D&D 5E No ascending bonuses: A mathematical framework for 5e

[AbdulAlhazred]

And if there wasn't magic in the game system and monsters had all of the abilities of PCs, this math might mean something.

My proof for this is 4E.

Fights aren't fair. Ever. PCs always have a huge advantage.

If one carefully looks at most above same level 4E encounters, they'll notice something. The NPCs often get the upper hand in the first few rounds. A few PCs are bloodied. Multiple PCs have effects on them. Things look dire. But slowly, the PCs start evening the odds and eventually, they start ripping through the encounter. Why is this if the PCs are losing in round one, that they win in round six?

Action Economy.

Although one or sometimes even two PCs might be knocked unconscious in an encounter (although most encounters, no PCs are knocked unconscious), they almost always get back up. The monsters almost never get back up.

The three things that cause this to happen are:

1) Options. PCs tend to have a lot of options. Monsters have only a few. Each player can decide in each situation whether to pull out a big gun, or if a lesser gun will work. Monsters don't have this option too much. They might get one or two Encounter (read Daily cause the monster is not coming back) powers, but once their wad is shot, they're done.

2) Healing. PCs often have quite a bit of this. Parties without Leaders aren't completely screwed (they still have #1 and #3), but parties with Leaders just wipe through encounters. Not at the start of the encounter, but part way through. Monsters rarely have healing, so once a monster is down, it typically stays down forever.

3) Action Points. PCs already have a "get out of jail card" free option. They get to focus an additional attack when needed. The vast majority of monsters do not have action points.

So if the PCs get 5 attacks in round one and the NPCs get 5 attacks in round one, the PCs are still doing 5 attacks in round six whereas the monsters are done to 1 or 2 attacks at that point.

By definition, the PCs win. This is how the game is designed to work so that PCs can be heroes that get past level 3. These are the reasons that PCs can take on an encounter 4 levels higher than the group and win. But when an encounter gets to 5 levels or 6 levels higher, it starts becoming really dicey (and even 4 levels higher is often a real challenge).


So, I opine that the rationale for adding more "get out of jail free" abilities to the game system is flawed. It's not a straight up math problem. PCs have healing and PCs have many more options than monsters, hence, they win. They don't need even more ways to win. The 4E game system is already extremely easy unless the PCs have run out of Daily resources (powers and/or healing surges).

I don't see the problem with any of this. The 4e design is deliberately meant to create a sense of urgency and danger, then allow the players to solve the problem of being behind the curve by properly employing their "dig myself out of a hole" abilities. That's what makes an interesting and fun encounter. The monsters come rocking in with their encounter powers and maybe APs, throw the party back on its left foot, and then make the players think. If the players can't effectively dig up ways to respond or they are pushed too far down the curve then they can be TPKed, but the system is pretty good about that not happening, mainly because monster's at-will attacks are generally enough below the curve that it gives the party room to work with after the DM launches his initial alpha strike.

I don't think monster healing is a generally good idea. It tends to make things tedious and works against the whole model with really very little gained. The better model is again the one that 4e actually follows, which is to give the monsters some buffs or debuffs which let the DM employ some tactics without undoing encounter progress. Truthfully once the monsters rock the PCs back the best thing is for them to die reasonably quickly once the players get back on their feet.

One way to reinject some tension in the later part of an encounter is to introduce some sort of timer. Recharge powers do this to some extent, and recharge on bloodied more explicitly. There could be some more interesting possibilities with say some monsters that could recover powers after N rounds or something like that. I'd have to say though that often this kind of thing is best incorporated into encounter design rather than monster stat blocks (and is a good reason for having wave encounters or other dynamic encounter setups).

