D&D Blog - Just Bigger Numbers

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Having such large modifiers (such as +25) takes a huge amount of randomness out of the combat. The random part of the equation becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of the overall result. These high bonuses mean that even when attacking high level threats, automatic hits and massive amounts of dealt damage are happening with virtually every attack.

100% wrong.

The size of the modifier has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of randomness; you are completely misunderstanding the mathematics. If you're making an opposed d20 + X roll (where X is large) against a d20 roll + Y (where Y is also large) there is no effect on randomness. The effect on randomness you describe is based on size of the absolute value of (X - Y), not the size of X. Same rule applies when making a d20 + X against a static number (e.g. DC). The effect on randomness is based on the average of d20 + X as compared to the static number.

In other words, the effect on randomness is based on the size of the modifier after the value it is being compared to has been taken into account. In other, other words, compare the range of values of d20 + X against A) the range of values of d20 + Y (for opposed rolls) B) the range of values of d20 + X against your DC (for rolls against static numbers).

 

[GM Dave]

High level should be complex but predictable.

High level should have assumptions that come with it. And characters should be aware of this. Every character would be aware that 25% of every enemy at level 10 and up flies and therefore either have flight of their own or a brutally effective ranged attack. Everyone can purge invisibility or accurately hit the invisible. So the fight only changes slightly.

The problem is for the underleveled characters. They wont have the tools to deal with a phasing flying demon because they lack banishment arrows and anchor spells.


The numbers don't have to get big though.

Flight is fine if you're not on a grid but in 3e and earlier the distance of flight is often better than a double move of land speed.

It takes a big table to often do a flying battle and some good management skills.

4e was different in handling flight as it often did not increase your speed and did not have rules for turn radius. This is compared to previous editions with long straight lines of movement and rules regarding turn radius depending on flight ability.

Even with a big table, it is very easy to 'fly off the map' with flight and yet still be in 'missile range' (3e composite bow has a range of 110' x 10 for 1100' with flight speeds often around 90' or 220 squares (5') and 18 squares ~ or in 1" squares that is 18'+ table feet and 1.5' ).

We use a good 4'x6' table for game play but have to abstract any flying battles into the number of turns the person is away from the table board event.

Oh, and if you are asking if it is realistic for an archer to be shooting at high level play 1100' feet which is a -20 modifier? In 3e it is a first level spell to get a +20 modifier to neutralize this penalty (it is also possible through classes and feats to extend the bow range further).

 

[Mark CMG]

This all goes back to the fact that stretching the system that uses a d20 for conflict resolution from roughly ten level to roughly twenty levels then to thirty levels or more is problematic. And this is not just because it requires stuffing more goodies in along the way to keep each level new and interesting for players but it also requires patching the way the system handles the resolution mechanic.

This has the result of making the system more complex for no inherent system reason, no in-game reasoning. It's a way to sell more books. Which is fine, I suppose, if that is a goal and I don't think anyone disagrees that there needs to be that goal for the corporation to make enough money off the system without revising or putting out a new edition every couple/few years, if they have a limited number of properties to develop.

But the baggage that decision carries with it is an unnecessarily complicated (not simply more complex) system that grows increasingly less intuitive. The alternative is to pack more milestones into each level, and not simply at the leveling up point, but keep the system closer to a ten level affair that meshes more effectively with a d20 resolution mechanic. It can be done but the status quo in the community is that more levels means more goodies and therefore don't make the game have fewer levels.

You can tell by the assumptions in this article and others the designers are championing more levels as good and the designers are not looking to change that any time soon. The question becomes, "Can they divert the focus off the inherent problem and towards a different sort of patch, one where they develop three related games packaged as one game, with enough crossover similarities that the community will accept it as one game (and buy not only all three as core but supplements, under the guise of modular options, for all three in an effort to extend the edition cycle)?"

 

[trancejeremy]

BECMI showed that you could have a system that worked pretty well over 36 levels and supporting more and more ambitious types of play.

What you need to do is slow down the combat/spell progression and stop the hit point inflation - don't give another hit die at every level - there's a reason it stopped at name level in previous editions - once you starting having well over a 100 hit points it just gets unwieldy.

And please, no super-orcs.

 

[kitsune9]

Here's my take on high-level play:

1. It's going to be more complex than lower level simply because there are more options. In combat, at low-levels you moved via your feet or your mount. At high-level, you do that and you fly, teleport, phase, and so on. It's going to be the same with spells, powers, feats, etc. If a player wants to make combat as fast as it is in low-levels by keeping the same level of complexity then there can be a couple of approaches:

a. Combat cannot grind. Maybe your fighter can dish out 25 hp in a single attack and gets two attacks for a total 50 hp a round on average. The typical big baddie like a dragon has 150 hp. You, as a high level fighter will be lucky if you have 80. Combat is going to be decided in about 3 rounds or less just from high-damage output vs. low hp thresholds. For some gamers this is really anticlimatic because it gets to the "He who wins initiative, wins the battle". High-level 3.0 did this (thank you haste, harm, and save vs. death). But this is an option. I actually loved combats in 3.0 because they were really darn quick.

b. The second option is to eliminate the options that make combat so complex. Get rid of the differing movement modes. Reduce the number of spells, feats, and powers altogether. An example is that a 1st level wizard casts one spell, a 20th level wizard casts a total of 20 spells over 9 spell levels. The risk here is that combat becomes boring at high levels.

