D&D 5E The math of D&D Next; a moderating proposal

[JonWake]

That works so long as HP's don't escalate.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Don't forget how important HP escalation is. For example, a 50% hit rate at first level might mean that over 6 rounds a fighter is likely to drop to 0hp. At 10th level, that might increase to 19-20 rounds. This is how grind happens. Having AC remain relatively static for the duration of a character's career means that the chance to hit will increase, but the length of combat will only marginally increase.

HPs always increase in excess of damage output (with the notable exception of the 3e Sneak Attack bonus).

You're using circular logic. There's no reason that damage output cannot keep pace with hp, or even outpace hp. Just because it hasn't been done that way in the past, doesn't mean it can't be done that way now; isn't the point of a new edition to improve upon the design?

 

[JonWake]

You're using circular logic. There's no reason that damage output cannot keep pace with hp, or even outpace hp. Just because it hasn't been done that way in the past, doesn't mean it can't be done that way now; isn't the point of a new edition to improve upon the design?

No, that's just regular logic. Nobody has made any kind of damage proposal, so in lieu of hypothetical people making silent and invisible suggestions, I am simply reminding people that adjustments to a combat system need to take into account the escalation of HP values.

You want to increase damage output? Okay, say that every 3 levels you do an extra [W] in damage-- you're still not going to outpace HP progression, but it will negate some of the grindyness of high level combat. A 6th level fighter with a longsword will do 3d8 damage, averaging out to 13.5 points of damage. Assuming a 4e type HP progression, the 6th level fighter will have 35-40 HPs, making a fight last 2.8 hits, or about 6 rounds. That seems to be a good time frame for a fight, assuming it moves at a decent table-clip.

This begs the question, though: If you're trying so hard to remove the function of HPs, why have them in the system in the first place?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

This begs the question, though: If you're trying so hard to remove the function of HPs, why have them in the system in the first place?

The functions of hit points are combat pacing, limited "plot protection," and to (abstractly) track damage of various kinds. Not all of those functions are sympatico, all the time.

 

[Hassassin]

The functions of hit points are combat pacing, limited "plot protection," and to (abstractly) track damage of various kinds. Not all of those functions are sympatico, all the time.

I think [MENTION=95255]JonWake[/MENTION] (sorry if I'm wrong) may have meant the function of hp *increases*.

If hp and damage have the same progression, there is no change and the increase has, IMO, no function.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think [MENTION=95255]JonWake[/MENTION] (sorry if I'm wrong) may have meant the function of hp *increases*.

If hp and damage have the same progression, there is no change and the increase has, IMO, no function.

It has a function in demarcating the difference between you and creatures that are both lower and higher than your level.

The only thing that doesn't change is your performance against creatures of your level, but even that is relative. If ogres are a level 3 creature, then even with fixed attack and defense totals (meaning accuracy never changes, not that that would ever happen), hp and damage will significantly affect the fighter. That encounter will be different when the PCs are level 1, compared to when they are level 5. The only scenario that I can see where it makes no difference is if you insist upon never using creatures above or below the PCs' level.

 

[Fanaelialae]

No, that's just regular logic. Nobody has made any kind of damage proposal, so in lieu of hypothetical people making silent and invisible suggestions, I am simply reminding people that adjustments to a combat system need to take into account the escalation of HP values.

You want to increase damage output? Okay, say that every 3 levels you do an extra [W] in damage-- you're still not going to outpace HP progression, but it will negate some of the grindyness of high level combat. A 6th level fighter with a longsword will do 3d8 damage, averaging out to 13.5 points of damage. Assuming a 4e type HP progression, the 6th level fighter will have 35-40 HPs, making a fight last 2.8 hits, or about 6 rounds. That seems to be a good time frame for a fight, assuming it moves at a decent table-clip.

This begs the question, though: If you're trying so hard to remove the function of HPs, why have them in the system in the first place?

Actually, I've proposed that attack and defense should be kept fairly static (within the sweet spot), and hp and damage used as the main means of scaling.

You can absolutely design a system where damage outpaces hp. Everyone gets +1 HP and +2 damage every level. Easy.

The harder part is finding where exactly the sweet spot in the hp/damage ratio is. Which basically equates to, how long should a fight be (in rounds)? Moreover, should that remain constant, or change over time?

It can be done. First, however, they have to decide what they're trying to do.

 

[Hassassin]

It has a function in demarcating the difference between you and creatures that are both lower and higher than your level.

Yes, but you only need to increase one of damage/BAB to accomplish that. When considering the OP proposal, that function is already covered by BAB increases.

Actually, I've proposed that attack and defense should be kept fairly static (within the sweet spot), and hp and damage used as the main means of scaling.

I prefer a system where defense and damage are kept fairly static, while increases are mainly in attack and hp.

That way fighters grow from relatively swingy (e.g. 3 hits to kill with 40% hit chance) to consistent (e.g. 6 hits to kill with 80% hit chance), as they advance in levels.

 

[Endur]

NO MATH.

Seriously guys, lets reduce the math.

I don't want to have to deal with 10,000 hit point Dragons or 482 damage from a blow when the barbarian swings his great axe.

I don't want to have to add up twelve different types of bonuses.

I don't want to have to keep track of six different conditions that the PCs have applied on my evil Boss.

NO MATH.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yes, but you only need to increase one of damage/BAB to accomplish that. When considering the OP proposal, that function is already covered by BAB increases.



I prefer a system where defense and damage are kept fairly static, while increases are mainly in attack and hp.

That way fighters grow from relatively swingy (e.g. 3 hits to kill with 40% hit chance) to consistent (e.g. 6 hits to kill with 80% hit chance), as they advance in levels.

I just want to make sure we're on the same page here.

It seems to me like you a talking about enemy attack vs. player defense (and enemy damage vs. player hp).

I'm talking about player attack vs. enemy defense.

Enemies don't need the sweet spot unless the DM is the type who gets frustrated when a bad string of rolls means that the enemy was utterly ineffective. The importance of that is relevant but debatable. However, I have yet to meet a player who doesn't get frustrated when he's incapable of doing anything meaningful because he just can't seem to roll well enough.

While I don't think the monster math should be taken to extremes (a creature that only hits on a nat 19, but autokills) there's definitely more wiggle room there than in the player math IMO (keeping in mind that since players target monster defenses, monster defenses should be considered part of the player math).