Fixing the 3e Math in a simple and easy way

[Wulf Ratbane]

If the odds are the first attack are closer to 95% than 70%, then things get more skewed. They'll have two attacks at 65% rather than 95%/70%/45%/20%. Again, assuming tactics are constant.

Yep, mentioned in the other thread. Also skewed if the odds on the first and subsequent attacks are 5% each.

Basically you trade increased damage across the middle spread of AC and give up damage on the edge cases-- all in pursuit of convenience and speed of play.

 

[Runestar]

Doesn't the lessening of the bab spread between fighters and casters seem a little redundant, considering that casters don't even rely on attack rolls for the majority of their spells. Druids and clerics maybe, but my wizard probably is not going to care whether his bab is +20 or +0.

Or are you going to revise spells to be bab+key ability mod vs appropriate save, ala 4e?

I agree that multiclassing is a very tricky issue. Obviously, we don't want every caster splashing 1 lv in fighter just for +4bab. Should we instead implement the attack increases in the form of class features which scale every few lvs? For example, instead of front-loading the +4 increase, melee classes instead get +1 every 4-5 lvs?

Secondarily their is a multi-class funkiness where you can get super saves or horrible saves and BABs. The BAB seperation is not that much an issue however the saves is. Spell DCs way outstrip, the power level of saves at the upper levels (and even low mid at times), when you compare those saves to "good saves" you get a decent chance of success, when you compare to a poor save they have almost no chance of success.

I would recommend that the fractional bab/save variant in UA be used (heck, why isn't it core?) .

 

[Cheiromancer]

Yep, mentioned in the other thread. Also skewed if the odds on the first and subsequent attacks are 5% each.

Basically you trade increased damage across the middle spread of AC and give up damage on the edge cases-- all in pursuit of convenience and speed of play.

I must be expressing myself badly today. I guess what it comes down to is: if the fixed iterative attacks are skewed at the upper edge, Sadrik style BAB is even more skewed there. You give up a lot of damage. Worse, you give up a lot of damage at the sweet spot of 75% accuracy.

e.g. at the upper edge:

Regular BAB: 95%/95% vs 95%/70%/45%/20% (1.9 vs 2.3)
Sadrik BAB: 65%/65% vs 95%/70%/45%/20% (1.3 vs 2.3)

Now suppose we have it where the fixed iterative attacks come out pretty good. The sweet spot:

Regular BAB: 75%/75% vs 75%/50%/25%/5% (1.5 vs 1.55)
Sadrik BAB: 45%/45% vs 75%/50%/25%/5% (0.9 vs 1.55)

I'm assuming a 20th level fighter using good tactics. The iterative fix gives about 80% of regular damage at the upper edge, but is almost dead on at the sweet spot. But the Sadrik BAB isn't nice there at all.

It's at its worst for a level 20+ fighter (or equivalent). The discrepancy is less at lower levels. At 8th level Sadrik BAB = Regular BAB so there is no discrepancy at all. Below 8th level Sadrik BAB is greater than regular BAB.

So, while Sadrik BAB makes PC's more survivable at lower levels, there could be a problem at higher levels. PC's will be less likely to hit monsters whose AC's presuppose a 1/1 BAB progression.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'm not in favor of Sadrik's proposal either, but I do encourage the process of thinking through it.

AC stops being meaningful around 12th level and the game simply moves into a different mode. Once PCs have enough hit points to take a few punches, avoiding straight damage isn't nearly as important anymore.

 

[Sadrik]

Or are you going to revise spells to be bab+key ability mod vs appropriate save, ala 4e?

You know...
Since we are on the whole lets make the math simpler.
Rather than giving a bonus to your DC based on the spell level. Add one based upon +1 per three levels you are. So a 20th level caster adds +6 to all his spells. Rather than +9 for 9th, +8 for 8th etc.

This has several effects:
1. It greatly simplifies the math, no need to recalculate the DC for each spell cast
2. It brings the upper end spells down by up to +3 DC
3. It makes lower level spells more competitive by giving up to +5 DC
4. It allowing spellcasters to compete with psionic power DCs

 

[Sadrik]

Wulf, the numbers for the iterative fix work best if the odds of the initial hit are 65%-75% or so. (solving 2N -2 = 3N -15 for three iterative attacks and 2N = 4N - 30 for four attacks). Assuming that tactics are held constant (why wouldn't they be?), the -6 to BAB at 20th level ought to make a significant difference.