In my opinion, I enjoy the complexity and the myriad of options. Combat takes longer, but my group and I find it rewarding.

2. The second thing about high-level play is how scaling tends to make rolling dice somewhat trivial because the numbers get so super high. For example, at 20th level, I have a +45 to hit against an AC of 30. The d20 roll is not really relevant except for auto hits and misses. If I'm a dual wielding scimitar fighter at 20th level, if my damage output is 1d6+25, the 1-6 range is kind of irrelevant as well. I remember when we got to epic level in 3.0 that we stopped rolling and instead declared average damage, did skill checks for taking 10 or taking 20 and so on. Some of the monsters I had for our epic battles had +112 to hit rolls (loved that monster).

So for #2, maybe I hope the math will scale down so that at high levels, the dice will remain relevant.

So my solution? Lower math, higher damage output, same complex options, lower hp thresholds. Combat gets decided in a few rounds. How to make combats last longer though? Have more baddies in the climatic battles. You just don't face off against a lich, you face off against a lich and his retinue of spectres.

I know for some players they wouldn't like this approach at all, and that's fine. I'm always open to other approaches for making combat go faster. There's really no right or wrong of it so long as it's fun.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Does it?

If you have an attack bonus of +25, and you're fighting things with an AC of 35, are the odds more predictale than if you have an attack bonus of +2 and are fighitng things with an AC of 12?

Not all all. What it is however is pointless. If start out as a green fighter hitting roughly 50% of the time I don't wanna still be doing that at level 20. Might as well have the monster tell me flat out that my kung-fu is useless against them.

This is what hit points are for. Yeah I might hit the bigger scarier monster more often but I have to because he's tough and won't go down easy.
Scaling up the HP AND not increasing the hit rate as levels advance is a formula for slow as molasses combat.

 

[FireLance]

The to hit randomness doesn't change but damage usually doesn't scale well

1d6+1 dmg vs 10 hp is swingy

1d6+20 dmg vs 200 hp isn't

10d6 + 20 would be swingy but it's rare for number of damage dice to keep increasing that way (outside certain spell systems)

For an even more obvious example, 1d6 damage vs. 6 hp is not the same as 2d6 damage vs. 12 hp is not the same as 4d6 damage vs. 24 hp.

Your chances of killing the opponent in one hit are, respectively, 1 in 6, 1 in 36 and 1 in 1296.

 

[FireLance]

Not all all. What it is however is pointless. If start out as a green fighter hitting roughly 50% of the time I don't wanna still be doing that at level 20. Might as well have the monster tell me flat out that my kung-fu is useless against them.

Eh, if your kung fu was useless against him, you'd be hitting him 5% of the time (which would most likely be the case had you challenged him as a first level adventurer instead of say, 20 levels on).

I get the underlying point, though. You want combat to have more of a mechanical variance across the levels than simply reflavoring the monster you're fighting (ogres and giants instead of orcs and goblins) while leaving the underlying math more or less the same (hit chance, expected number of hits to kill, chance to hit you, expected damage, etc.).

However, I do wonder whether it's necessary to have this variance occur across levels - why not have a variety of monsters that could be encountered (even at the same level) that simply have different underlying math? Why must (relatively) low-AC, (relatively) high-hit point monsters that require (relatively) more rounds of combat to finish off necessarily be a feature of high-level play?

 

[Truename]

10d6 + 20 would be swingy but it's rare for number of damage dice to keep increasing that way (outside certain spell systems)

Not exactly. The more dice you roll, the more likely you are to get an average result. To get more swinginess, you have to multiply a single die.

Say you're facing a 6 hp opponent. Your chance to one-shot him with a 1d6 damage roll is 1/6. Your chance of one-shotting a 60 hp opponent with 10d6 is about 1/60,000,000.

To get a 1/6 chance of one-shotting him, you'd have to roll 1d6 times ten.

But your point is well taken otherwise. Without save-or-die and other swing-creating effects, risk goes down as HP goes up. (This is probably why 4e had such high hit points at level 1: to make combats more predictable. And it succeeded--as a DM, being able to easily gauge combat difficulty is one of my favorite things about 4e.)

 

[Kynn]

+1: The polls are also as close to "duh" as they've yet managed.

The polls are getting worse and worse.

I wish they wouldn't bother.