OSR D&D 5e OSR backwards compatibility

[howandwhy99]

It's an interesting comparison, but rather flawed I think.

Pre-d20 D&D didn't use Attack Bonuses, those versions used Attack Charts (which are different)

1AD&D and earlier didn't go above 9 (they couldn't reach 10 by the number line they followed) because they represented in-game curvilinear results not linear results. (I say results because I don't see these as Bonuses)

5e looks very flat for a progression and a middle ground between 20 levels of progression and going back to a finite scale that fits on one d20 die.

 

[Remathilis]

Thought I'd toss some additional fuel to the fire.

Here is a PDF with the "stat block" of the goblin in six versions of D&D: Original, Basic, 1e, 2e, 3.5, 4e, and Next. Most of these are straight from PDFs or the books (or the SRD in 3.5's case) with minor reformatting to make it fix a six column layout. You can see some interesting things when you look at all six.

* You can definitely distill an "essence" of goblin out of them; some elements remain true for many editions (look how often 40-400 appears, or how every goblin is wearing leather armor).
* The stat blocks have grown progressively longer, culminating in 3.5 before reversing to getting smaller (formatting here creates the illusion of size, but if you look at info density, you find the same trend)
* However, goblins have been given progressively more and more to do, at least as far as individual options.
* Part of the reason the block has been getting longer is that more info needed is actually included with the monster (previous to 3e, saves were not written out but instead referred you to a chart in the books/DM screen. Same with to-hit). So while the 3.5 block might cause your eyes to glaze over with info-overload, it actually can be completely run as-is without referring to supplemental material (weapon tables, saving throws, combat matrices) to run.
* Likewise, omitting the "text" below the stat block removes a lot of useful info, such as how they have infravision, light penalties, and even what languages they speak. A lot of important "stat" info is found in those paragraphs, something later D&D thought to include in their stat blocks.
*I'm sure repeating this exercise with more complex monsters (orcs, minotaurs, medusas, or dragons) would yield a similar result.

Anyway, here is the chart. Enjoy.

View attachment goblin comparison.docx.pdf

 

[MartyW]

Pre-d20 D&D didn't use Attack Bonuses, those versions used Attack Charts (which are different)

If you look at the charts, the "attack bonus" progression only changes once you get into negative ACs, and the repetition (of to-hit numbers) isn't a curve, it's just not a 45 degree line anymore.

I.E. looks like:
AC To Hit
-1 20
-2 21
-3 21
-4 22
-5 22
-6 23....

It's still a linear progression, just a slightly slower one.

 

[Nagol]

If you look at the charts, the "attack bonus" progression only changes once you get into negative ACs, and the repetition (of to-hit numbers) isn't a curve, it's just not a 45 degree line anymore.

I.E. looks like:
AC To Hit
-1 20
-2 21
-3 21
-4 22
-5 22
-6 23....

It's still a linear progression, just a slightly slower one.

Except 20 is repeated 6 times in 1E. It stops being linear once you hit 20 and that starts at AC 1 for low-level characters.

 

[howandwhy99]

If you look at the charts, the "attack bonus" progression only changes once you get into negative ACs, and the repetition (of to-hit numbers) isn't a curve, it's just not a 45 degree line anymore.

I.E. looks like:
AC To Hit
-1 20
-2 21
-3 21
-4 22
-5 22
-6 23....

It's still a linear progression, just a slightly slower one.

Except 20 is repeated 6 times in 1E. It stops being linear once you hit 20 and that starts at AC 1 for low-level characters.

I counted that as 2e. I should have been clearer in my post. I know '86-'88 had changes like Nagol is saying, but I count a lot of that as really the change of the game to 2e too.

The idea was the charts covered the full span of 20 faces of the die. Starting at 11 for 1st level PCs the progression beyond 50% odds of hitting could only go up to 95% (9 levels) before jumping off the die or, as 2e did, create 5 levels of flat 20s to account for the +1-+5 magical bonuses possible. In my understanding, the level 9 fighter with a +5 who rolls a 20 is up the curved progression between 19 and 20. Way up. All on the bounded die. Not further down the number line.

All of which keeps hitting a possibility in play even if rates approach infinity or infinite zero rather quickly. It bounds the realm of play, which is a positive thing when building a game so players can play with different class levels in the same game. I believe that reason is also, more than anything else, why 5e is using what it's calling bounded accuracy too.

 

[Nagol]

I counted that as 2e. I should have been clearer in my post. I know '86-'88 had changes like Nagol is saying, but I count a lot of that as really the change of the game to 2e too.

The idea was the charts covered the full span of 20 faces of the die. Starting at 11 for 1st level PCs the progression beyond 50% odds of hitting could only go up to 95% (9 levels) before jumping off the die or, as 2e did, create 5 levels of flat 20s to account for the +1-+5 magical bonuses possible. In my understanding, the level 9 fighter with a +5 who rolls a 20 is up the curved progression between 19 and 20. Way up. All on the bounded die. Not further down the number line.

All of which keeps hitting a possibility in play even if rates approach infinity or infinite zero rather quickly. It bounds the realm of play, which is a positive thing when building a game so players can play with different class levels in the same game. I believe that reason is also, more than anything else, why 5e is using what it's calling bounded accuracy too.

The progression I used is from the 1979 DMG.

Treating the successive 20s as requiring a natural 20 roll is an optional rule found on pg.82 under "PROGRESSION ON THE COMBAT TABLES". The default is use the derived value directly.

 

[MerricB]

The idea was the charts covered the full span of 20 faces of the die. Starting at 11 for 1st level PCs the progression beyond 50% odds of hitting could only go up to 95% (9 levels) before jumping off the die or, as 2e did, create 5 levels of flat 20s to account for the +1-+5 magical bonuses possible. In my understanding, the level 9 fighter with a +5 who rolls a 20 is up the curved progression between 19 and 20. Way up. All on the bounded die. Not further down the number line.

The rules are not explicit on how it works. Natural 1s are not automatic misses.

However, it's very worth noting that the repeated 20s actually don't have much of a game effect: almost no foes the players meet will ever have a negative AC.

 

[Wrathamon]

I don´t think I was rude. And I just pointed out, why people reacted that way. Note that I used "I think" in my post. I did help him out and he changed the word "efficacy" to "progression" which made it clear, that he is only comparing BAB progressions. I didn´t attack him on a personal level, just tried to explain what was "wrong" in his choice of words that "provoked" those heavy reactions. If offense was taken by my post, I want to apologize.

Not sure why you thought this was targeted specifically at you? It was just a general statement about my perception of the topic and his blog post.

That is awesome that you helped him out!

 

[MartyW]

I posted a follow up to my prior article. Be gentle.

http://ragingowlbear.blogspot.com/2014/06/d-combat-math-internet-stikes-back.html

 

[Agamon]

While I don't have much to say about compatibility (when I have converted older material to newer, or vice versa, I always replace the numbers and stat blocks, so this is all moot to me), I do agree with you on megadungeons from your previous post. They take a whole lot of work to make the least bit interesting to me.