D&D 5E No ascending bonuses: A mathematical framework for 5e

[mmadsen]

You have this today. A low level foe tends to hit for 1/3rd of a low PC's hit points.

The difference is that high level foes in 4E tend to hit for 1/6th of a high PC's hit points and DMs have to go out of their way to create monster groups that have good synergy and many attacks per round to overcome this. Course, they rarely can due to the vast plethora of temporary hit points, resistance, surgeless healing, and normal healing at high levels. The PCs have too many ways to reduce this damage even more.

The reason your claim here is inaccurate is that damage in this type of model is significantly decreased over what 4E does today. It's ratio-ed out to an appropriate level. It's not just +1 more damage per monster level.

If low-level PCs can take roughly three hits from level-appropriate enemies, and high-level PCs can take six, is this a good thing or a bad thing? Do we want the ratio to remain constant? Or do we need relative damage to decline, because we want to give high-level characters more attacks per round?

How do we want to control the ratio? If we keep damage and hit points static, the ratio stays static. D&D has historically ramped up the hit points tremendously, and only recently has it ramped up damage, too.

That's one of the flaws of 4E. It's sweet spot changes. This type of model avoids that.

It sounds like you'd like to keep damage and hit points strictly proportional, presumably with no increase in number of attacks per round?

Again, we can do that by keeping damage and hit points static or by increasing them at the same rate.

Personally, I think that PCs should hit same level foes about 60% of the time and that it should take 3 to 4 hits to take out the foe (almost regardless of class except for Strikers). I think monsters should hit PCs 40% (vs. melee class) to 60% (vs. non-melee class) of the time and that it should take 3 hits to take out a non-melee class and 4 hits to take out a melee class. In other words, 10 attacks (sometime via multiple attackers) to take out a melee PC and 5 attacks to take out a non-melee PC (by this, I basically mean a Fighter vs. a Wizard, there is room for shades of gray in between).

If you want a Fighter wearing heavy armor to be just twice as tough as a Wizard, that suggests no difference in hit points or armor class from character class or abilities and only a tiny difference in armor class from heavy armor.

It also suggests that a Fighter shouldn't be able to take on three Wizards in hand-to-hand combat with no spells involved.

 

[mmadsen]

You don't allow this via the rules. The best PCs "to hit" (with whatever attack they primarily use) shouldn't be more than 15% better than the worse PCs "to hit" at the same level.

4E was pretty good at this until the splat books and Essentials came out (with the exception of the Rogue who risked himself in combat with lower defenses and hit points than defenders in order to get his mega-bonus to hit). Then, all hell broke loose and a lot of PCs started to get 80% or more chance to hit same level foes.

Sorry, but that's just plain ridiculous.

I think we need to examine the consequences of some of these numbers, because, really, hitting 80 percent of the time isn't overpowering. It means dealing 1.4 times as much damage as hitting 50 percent of time.

In fact, hitting 95 percent of the time means dealing less than double the damage of hitting 50 percent of the time. It sounds powerful, and it's not weak, but it's not overpowering, at least by itself.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think we need to examine the consequences of some of these numbers, because, really, hitting 80 percent of the time isn't overpowering. It means dealing 1.4 times as much damage as hitting 50 percent of time.

In fact, hitting 95 percent of the time means dealing less than double the damage of hitting 50 percent of the time. It sounds powerful, and it's not weak, but it's not overpowering, at least by itself.

It really depends on what else you can do with a hit. Once you start factoring in any appreciable additional effects besides damage output things start to change rapidly. A 4e character that can hit 30% more often is a lot more than 1.15x more effective at attacking, its more like he's probably 1.5x more effective at low level and maybe up to as much as 2.5x more effective at high levels.

 

[mmadsen]

The delta between the best and worse defense should be 4 (i.e. 5 different values) so that the chance to be hit by a given level foe (not saying if this is same level or not) is in the 40% to 60% range. The chance to get hit by a given foe one level higher is then in the 45% to 65% range, etc.

