D&D Blog - Just Bigger Numbers

[KidSnide]

Another blog entry up, this one on whether high level play should just involve bigger numbers. More interesting is a discussion of how complicated high level play should be.

Personally, I want high level play to be as simple as possible. Of course, some complexity is unavoidable just because PCs will naturally acquire more options and choices and - yes - that means high level play will be more complicated than low level play.

But I think the design should minimize this escalating complexity to the extent possible. High level combat (to pick an example) should involve some wacky new aspects, but I hope it doesn't take much longer to resolve than low level combat. One key aspect of keeping high-level combat simple is that some old complexities should go away over time, to be replaced with new complexities. For example, difficult terrain and cover can stop being an issue when people can fly and see around walls. Instead, high level characters might worry about etherealness or the like...

-KS

 

[TwinBahamut]

Seriously, this blog says absolutely nothing of value, other than an intent to not do things in the most boring way possible. A lot of vague "it should be awesome!" without any clear description of an implementation or anything better than a poorly-worded wish. I don't think the "simple vs. complex" stuff was even clearly phrased...

I'm not sure what we're expected to take from this.

 

[Hassassin]

Seriously, this blog says absolutely nothing of value

+1: The polls are also as close to "duh" as they've yet managed.

 

[El Mahdi]

Based on the questions, and things they've mentioned about high level play earlier, I think they are on the right track concerning this. But they definitely have their work cut out for them.

I can see Uber High Level play, High Level play that plays as simply as low level play, and High Level play that adds complexity but keeps numbers less lofty, all working together in a tweakable system. And that's cool. Though it won't be easy to design.

But I do take issue with one of Monte's assumptions. This...

Instead of fighting an orc that has 10 hit points, AC 15, a +5 to attack rolls, and 1d6 + 1 damage on a hit, you fight a super-orc with 200 hit points, AC 30, a +25 to attack rolls, and 1d6 + 20 damage on a hit. But if the PCs also have commensurate increases to their attack rolls, damage, and hit points, the high-level encounter feels exactly like the lower level one, but the numbers exchanged at the table are different. The players use the same tactics, the fight goes exactly the same, and the result is the same.

...just is not true.

Having such large modifiers (such as +25) takes a huge amount of randomness out of the combat. The random part of the equation becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of the overall result. These high bonuses mean that even when attacking high level threats, automatic hits and massive amounts of dealt damage are happening with virtually every attack. That does change the tactics of the game significantly, and changes the feel of the game even more. You go from being able to enact a battle of atrition, to one of concentrated group fire on an individual target in order to take it down before it can act (thereby nullifying it's likely automatic hits for massive damage). Then moving on to the next one.

High Level play and Low Level play are very different animals with very different objectively quantified Feels. And that's only from the standpoint of the math. The complexity is another story entirely.

One answer to that might be to have random bonuses (added dice) rather than static bonuses. But that's also something that significantly changes what we know of as core D&D. And many don't like that.

Slower BAB/AC scaling could help with this also. But even that won't completely do the trick. That just makes High Level play feel like 10th to 15th level play for a longer amount of levels. It still doesn't emulate the grittiness of low level play very well.

Like I said, there's a lot of work to do. But I do have faith they can do it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Having such large modifiers (such as +25) takes a huge amount of randomness out of the combat.

Does it?

If you have an attack bonus of +25, and you're fighting things with an AC of 35, are the odds more predictale than if you have an attack bonus of +2 and are fighitng things with an AC of 12?

 

[Minigiant]

High level should be complex but predictable.

High level should have assumptions that come with it. And characters should be aware of this. Every character would be aware that 25% of every enemy at level 10 and up flies and therefore either have flight of their own or a brutally effective ranged attack. Everyone can purge invisibility or accurately hit the invisible. So the fight only changes slightly.

The problem is for the underleveled characters. They wont have the tools to deal with a phasing flying demon because they lack banishment arrows and anchor spells.


The numbers don't have to get big though.

 

[tlantl]

That poll doesn't look to be very useful. The majority of voters are sitting in the middle.

So I guess we're going to get two sets of rules for upper level play and let everyone at the table vote on the difficulty and complexity of the rules when we get to those levels, what ever they may be.

Shouldn't the guys making the game be more concerned about putting together the rules they are likely to use, then see how well they work in the play tests?

I'm a simple is better kind of guy. The easier it is for me to remember and the quicker it gets done at the table the better I like it.

 

[billd91]

I'm not sure what we're expected to take from this.

Keeping the same sweet spot across 30 levels (like 4e purported to try to do) by scaling all of the numbers about the same way? Going the way of the dodo.

 

[BeauNiddle]

Does it?

If you have an attack bonus of +25, and you're fighting things with an AC of 35, are the odds more predictale than if you have an attack bonus of +2 and are fighitng things with an AC of 12?

The to hit randomness doesn't change but damage usually doesn't scale well

1d6+1 dmg vs 10 hp is swingy

1d6+20 dmg vs 200 hp isn't

10d6 + 20 would be swingy but it's rare for number of damage dice to keep increasing that way (outside certain spell systems)

 

[billd91]

Does it?

If you have an attack bonus of +25, and you're fighting things with an AC of 35, are the odds more predictale than if you have an attack bonus of +2 and are fighitng things with an AC of 12?

Ah, but it does... if you don't scale the defenses at the same or higher rate. That would be why gaining a higher bonus takes the randomness out of handling routine tasks when rolling skills. The static bonus begins to crowd out the random factor in adding up to a success, eventually to the point that you don't even need to add the d20 to hit the success DC. As long as the DCs (or ACs) grow slower than the skill or attack bonus, the random factor means less and less.