Dragonblade
Adventurer
Thanks!
I enjoy reading all the feedback, both positive and negative. mmadsen has some good thoughts, for example, though he doesn't seem completely sold on the idea.
D&D 5E No ascending bonuses: A mathematical framework for 5e
Thanks!
I enjoy reading all the feedback, both positive and negative. mmadsen has some good thoughts, for example, though he doesn't seem completely sold on the idea.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
I think the thing to do is catalog the issues with this system. There are actually only 2 mechanical ones that I can see:
Q: How do you deal with the fact that to-hit is practically the same at most levels where to-hit might be used for things other than just regulating damage output?
I'd go with damage as the measure of effectiveness. This works fine for at least a large class of situations. Say the 'Archery Tournament' scenario. Whoever does the most damage to the target wins. The high level guy will pretty much carry the day hands down here. This is also generalizable into a variant of the SC system where you do 'damage' to succeed in a task. Whatever opposes the PC also does damage and you can use that in various ways.
There could be situations where you want to 'Robin Hood' or something that depends on a single check. Say making an attack that isn't primarily intended to cause damage, like shooting the apple off William Tell's head. You could have a different mechanism entirely for this, but I'm not sure yet what the best solution would be.
Q: How do you handle generating huge damage numbers at high level in a non-cumbersome way?
I think using a damage table is the best option here.
Of course this begs the question of why in this system we even HAVE an attack roll to start with. Once you start asking those questions though the purpose of the thread becomes dubious because as much as removing level bonus is a departure from D&D system design it is at least recognizable. Once you go past this point we're not talking about 5e anymore, we're just talking about designing our own game.
Q: How do you deal with the fact that to-hit is practically the same at most levels where to-hit might be used for things other than just regulating damage output?
I'd go with damage as the measure of effectiveness. This works fine for at least a large class of situations. Say the 'Archery Tournament' scenario. Whoever does the most damage to the target wins. The high level guy will pretty much carry the day hands down here. This is also generalizable into a variant of the SC system where you do 'damage' to succeed in a task. Whatever opposes the PC also does damage and you can use that in various ways.
There could be situations where you want to 'Robin Hood' or something that depends on a single check. Say making an attack that isn't primarily intended to cause damage, like shooting the apple off William Tell's head. You could have a different mechanism entirely for this, but I'm not sure yet what the best solution would be.
Q: How do you handle generating huge damage numbers at high level in a non-cumbersome way?
I think using a damage table is the best option here.
Of course this begs the question of why in this system we even HAVE an attack roll to start with. Once you start asking those questions though the purpose of the thread becomes dubious because as much as removing level bonus is a departure from D&D system design it is at least recognizable. Once you go past this point we're not talking about 5e anymore, we're just talking about designing our own game.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
I did something like this for a completely rewritten Fantasy Hero damage system for an AD&D-like game. We even broke down those damage results into 7 or 8 discrete spots on the table and named them. Then when you hit, we didn't even say the numbers. Instead, "I hit. Smashed him," or "Got him with a Spattered," or "Oh man, I only Nicked it." It worked very well for us. In our case, "Nicked" versus "Smashed" and so on was relative to the target--i.e. if young hero "Nicks" the dragon, that may be close to the most he can do.
I doubt going as far to label them would work as well in your proposal, and the 3d6 might be a better idea. But just an anecdote to say that the general principle of such a chart is sound. It was very fast in resolution for us, too, even with the indirection of the names instead of numbers.
Someone
Adventurer
I've only skimmed over the thread, so sorry of I bring already dealt with points. First, I agree the sense of character growing (in the sense of your numbers being bigger) is too much of a sacred cow to slaughter in any official D&D edition coming soon, but the idea has merit.
One advantage it may have is that it mininizes enemies on its own as the characters grow in level. If the monsters keep the ability to hit the PCs, relatively good defenses, enough damage to be a threat in large numbers, and the PC's damage is large enough to kill them easily with their now superior damage, you now have minions without having to change their stats at all or design any special rule (though you may want to average their damage rolls to save time though)
One advantage it may have is that it mininizes enemies on its own as the characters grow in level. If the monsters keep the ability to hit the PCs, relatively good defenses, enough damage to be a threat in large numbers, and the PC's damage is large enough to kill them easily with their now superior damage, you now have minions without having to change their stats at all or design any special rule (though you may want to average their damage rolls to save time though)
Crazy Jerome
First Post
Must spread XP. "Measure of effectiveness" is a good route.
You'd keep the attack roll in such a system for explicitly fate, simulation of a world, and other such reasons. It takes the linear, wide nature of the d20 and make it a huge plus. The damage expression tends towards the average. It is fairly predictable. Most of the time, it works out about like you think. This appeals to one segment of preferences. But you keep the attack roll because it is unpredictable, all or nothing, in any given circumstance. This appeals to another segment of preferences. Of course, you can predict how the attack roll will do on average, but when the troll is on the bridge and bearing down on you, and you need to hit--anything could happen.
I think so.
Level 1, PC takes 4 shots to kill foe or 6 rounds. Monster takes 3.3 shots to kill PC or 10 rounds (course, 3.3 shots in reality often means 4 successful shots or 12 average rounds because 3 shots doesn't normally cut it and requires 1 more hit to really work).
Level 5, PC takes 4 shots to kill foe or 6 rounds. Monster takes 4 shots to kill PC or 12 rounds.
Level 30, PC takes 4 shots to kill foe or 6 rounds. Monster takes 4.6 shots to kill PC or 14 rounds.