A delta of four means something different between 1 and 5 than it means between 15 and 19. That's the point I was trying to make earlier. On one end, it means hitting (or getting hit) five times as often; on the other, 1.27 times as often.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think we need to examine the consequences of some of these numbers, because, really, hitting 80 percent of the time isn't overpowering. It means dealing 1.4 times as much damage as hitting 50 percent of time.

In fact, hitting 95 percent of the time means dealing less than double the damage of hitting 50 percent of the time. It sounds powerful, and it's not weak, but it's not overpowering, at least by itself.

If it were only damage, I might agree with you.

But, it's conditions and effects as well. It's forced movement into a hazard.

It's more than just a 40% to 90% increase in damage.

 

[KarinsDad]

A delta of four means something different between 1 and 5 than it means between 15 and 19. That's the point I was trying to make earlier. On one end, it means hitting (or getting hit) five times as often; on the other, 1.27 times as often.

Precisely. That's why a 7 delta is even worse.

As for the difference between a 15 and a 19, it doesn't really matter. The type of overwhelmingly powerful encounters where the best PC attacker needs a 15 on the die and the worse needs a 19 means that the PCs should be running.

 

[Stalker0]

I hate cheat. Even if it is within the rules.


Edit: Especially when it's in the rules. It's like watching a movie and suddenly, you realize that you are watching a movie as the players take over the outcome of the encounter without resorting to dice rolls to do it.

DM: "The Ogre hits you for a massive 52 points of damage and stuns you."
Player: "No he doesn't. I play my "You Dodge the Attack" card.

Your example is simply one of many different ways to utilize such an effect.

Try this for example:

DM: "The Ogre hits you for a massive 52 points of damage."
Player: "Damn it....that kills me. Ok, I play my drama point to stay alive".
DM: "The orge smashes you down unconscious, crushing one of your legs in the process. While healing will ultimately help you recover, there will be a lingering wound there that shall never fully heal".

What a great cinematic, works with flavor (pcs often have near death experiences) and you can now introduce permanent wounds into the dnd system.

Karinsdad, I used to agree with your type of system a great deal. But after I've tried my own version and my own gaming system I realized how incredibly hard it is. As I mentioned earlier, this thread shows some of the basic difficulties, and we haven't even scratched the surface on the numbers of options players will likely have access to in the full game.


You can try and create a number of different game mechanics to solve this, but the more general they are, the more unintended consequences they have. Take healing for example. Perhaps I can fix a deadlier system by adding in more healing. Well....that has its own consequences to.

The reason I have fallen in love with "drama/fate/hero point" systems so much is that you can tailor them as scalpel mechanics that only hit a very specific portion of the game.

Let us assume that the example I gave above is the main use of this drama point, it only works when a player dies. That means all the combat actions leading up to death are completely unaffected. And further, the mechanic scales to need.

If in one game, players don't die at all due to other circumstances, the drama point system never comes into play. If the players die alot, it comes into play quite a bit.

Further, in the spirit of 5e dials, it very customizable to the DM. Some dms give every pc 1 drama point, some give 5, some give 0. Some require it to give a lingering wound, some don't. But all of there decisions around this one mechanic have no effect on the rest of the game at all, which is an amazingly effective tool.

I am not suggesting that your ideas are bad, in fact I think as the main gaming system interface I think its a great start. But ultimately as you start adding in all the bonuses and customization you will start to see wear around the edges. The drama point type mechanic is simply the best mechanic I have seen to address it.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I think I favor KarinsDad's solution of scaling attack bonus and AC while having damage and HP static (or at least growing very slowly) -- it has the advantage of providing a feel for "skill growth", while still keeping combat short (no massive amounts of ablative hit points) and maintaining the potential for mob combat being dangerous (10th level fighter on 1st level probably isn't worried, but the same guy vs 10 1st levels should rightly run). That said, a quick review of the alternatives in a systemic fashion is in order.

We essentially have four scores under discussion, two offensive (Attack bonus and damage) and two defensive (AC (or other Defense, for 4E model) and hit points). You want a system that provides a feel for increasing skill with increasing level, so some of those scores should increase. You also want higher level characters to dominate lower levels, within reason, but still have some ability for lower levels to take on higher levels so that PCs can take on dangerous monsters with clever play, and that high level PCs can still be threatened (avoids the PC walks into town and takes out the entire city guard single handedly problem). Avoiding too much random swinginess is a value if possible. What are the options? (For discussion when I use the term "increase" I mean it increases substantially with level at say a 1-1 or 1-2 rate, while for those scores held constant the term "constant" can mean truly constant or simply increasing at a very slow rate, say 1-5.)