If the odds are the first attack are closer to 95% than 70%, then things get more skewed. They'll have two attacks at 65% rather than 95%/70%/45%/20%. Again, assuming tactics are constant.

I must be expressing myself badly today. I guess what it comes down to is: if the fixed iterative attacks are skewed at the upper edge, Sadrik style BAB is even more skewed there. You give up a lot of damage. Worse, you give up a lot of damage at the sweet spot of 75% accuracy.

e.g. at the upper edge:

Regular BAB: 95%/95% vs 95%/70%/45%/20% (1.9 vs 2.3)
Sadrik BAB: 65%/65% vs 95%/70%/45%/20% (1.3 vs 2.3)

Now suppose we have it where the fixed iterative attacks come out pretty good. The sweet spot:

Regular BAB: 75%/75% vs 75%/50%/25%/5% (1.5 vs 1.55)
Sadrik BAB: 45%/45% vs 75%/50%/25%/5% (0.9 vs 1.55)

I'm assuming a 20th level fighter using good tactics. The iterative fix gives about 80% of regular damage at the upper edge, but is almost dead on at the sweet spot. But the Sadrik BAB isn't nice there at all.

It's at its worst for a level 20+ fighter (or equivalent). The discrepancy is less at lower levels. At 8th level Sadrik BAB = Regular BAB so there is no discrepancy at all. Below 8th level Sadrik BAB is greater than regular BAB.

So, while Sadrik BAB makes PC's more survivable at lower levels, there could be a problem at higher levels. PC's will be less likely to hit monsters whose AC's presuppose a 1/1 BAB progression.

Perhaps you could run through this and explain a little where you are getting your numbers on this and what they represent?

Let me point out that the BAB for the warrior types takes the biggest hit at the upper levels but has the most gain at lower levels:

1...4
2...5
3...5
4...6
5...6
6...7
7...7
8...8
9...8
10.9
11.9
12.10
13.10
14.11
15.11
16.12
17.12
18.13
19.13
20.14

I actually think that the lower level to hit bonus is a welcome addition to the game. Low level encounters against a high AC opponent are a series of misses until a high roll. These combats can take a long time. It makes them much more accurate and that is a welcome addition in my book.

The virtual penalty later on is a problem that can be dealt with in a variety of ways but here is one:
Iterative attacks are automatic with no penalties ever.
At level 1 you get 1 attack with a full attack (+4)
At level 6 you get 2 attacks with a full attack (+7/+7)
At level 11 you get 3 attacks with a full attack (+9/+9/+9)
At level 16 you get 4 attacks with a full attack (+12/+12/+12/+12)

You simply use whatever your BAB is. Warrior types get a huge jump at 6th level but so do sorcerers and wizards (at 5). This would carry over to the non-warrior types for simplicities sake. The 16th level wizard could flurry with his 4 attacks if he wanted too.

 

[Runestar]

This has several effects:
1. It greatly simplifies the math, no need to recalculate the DC for each spell cast
2. It brings the upper end spells down by up to +3 DC
3. It makes lower level spells more competitive by giving up to +5 DC
4. It allowing spellcasters to compete with psionic power DCs

I disagree with 3 and 4.

I see no need to make the lower lv spells more competitive. I believe the whole point is that at any one time at higher lvs, only the top 3 lvs worth of spells are going to be of any real use in combat. While I would love nothing more than to see low lv favourites like grease and glitterdust remain useful even at higher lvs, I do not feel that giving out "free heightens" is the way to go. Making lower lv spells useful again will just give casters even more ammo to spam in fights.

Likewise, psions have to spend extra PP to augment powers for their DCs to scale. Spellcasters are getting it free under your variant.

 

[Sadrik]

I see no need to make the lower lv spells more competitive. I believe the whole point is that at any one time at higher lvs, only the top 3 lvs worth of spells are going to be of any real use in combat. While I would love nothing more than to see low lv favourites like grease and glitterdust remain useful even at higher lvs, I do not feel that giving out "free heightens" is the way to go. Making lower lv spells useful again will just give casters even more ammo to spam in fights.

The low level spells are not as useful, the *effects* of upper level spells are what make them powerful, the bonus to the DC is a gimme. Why charm someone when you can dominate them and countless other things like that. If you run out of the upper level effects, you now have an effect that will have a decent chance of success not to mention that you will not have to recalculate your DC with every spell you cast.

Likewise, psions have to spend extra PP to augment powers for their DCs to scale. Spellcasters are getting it free under your variant.

