Expertise vs. previous editions

Kzach · Mar 8, 2009

A big trend I've noticed in 4e discussions is the math. The designers brought this on themselves by claiming they went back to basics and redid all the math and kept it all balanced.

What I'm curious to know, however, is what about the math of other editions?

Now before people get in a huff, this isn't a criticism or meant to incite any rivalry. I'm simply curious because I've engaged in discussions throughout the net for 2nd edition, 3rd edition and now 4th edition and I don't recall ever seeing so much math. Maybe I missed these discussions or I'm not remembering correctly but it seems that the math in previous editions was either irrelevant or it was so well balanced that it didn't matter.

Was the math in other editions even considered? Was it balanced? I always got the impression things were done pretty much fast and loose and nobody (including players... I certainly know I never worried about it) cared about the math behind it all.

Alisair Longreach · Mar 8, 2009

2E was fast and loose with the math but 3E was very math dependent with bonuses and penalties for nearly every situation.

In 2E a DM could slap a bonus or penalty on anything however he wished and deal with rules lawyers with a "because I say so". Players also had very few options for customizing their PCs. Races had few abilities which was mostly irrelevant fluff. Classes got a handful of abilities during levels 1 to 5. Kits which were optional gave a few modifiers and some background fluff. Wizards choose nearly all their spells from just three books: PHB, Tome of Magic and Forgotten Realms Adventures/Pages from the Mages. Clerics and Druids were nearly wholly dependent on the PHB for their spells.

In 3E all races and classes were like neat little LEGO bricks of level dependent modifiers. The races, classes, prestige classes, feats and magic items were infinitely customizable and drawn from hundreds of rulebooks from WotC and third parties.

In 4E classes are templates where you plug in your race, class, feats and magic items in clearly labeled slots. Every slot has like one dozen options and experimentation outside of the box is discouraged. A player only needs two rulebooks: the PHB and the Power book for his class. The Campaign Player Guides and Adventurer's Vault are usually brought by the DM.

Runestar · Mar 8, 2009

I am fairly sure there was math to 3e as well (for example, the MM suggests AC = 13+cr). Just that the numerous ways you could stack various modifiers pretty much screwed that up (you were easily getting attack rolls higher than your foe's AC, for instance).

Nymrohd · Mar 8, 2009

I don't think there was any math balance in 3E. There was math, but it was from the CharOP boards, not the designers.
And 2E had tons of options. You just did not have enough books.

Slife · Mar 8, 2009

Nymrohd said:
I don't think there was any math balance in 3E. There was math, but it was from the CharOP boards, not the designers.

There's some math balance for magic items and such, and towards the end they started realizing exactly how screwed up the original prices were (see:ring of regeneration). The MIC did some pretty good math-based balancing... though admittedly, it was based on a lot of "this is better than x, but worse than y" reasoning.

Nymrohd · Mar 8, 2009

The designers did not seem to care for balance in 3E. In a system already saturated by layers and layers of attack and defense bonuses they kept adding new types. Each additional sourcebook would corrupt the balance more because the system lacked intergrity.

And don't get me started on epic. All I need to say is: mythal seed.

As for 2E there was not much concern for balance there either. Especially the FR line had spells that broke the game in a second. And just before 3E we had the Player's Options books (the precursors to 3E which is largely a better thought version of the player's option enabled AD&D). Don't even get me started about those.

Impeesa · Mar 8, 2009

There was a huge amount of math behind 3E, mostly in an effort to keep things internally consistent (rather than completely arbitrary, as with most of 1E/2E). In particular, there's some really clever math behind CR/ECL/XP calculations and related issues. Obviously later supplements and stuff screwed up some of the scaling and whatnot, but I think part of this is because much of the effort that went into it was intentionally a bit subtle so that readers wouldn't worry about it. The end result was that even later authors were unaware of the foundations of the game's mechanics. I'm basing that assumption largely on an anecdote that I can't seem to locate now, in which one of the core 3E designers is talking to one of the Star Wars RPG authors. The 3E designer asks what formula the medium save they added is derived from, and the SWRPG guy goes, basically, "...save progressions have formulas?"

Varianor Abroad · Mar 8, 2009

Nymrohd said:
The designers did not seem to care for balance in 3E. In a system already saturated by layers and layers of attack and defense bonuses they kept adding new types. Each additional sourcebook would corrupt the balance more because the system lacked intergrity.

This is called book creep, and it's not the fault of the original designers of 3E. It happens to every company and every game. Yes, those who designed the Complete series and others could have paid more attention to "balance", but nowhere did anyone have a complete guide to the math that underpinned it. (Though all three of the original designers, Cook, Tweet and Williams talked a about it on many occasions.) You could get a snippet here or there, like when I learned that the wizard spell table is mathematically consistent if you know that they added a slot for 1st level spells one step "ahead". This is so that a 1st level wizard has a 1st level spell.

4E has much more explicit math. Particularly with respect to monster design. I like that part in many respects. Instead of having to page through book after book to build the monster to what you want, it's got set values for everything based upon whether its a mook or an elite. That said, it makes the math immediately apparent to any player that has read the guidelines and you know exactly what you're gunning for on to-hits, etc. However, I've not been sure if there are any core principles underlying it, as it appears that instead of setting principles, the designers assigned values for every step.

Treebore · Mar 8, 2009

Math definitely seemed a lot less pervasive in 2E and earlier. All the number crunching is definitely a big negative for me.

Crothian · Mar 8, 2009

There is very little math in any of these games. There is more accounting now with the more options though.

Expertise vs. previous editions

Kzach

Banned

Alisair Longreach

First Post

Runestar

First Post

Nymrohd

First Post

Slife

First Post

Nymrohd

First Post

Impeesa

Explorer

Varianor Abroad

Explorer

Treebore

First Post

Crothian

First Post

Similar Threads