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

[mmadsen]

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.

I don't think it's misrepresenting hit points at all to say that they reduce mortal wounds to flesh wounds, and thus they are "just a flesh wound" points. They certainly aren't just physical toughness, they don't make much sense as skill, and they do explicitly include luck, divine favor, etc.

Now, does it hurt your enjoyment of the game to dwell on that fact? I suspect so. But they're certainly a better model of plot protection than of toughness or fighting skill.

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'm not going to argue for 4E's immediate interrupt actions -- I'm no expert on 4E -- but I think it's reasonable to see D&D hit points as going back and changing a mortal wound to a flesh wound. I understand that you prefer not to see them that way.

Let's imagine a new, different kind of hit point though, that represents skill, luck, and divine favor, just like traditional hit points, but it's applied to the to-hit roll, to represent how much extra effort it would take to dive out of the way or roll with the blow enough to turn a sword through the visor into a glancing blow off your armor. That is, your opponent needs a natural 16 to hit, rolls a 17, and you use 2 hit points (or whatever we want to call them) to get out of the way.

Is that going back and changing what happened in a way you could not accept? Or is that more or less the same thing as traditional hit points, with a twist?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The thing that really confuses me is the blurred lines between hit points (already fluffed by many as having a significant amount of luck and fortune) and AC and saves and now fate points.

So if your PC is backstabbed by a rogue and takes 50 hit points but still fighting on, then it's not necessarily being "backstabbed" in a vital organ but something else, like taking 50 points of "destiny" damage and not feeling so lucky after that. But if you use a fate point, you're not saving yourself from certain death but only using fate to save yourself from a loss of fate. It seems a bit weird.

Well, the 'fate points' discussion arose out of a question about reducing hit point growth over levels. It was suggested as a mechanism to allow for a steeper overall power curve with less numerical inflation. So, yeah, maybe I see what you mean. OTOH you could restrict actual HP growth to a very small number and chalk it up to 'toughness'. Surely a higher level PC is a bit tougher physically than a raw newbie, so maybe you go from 15 hit points to 30 over 10 levels, and you also gain some number of 'fate points'. You'd also gain some AC and to-hit presumably, but the AC might be purely from better equipment. Your skill, luck, etc are now vested in your fate points pretty much, with hit points measuring the beating you can take (maybe a couple actual sword blows at high level). Once your luck runs out you're still dangerous to weaker opponents, but you won't last long before they finish you off.

Seems like a cool model to me. Lots different from what the OP proposed, more the opposite really as KD was advocating. It just seems like it would be cool to push it more. Fate points could also logically act like healing surges for magical healing purposes, and resting could restore some (as could inspiration, maybe that transfers some). I could see a warlord granting fate points, a cleric granting physical healing, and rest/milestones granting fate points. Honestly I think we're pretty close to Iron Heroes with that at this point. I'm not too familiar with it, but it seems close. You could certainly also use these points as attack boosters.

 

[Dagredhel]

The thing that really confuses me is the blurred lines between hit points (already fluffed by many as having a significant amount of luck and fortune) and AC and saves and now fate points.

Hero points seem 'bolted on' too me too. But I like the notion of abstract hitpoints as representing more than fighting prowess and endurance (CON bonus.) I think it would be great if each class used their 'prime requisite' ability score to modify their hit point total instead of CON for everyone. A high Wisdom could equate to divine favor, etc.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yes, but in some degree or other every possible element of the game is gamist. It is gamist that we use 6 ability scores, etc etc etc. The problem is as soon as you start excusing the argument that one of two equally gamist and abstract mechanics is 'too gamist' you don't even have a place to draw a line anymore and the line being drawn here is to say the least not evenly drawn. It is gerrymandered all over the place around specific mechanics that one particular poster happens to favor for whatever reasons.

I prefer to draw the line at what the PC can do, and what the PC cannot do. That makes the most sense from a plausibility and roleplaying standpoint. The PC knows that he has a Str and a Dex and a Con. He might not know that he has 6 of these abilities and might not call them that (he might call Dex reflexes), but they directly represent the human (and non-human) condition.