I don't want to get into the whole psion thing but suffice to say there are those that believe that they are overpowered. One of the chief things is their capacity to maximize, heighten and scale their spells to their exact need.

By tying the DCs to caster level and not spell DC you are effectively making them heightened without the need to take up an upper level slot. Powerful... this is why I thought that the DC bonus should not be 1/2 caster level but instead be:
1-3 +1
4-6 +2
7-9 +3
10-13 +4
14-17 +5
18-21 +6
etc.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Perhaps you could run through this and explain a little where you are getting your numbers on this and what they represent?

I'm assuming that a 20th level fighter is hitting an opponent with four iterative attacks. Then I'm seeing how well he does with the iterative fix (Wulf's system) and then how it works with your proposal.

The percentages are the chance of hitting a particular target with a flurry vs an iterative attack. For example, Wulf admits that his fix is a little off when the fighter misses only on a 1. We see this by considering the odds of a fighter hitting someone with a full attack consisting of 4 iterative attacks: the first one hits 95% of the time, the second 70% of the time and so on. The mean damage is 230% of a single attack, which I've expressed as 2.3. Two attacks at no penalty (95% chance of hitting each time) gives a mean damage of 190%, which I've expressed as 1.9. So at this edge case, Wulf's fix would result in the fighter dealing less damage to an opponent- the equivalent of 1.9 hits rather than 2.3 hits. That's 82.6% of the normal damage.

If we were using your proposal for BAB ("Sadrik BAB") then all the percentages are 30% lower (for the -6 virtual penalty). Two attacks at 65% is only 1.3 hits total. With your latest suggestion it could become 4 attacks, with a total expected damage of 2.6. Now it's better than the standard case, which may be OK. (13% more damage than the standard isn't huge).

Wulf's system is designed to give similar mean damages when there's about a 70% chance of hitting the opponent on the first attack. I used 75%. The dual flurry gives 1.5 hits (75% twice) and the iterative attack gives 1.55. Very close.

The 30% penalty for Sadrik BAB means that the attacks are at 45%. Two would be 0.9, three would be 1.35, and four would be 1.8. The last would be 16% more damage than the standard 1.55, which, again, is probably fine.

The place where the 30% virtual penalty causes the most trouble is when the chance to hit (for a standard fighter) is low. Wulf says (I think rightly) that for half-way decently designed monsters they will never happen at upper levels. But just for kicks, let's see what the numbers would be.

Suppose there's a 40% chance of hitting the creature. For a dual flurry (Wulf's system) that's 0.8 hits. For a standard iterative attack it's (.4 + .15 + .05 + .05) = 0.65 hits. A 23% discrepancy.

But for Sadrik BAB it's 0.4 hits if you flurry four times. Each attack has only 10% chance of hitting. That's only 61.5% as much as the standard. A bigger discrepancy. But hopefully this won't happen too often; monsters shouldn't have that good an AC.

Long story short, it seems that adding more iterative attacks helps make up the virtual penalty at higher levels. There might still be the tendency for them to be a "flurry of misses" though.

The exact details of the progression is unclear. I'd guess single attack, dual attack at -2, triple attack at -1, and quadruple attack at no penalty.

But even then... suppose the fighter has to move and attack? He's got a 45% chance of hitting vs 75%. That's a lot less damage on average. Only 60% of what Wulf's fighter or the PHB fighter would do.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The low level spells are not as useful, the *effects* of upper level spells are what make them powerful, the bonus to the DC is a gimme.

Ok, two points.

1) If you want to go this way, and you want to follow the same DC formula that everything else in the game uses, then use 10 + 1/2 caster level + ability mod.

2) But I wouldn't. You're generally correct that "low level spells are not as useful" but unfortunately that is not always true-- it's only a tendency, not a rule. Tasha's Hideous Laughter is just one example.

There's a big difference between a 20th level wizard with four "DC23 save or your're screwed!" 9th level spell slots, versus a 20th level wizard with eight, twelve, sixteen, etc. equally screwjob spell slots, all of which get kicked up to the highest level DC. It's just a matter of going through the spell lists and finding the spells that scale.

To put it another way, the only reason that Tasha's Hideous Laughter doesn't remain useful through the life of the wizard is that it's DC gets left behind.

(And even so it's still very useful, with or without heighten spell, if you are judicious and cast it only at poor-Will targets where you can afford to give up 4 or 5 points on the DC.)