Fanaelialae
Legend
I think that is a fair assessment.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Ability scores - How intrinsic are they to D&D?
- Thread starter Fanaelialae
- Start date
I think that is a fair assessment.
well, like that extra rope for just in case, when the DM has 2 pre-gens left and you got there before me, which PC do you take, Limpy or Dexter?
Fanaelialae
Legend
I already said that Dexter is better. I'm pretty sure I admitted that when I first posed the example, and I've definitely said it since. To make it perfectly, 100% clear, I would take Dexter over Limpy given the choice.
That still wouldn't mean that I'd be happy about Limpy beating me in 1 out of 5 quick draw contests. Limpy is one of the worst quick draws in the world, whereas I'm one of the best. Limpy should have an almost 0% chance of beating Dexter at a quick draw, not 17%.
Youre getting caught in a logical trap. Some games are designed to model reality very closely. D&D is not. It has a certain veneer of simulation- a pretty thick one in some cases- but ultimately, the system is designed so that PCs almost always have a chance at success, however slim. That's why a Nat20 attack roll always hits.
Yes, this can produce oddball results...but it's because the designers took into account that the PCs wouldn't always be operating from an advantageous situation, so they designed a game that lets even the woefully overmatched have a chance.
Well, I only know 2 ways to model the fight to determine Limpy's chances better.
1) abstract to DPR and apply it each round to determine who dies first (which is why Dexter wins)
2) code up a simulation to run the straight fight for 1000 times and return the result.
I'm not a math person either, so I cheat (hence my use of Excel to brute force the Init % answer).
It's probable that the % is right.
Consider it this way: 2 equal fighters is a 50% chance. having a +8 init advantage adds 33% to that chance.
Does +8 damage or attack have the same increase? Normally, a +1 to-hit is like +5% damage (as it increases you chance or hitting by 5% the payout is an additional 5%). This is the same method applied for lottery chances (you chance to win * the payout = actual payout value to be compared with the cost of the ticket).
Fanaelialae
Legend
FWIW, both 2.5% and 5% are close enough to 0% to satisfy me, and both are achievable by the system. Limpy can succeed if he rolls a natural 20, or if Dexter rolls a natural 1. I object to Limpy succeeding if he rolls a natural 16 and Dexter rolls a natural 7.
Besides, as I've mentioned, that's only one example of a larger issue. Another example is Wisdom, which lumps together aspects that have no relation to one another. It covers intuition, common sense, perception and willpower. I've known a few people who were strong willed but possessed poor observation skills. Intuitiveness has nothing to do with a person's willpower.
I'm not saying that 5e has to change ability scores. I'm not even saying that I wouldn't play 5e if they kept ability scores as is. I'll judge the game as a whole when I see it. What I am saying is that the ability score system isn't perfect and the designers would be remiss if they dismissed the possibility of creating something better out of hand.
1) The initiative rules are different from the attack rules so that your stat adjustment always matters. It wouldn't make sense if Limpy rolled a Nat20- an autosuccess- forcing Dexter to roll a Nat20 himself. That way, he actually beats out Dex's rolls between 12-19, and Dex's autofailure with a 1 gives Limpy more chances to succeed on the low end as well.
Why? It reflects Limpy doing the best he possibly could while Dexter gets distracted. It happens.
I ruled my HS chess club.* It wasn't even close. But one day, I was scheduled to be playing a bottom ranked player, I was more interested in reading a book. In my arrogance, I continued to read while playing. Thus distracted, I lost to Fool's Mate- my first and only loss. (Yes, I was ridiculed for it...good naturedly by most.)
On the flip side, I also used to play volleyball a lot. Some of the guys I played with were Olympic hopefuls, and they taught me a lot. So one day, I went out to a beach volleyball bar/club and was asked by a couple to be their third for a game of pickup 3 on 3. They were practicing for some regional event. For whatever reason, it was as if I were a man possessed: every set I made was perfectly placed for his spikes; every pass I made was on target; my serve was dropping in for aces; I dug out or blocked vicious shots from the opposition. It looked like we had been playing together for months, and we blew them away. Likewise the next 3 teams that took the court to challenge us. At the end of the evening, the guy & gal asked me to join their team permanently. Flattered, I confessed that I had never played that well in my life, and they were better off finding someone who could do that on a regular basis. (For the record, while I still played well after that, I NEVER played THAT well again. Not even close.)
* to put my dominance in context, 3/4 of my graduating class were National Merit scholars, and no class at that school since then has achieved less than 50%.
Last edited:
Crazy Jerome
First Post
I think the core six ability scores have some flaws. I think some of the charm of D&D--for better and worse--is tied up into those flaws. Then enters my perception of human ability and its nature (which others might not share). To wit, I think any designer clever and wise enough to radically replace those ability scores (and/or classes and levels), while retaining the vast majority of the good stuff--is also capable of doing something pretty darn nifty while keeping it all. If that is true, I'd rather see his version of D&D built within those constraints, and his other game, that isn't D&D, built without them. Both have their merits.
I think Fanelia has a point. If we're comparing 3/18 to 18/3, the high strength guy has more of an advantage over the high dex guy.
High initiative only gives a significant advantage if combat is very short (N+1 attacks vs N attacks). If combat is longer, the cumulative increase of damage per attack for the stronger guy is going to outweigh any advantage in going first.
Now, if the dex guy had a chance of getting more attacks per round, then I can see the math equalizing.
If we're comparing 18/18 to 18/3, I don't really understand the comparison. 18/18 is flat out superior.
I was thinking that a more interesting model for D&D combat might be adding two abilities to the roll instead of just one. For example, attack could be 1d20+Str+Dex against a defense of 10+Dex+Con. Damage done could be dX+Str against a health pool of dX+Con.
So Str would make you more likely to hit, and hit harder
Des would make you more likely to hit, and more likely to avoid damage
Con would allow you to shrug off damage, and give you more health.
High initiative only gives a significant advantage if combat is very short (N+1 attacks vs N attacks). If combat is longer, the cumulative increase of damage per attack for the stronger guy is going to outweigh any advantage in going first.
Now, if the dex guy had a chance of getting more attacks per round, then I can see the math equalizing.
If we're comparing 18/18 to 18/3, I don't really understand the comparison. 18/18 is flat out superior.
I was thinking that a more interesting model for D&D combat might be adding two abilities to the roll instead of just one. For example, attack could be 1d20+Str+Dex against a defense of 10+Dex+Con. Damage done could be dX+Str against a health pool of dX+Con.
So Str would make you more likely to hit, and hit harder
Des would make you more likely to hit, and more likely to avoid damage
Con would allow you to shrug off damage, and give you more health.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
I thought about that a few weeks ago in a related discussion in the 4E forum, but ended up not posting anything. What made me consider it is that MRQ II works like that for all skills. Every skill (including combat) gets a double pump from stats. Interestingly, they even include double from the same stat (e.g. Str + Str). It is a pretty even distribution, too, across all skills. It does a good job of making the main stat(s) for a given concept important to it, while making the secondary stuff useful, if more spread out.
What kept me from suggesting it then is the same unanswered objection I still have: How do you translate something working as modest bumps in a percentage system to more serious bumps in a d20 + mod vs DC system? One way, of course, is to mute the bonuses from stats--perhaps going back to something closer to Basic, where an 18 gets a +3. But then you have the same problem that MRQ II has--the coarse granularity means that whole swaths of the likely stat range have little effect. (MRQ II has this problem in other derived abilities. In the percentage skills, it is no problem.)
So is there a good way to build the math in D&D such that a regular attribute bonus can be used, but including the bumps from two stats doesn't inflate the range too much?
