My Rant Apology & Sell Me Flat Math

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I love the flat math, but I would rather that ability scores continued to improve-- a much slower improvement than mathematic progressions, but improvement that is consistent across the character.

 

[Libramarian]

You don't improve to-hit until level 4 in Basic D&D, so that could be what will happen.

Fighters improve every 3 levels, Clerics every 4, Magic-Users every 5. It's usually +2 at a time, maybe in DDN you only gain +1 at those levels.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I play sandbox-style, and I see what you're saying, but I personally still support flat math. I believe what the designers are going for is:

1. You'll have some modest to-hit bonuses across the life of your PC, but since monster ACs won't scale, those modest bonuses will be very meaningful.

2. You'll increase in power in other ways, mostly through higher damage and more options.

3. In a sandbox specifically, I think flat math will help make parts of the world stay meaningful longer.

4. Also good for verisimilitude is the fact that AC now makes more sense given the reality of a monster.

I can't XP you currently (the system appears to be disabled still), but I basically agree. I flattened the math in my game. But, I was replying to how some increases to skills/attacks/etc. play a part into the believability of the game, especially in a sandbox as opposed to "always fighting level appropriate enemies" or the like.

I like flatter math. I like a good amount of progression, though, because it lets me have more fine control over the story implication of what each bonus represents. In my RPG, a professionally skilled warrior gets +7 to attacks at hit die 4 (hit die 4 is the average settled adult). So, I know what a +7 bonus to attacks within the context of the game when I compare it to other things (this bear attacks at +8, or this king attacks at +6).

Where I start to question things is what the bonuses mean in 5e. What does +6 to attack mean in 5e? Has attack bonus nearly stopped describing the fiction now, and has that responsibility been passed mostly to hit points? Is the same true of AC and hit points? How does this affect things like poison and falling? That is, if having more hit points means you're better at dodging/deflecting the blow, does getting hit by a poisoned weapon still poison you? If so, does every "hit" mean you get scratched, or do poisoned weapons land more hits than they used to?

These have been questions in past editions, too, of course. But, if you had AC that scaled enough, then the questions would be asked less. Ten levels from now, that kobold probably won't hit you with that poisoned weapon, so you dodged/deflected it. Maybe they'll put a hit point threshold on a lot of things now. Maybe you can only get poisoned if you have X hit points or less, where X varies depending on the poison. That still leaves the question of falling damage and HP, but that's a different thing altogether.

At any rate, yes, I like flatter math, and I think that a slower progression is good for the game. In my RPG, "exceptionally skilled" warriors (the highest on the chart) go from about +6 to attacks at hit die 1 to +19 to attacks at hit die 20. This is definitely reeled in from, say, 3.5 D&D. But, I still like having that fine-controlled sense of what each bonus means within the fiction of the game world. The more balanced and accurately attuned moving parts, the better, in my mind. Then again, I guess that breaks down somewhat with a highly "modular" system, huh?

So, yeah. Sorry for the long post. I like flat math, and I even like the idea of it being tighter than my RPG by a good deal. I'm just not sure how much I like the idea of hit points picking up the slack that attacks and AC used to fulfill within defining the fiction of the game. I'll just wait and see. As always, play what you like

 

[TheSleepyKing]

4. Also good for verisimilitude is the fact that AC now makes more sense given the reality of a monster. A 10th-level orc won't just magically have a higher AC because he's 10th level. He'll have more HP, sure, because he's tougher and more experienced, but his armor won't suddenly be better or his skin tougher. This also should mean that we can add armor to monsters as a way of toughening them up (giving kobolds chain mail or something) that makes sense in the game world and doesn't break a preset pattern of math.

I was going to make exactly this point, and it's one of my favorite things about flat math. It always bugged the heck out of me that, say, a boar gets +5 natural armor (in 3e) -- which is as good as chainmail -- just so the math can work out for level-appropriate characters. It may have a tough hide, but it's not as tough as interlinked steel rings!

 

[jadrax]

I was going to make exactly this point, and it's one of my favorite things about flat math. It always bugged the heck out of me that, say, a boar gets +5 natural armor (in 3e) -- which is as good as chainmail -- just so the math can work out for level-appropriate characters. It may have a tough hide, but it's not as tough as interlinked steel rings!

Yeah, the Natural Armour Values were an abomination. Hopefully this edition will not see that issue.

 

[ren1999]

Wow. I did a search for flat math D&D and people in other forums are really arguing for or against it but the majority is for flatter math. So how are we going to reward player characters when they level-up without inflating all the bonuses? After all this discussion someone must have come up with a good compromise.

Flat Math will allow these things.
Allows a low level monster to serve as a threatening minion for a higher level monster.

Allows an army of low level monsters to be a threat to a high level party.

Does away with the need for the DM to have to scale monsters or have 7 variations of the same monster.

A low level monster has a greater chance of hitting a higher level monster. Maybe even up to a 25% chance.

If AC and To-Hit increase at the same time, they cancel each other out.
If hit points and damage increase at the same time, they cancel each other out. (but this is something that also keeps a 1st level character from killing a 20th level demon)

Things to keep in mind.
Weapon Proficiency and Weapon Focus are Feats that do the same thing as giving out ToHit bonuses at higher levels. People will not always choose these feats so that can create a big disparity between characters and monsters who can hit and those who can't.

