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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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".

It changes from class to class, but one of the things that becomes more important is
- Find the "weakness" of the monster?
- Get yourself a boost to the roll.

---

I was wondering if this "problem" exists outside of D&D, too?
For example, did the numbers in Shadowrun go up?
It seems a little like "yes" and "no". It's harder in 4.Edition to get stats and skills to the magic "6". On the other hand, adding ability score and skills to get your total dice pool size tends to bloat up the numbers. (But then, 3E allowed skills above 6, and it add its combat and magic pool that could add 5-9 dice to a single roll easily).

I think one of the reasons of "bloat" might be due to the limits of existing dice. 4E for example could have kept hit points numbers lower if you would work with far smaller increments. But there would really be no point to it, would it? It's still the same, just with more fractions.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

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?

It depends. What feels heroic? Increasing the percentage of your attack rolls that hit, or managing to obtain the same percentage against increasingly powerful enemies? YMMV.

Personally, I don't think adventurers should need to beat up lower level monsters, but if they do, it helps to have an absolute scale of attack bonuses, defense scores, and hit points to determine how much easier that challenge has become.

 

[Runestar]

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.

Or possibly both, to achieve some sort of favourable middle ground. Melee just sucks in 3e. If you simply nerf casters down to their level, everyone loses. In the very least, without any revisions, the party could still have access to superior caster support to make their life easier.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I think a good point to bring up is the levels that the designers expected people to play at. In 1E and 2E, msot designers apparently thought characters would retire at 10th or so (name level) and even in 3.x it is blindinly obvious (by the screwed up DCs for skills that they didn ot expect players to get very high levels. I mean when a character can change his bitterest enemy into his best friend with diplomacy, something is broken. Even if it is high level breaking it, or insane bonuses. The designers thought a DC35 was impossible, or merely godlike, but everyone knows that that is just plain not true.

Or my pet peeeve of a DC 15 tumble to avoid AoOs. Great setting from levels 1-4 or so, but ricidulous at level 10. Same for concentration checks to cast high level spells.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It depends. What feels heroic? Increasing the percentage of your attack rolls that hit, or managing to obtain the same percentage against increasingly powerful enemies? YMMV.

I think the abstract nature of hit points and the large quantities of them that both PCs and monsters have in relation to regular people is a great measure of relative power. Lower bonuses and defenses would mean that both PC's and monsters would hit more often as the power level rises. In a game where the exciting things happen when hits are rolled it doesn't make much sense to keep a 50% hit rate throughout the game. This means that the best stuff only sees the light of day for half of the game, on average. As bigger and better abilities are aquired the feeling of competence doesn't increase. It also encourages fierce optimization and cookie cutter builds. Who reallly wants to experiment with a quirky off the wall idea when sticking to the tried and true and maximizing evey bonus only gives you even odds?

Personally, I don't think adventurers should need to beat up lower level monsters, but if they do, it helps to have an absolute scale of attack bonuses, defense scores, and hit points to determine how much easier that challenge has become.

Well, that was largely a joking method for letting the PC's attack something with better odds than a passing chance of showers.