The PC knows that he has the ability to avoid attacks (AC, Fort, Reflex, Will). He might not have names for them, but the mechanics again represent a concept that the PC himself knows about. The same position holds for magic items, feats, class abilities and powers.

Action Points are in that gray area. I personally consider them gamist, but I can see the argument that the PC knows that he can push himself once in a while.


To me, fate points are almost like retraining. The PC knows certain abilities one day, but totally forgets them the next. It strains verisimilitude, but with 30 levels, I definitely understand the concept that the player trained the PC into a given direction and the PC is no longer fun to play for whatever mechanical set of reasons. I can buy into the fact that players need some sort of gamist mechanic like this. On the other hand, gaining the ability to go from level 1 to level 30 in 2 game months strains verisimilitude as well a bit, but that's possible in game as well.

But, I don't buy that players need fate points. The game has been played for what, 37 going on 38 years without them?

Quite frankly, 4E is SO very easy anymore (with the thousands of options in the splat books) that I had one recent PC not even start with an 18 (or 19 or 20) stat, but start with a 16 and his racial modifiers had nothing to do with his primary or secondary ability scores and he was one of my more effective PCs. I really don't understand the concept that players need yet another way to game the system.

Of course every game element is gamist in some fashion, but we don't have to rub the nose of the DM into the dirt over it. The DM has his own model of what he wants in a campaign and it is often one where PCs are challenged, death is a real possibility, and fate points kind of defeats the purpose of that. Put fate points as an optional rule into DMG 2 at best (or in my opinion, at worst). They shouldn't (again, IMO and I know you disagree) be part of the core game.

 

[Stalker0]

Or can we turn back the dial to 2E where it was never a rule?

Your right, and bring back THACO while we are at it

Game Systems evolve, nothing wrong with that. While we may not always agree that the direction the game has gone as a good one, it shouldn't stop us from trying new innovations.

 

[KarinsDad]

Hero points seem 'bolted on' too me too. But I like the notion of abstract hitpoints as representing more than fighting prowess and endurance (CON bonus.) I think it would be great if each class used their 'prime requisite' ability score to modify their hit point total instead of CON for everyone. A high Wisdom could equate to divine favor, etc.

Again (like fate points), why?

I see this as a solution looking for a problem.

Is there really an issue with Wizards having less hit points than Clerics who have less hit points than Fighters? Is the balance really skewed so much that the current model doesn't work?

One problem that I see with solutions like these is that they encourage players to have 20 scores in their primary ability score and crap in the rest. Personally, I think that most PCs should be more well rounded and only the occasional PC (like the bookworm Wizard who breathes heavy walking up the stairs) should have super high of their primary stat and junk most everywhere else.

The other issue is, why exactly is the Wizard a super fighting machine with hit points similar to the Fighter, dodging blows left and right, if the Wizard has a CON of 8 and a DEX of 12?

I'd prefer more of the game system to be locked in like skills. The ability score modifier for skills doesn't change based on class. The ability score modifier for melee weapons shouldn't change based on class.

4E started an extremely annoying concept of "PCs now fight with melee weapons (and ranged weapons in some cases) using Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, or Cha" and sorry, it's totally gamist and basically non-plausible. Einstein would get his butt handed to him in a fight. IMO. Fighting ability should be similar to skills. It will be even worse if offense, defense, and hit points are based off of primary ability scores. It's bad enough that defense and some versions of offense are now.

 

[Stalker0]

Quite frankly, 4E is SO very easy anymore (with the thousands of options in the splat books) that I had one recent PC not even start with an 18 (or 19 or 20) stat, but start with a 16 and his racial modifiers had nothing to do with his primary or secondary ability scores and he was one of my more effective PCs. I really don't understand the concept that players need yet another way to game the system.

But keep in mind, we are talking about a very different math baseline from 4e. In the system you described, PCs would likely have much less healing and HP pad to protect them. The "game protection" is much weaker.

 

[KarinsDad]

Your right, and bring back THACO while we are at it

Game Systems evolve, nothing wrong with that. While we may not always agree that the direction the game has gone as a good one, it shouldn't stop us from trying new innovations.