1. Increase everything with level. Equal levels are scaled at higher levels, but high level dominates low level without threat. Creates a "superhero" feel. Close to 3E and 4E D&D, here.

2. Keep everything constant. Equal levels are equal, and all levels are a threat to all other levels. Now we're playing Harn.

3. Increase attack attributes only. Higher levels make it very easy to kill lower levels, lower levels have a lesser probabiliy but equal ability to hit higher levels. High level characters feel skillful but are glass cannons. Damage increase is effectively meaningless due to static hp.

4. Increase defense attributes only. Higher levels can't fight each other, and can't be theatened. High levels never get better at fighting lower levels. You're Clark Kent in a world with no Kryptonite -- doesn't work.

5. Increase attack and AC, constant damage and HP (KarinsDad). High level combats among equals feel like lower level combats, determined by the first few blows. Low levels can threaten higher levels, if lucky or clever. Higher levels can quickly defeat lower levels due to higher probability of hit. Some swinginess due to "goldden BB" strikes, but does solve the "Expert Archer" conundrum.

6. Increase attack and HP, constant damage and AC. At high levels vs equals hits land more often but combats remain the same length as ablative defense of HP overwhelms damage capability. Higher vs lower levels highers dominate -- they might take a hit or two but there is essentially no risk due to high ablative defense (HP). I'd put 1E close to this category.

7. Increase damage and AC, constant attack and HP. Characters never feel more proficient ("Expert Archer" conundrum), but at high levels get obliterated when hit (or high vs. low). Low levels vs. high almost never hit, but can be lethal when they do. probably results in the "most swingy" option.

8. Increase damage and HP, constant attack and AC. Characters never feel more proficient ("Expert Archer" again). Combats among equals stay relatively constant. Higher levels vs. lower obliterate lower on a hit; lower vs higher is a lengthening war of attrition but possible if lucky. This is probably a stable game base, but I expect would result in complaints that characters don't "feel" improved over levels.

I won't go through the "increase three, one constant" options -- I find most less desireable. "Increase one, three constant" is more interesting but a bit less fun [Aside ... unless you do this an let the player choose at each level which one score to increase. *That* might get really interesting ... you get super attacker vs. super defense man vs high HP dude vs damage monger vs "put a little bit in everything" -- probably a min-maxer heaven.]

What still must be fixed is the other inputs to these scores. We've looked primarily at the inputs from gaining levels; I think what tends to break the game (or did particularly in 3E) is not the level inputs but the enhancement bonuses. When you add magic armor, a ring of protection, a DEX boost, an amulet of natural armor, etc, to AC and they all stack, the math breaks pretty quickly (across all scores, generally except HP). To make the system work we either need to eliminate enhancements, or keep them to a reasonable number. Perhaps no stacking at all (only the best enhancement that improves AC counts, for example), or limit stacking to a total -- no more than +5 can be applied to any score or roll from any enhancements.

 

[Stalker0]

I think I favor KarinsDad's solution of scaling attack bonus and AC while having damage and HP static (or at least growing very slowly) -- it has the advantage of providing a feel for "skill growth", while still keeping combat short (no massive amounts of ablative hit points) and maintaining the potential for mob combat being dangerous (10th level fighter on 1st level probably isn't worried, but the same guy vs 10 1st levels should rightly run). That said, a quick review of the alternatives in a systemic fashion is in order.

Good review, though if we are looking at core dnd stats then healing should be factored in.

Traditionally Pcs have not only gotten more hitpoints but also access to more healing.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Yeah, ease/access to healing definitely adds another wrinkle to the potential combinations, though I think it can be equivalent to hit point scaling.

Though it is somewhat PC-centric. I haven't seen a lot of combat encounters built where the monsters had access to the kind of healing PCs do. But then, they know they're going to be red shirts when they pick up the script.