Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ondath" data-source="post: 9287202" data-attributes="member: 7031770">My understanding of TSR-era progression is that it's a growth from someone who fumbles a lot to someone who almost always hits. This is in direct opposition to 5e's design philosophy, where you're expected to succeed at what you're doing 65% of the time at any level (as a general measure), provided that you're dealing with something level appropriate. So a 1st-level AD&amp;D Fighter feels crappier than a 1st-level 5E Fighter because they can only hit even a basic monster like a Goblin 35% of the time (assuming no ability score bonuses, THAC0 20 and the Goblin has 7 AC), while the 5E Fighter could hit a similar Goblin 55% of the. time (assuming +5 attack bonus, and the Goblin has 15 AC). But a 15th level AD&amp;D 1E Fighter probably hits everything without issue with, like THAC0 5 (I don't have the exact numbers in front of me), while the 15th-level 5E fighter still fits level-appropriate enemies 65% of the time. Similarly, saves in TSR-era D&amp;D start with success probabilities of around 20-30%, but then go as high as 95% at later levels. So it's definitely not bounded, but the expected game feel is different as well. You're not supposed to feel challenged to the same degree at every level, but feel like an unerring killing machine at later levels.Whether bounded accuracy or increasing accuracy design is better, I don't know. I don't have enough experience with high-level Old School D&amp;D to make a judgement. But it sure looks like an interesting beast.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ondath, post: 9287202, member: 7031770"] My understanding of TSR-era progression is that it's a growth from someone who fumbles a lot to someone who almost always hits. This is in direct opposition to 5e's design philosophy, where you're expected to succeed at what you're doing 65% of the time at any level (as a general measure), provided that you're dealing with something level appropriate. So a 1st-level AD&D Fighter feels crappier than a 1st-level 5E Fighter because they can only hit even a basic monster like a Goblin 35% of the time (assuming no ability score bonuses, THAC0 20 and the Goblin has 7 AC), while the 5E Fighter could hit a similar Goblin 55% of the. time (assuming +5 attack bonus, and the Goblin has 15 AC). But a 15th level AD&D 1E Fighter probably hits everything without issue with, like THAC0 5 (I don't have the exact numbers in front of me), while the 15th-level 5E fighter still fits level-appropriate enemies 65% of the time. Similarly, saves in TSR-era D&D start with success probabilities of around 20-30%, but then go as high as 95% at later levels. So it's definitely not bounded, but the expected game feel is different as well. You're not supposed to feel challenged to the same degree at every level, but feel like an unerring killing machine at later levels. Whether bounded accuracy or increasing accuracy design is better, I don't know. I don't have enough experience with high-level Old School D&D to make a judgement. But it sure looks like an interesting beast. [/QUOTE]

Verification