Flatten the math: how much and should it be linear

[UngeheuerLich]

there is no problem in an increasing bab. Only if the fighter progressinon is what is assumed by the math.

In 4e the stat increses to main stats were assumed. It ends in: increase your main stat or fall behind. The game should assume a middle ground. You can fall back, but you can also get ahead of the curve. 4e gives the feeling, with monster levels, that if you are only capable of fighting something below your level, you are doing bad.

It´s not that you are not getting better, it is that with orcs beeing level 3,4,5,6,7,8 and you always fight same level opponents, you don´t feel a real increase in power. If the math of 5e allows to use the orc lvl 6 from level 1 - level 10 (which actually does work in 4e) and make those fights exciting (which does not work so well in 4e), then 5e will be great.

If an orc of level 20 in the same armor as a level 1 orc has about the same AC (which i like, because it allows PC´s a good guess how hard it is to hit them) then the lvl 20 fighter who has improved a little bit with his sword (+2 to hit) and has a magical +2 sword will hit the orc at level 20 a bit more easily. No auto hit. If the Orc has magic armor too, he will just be a bit ahead.

The rogue however did not increase his overall to hit. But he has a +3 dagger and now knows better how to take advantage in combat. Allowing him an easier time to get behind the orc and deliver a backstab.

The wizard on the other hand has not trained to hit something better. his staff is only +1. The wizard has fallen behind the curve a little bit. but he was not good at hitting to begin with. However he does not care. He has magic.

What does the poor orc have to resist such attacks?
He is a level 20 warrior. So he gets a parry attempt. And a +2 bonus AC and all saving throws. His HP have increased. And because he is a level 20 Orc, he has about 1000 lvl 1 orcs under his command. Effectively minions. but because of his Victories, all those level 1 orcs could afford chain armor. So the fighter still needs to roll a 4 to hit them if he tries to take out 5 of them in a single round and the rogue only hits them with a 10 if he can´t get advantage. A backstab however can´t fail for him.
The wizard´s fireball decimates 20 of them.

 

[seregil]

EDIT: Did you ever go back to a post you wrote and say 'Wha?!? I actually wrote this?', well this is mine. This long post can be summed up as follows:


2 fighters of the same level, all else being equal, should have a 50% chance of winning against the other if all they do is stand and swing at each other. Meaning a 50% chance of hitting etc. This is my basic premise.

Therefore, if BAB goes up, so should a defensive bonus so that the chances of hitting stay the same at all levels.
If Hit points go up, then so should damage so that battle don't last hours.
For me, Offensive scaling is linked to defensive scaling and Hit points are linked to damage.

Also, progress should not be linear as you learn faster in the beginning and then you slow down. However, as you master a skill, you can start doing thing that a simple + can't represent, hence more 'special manoeuvres' at higher levels.

There! Several paragraphs summed up in a few lines. I really was zoned out when I wrote this post.

 

[triqui]

I'll go like this:
You need 10 to hit.
You add your stat bonus (normally str) and substract defense stat bonus (normally dex).
You add relevant conditional modifiers (such as flanking, cover, shield)

You give +2 (or -2) to the side with the higher Attack/deffense bonus.


So, let's say a lvl 4 fighter has +4 BAB, weapon focus +1. That's +5 offensive Bonus. He has +2 to hit those with defense bonus (AC, or by level, like in 4e or SAGA), and he has -2 to hit those with higher defense bonus.

 

[the Jester]

2 fighters of the same level, all else being equal, should have a 50% chance of winning against the other if all they do is stand and swing at each other. Meaning a 50% chance of hitting etc. This is my basic premise.

Therefore, if BAB goes up, so should a defensive bonus so that the chances of hitting stay the same at all levels.
If Hit points go up, then so should damage so that battle don't last hours.
For me, Offensive scaling is linked to defensive scaling and Hit points are linked to damage.

So all that changes as you go up in level is the numbers? No thank you; I think we need very much to avoid increasing defenses with level, masses of hit points and hellaciously huge bonuses.

Nor do I think "always 50% chance of success" makes for a very fun game.

 

[TwoSix]

As much as scaling attack or defenses differently and at all causes problems...

It just feels right.

It feels wierd if my high level guy misses a low level dude regularly. A major difference in level should feel swingy.