The answer is to just give a generic ToHit Bonus after a certain level.

WHAT SHOULD BE LEVELED-UP?

RACIAL TRAITS? No.
Racial Traits should not be awarded on leveling-up. A character should not gain Night Vision as a racial trait when leveling-up. That's not logical as Night Vision is something you are born with.

CLASS FEATURES? Yes.
If you're an archer who trains with your bow, you'll learn new techniques and tricks as you continue to shoot things with your bow. But shouldn't class features and feats be combined? Isn't a theme feature the same thing as a class feature? Perhaps we can divide power gains into two categories. Powers that everyone in your class/theme learns. And powers you pick yourself.

There should be a cap if we want to keep ability bonuses at a lower number.
20 max for each ability
20 levels max, I can roll with that.
if all bonuses are based on one of the abilities..
then magic items, spell effects, feats, powers and things could stack an ability but can't stack above 20.

Perhaps AC should only improve with a dexterity modifier.

rolling hit dice is fine for monsters but I still prefer static hit points for characters.

That just leaves a few things.
After how many levels should an ability increase?
every 5 levels +1 to 3 abilities?
+1 to an ability every level?

 

[VannATLC]

You know, I was feeling the same as the OP, until I realized (from my perspective) how much of this makes sense in the Hit Points are Abstract philosophy. And how much the Development Team seems to have embraced that.

I have read somewhere that the overnight healing is (paraphrase coming) bascially because as long as you have 1 hit point you have not had any solid hits. Basically one good shot and you are down, and until you are down, you must not have gotten hit very hard.

Add this in to Damage increases instead of To Hit bonuses......Each Hit that you make as fighter (for example) is more likely to be the one to lay out the enemy. And even a rolled misses (for a slayer) slowly wears down the guy until you connect with a big hit.

I know most of these will get tweaked, but I really really like the mindset here.

Simpler Math, but bigger payouts.

RK

Exactly. I've never been able to resolve HP as anything except several layers of abstraction. This system just works for me.

 

[triqui]

I understand I may not be in the majority, but those improvements speak to the game world: if many demons are better than goblins with to-hit, AC, and hit points, and my PCs are equal those demons, then my PCs, in the game world, are better than goblins. I can now take on demons with some reliability (in a group), and take on many more goblins.

I fully agree with that. However, the designers are trying to acomplish that using other game stats. At 15 level, your fighter will have maybe 1d8+15 damage, so he kills goblins when he hit (and demons have maybe 2000 hp). Your fighter will have 4 attacks per turn, and will have the "reaper" feat (so kill goblins even on a miss), and he might have the "Cleave" feat (so get an extra attack when he kills one) and maybe the "flashing blades" maneuver, that allow him to attack every creature in his reach.

I'm pretty sure there will be *some* scalability in the attack bonus. It's not going to be 100% flat. We haven't seen higher levels, or magic items yet. It's quite probable a fighter gets some "weapon focus" improvements to hit through levels, and maybe to AC too, but it seems it's going to be something you get through class features/feats/themes etc. Not a direct assumption by level. In 3e, 4e (and other editions), a 20th level wizard, who has NEVER used a sword (much less trained with it) has a much better base attack than a 2nd level samurai with weapon focus in katana, only because of level.

Let's see how they design it. So far it seems an elegant design (adventage/disaventage is just pure genius imho), although it's too soon to draw conclusions.

 

[Turbiales]

I play sandbox-style, and I see what you're saying, but I personally still support flat math. I believe what the designers are going for is:

My thoughts exactly, a shame I cannot give you XP.

 

[KesselZero]

Lots of good points

I'm missing out on so much XP!

Anyway, I like your point about having a certain attack bonus mean something in the game world. I do think that more tightly controlled math will better achieve that-- somebody above uses the example of a 20th-level 3e wizard who's better with a sword than a 2nd-level samurai with weapon focus, just because the wizard has a natural BAB progression, and it sounds like 5e is trying to move away from that by giving fighters bonuses with weapons and casters bonuses with magic rather than a universal BAB system. I think it makes sense in the gameworld that warriors would get better with weapons, and casters better at magic, rather than both getting better at "attacking" in general. Mechanically speaking I believe they will try to represent this through concrete bonuses (the fighter gets a "Weapon Training" bonus at level 5 or something, for example) rather than a generalized improvement progression, so you can say specifically, "My fighter has a +6 to attack because of his Strength, his specialization in longswords, and his weapon training." (They addressed some similar ideas in the chat yesterday, talking about specific race and class bonuses to damage and AC, but I'm guessing the same will apply to the modest to-hit progression.)

I'm not sure what to say to your poison example; that's a clever and interesting argument that I hadn't thought of. My mental fiction tends to be that every hit is actually a landed blow (it just feels more exciting in my head like that, or if I'm describing actions as DM) and higher HP means more ability to shrug that off or tough it out. So in that case a poisoned dagger would hit on a hit and put more poison in your system, but your higher HP would mean the same amount of poison just doesn't affect you as much. Or maybe you're just better at turning the blow so you get nicked by the non-poisoned part. Not perfect, I know. If anything, my best guess is that 5e will have a system like you suggested where different poisons have different HP thresholds based on their potency, a la the spells we've seen.