Finally, the 'negate an attack chit' idea isn't meant to be piled on top of the 4e model. It would be useful in the "much lower hit point advancement" model, and primarily because it would effectively represent 'more hit points' without number inflation. It also breaks from the to-hit/defense divergence enough to give PCs a wider level range of opponents they can take on. It would largely REPLACE some degree of existing recovery mechanics. The model would be that the monsters would have a more steady damage output. Instead of being front loaded they would do dangerous damage all encounter. The PCs would show up, take some hits, negate them, strike back, and then start to actually be HURT. This would shift the question of when the encounter is in doubt more to the later rounds, but make the danger apparent right up front. Smart players would try to use their chits optimally but at least that would imply they take some damage right off. This could be a complex decision to make since damage no longer has to be trivial to heal.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't think monster healing is a generally good idea. It tends to make things tedious and works against the whole model with really very little gained. The better model is again the one that 4e actually follows, which is to give the monsters some buffs or debuffs which let the DM employ some tactics without undoing encounter progress. Truthfully once the monsters rock the PCs back the best thing is for them to die reasonably quickly once the players get back on their feet.

Although I agree that monster healing shouldn't be as common and powerful as PC healing, there is definitely design room for it, especially in major encounters.

Take the following encounter in one of my PBP games:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-eberron/311263-adventure-rhapsody-part-2-judge-renau1g-8.html

The encounter lasted 9 rounds and the NPCs actually had a few different ways to heal themselves. The one undead creature could heal other undead creatures, the leader had a 5 square aura which allowed a fellow ally to keep fighting for one round after going negative, the non-leader humans could as a minor action gain back 5 hit points (which if used while in negative hit points, would bring them back), and the humans carried a potion which gave them 10 temp hit points, but dazed them for a round in return.

The PCs had already had a few encounters that day, so they had already used up some Daily powers and were not fresh. Some of the PCs were really low on healing surges. By round 3, 2/3rds of the PC summoned/conjured creatures were gone, one PC was unconscious, one was bloodied and two PCs were almost bloodied. Only one PC (the Defender) was hardly touched. But, they rallied back from that to win the encounter.

1 level 5 Elite Artillery
4 level 6 Soldiers
1 level 5 Controller
4 level 3 Artillery
and a low level set of pit traps that the a PC only actually fell into once.

So, 2200+ XP encounter for a party of levels 4, 6, 7, 7, 7 (effectively, a 6th level party), so just shy of an N+4 encounter, but the NPCs also had healing.

Being outnumbered 10 to 5 (10 to 7 if you count the Shaman's two creatures), the encounter was designed to last longer than the normal 6 rounds.

The encounter was a bit more interesting because dead foes stuck around for an extra round (which when it first happened, players were taken back by it) and one NPC even managed to go from negative to positive hit points, just like a PC.


I think that encounters can last for more than 6 rounds and not be grindy and NPC healing can play a part in that if the players are really into the encounter. What becomes grindy for players is when they run out of Encounter / Daily powers and they have to spam At Will powers for a lot of rounds. That's not a problem with monster healing, that's an issue with WotC introduced player entitlement in 4E.

In 1E through 3.5, the potent spells from the Cleric, Wizard, or other spell casters on the team occurred a few times per encounter. They didn't necessarily occur every single round because in a Vancian magic system, spell casters had to conserve spells, at least at lower levels. A major part of encounters were just doing damage.

In 4E, potent spell like abilities are handed out to all classes (these are called Encounter and Daily powers). When those run out, then players have been trained to no longer be content (like they were in 1E through 3.5, 30 years of gaming) to just do damage. Players were conditioned by the game system that every single attack had to not just do damage, but it had to do something else cool as well. It's not a fault of the players, it's a game design fault of 4E. Everyone in 4E is a superhero with super powers, hence when those powers run out, people do psychologically feel the grind when spamming At Will powers (even though most At Will powers do more than just damage). It's human nature.

One of the nice things about Essentials is that WotC made it a bit cool to spam the same set of Melee or Ranged Basic attack and not feel bad about it. Those classes are designed with players in mind that don't want a ton of options, they just want to be effective in combat on their turn.

And 4E grind has decreased due to Expertise and due to the vast plethora of classes, items, powers, and feats in the splat books. The PCs are more effective, hence, they wipe out monsters faster, hence, the game feels less grindy than it did when it first came out.

 

[Stalker0]

So, I opine that the rationale for adding more "get out of jail free" abilities to the game system is flawed. It's not a straight up math problem. PCs have healing and PCs have many more options than monsters, hence, they win. They don't need even more ways to win. The 4E game system is already extremely easy unless the PCs have run out of Daily resources (powers and/or healing surges).

