D&D (2024) Do players really want balance?

[Guest 7037866]

THAC0 works I prefer not to use it. It's not a requirement eg I was joining a pre 3E game.

I don't use it even in 2E but don't care if others do and it's not a deal breaker.

Sure. One of the things about 5E is using the d20 concept but keeping it bounded so the maths never becomes very difficult for most players. However, in another way they made it more difficult. Now, instead of using larger numbers in the attack process, hit point bloat leads to larger numbers in the damage vs. hit point maximum calculations.

The point is evidence exists that addition is easier than subtraction.

Research can always be done to suggest the point you want to suggest.

At any rate, if you find a study that is well-done and provides evidence at the level AC is calculated in 5E, with the wide range of the population that 5E involves and in the condition 5E is played, then I will care.

In the meantime, WotC should be promoting adding damage instead of subtracting it (considering in practice these are often larger--and thus often more complex--values, the evidence exists it would be easier) until a hit point maximum is reached; but they are not.

 

[Zardnaar]

Sure. One of the things about 5E is using the d20 concept but keeping it bounded so the maths never becomes very difficult for most players. However, in another way they made it more difficult. Now, instead of using larger numbers in the attack process, hit point bloat leads to larger numbers in the damage vs. hit point maximum calculations.


Research can always be done to suggest the point you want to suggest.

At any rate, if you find a study that is well-done and provides evidence at the level AC is calculated in 5E, with the wide range of the population that 5E involves and in the condition 5E is played, then I will care.

In the meantime, WotC should be promoting adding damage instead of subtracting it (considering in practice these are often larger--and thus often more complex--values, the evidence exists it would be easier) until a hit point maximum is reached; but they are not.

Yup my personal happy spot is stretching BA and toning HP down to 3.5 levels.

 

[Voadam]

In the meantime, WotC should be promoting adding damage instead of subtracting it (considering in practice these are often larger--and thus often more complex--values, the evidence exists it would be easier) until a hit point maximum is reached; but they are not.

I think that would be easier to track, but be less useful for the PC. What the PC cares about is how many hp they have left. To figure out how many hp the PC has left you would then have to do the subtraction that everybody is doing now as a first step.

Looking back I think that for monsters I sometimes do just list how much damage they have taken in a combat under a heading of their total hp instead of reducing their total each hit. It is a bit slower to do the subtraction and easier to just add in a new amount. The only problem I see with adding up damage in combat instead of subtracting it from hp would be glancing up to compare to base hp so they do drop at 0 and not miss that point, which is not an issue for the subtraction.

For AC I always found THACO a mental speed bump in figuring it out in the moment at the table and regularly redoing one of the processes to get there from scratch. Numerous players in AD&D I played with felt similarly I found ascending AC and attack bonuses much more intuitive and faster at the table, I have liked it since 2e Dragon Fist introduced it at the end of 2e.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And yet we still subtract damage from hit points...

I just realised that I actually don't. What I do is count the damage received.

 

[Guest 7037866]

I just realised that I actually don't. What I do is count the damage received.

Yeah, I do as well. I expect WotC will jump on the bandwagon with 6E D&D in another 5-10 years.

Once the damage equals the creature's hp, it goes down. Pretty simple really.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Research can always be done to suggest the point you want to suggest.

At any rate, if you find a study that is well-done and provides evidence at the level AC is calculated in 5E, with the wide range of the population that 5E involves and in the condition 5E is played, then I will care.

I didn't develop the study.
If you can produce a refuting study, rock on.
(Not that I expect you to. )

 

[Guest 7037866]

I didn't develop the study.

No, but if you are using it you should know enough about it instead of just gleaning what you want from it.

If you can produce a refuting study, rock on.
(Not that I expect you to. )

If you knew anything about research, you would know I don't have to. No research "proves" anything.

So, yeah, I don't even need to.

 

[Baron Opal II]

No, but if you are using it you should know enough about it instead of just gleaning what you want from it.

If you knew anything about research, you would know I don't have to. No research "proves" anything.

So, yeah, I don't even need to.

Oh, I know a fair bit about it.
There's a limit as to how much effort I'll spend arguing a gaming point, however.

 

[Hussar]

I didn't develop the study.
If you can produce a refuting study, rock on.
(Not that I expect you to. )

I'd point out that this is a really good example of how you can define "improved" or "better". Instead of simply, "I like this better", you have presented pretty solid evidence about why a change is objectively better. Fantastic.

Unfortunately, though, the same metric seems to be impossible to apply to other elements. Like I said, if your design goal is to be broadly approachable by a wide audience, then adoption by a wide audience is pretty solid evidence of achieving that goal. Now, whether that's a "good" or "bad" thing, whether broad appeal is a desirable goal is debatable, and that's where the subjective angle comes in.

But, it is very nice to see actual evidence being brough in, rather than endless anecdotes.

 

[Guest 7037866]

Oh, I know a fair bit about it.

LOL! Of ccoouuurrrssseeee you do...

There's a limit as to how much effort I'll spend arguing a gaming point, however.

Already there, mate, already there. Cheers!