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

[Mark CMG]

My solution? Look for the underlying problem not at the symptoms caused thereby. The problem isn't ascending bonuses themselves. The problems arise from taking a d20 die for resolution in an essnetially ten level system then stretching the system to accomodate 20 levels, patching the system to obscure the problems, then stretching it to 30 levels or more and finding the need to patch and add on other ways to fix the symptoms of the stretching problem. Move things back to a ten level system and most of the problems are removed. Or, I suppose, use a d30 or higher to stretch the resolution method to keep pace with the level-stretching.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

I had no problem with hits points not just being toughness and being the ability to turn hard blows into glancing blows.

But, if a PC has taken 90% of their hit points (regardless of the fact that the game didn't penalize the PC for this), I always considered them to effectively be 90% wounded. I never ever ever considered it to be force of will, luck, etc. in 30+ years of gaming (at that time). That's really a 4E concept, not a D&D concept (where there was actually healing and damage in the rules, not encouragement to fight), and I really have a bit of an issue with that concept being forced down the entire D&D gaming community's throat. As an optional rule, fine. And, I'd be okay with it being an optional system for 5E.

Yes, the players now have more options to self heal and such, but that nod away from plausibility and into the realm of player convenience and ease of use doesn't make it a better system. It just makes it a different system, not D&D.

 

[Stalker0]

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 think you and I are in agreement here, we are just pushing it from different directions.

You are in favor of reducing reliance on healing through traditional forms, at least traditional as far as Dnd goes, while I have been pushing the fate point type system.

The concept of fate points is a bit radical to the Dnd world, though its found long use in other systems. The reason I have pushed it so hard is I have found it to be such a great tool for the job. It allows you to bend the rules (just as magic does) without actually using "magic", because a good use of the system doesn't create radical new possibilities, it simply lets a PC choose from a set of probable ones, and pick one that's a bit more favorable.

But ultimately it is not the power of the mechanic that I like, its the precision. You mentioned resistance and temporary hitpoints for example. These are good tools, but they don't just affect a single moment of combat, they can affect the whole of the combat, especially if they can be reapplied with spells or magic items multiple times.

But a fate point system, probably designed, can be very specific on when they can be applied (such as "when you die" as one example). This allows you to curb very specific areas of your system, without creating more general changes. It is that specific power that I have found of such utility.

You can design your math around a specific baseline, and then add fate point like regions around those specifics areas that just don't quite work out, without ever affecting the rest of your system or your math baseline one little bit.

It took me a while to get used to them, but once I did, the immense freedom in design it offered me I have not found an equivalent substitute yet.

 

[mmadsen]

The problem isn't ascending bonuses themselves. The problems arise from taking a d20 die for resolution in an essentially ten level system then stretching the system to accomodate 20 levels, patching the system to obscure the problems, then stretching it to 30 levels or more and finding the need to patch and add on other ways to fix the symptoms of the stretching problem. Move things back to a ten level system and most of the problems are removed.

Excellent point. Also, the problem is exacerbated by starting with math that more-or-less works and then adding bonuses from feats, spells, magic items, etc., from an ever-growing list of options.

 

[KarinsDad]

But a fate point system, probably designed, can be very specific on when they can be applied (such as "when you die" as one example). This allows you to curb very specific areas of your system, without creating more general changes. It is that specific power that I have found of such utility.

Yes, I understand the concept. But, your very example here illustrates why I have a problem with it. When you die, you die. There should be no get out of jail card here (or fate point) because that takes away from the challenge of the game. It coddles players. Epic classes tend to do this already with "When you go negative or die, you actually are often healed more than you were before you got hit". WTH???

I had the same thought when Action Points came out in 3.5 and were a D6 add to a D20 roll. In that case, it is a meta-game solution instead of an in character solution. It's an "after the result is found to be unsatisfactory, we will change the result". 4E's Action Points are much better. Although a player can use an Action Point after s/he finds out what happens with a Standard Action, it isn't a direct modification of the result. It's an additional chance, but not the same action and it's totally in character, it's not a "opps, let's back that up".