I agree with your summary of abilities, but I actually think the focus on healing helps my argument.

As you said, healing is a central part of what makes the math work...yet the majority is wrapped up in classes that are completely optional to a party. In fact, the 3e model was to make the cleric super powerful because people weren't playing them...and therefore the party as a whole was much weaker.

While healing will always have a place, I would like to take some of the burden off its shoulders and insert it into other areas, and this is where I think a fate point type system could be of particular use. 4e already tried the model of giving healing more broadly to all classes (the second wind), and while I think it was a good idea it suffers flavor problems with some people.

But I think people are more comfortable with the idea of avoiding damage than healing it, because we have plenty of examples in real life. I have never seen a person pull a spear from their body and instantly heal it. But I have seen people fall off a roof with minimal injury, bash their head against a table and be just fine. Heck, there are real world examples of sky divers losing their parachute, crashing to earth at full speed, and surviving.

Now I do agree with you that 4e combat can be too easy, and I think its because healing is overpowered in 4e. It restores so much health, and is so easy to do, that it removes the tension. I have seen a player dropped down to a few hp and then be instantly restored to full from a mere nod of our bard (wasn't even a cleric!), and that happens several times a combat. I think 5e healing should be toned down, but an extra blanket at the bottom isn't a bad idea either.

 

[Stalker0]

I idea on healing I just had, what is the standard healing was the 3e lesser vigor model, aka regeneration instead of straight up healing.

This allows for healing that can restore a could bit of health and lets the PCs keep going on the adventure, but makes it much weaker in combat, so maintains some of the tension.

Further, you could make it so it doesn't stack (or stacks very weakly), which helps you model the math better. With standard healing it stacks so powerfully, so a PCs effective hitpoints varies widely depending on how much juice the cleric is willing to spend. But in a stack weakly regeneration model, the clerics resource expenditure has much less impact on the effective hitpoints....so it streamlines the math better.

 

[KarinsDad]

I agree with your summary of abilities, but I actually think the focus on healing helps my argument.

As you said, healing is a central part of what makes the math work...yet the majority is wrapped up in classes that are completely optional to a party. In fact, the 3e model was to make the cleric super powerful because people weren't playing them...and therefore the party as a whole was much weaker.

While healing will always have a place, I would like to take some of the burden off its shoulders and insert it into other areas, and this is where I think a fate point type system could be of particular use. 4e already tried the model of giving healing more broadly to all classes (the second wind), and while I think it was a good idea it suffers flavor problems with some people.

But I think people are more comfortable with the idea of avoiding damage than healing it, because we have plenty of examples in real life.

I am all for more ways to avoid damage than healing it as well.

Resistance. Temporary hit points (I actually prefer temp hit points for Warlords instead of real hit points). Spells which hinder or control or section off foes so that not all foes can attack the PCs every round.

But, 4E started the model of PCs can be healed without magic AND that PCs can self heal. I really hate that model and hope 5E moves away from it.

I do think that real healing in D&D should be magic BECAUSE of the real life examples you quote. The status quo should be that PCs are human-like. They shouldn't be regenerating little creatures instead. Falling should hurt them. Getting hit with a sword should hurt them and not just a tiny little bit (hence, my model of fewer hit points and less damage).

I think healing surges and Second Winds should go the way of the Dodo, that more ways to avoid damage should be introduced to the game (but not "get out of jail free, I just changed what happened" cards), and that healing should be magic again.

I don't mind that on the fly healing magic is limited to a set group of classes. That's why there are classes are in D&D. To allow each player to have abilities that other players do not have. Healing should be potent and players who want that power should be allowed to play classes that cannot just be emulated by other class abilities and non-magical solutions. Other classes can have damage mitigation, but non-Leaders shouldn't be healing (or alternatively, should have very weak healing).

Granted, this means that most groups will want a healing type class in their party (or a class that can create healing magic items), but most groups will want a striker and a defender and a controller as well. That's how the game has been for over 30 years (although the striker role wasn't quite as prevalent).

Trying to change D&D to an RPG that does not require a healer in the group is trying to change D&D into NOT D&D. The feel is drastically different. And that's what they sort of did with 4E and I hope they backpedal from that some in 5E.

