I think to really understand what's meant by this, you need to know enough statistics to apply negative binomial distributions to the ranges of modifiers and targets ...
"Accident of Math"???
- Thread starter Gundark
- Start date
TwinBahamut
First Post
The "accident of math" is the reason 3E is even playable.
Before now, it seems that the game designers never sat down and calculated things like a characters chance to hit normal foes as they progress from level 1 to level 20. Things like full, 3/4, and half BAB progression were implemented because they seemed to work, and because they worked well when laid out on a table, not because of number-crunching that determined they were the best way to balance classes. Similarly, Acs were given out that seemed appropriate, but, were not calculated into an overal scheme of gameplay. The mathematical playability of the game was never thoroughly appraised by the designers until 4E.
As such, the entire fact that there even is a sweet spot where the game mathematically makes sense is an "accident of math".
The goal of 4E is to rebuild the math from the core, such that the "sweet spot" is not accidental, but is instead intentional, and covers the scope of the whole game.
To shift to a metaphor, compare two imaginary houses.
House 3E was not built by an architect, and the layout was instead planned solely by amateurs. The structural supports of the building were the same across the whole structure, but the weight load in some areas was much greater than in others, so parts of the building collapsed, but others did not. The fact that anything stood at all was an accident.
To replace the collapsed House 3E, an architect will be hired to design House 4E, so that all the structural supports are sufficient to bear the weiht they need to bear, and the building won't collapse.
Err, note that I am not insulting the designers of 3E. They had a lot of legacy issues from older version of the game, and it wasn't until serious mathematical disection of the game was done by house-ruling DMs, powergamers, and munchkins, and the extent of the collapse was proven in places like the WotC Theoretical Optimization Board, that the need for better math was demonstrated.
Before now, it seems that the game designers never sat down and calculated things like a characters chance to hit normal foes as they progress from level 1 to level 20. Things like full, 3/4, and half BAB progression were implemented because they seemed to work, and because they worked well when laid out on a table, not because of number-crunching that determined they were the best way to balance classes. Similarly, Acs were given out that seemed appropriate, but, were not calculated into an overal scheme of gameplay. The mathematical playability of the game was never thoroughly appraised by the designers until 4E.
As such, the entire fact that there even is a sweet spot where the game mathematically makes sense is an "accident of math".
The goal of 4E is to rebuild the math from the core, such that the "sweet spot" is not accidental, but is instead intentional, and covers the scope of the whole game.
To shift to a metaphor, compare two imaginary houses.
House 3E was not built by an architect, and the layout was instead planned solely by amateurs. The structural supports of the building were the same across the whole structure, but the weight load in some areas was much greater than in others, so parts of the building collapsed, but others did not. The fact that anything stood at all was an accident.
To replace the collapsed House 3E, an architect will be hired to design House 4E, so that all the structural supports are sufficient to bear the weiht they need to bear, and the building won't collapse.
Err, note that I am not insulting the designers of 3E. They had a lot of legacy issues from older version of the game, and it wasn't until serious mathematical disection of the game was done by house-ruling DMs, powergamers, and munchkins, and the extent of the collapse was proven in places like the WotC Theoretical Optimization Board, that the need for better math was demonstrated.
I have no problem with knowledge of statistics.Christian said:
What I objected to, was the validity of a comparison between the size of a single modifier and the range of a d20. What the die range should be compared to is the spread of modifier values within a particular power level.
I honestly fail to see how my objection has anything to do with negative binomial distributions.
I don't see why you are worried about the differences in the ability to hit the enemy with a sword between a wizard and a fighter. The fighter pretty much needs to go and hit something with a sword, and well if I am the wizard I don't try to do that unless I cast true strike first for a +20 bonus. The other classes have ways of making up the differnce to hit. The cleric has a plethora of spells to help him with his ability to hit and produce damage. THe rogue on the other hand has the role of trying to get behind someone and using his sneak attack. They should have different chances of hitting. The fighter is typically reduced to standing in combat and swinging away with a couple of tricks.
As for saves are you trying to tell me you don't expect the wizard to have a lot more difficulty in trying to overcome the poison you slip in his drink than the fighter. What about the cleric wearing fullplate? Should he be as adept at dodging the fireball as the nimble rogue wearing his mithral chainshirt? And that same rogue who hasn't put as much effort into refining his mind as the monk who spent years meditating at his monastery, should he avoid the effects of the mind blast from the mind flayer. Every character has their weaknesses and their strengths. As you get better at your specialty those differences get more pronounced.
As for saves are you trying to tell me you don't expect the wizard to have a lot more difficulty in trying to overcome the poison you slip in his drink than the fighter. What about the cleric wearing fullplate? Should he be as adept at dodging the fireball as the nimble rogue wearing his mithral chainshirt? And that same rogue who hasn't put as much effort into refining his mind as the monk who spent years meditating at his monastery, should he avoid the effects of the mind blast from the mind flayer. Every character has their weaknesses and their strengths. As you get better at your specialty those differences get more pronounced.
Oldtimer said:
No, this is complete nonsense: asfasfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdf
The other stuff you're talking about is someone's ideas. Folks should start ratcheting down the kookiness of their objections. If you have logical reasons for objecting to something, just state those reasons - the ideas behind your objections are potentially interesting. Characterizations are not.
milo said:
I think you've missed the point.
The problem isn't that the fighter is better at hitting than the cleric and rogue.
No, the problem is that the fighter hits on a 2 or better and the rogue hits only on a natural 20, given the way the bonuses work out at high levels in D&D 3e. It's not that the chances are different - it's that the gap between the chances becomes too big.
Cheers!
Scribble
First Post
What I'm seeing here isn't that there is one straight problem with the math... There are a number of small problems adding up into a larger problem.
The difefrence between the classes becomes too great, compounded with the difference between AC progression and attack progression, added onto by the fact that after a while the dice become irrelevant (95% of the time.)
Plus I think it all adds to the idea that in order for the DM to challenge the players he/she has to really crunch the feats and such in order to boost his monsters up to a level that's worth being used.
The difefrence between the classes becomes too great, compounded with the difference between AC progression and attack progression, added onto by the fact that after a while the dice become irrelevant (95% of the time.)
Plus I think it all adds to the idea that in order for the DM to challenge the players he/she has to really crunch the feats and such in order to boost his monsters up to a level that's worth being used.
Similar Threads
D&D 5E (2014)
Tidbit for monster design