Fate points are modifying what has already happened or already failed in the game. They are a "Wait, back up, let's just change that because I don't like it as a player, ok?" system.

I have a bit of an issue with Immediate Interrupts for this very reason as well. They change the result based on the fact that the player doesn't like the result. They are very player entitlement oriented and I prefer a game of "what happens, happens". Sure, bad die rolls are going to come up. That's why all PCs should have some rare "go to the well" abilities that they can unlease when it happens (in earlier versions, low number of charges items such as a few more powerful than normal potions could be used to go to the well). But, those abilities shouldn't be "Waaahhh!!!! I don't like what happened to my PC. I want to change it.".

Limiting fate points to specific aspects of the game system doesn't change the fact that they go back in time and change what actually happened in the game. It's like saving a computer game, doing the next challenge, and then when you find out how to beat it, you go back to your saved game and do it all over again, using the least amount of resources and gaining all of the benefits for you character.

Why is there such a drive in our gaming community to make D&D like computer games? I'm sitting with a group of people roleplaying because I do not want to be playing a computer game.

 

[mmadsen]

There should be no get out of jail card here (or fate point) because that takes away from the challenge of the game. It coddles players.
[...]
Fate points are modifying what has already happened or already failed in the game. They are a "Wait, back up, let's just change that because I don't like it as a player, ok?" system.

So, when the enemy rolls to hit you and overcome your armor, you shouldn't have any special points that say, "no, it was only a flesh wound!"

Am I right?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Why is there such a drive in our gaming community to make D&D like computer games? I'm sitting with a group of people roleplaying because I do not want to be playing a computer game.

I think my earlier contention about the nature of the illusion and what people tell themselves about it is relevant here. "Feels like a computer game" is subjective. Fate points are the least computer-game feeling I can imagine, because there isn't a DM in the computer game to adjudicate when you can use them or not.

To me, the most like a computer game is what you are proposing (to the extent that any of these options are--which they aren't really). The DM is going to fudge to some degree (or not) to make up for the fact that we don't have save game options. If he doesn't fudge, that is directly analogous to "hard-core" mode in something like Baldur's Gate.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, I understand the concept. But, your very example here illustrates why I have a problem with it. When you die, you die. There should be no get out of jail card here (or fate point) because that takes away from the challenge of the game. It coddles players. Epic classes tend to do this already with "When you go negative or die, you actually are often healed more than you were before you got hit". WTH???

I had the same thought when Action Points came out in 3.5 and were a D6 add to a D20 roll. In that case, it is a meta-game solution instead of an in character solution. It's an "after the result is found to be unsatisfactory, we will change the result". 4E's Action Points are much better. Although a player can use an Action Point after s/he finds out what happens with a Standard Action, it isn't a direct modification of the result. It's an additional chance, but not the same action and it's totally in character, it's not a "opps, let's back that up".

Fate points are modifying what has already happened or already failed in the game. They are a "Wait, back up, let's just change that because I don't like it as a player, ok?" system.

I have a bit of an issue with Immediate Interrupts for this very reason as well. They change the result based on the fact that the player doesn't like the result. They are very player entitlement oriented and I prefer a game of "what happens, happens". Sure, bad die rolls are going to come up. That's why all PCs should have some rare "go to the well" abilities that they can unlease when it happens (in earlier versions, low number of charges items such as a few more powerful than normal potions could be used to go to the well). But, those abilities shouldn't be "Waaahhh!!!! I don't like what happened to my PC. I want to change it.".

Limiting fate points to specific aspects of the game system doesn't change the fact that they go back in time and change what actually happened in the game. It's like saving a computer game, doing the next challenge, and then when you find out how to beat it, you go back to your saved game and do it all over again, using the least amount of resources and gaining all of the benefits for you character.