As can be seen, as the PCs get higher level, the monsters take longer to kill them. Combined with PC synergies, monsters here are not much of a threat at level one and their threat potential drops as the PCs climb in level. Btw, this same thing happens in 4E as well. 4E is off the balance chart as one gets into higher levels. The only thing keeping PCs and monsters even semi-balance in 4E is the fact that PCs do NOT gain 2 hit points per level. Many PCs do not even gain 1 hit point per level in damage, hence, the monsters don't die quite so quickly. PCs instead do multi-target and striker damage. If a high level party in 4E does not have multi-target or striker capability, they tend to die eventually.
Level 1 PC vs. Level 5 monster, PC takes 8 shots to kill foe or 12 rounds. Monster takes 2.3 shots to kill PC or 7 rounds (course, 2.3 shots in reality often means 3 successful shots or 10 average rounds).
Level 5 PC vs. Level 1 monster, PC takes 2 shots to kill foe or 3 rounds. Monster takes 5.5 shots to kill PC or 16 rounds.
Here we see that the low level monster has no chance to threaten (5 to 1 ratio in rounds) the PC (because of your adjustment to the OP's model of giving PCs twice the chance to hit monsters than monsters have to hit PCs), but the low level PC has at least some chance to kill the monster (closer to a 5 to 3 ratio or even 3 to 2 ratio).
Personally, I don't really consider this that balanced. The PCs wipe through same level foes with ease (without taking into account Encounter powers, AoEs, or Striker abilities, basically just using At Will powers) and higher level foes with some resources.
The monsters have virtually no chance at same level and even at higher level, don't really represent a major threat when one considers other PC abilities (like Striker damage, etc.). Granted, monsters tend to have one or even two encounter power that is a bit stronger, but that doesn't compare to extra PC resources.
And of course, there are the damage issues that have already been mentioned (i.e. How do we do 84 points of damage with just 5 or 6 dice? and Is an 18 Strength worth it if Strength only adds 4 points of damage to this mega-total?, etc.).
Yup. This is an issue that people will yell to the top of their lungs over in this type of system.
Player: "What do you mean that I cannot just hit these low level mooks with my sword practically at will?"
A better proposal for a system than the OP's model is to increase to hit and defenses as PC level up, but to hardly increase damage or hit points at all.
This type of model indicates that the PCs get better at blocking, dodging and hitting foes as they level up, but a sword hurts them only a little less at high level than at low level.
That means when 10 1st level foes come at the 10th level PC, they miss a lot. But if they do hit, they do hurt him. This type of system is also more plausible than the various D&D models and the OP one proposed here. It makes sense that the higher level PCs dodge more attacks completely and hit more often, but swords still hurt them if they do hit.
For example:
1st level:
20 hit points. An 18 Str foe hits for a longsword for 8.5 damage (like in 4E). It takes 2+ hits from any level foe to take this guy out with a longsword.
10th level
38 hit points (gaining 2 hit points per level for melee combatant types, gaining 1 hit point per level for spell casters). It takes 4 hits with a longsword from an 18 Str foe to take out this PC. But at level 10, this guy is no longer just going up against longswords. He's going up against Ogres and Giants and Dragons who hit for more than 8.5 average points of damage. They might be hitting for 16 or so average hit points of damage.
This type of system is a lot more plausible than anything D&D had in the past. Higher level PCs get better at blocking, dodging, and hitting, but they aren't a super large sack of hit points. And, larger stronger creatures are going to smack them hard if they connect, regardless of PC level. This type of system also makes ability scores and magic more important than levels with regard to how much damage is done. Strong opponents hit hard all of the time. Strong opponents with magical weapons hit even harder.
This system also has the advantage that the addition and subtraction (hit points and damage) are much smaller and easier to work with. If a 30th level PC has 78 hit points, that's a lot easier number to work with.
The OP's system (as proposed) means that Strength and Magic Weapons don't mean much of anything with regard to damage. Levels do.
This type of system has a lot of benefits as well, and of course its own flaws. Its a lot swingier than the other system. For example, if those low level mooks get lucky on those d20 rolls I could suddenly be looking at a deadly encounter.
Or if I gain a penalty to AC from magic or being prone or something, that means a lot more because my defense is wrapped up in a single defense score instead of a hp pad.
Yes, precisely.
If one changes D&D to no longer be both a defense bonus and a bag of hit point bonus versus lower level foes, the game changes.
Alternatively, the deadliness of higher level foes decreases (which also means that taking out lower level foes is harder). It's also a bit easier to get lucky and take out higher level foes because they are not bags of hit points.
All in all, a slightly different game. The curve is flatter. Lower level foes are more of a threat than previously, higher level foes are less of a threat than previously. But, lower level foes are not as much as a threat as same level foes which are not as much of a threat as higher level foes.
This means that one could take on foes 8 levels higher with significant resource expenditure. On the other hand, foes 8 levels lower would require more resource expenditure than one would normally associate with foes so low since although they rarely hit, when they do, they do more damage percentage-wise (and it takes a bit longer to take them out if extra resources are not expended)..
This makes the game a bit more gritty. Course, there are always healing resources, so it wouldn't be overwhelmingly so. Instead of monsters doing 1 extra hit point per level, it would be more like 1 extra per 2 or 3 levels.
One advantage of that is that the DM doesn't have to wait 5 more levels before introducing a troll. He can introduce the troll much earlier and if the troll escapes each time, that troll can easily be a re-occurring BBEG for 12 or so levels. The level window for the introduction of each monster is much greater than in 4E (which is typically about 6 levels, maybe 8 at the most). Since higher level foes do significantly less damage and lower level foes do significantly more damage (percentage-wise as compared to 4E), the troll can fight the PCs from the time it has an 80% chance to hit down to the time that it has a 20% chance to hit or about 13 levels.
Similar Threads
