausuul · Jun 4, 2014

Morrus said:
I don't understand how an attack progression can be painted in a "good" or "bad" light. It's an attack progression. It has no inherent moral value. Does it matter if it is faster, slower, or similar to other games?

Agreed. If you approve of bounded accuracy, for example, that attack progression paints 5E in a much better light than other editions.

As far as calculating total attack bonus goes... hmm. That's a challenge, mostly because of magic items. 3E and 4E have very well-defined expectations for magic items, while AD&D and 5E don't. But I'll give it a shot. Here are my assumptions:

In AD&D and 3E, player characters get the "elite array" of stats, meaning a starting score of 15 in Strength. The elite array is roughly what you'd expect from 4d6 drop lowest.
In 4E and 5E, characters will use point buy and max out Strength. They will also allocate their "human bonuses" to Strength, meaning a starting score of 20 in 4E and 17 in 5E.
Characters will always raise Strength as soon as they get the opportunity.
In AD&D, player characters' weapon bonuses increase at levels 4, 8, 11, 14, and 18.
In 3E, player characters will allocate up to 50% of their wealth by level to improving their attack values. They will do this with Strength enhancers, magic weapons, and Strength tomes, in whatever combination gives the most bonus for the money.
In 4E, player characters will get standard gear by level (one item at level +1, one at level, one at level -1, and cash equivalent to level -1). The "level +1" item will be a weapon.
In 5E, player characters' weapon bonuses increase at levels 6, 11, and 16.
3E characters will get Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus, and 4E characters will get Expertise, at the first opportunity.

Here are the results I get for fighters. The first table is the absolute bonus, the second shows what happens if you normalize to +0 at level 1:

ABSOLUTE					NORMALIZED
Level	AD&D	3E	4E	5E	Level	AD&D	3E	4E	5E
1	0	4	7	4	1	0	0	0	0
2	1	5	8	4	2	1	1	1	0
3	2	6	8	5	3	2	2	1	1
4	4	9	9	6	4	4	5	2	2
5	5	10	10	6	5	5	6	3	2
6	6	12	11	8	6	6	8	4	4
7	7	13	11	9	7	7	9	4	5
8	9	16	13	9	8	9	12	6	5
9	10	17	13	9	9	10	13	6	5
10	11	19	15	9	10	11	15	8	5
11	13	20	16	11	11	13	16	9	7
12	14	23	17	11	12	14	19	10	7
13	15	25	17	11	13	15	21	10	7
14	17	27	19	11	14	17	23	12	7
15	18	29	20	12	15	18	25	13	8
16	19	31	21	13	16	19	27	14	9
17	20	33	21	13	17	20	29	14	9
18	22	34	22	13	18	22	30	15	9
19	23	36	22	14	19	23	32	15	10
20	24	37	24	14	20	24	33	17	10

Thus, 3E has by far the widest spread between level 1 and 20, with a whopping 33 points. AD&D comes in second at 24, and 4E is third with 17. The narrowest spread by far is 5E, at a mere 10 points.

(This is arguably not a fair comparison, though, because 4E was designed to run for 30 levels and all the others were built on a 20-level plan. Continuing the progression for 4E and assuming you take the Demigod epic destiny, attack bonus at 30th level is +34, which is a spread of 27, in between AD&D and 3E.)

Nagol · Jun 4, 2014

[MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION], a good start. I think 1E needs to be bumped a few points extra. They are several ways to either increase or replace the Strength score for the Fighter (Gauntlets of Ogre Power, a Girdle of Giant Strength are replacers, Ioun stones, wishes, and books of stat increase are some of the enhancers).

I suggest a +1 Strength per 5 levels would be reasonable.

Dausuul · Jun 4, 2014

Nagol said:
@Dausuul, a good start. I think 1E needs to be bumped a few points extra. They are several ways to either increase or replace the Strength score for the Fighter (Gauntlets of Ogre Power, a Girdle of Giant Strength are replacers, Ioun stones, wishes, and books of stat increase are some of the enhancers).

I suggest a +1 Strength per 5 levels would be reasonable.

"Magic item shops" were not standard or recommended practice in AD&D, and there was no concept of wealth by level. As such, you couldn't choose your magic items--you got what the dice and the DM gave you, which meant there was no way to pump character resources into boosting your Strength. So I don't think it's at all appropriate to assume Strength-boosting gear for AD&D, any more than it is for 5E (and as of the final playtest, Strength boosters do exist in 5E, they're just very high rarity).

Wyckedemus · Jun 4, 2014

Morrus said:
So you think the data is fairly useless. Fine. It may well be; and that's OK. But the only aspersions I'm seeing being cast here are by you towards the author; the author certainly hasn't cast any. I think you're getting emotionally affected by a piece of interesting but fairly trivial trivia. Who is it "misleading"? And why? Who used the word "better" other than you? What import are you assigning this? And, indeed, why?

You need to try pretty hard to assign a value judgment to the sentence ""the Fighter's combat efficacy is relatively unchanged from AD&D through 3.x, but is adjusted significantly downward in 5th edition". You have to want to see it, I think. It may or may not be wrong, or right, or inaccurate, or incomplete, but it's not a value judgement.

Please note that will all his research, this is the message that was pulled from it and quoted.

"In the spreadsheet above you can see, the Fighter's combat efficacy... is adjusted significantly downward in 5th edition."

"Efficacy" is effectiveness. "the ability to produce a desired or intended result."

This reads "The fighter's combat effectiveness is significantly lower in 5th Edition."

I'm surprised that you *aren't* reading it that way. It is not just pure, innocent stats. The moment that statement was made, it changed the message of his report. It turned the entire excercise into flawed evidence for a negative value judgment of the effectiveness of the 5th edition Fighter. Either it was on purpose, or he is incorrectly thinking that only BAB applies to the effectiveness of Fighters.

The research is interesting, and the graph is pretty, but the conclusion is what upset some of us, because it is inflammatory and flawed.

... in my opinion.

Olgar Shiverstone · Jun 4, 2014

[MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION]: thanks for including 4E numbers in the chart. Character design is very different in 4E, but enough mechanics are similar that I think if you could normalize some numbers you could actually play 4E characters alongside of others.

The huge bonus growth in 3E shouldn't surprise me after all these years, but it still does for some reason. For some reason I thought it would be closer to the others (and that 1E would be the lowest).

<Break>

Keep in mind for those discussing effectiveness that this is a one-sided comparison; if you want to compare effectiveness, you should balance this analysis against a defense bonus analysis and an action economy analysis.

OSR D&D 5e OSR backwards compatibility

Morrus

Well, that was fun

GMforPowergamers

Legend

Gadget

Adventurer

Morrus

Well, that was fun

Halivar

First Post

Dausuul

Legend

Nagol

Unimportant

Dausuul

Legend

Wyckedemus

Explorer

Olgar Shiverstone

Legend

Similar Threads