"Accident of Math"???

[Charwoman Gene]

"Mathematics" is plural, so the contraction is "maths". As for "obligate", and "protest" as a transitive verb... Bah! Humbug!

Let's stop compounding my threadcrap. This isn't "British vs. American" plurals debate.

 

[Hairfoot]

Let's stop compounding my threadcrap. This isn't "British vs. American" plurals debate.

I concur.

I heard that in order to make the numbers run smoother, 4E is ditching plurals altogether in favour a binary layout in all books, which can only be read with a barcode scanner.

 

[pemerton]

sunny Austria, the land down under.

Very good! (From a fellow "Austrian" - I'm in Melbourne.)

Btw, posters on this thread might be interested in this other maths thread.

 

[wedgeski]

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.

This is doing something of an injustice to the 3rd Edition creators. Those guys weren't pulled off the street... they were experienced, professional game designers with major pedigree in the industry. I can certainly recall Monte Cook talking about the math behind 3rd Edition, although I can't remember where (probably his blog).

I think the problem is more to do with the legacy of the older editions, the potentially incomplete playtesting at higher levels which Merric suggested, and the nature of the massive overhaul applied to the game. It's entirely possible the designers were well aware of the sweet spot and that although very high-level play was considered somewhat broken it was much less of a priority than the levels that preceded it. If true they've certainly been proved right by 3ed's massive success.

 

[MerricB]

This is doing something of an injustice to the 3rd Edition creators. Those guys weren't pulled off the street... they were experienced, professional game designers with major pedigree in the industry. I can certainly recall Monte Cook talking about the math behind 3rd Edition, although I can't remember where (probably his blog).

I think the problem is more to do with the legacy of the older editions, the potentially incomplete playtesting at higher levels which Merric suggested, and the nature of the massive overhaul applied to the game. It's entirely possible the designers were well aware of the sweet spot and that although very high-level play was considered somewhat broken it was much less of a priority than the levels that preceded it. If true they've certainly been proved right by 3ed's massive success.

Let's not forget Jon Tweet (who tends to get a lot less press around here than Monte) has also posted about 3e:

It is funny. In my case, however, it's not that I'm expected to bash 3.X now. It's that I'm finally allowed to do so. It's been three years since I ran 3.X, but I was never very public about that fact. Now that 4E's announced, I can let the fans know without making the PR people angry.

Another reason that 3.X is hard for me is that I've seen some of the major 4E improvements coming for years. When I play 3.X, I'm not only comparing it to 1st and 2nd edition (in which case it's great) or to other RPGs (in which case it's remarkably solid) but to what I know is coming. Knowing how things are going to improve makes me impatient with 3.X's flaws.

That said, facts are facts. Lots of people are playing 3.X and having a great time. It must be a solid system. My not being willing to run it is not that big a deal. I don't run most of the RPGs I've designed.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13732365&postcount=37

There's a bunch of stuff happening in 3e that wasn't done before. The stacking of bonuses and the definition of bonus types was completely new to 3e. Is it any surprise that they get a little out of hand at the higher level when everyone has been happily designing new ways of getting these bonuses?

The problem with low-end D&D has always been there: PCs are fragile. Magic-Users run out of steam quickly.

High-end D&D has also always been problematic. In AD&D, you have the magic-users dominating, and the thief running out of interesting things to do. (And the AD&D Monk has problems all the way through). 3e fixed some of this (reducing the power of the high-end MU, and bumping up the Fighter... so much so that I actually found most of the 18th+ level combats I ran to be interesting with everyone able to contribute), but the power levels were all over the shop.

Cheers!

 

[hopeless]

Hmm...

From the James Wyatt blog "Everyone will be balanced, because we've erased the accident of math."

Not too sure what he means by the accident of Math?

Perhaps they can't count or their calculator isn't working, maybe thats why they need the computer...

 

[Charwoman Gene]

So, Tweet and Cook are both on record admitting that 3e had flaws. Heh.

We obviously must blame Skip Williams. Too many years of Sage Advising the quirky rules of 2e...

 

[Gundark]

Huh? Canuckistan, a frigid, snow-bound, desolate landscape full of yaks, is nowhere near sunny Austria, the land down under.

What?!?!?! We're much better than you former prison colony kangaroo huggers!!!

And I'll have you know the Yak is a noble and majestic animal!!!!

Actually I don't even think Canada has yaks...

 

[Aaron L]

Maybe they mean that at levels 1-10 die rolls (to-hit and skill rolls, anyway) will be made with 1d20, levels 11-20 will use 2d20, and levels 21-30 will use 3d20, thus always keeping the variable from the dice relevant and not letting it become trivial because of the modifiers.


Just a thought, anyway.

 

[Celebrim]

Maybe they mean that at levels 1-10 die rolls (to-hit and skill rolls, anyway) will be made with 1d20, levels 11-20 will use 2d20, and levels 21-30 will use 3d20, thus always keeping the variable from the dice relevant and not letting it become trivial because of the modifiers.

When they first stated that they'd fixed the math and that levels now go up to 30, my first thought was that they were going to announce the new D32 system.

That is 12 better than D20.

Turning it up, man.