My Rant Apology & Sell Me Flat Math

[2e Player]

I'm A-OK with the lack of scaling -- in fact, it's one of the things that I really, really dig about this playtest after playing a lot of 3rd edition.

But then again, I like to play a fantasy game rather than a superhero game, and there is a critical difference.

 

[variant]

I am of the opinion that any bonus to skills, attacks, and saving throws should come almost exclusively from themes, backgrounds, feats, class specific powers, and magical items. It should be rare.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Since they already said that in the new conception of abilities, the score represents both natural talent and broad training, then it would not surprise me if there are some modest bumps to ability score built in to the leveling.

I'm guessing that their intention is replace the 4E +1 per half level bonus (and its ancestor, the 3E BAB), with these increases to ability scores, since those 3E and 4E mechanics were meant to represent broad training as an adventurer. Then on top of that, the increases will be smaller and more limited to get the flatter math.

 

[KesselZero]

Only if you're fighting "level appropriate enemies" the entire game. In a more sandbox-type game, this isn't necessarily true. While that style probably isn't the style that the majority plays, it's definitely not insignificant, and I hope that the designers at least acknowledge the significance of "improving" within the context of a sandbox world (even if that means advancement is in a module).

Just because you get better with your character doesn't mean that you always have to fight demons now, because their attack and AC is equal to yours. At least, that's not the assumption my group has ever made. To my group, those improvements are important, and the statement of "there is no such thing as improving to hit with level" is wildly off-base. I understand I may not be in the majority, but those improvements speak to the game world: if many demons are better than goblins with to-hit, AC, and hit points, and my PCs are equal those demons, then my PCs, in the game world, are better than goblins. I can now take on demons with some reliability (in a group), and take on many more goblins.

Attack bonus, AC, hit points, saves, etc. are all things that play into this dynamic. They represent fiction within the game world. And improving that is important for advancement of abilities within the game world to a sandbox game. In a more plotted game (which is great fun still) where you basically always fight enemies equal to you in power (or less, if we're using a "CR"-like system), then it's not a big deal, I agree. But that's not a universal play style. As always, play what you like

I play sandbox-style, and I see what you're saying, but I personally still support flat math. I believe what the designers are going for is:

1. You'll have some modest to-hit bonuses across the life of your PC, but since monster ACs won't scale, those modest bonuses will be very meaningful.

2. You'll increase in power in other ways, mostly through higher damage and more options. In my playtest, I was able to one-shot some hobgoblins by hitting them with Burning Hands and rolling max damage. In a few levels or so, I should be able to kill them with the half damage I do on a miss-- so it doesn't even really matter that I'm not much better at hitting them. I'll also have more powerful spells than Burning Hands.

3. In a sandbox specifically, I think flat math will help make parts of the world stay meaningful longer. Say your characters take on an orc chieftain at level 3, and defeat him but let him escape. If at level ten he comes back with a new, bigger army, you won't need to replace him and his goons with higher-level versions of the same thing just to make them relevant. He'll need that bigger army, because the characters are tougher. But he'll be the same chieftain and he'll have the same soldiers. Conversely, a level 5 party may make a daring raid into giant territory to steal a prisoner out from the nose of one guard, whom they just barely overcome. Ten levels later they can return and wipe out the giant clan entirely-- and you don't have to level up or replace the giants, just let the PCs fight them all at once. I think what I'm trying to say is that I believe flat math will be very powerful for the verisimilitude of a sandbox, since monsters will stay meaningful for a long time, and can be encountered multiple times, without having to be artificially leveled up or otherwise altered.

4. Also good for verisimilitude is the fact that AC now makes more sense given the reality of a monster. A 10th-level orc won't just magically have a higher AC because he's 10th level. He'll have more HP, sure, because he's tougher and more experienced, but his armor won't suddenly be better or his skin tougher. This also should mean that we can add armor to monsters as a way of toughening them up (giving kobolds chain mail or something) that makes sense in the game world and doesn't break a preset pattern of math.

 

[ren1999]

I play sandbox-style, and I see what you're
4. Also good for verisimilitude is the fact that AC now makes more sense given the reality of a monster. A 10th-level orc won't just magically have a higher AC because he's 10th level. He'll have more HP, sure, because he's tougher and more experienced, but his armor won't suddenly be better or his skin tougher. This also should mean that we can add armor to monsters as a way of toughening them up (giving kobolds chain mail or something) that makes sense in the game world and doesn't break a preset pattern of math.

I always thought that dexterity should be calculated into AC.

Anybody ever see this page? This guy really is thinking a lot about the math. My ideas are not entirely my own. Please, please, if the designers are going to really ditch 1/2 level improvements, introduce the alternate offering of improvement. They should tell us their ideas about ability score progressions. Remember that abilities supposedly will max at 20 -- I assume level will max at 20.
Heroes Against Darkness: Mechanics of Attack Bonus progression in D&D and Heroes Against Darkness

 

[Mercule]

3. In a sandbox specifically, I think flat math will help make parts of the world stay meaningful longer. Say your characters take on an orc chieftain at level 3, and defeat him but let him escape. If at level ten he comes back with a new, bigger army, you won't need to replace him and his goons with higher-level versions of the same thing just to make them relevant. He'll need that bigger army, because the characters are tougher. But he'll be the same chieftain and he'll have the same soldiers. Conversely, a level 5 party may make a daring raid into giant territory to steal a prisoner out from the nose of one guard, whom they just barely overcome. Ten levels later they can return and wipe out the giant clan entirely-- and you don't have to level up or replace the giants, just let the PCs fight them all at once. I think what I'm trying to say is that I believe flat math will be very powerful for the verisimilitude of a sandbox, since monsters will stay meaningful for a long time, and can be encountered multiple times, without having to be artificially leveled up or otherwise altered.

All good points, but this one is the one that will sell me, if it pans out.

 

[ren1999]

Any of you willing to guess what the stats of a 20th level fighter character might look like given the character sheets in the 5th edition play-test?

 

[underfoot007ct]

Any of you willing to guess what the stats of a 20th level fighter character might look like given the character sheets in the 5th edition play-test?

Since we are currently playtesting levels 1-3, in an early Beta test, why do you NEED to know that.

 

[rkwoodard]

Abstract Hit Points

You know, I was feeling the same as the OP, until I realized (from my perspective) how much of this makes sense in the Hit Points are Abstract philosophy. And how much the Development Team seems to have embraced that.

I have read somewhere that the overnight healing is (paraphrase coming) bascially because as long as you have 1 hit point you have not had any solid hits. Basically one good shot and you are down, and until you are down, you must not have gotten hit very hard.

Add this in to Damage increases instead of To Hit bonuses......Each Hit that you make as fighter (for example) is more likely to be the one to lay out the enemy. And even a rolled misses (for a slayer) slowly wears down the guy until you connect with a big hit.

I know most of these will get tweaked, but I really really like the mindset here.

Simpler Math, but bigger payouts.

RK

 

[Mercule]

You know, I was feeling the same as the OP, until I realized (from my perspective) how much of this makes sense in the Hit Points are Abstract philosophy. And how much the Development Team seems to have embraced that.

I have read somewhere that the overnight healing is (paraphrase coming) bascially because as long as you have 1 hit point you have not had any solid hits. Basically one good shot and you are down, and until you are down, you must not have gotten hit very hard.

Add this in to Damage increases instead of To Hit bonuses......Each Hit that you make as fighter (for example) is more likely to be the one to lay out the enemy. And even a rolled misses (for a slayer) slowly wears down the guy until you connect with a big hit.

Strangely, this might actually make for less swingy, faster combat.