Forked Thread: Why do we have a constant numbers bloat?

[TerraDave]

The numbers bloat, its not as new as you might think.

"Col Pladoh" (EGG) posted on these boards at some point that the reason 4d6 and arrange was added was that his players would just refuse to play a charecter with low stats...and they would role those 6 3d6 multiple times till they got what they wanted.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The numbers bloat, its not as new as you might think.

"Col Pladoh" (EGG) posted on these boards at some point that the reason 4d6 and arrange was added was that his players would just refuse to play a charecter with low stats...and they would role those 6 3d6 multiple times till they got what they wanted.

I never claimed it was new, it started nearly at the beginning. Im still wondering why it needs to continue. 3E got to a point where the actual d20 roll was sometimes a small addition to the bonus. Judging by the defenses of some critters in the MM, 4E looks like the same thing is going on.

 

[Remathilis]

I never claimed it was new, it started nearly at the beginning. Im still wondering why it needs to continue. 3E got to a point where the actual d20 roll was sometimes a small addition to the bonus. Judging by the defenses of some critters in the MM, 4E looks like the same thing is going on.

So far, I've had the opposite.

3e: to hit, I need to roll a 2 or better when I get high level, the bonuses outweigh the d20.

4e: No matter how awesome my PC is, I need to roll an 11+ to hit or I waste my attack.

So far, I've found 4e's dice:bonus ratio extremely balanced, to the point of frustration when my d20 forgets that there are numbers higher than 8.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

2) For 3.5, the Expanded Psionics Handbook had several powers that had DCs that escalated at twice the rate of other powers and spells. Complete Psionic actually fixed this (why they didn't do this with normal errata, I don't know.) But on the psionic boards, there were people still trying to justify that the rapidly scaline DCs of psionic blast powers was actually as it should have been in XPH.

Those people drove me up the wall.

Blizzard Entertainment, which knows something about RPGs, has said "everything should feel overpowered". Note - not overpowered, they should just feel that way.

 

[Lanefan]

Another obvious source of perceived numbers bloat came when 3e took the PCs' combat ability off the back of the DM screen and put it on the players' character sheets as "BAB". That, and 3e making the to-hit bonus the same as the damage bonus for Strength, leads to:

Suddenly, previously unthinkable '+' numbers to hit become commonplace - a 10th-level Fighter in 3e with Str. 18 is +14 to hit on her primary attack *before* any buffs and magic items are thrown in - give her a +3 sword and a bit of a stat boost and +20 is easily in reach. That's as big as the frikkin' die you're rolling; and you get to say "+20" at least once a round.

Someone playing the same Fighter in 1e would be rolling at +4 to hit - 1 from Str. and 3 from the sword - and the DM would worry about the other +10 from class ability. A boost in Strength might get you another +1 or 2, but that'd be it. And you know what? I'm cool with that.

Lanefan

 

[ExploderWizard]

Suddenly, previously unthinkable '+' numbers to hit become commonplace - a 10th-level Fighter in 3e with Str. 18 is +14 to hit on her primary attack *before* any buffs and magic items are thrown in - give her a +3 sword and a bit of a stat boost and +20 is easily in reach. That's as big as the frikkin' die you're rolling; and you get to say "+20" at least once a round.

Lanefan

And after feeling all pumped up and powerful with that monster to- hit bonus our little fighter finds out she needs to hit AC 34!!! and feels oh so average.

 

[Psion]

Why is the "right" thing to do to reduce the powers of certain classes rather than increasing others?

Does the phrase "tail wagging the dog" mean anything to you?

The game was built around the assumption that CR=party level is an average challenge. Shifting the baseline to match the outlier instead of reigning the outlier in shifts the balance of the game. Suddenly, all the claims of "this adventure is for levels X-Y" become invalid.

In short: level should be as stable a reference point as practical.

 

[delericho]

4e: No matter how awesome my PC is, I need to roll an 11+ to hit or I waste my attack.

So far, I've found 4e's dice:bonus ratio extremely balanced, to the point of frustration when my d20 forgets that there are numbers higher than 8.

This is a consequence of 4e scaling both the bonus and the target number at the same rate (+1/2 per level). It does a good job of maintaining the balance of the game across the full level range, but does have the unfortunate consequence that you might as well replace most of the mechanics with "roll a 10 or better".

Personally, I think they would have been better going with fewer, more widely spaced target numbers, for low-, mid- and high- end challenges for each of the three tiers (and a theoretical "Deific" tier above epic, for the toughest challenges in the game). This would have had much the same effect, but led to 8th level characters feeling just that bit better than 6th level characters when faced with challenges.

(For the sake of balance, I feel I must point out that this isn't original with 4e. A lot of the published adventures in 3.5e set Open Locks and Disable Device DCs at values that were suspiciously calibrated so that the maxed-out party Rogue 'just happened' to require a 10 on the dice roll to succeed. I feel that was as much of a mistake then as it is now.)

 

[delericho]

Why is the "right" thing to do to reduce the powers of certain classes rather than increasing others?

Because single classed Clerics, Druids and Wizards in 3.5e are significantly more powerful than everyone else. To rebalance this, then, you need to either:

1) Weaken three classes.

2) Increase the power level of eight classes, and any supplemental materials in use, and all the monsters, traps and challenges in the system.

 

[ExploderWizard]

This is a consequence of 4e scaling both the bonus and the target number at the same rate (+1/2 per level). It does a good job of maintaining the balance of the game across the full level range, but does have the unfortunate consequence that you might as well replace most of the mechanics with "roll a 10 or better".

Exactly this. Why stack so many plusses and track endless modifiers if the end result ends up being about 50/50 at all levels of play. Higher level characters and monsters should hit more often thats why they have higher hit points. When you combine a roughly 50% miss chance along with large hit point pools (and no way to bypass them) its easy to see where a grind happens.

If adventurers want to feel really heroic they shouldn't have to go and beat up lower level monsters. Whats the point of improvement if the hero feels like he is first level at level 20?