Why is there such a drive in our gaming community to make D&D like computer games? I'm sitting with a group of people roleplaying because I do not want to be playing a computer game.

Don't be ridiculous. The rules of the game tell you when you will die and when you won't. Adding some rule that lets you not die is just that, a rule that you follow that lets you not die when the rules didn't demand that you had to die.

I mean lets look at this rationally. You wouldn't call giving PCs a higher AC or more hit points "coddling the players" either, as long as it isn't taken to extremes it is exactly what you do to set the preferred difficulty of the game when you design it. Likewise with 'fate points' or whatever. So just dump that coddling baloney because it is a terrible argument and is barely worth wasting words on.

Also, I know of no computer game that has 'interrupts' or 'fate points'. The kind of save and redo you are talking about is a totally different thing because it involves meta-gaming and doing so in a completely gamist way where there is not even a fig leaf of an explanation for it in game (now and then a game has offered a fig leaf, but it is always heavily contrived). Saying "wait, I can dodge that blow" when it lands is not at all the same thing. It is silly to even compare them, so don't.

 

[KarinsDad]

So, when the enemy rolls to hit you and overcome your armor, you shouldn't have any special points that say, "no, it was only a flesh wound!"

Am I right?

Err, no.

Apples and Oranges. It's a bit bothersome when people use a straw man.

One is the player backing up the game and saying the result never happened, after the result has been determined.

The other is the result happens, it just doesn't happen to the same degree as a lower level creature from the exact same attack due to the defensive abilities of the higher level creature. It also happens to a greater degree than if it happened to a higher level creature.

It's a logical fallacy to conclude anything from one to the other.

Until immediate interrupt actions in 4E, the game didn't have many ways to go back in time and change the result what just happened. I cannot even remember a single one, even Feather Fall happened simultaneously and didn't change the result if the PC had already fallen and hit a surface. Immediate Actions in 3E typically occurred before dice were rolled, not after the fact. For example, Empty Mind gave the +2 Will bonus before the saving throw was rolled, not after one found out that they missed the saving throw by 2.

3E Immediate Actions were not Immediate Interrupts, but they morphed into those in 4E (yet another bigger, better, badder game mechanic in 4E). But at least with 4E, the PCs that gain these abilities typically give up other abilities in order to acquire them. The game will become a bit of a joke if every PC can do these and they don't give up abilities to gain them. The DM will have to make encounters even more challenging, just to challenge players.

Note: Most Immediate Actions in 3E were psionic in nature. The psionic PCs could do something at the speed of thought, but even there, they didn't back up the result that was already determined. For example, a player wasn't able to replace a normal OA attack with an Opportunity Power power, just because he rolled to hit and rolled high. When an OA could occur, the player had to state that he was using Opportunity Power as opposed to rolling a normal attack, before rolling the attack roll.

 

[KarinsDad]

Don't be ridiculous.

...

Also, I know of no computer game that has 'interrupts' or 'fate points'. The kind of save and redo you are talking about is a totally different thing because it involves meta-gaming and doing so in a completely gamist way where there is not even a fig leaf of an explanation for it in game (now and then a game has offered a fig leaf, but it is always heavily contrived). Saying "wait, I can dodge that blow" when it lands is not at all the same thing. It is silly to even compare them, so don't.

Don't be ridiculous.

Once a blow hits, having a game rule that says it didn't hit because the player has a limited number of fate points is TOTALLY gamist. It is totally meta-gaming and has nothing to do with in character. It's not the PC in character using a Shield spell at the last possible instant to stop the attack. The PC doesn't actually do anything. The player spends a resource. That's totally gamist and not in character.

Sorry, but this is totally contrived. Just because you like the concept doesn't make it less contrived and meta-gamey.


The difference between "in character" and gamist is that the PC knows that he has a Shield spell and knows that he lost the resource. The PC doesn't know that he has fate points. Only the player does.