 

[KarinsDad]

I idea on healing I just had, what is the standard healing was the 3e lesser vigor model, aka regeneration instead of straight up healing.

This allows for healing that can restore a could bit of health and lets the PCs keep going on the adventure, but makes it much weaker in combat, so maintains some of the tension.

Agreed. This is a preferable system for some significant portion of healing.

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

Healing only needs to be magic if HPs are wounds.

I am all for more ways to avoid damage than healing it as well.

Resistance. Temporary hit points (I actually prefer temp hit points for Warlords instead of real hit points). Spells which hinder or control or section off foes so that not all foes can attack the PCs every round.

But, 4E started the model of PCs can be healed without magic AND that PCs can self heal. I really hate that model and hope 5E moves away from it.

I do think that real healing in D&D should be magic BECAUSE of the real life examples you quote. The status quo should be that PCs are human-like. They shouldn't be regenerating little creatures instead. Falling should hurt them. Getting hit with a sword should hurt them and not just a tiny little bit (hence, my model of fewer hit points and less damage).

I think healing surges and Second Winds should go the way of the Dodo, that more ways to avoid damage should be introduced to the game (but not "get out of jail free, I just changed what happened" cards), and that healing should be magic again.

I don't mind that on the fly healing magic is limited to a set group of classes. That's why there are classes are in D&D. To allow each player to have abilities that other players do not have. Healing should be potent and players who want that power should be allowed to play classes that cannot just be emulated by other class abilities and non-magical solutions. Other classes can have damage mitigation, but non-Leaders shouldn't be healing.

Granted, this means that most groups will want a healing type class in their party (or a class that can create healing magic items), but most groups will want a striker and a defender and a controller as well. That's how the game has been for over 30 years (although the striker role wasn't quite as prevalent).

Trying to change D&D to an RPG that does not require a healer in the group is trying to change D&D into NOT D&D. The feel is drastically different. And that's what they sort of did with 4E and I hope they backpedal from that some in 5E.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm just not interested in going back to the notion that every party needs to carry around the 'healing battery' character and someone has to play it. I think the concept that the capacity to be healed is distributed around the party was a good concept. Second Wind really IMHO is not an issue either. You take a few seconds out, slow the pace of your offensive efforts some, and get a chance to recover a bit. It adds a dimension to tactics at VERY little cost to any kind of 'verisimilitude'.

There's a reasonable discussion to be had around what the ratio of healing in-combat vs out of combat is, but the acceptable and interesting amount in-combat is considerably more than none or just "one character has to be basically doing nothing but tossing out heals all fight". That was too limited.

There can also be a debate about the place of the 'avoid a hit' concept as another part of the equation. I could see that as being the most usual case for most characters damage mitigation in combat, but I'd think it really should be coupled with something like Second Wind and some degree of leader supplied healing.

 

[Stalker0]

Healing only needs to be magic if HPs are wounds.

I agree with this, but if the debates I've seen on the subject are any indication, this is a sticking point for a lot of people.

Some things you can convince people on, some things you have to work around.

Dnd for all its strengths has a lot of communal baggage, there are things the community has gotten used to that are hard to change (and frankly some people believe shouldn't change).

I think as long as hitpoints are hitpoints, there will be a portion of the community that will see them as "damage points". Aka I took damage, I am hurt. Therefore healing is exactly that, healing wounds.

We could persuade till we are blue in the face to move away from that model, or take the path of least resistance and find another way around the problem that doesn't hit this particular flavor nerve.

 

[mmadsen]

I am all for more ways to avoid damage than healing it as well. [...] But, 4E started the model of PCs can be healed without magic AND that PCs can self heal. I really hate that model and hope 5E moves away from it.

D&D's hit points never made sense as simple toughness, and there was always fine print somewhere explaining that they weren't meant to be simple toughness, but, when "hits" from weapons doing "damage" reduce your hit points, and "healing" is how you get them back, yeah, they sure seem like wounds that are opening and closing as your total goes down and then back up.

If 4E had made them totally intangible, there might have been a revolt, but at least some of this confusion could have been laid to rest.