When I play a much better person in a game, I should catch a butt whooping or get really really lucky to win.

Yeah, but HP and damage increases still yield close to the same feel.

The low level fighter dodges the first blow but walks into the second and dies.

 

[Ainamacar]

2 fighters of the same level, all else being equal, should have a 50% chance of winning against the other if all they do is stand and swing at each other. Meaning a 50% chance of hitting etc. This is my basic premise.

I haven't had a chance to read the original post thoroughly, but this strikes me as an odd premise. If all else is equal, the actual probability of hitting on an individual attack (e.g. 20, 50, or 80) doesn't change the probability of winning the fight at all if it is the same for both fighters: it will be 50% in all cases. In fact, if all else is equal, it is clear the only possible way to have equal chances of victory is for both to have the same chance to hit. This math works (it is the trivial case for balance), but it isn't terribly interesting.

As I see it, the basic factors between fighters in your scenario are hit points, AC, attack bonus, and damage. (Initiative too, but unless fights typically last only a round or two it has a diminished impact, so I'll set it aside.) To define all possible pairs of fighters in this schema is an 8 dimensional space, but since to-hit chances are a function of (fighter A attack bonus - fighter B AC) and vice versa, we can shrink this down to a 6 dimensional space if we don't mind no knowing the actual attack bonuses and AC, only their difference. Either way, it is in these spaces that we can calculate the probabilities of winning between any two fighters, and the regions near 50% could be used to define how all those variables are collectively allowed to vary by level to maintain the "fair fight."

Perhaps the result of such an analysis suggests the range for which fights can be kept near 50% cannot deviate much from fighters being equal in essentially every respect, in which case that might be the right choice to maintain balance. I suspect, however, that there lies a "ribbon" of fighters which manage the tradeoffs between the variables. Why? Because for perfectly identical fighters the probability of victory is always 50%, so there is a diagonal running through the high-dimensional space that is fixed to 50% (the trivial balance), and values near it will generally be near 50% as well. Thus one can select a point on the diagonal and declare the region near that point to define the acceptable range for fighters of a given level. Analysis of these regions can then determine what acceptable tradeoffs, if any, may be made in all 4 qualities to maintain a rough balance.

If such a ribbon exists, then fighters can develop more freely with their own style, and in fact we might observe some rock-paper-scissors effects, with different styles of fighters strong against some kinds of fighters, and weak against others. To me that is far more interesting than finding the diagonal and sticking to it.

 

[GreyICE]

I find myself on the outside of many issues too. Doesn't distress me, if anything it's interesting to see how my perception vary from others.

That said, sorry, i don't know if Bab is fully dead, but I'm ecstatic about how they are scaling probability effectors back to a flat scale. IMO the single best thing they have announced about 5e so far

Well they as much as stated it when they said that the rogue can get 10d6 twice at 20th level. That sounds a lot like two weapon fighting, and not a lot like an iterative BAB.

 

[gyor]

I think the idea of "bounded accuracy" is that you dump things like Bab, Caster levels, spell resistance, +level or half level, and most other stuff the basically cancelled each other out anyways, except for HP and Damage which allow for minions and stuff, while removing all kinds of useless math.

Your ability scores do increase, abiet much more slowly, so by say tenth level you will have slightly more accuracy then a first level fighter, but not enough as to make that fighter unable to hit you.

So by tenth its say 45 to 55 percent to hit chance, but the real difference is in damage dealt and soaked up. So the 10th level fighter isn't fighting just the one 1st level fighter, he's fighting three of them or five 1st level fighters, evening the odds out.

Also to take into account is armour types.

 

[kevtar]

Maybe the math is more linear and there is a smaller scale of armor bonuses? For instance, in 1st ed you basically had 10 to -10 as the basic assumption for armor class. I can't remember if magical items let you exceed that scale with RAW. So, maybe a way that high level characters can demonstrate their added prowess or ability is through higher HP? It's not that they're avoiding hits, but that they're taking hits better - or longer.

Or what about damage resistance? Can that be used instead of higher HP?

I'm not well-read on the particulars of game design, but I'm interested by the topic. I'd like to see an article like "game design for dummies" and have the theory and calculations laid out in layman terms and concepts that don't assume a previous knowledge of the mechanics. I think something like that would definitely help an open playtest.