I agree that game systems should evolve. The current to hit and defense model is better than THAC0.

I have a bit of a problem with the automatic assumption that if a new mechanic is written in ink in a book, it must be a good rule. One sees a lot of that type of argument here on the boards. It's great because it is 4E. Err, no. It's only great if it is great.

Another problem I have is that of momentum. Once feats came out, they were probably never going to disappear. Feats probably aren't mechanically that good of a solution to whatever problem they were intended to fix (presumably the ability to make unique PCs), but now that we've had them for almost 12 years, they're here to stay. Feats (and items) cause a lot of the balance problems in the game system mostly because there are so darn many of them that the designers have no handle on the synergies feats can create until someone posts an uber PC design on a web page, then the designers have to go errata the feat(s) and item(s).

I am all for the game evolving to something better. Except for feats, I was a very big proponent of 3E when it came out. It improved many many many facets of the game system. It had it's warts as well, but nothing too egregious (at least until Polymorph and Haste tricks came along).

4E, on the other hand, did improve some facets. It made the DM's job easier. It simplified monsters (although it didn't quite balance them and it didn't quite have enough info on them).

But from the player's side, 4E had some extremely radical ideas which just didn't jive with some players as to what D&D is all about. Granted, many people play 4E now and people are comfortable with it, but it (and the WotC business model of not giving players what they want) has some, IMO, significant game mechanic flaws. The math problems, the plethora of conditions and effects that slow up combat and increase bookkeeping, the fact that every PC is a healer, miscellaneous spells cannot be cast in combat, the inability of monsters to keep up with the PCs at higher levels, the issues with Dragon and Dungeon, Character Builder being online, the promised online tools not appearing. These and others issues created a D&D schism where many people chose PathFinder (or 3.5) instead.

All 4E fan claims to the contrary, 4E in some ways was an eventual major disaster for the franchise and it's VERY telling that they are putting out 5E probably less than 5 years after 4E and 2 years after 4.5 (i.e. Essentials). Putting out a new version of a game system and convincing your customer base that it is actually something they want to spend money on is a very costly decision.

I want 4E to evolve into 5E. I just don't want it to evolve into something that will create an even greater schism in the D&D community. I actually want 5E to be better than 3E through Essentials so that it will bring a significant portion of the D&D community back together. I don't think it can do that by going away from 3E/PathFinder even more with fate points, powers, feats and magic items that are super specialized for each class as opposed to a group of classes, conditions that last for a differing amount of time in an encounter which effectively boil down to 0.5 to 3 rounds, but with just different mechanics, etc.

I think 5E has to do that by being somewhere between 3E and Essentials, taking the best from all versions in between (possibly borrowing some ideas from PathFinder, but not blatantly), adding some other new good ideas (and possibly some old ones from 1E or 2E), and jettisoning the rest. This too is an evolution. The 4E stuff that didn't work so well (especially stuff that split up the D&D gaming community, regardless of how eloquent specific mechanics might be to 4E fans) should be evolved away from and merged into something that a higher percentage of all D&D players would enjoy playing.

Not a simple task, but probably a necessary one if the business is to not just rest on its laurels and gradually fade away.

 

[KarinsDad]

But keep in mind, we are talking about a very different math baseline from 4e. In the system you described, PCs would likely have much less healing and HP pad to protect them. The "game protection" is much weaker.

Not if PC options included more damage mitigation. Course, I'm not convinced that decreasing the HP pad will necessarily result in decreased game protection. I'd really have to sit and look at the math because I'm thinking that part of that idea is illusory and misleading.

If a 1st level 14 Str NPC does 6.5 points of damage with a longsword (like in 4E, but starting with slightly less damage and hit points for both PCs and monsters) and a 3rd level monster does 7.5 points of damage with that same sword and a 11th level monster does 11.5 points of damage with that same sword, is the 6th level PC with 20 starting hit points and 35 hit points now really that much in trouble by a monster 5 levels higher? Assuming that same level monsters hit 40% of the time similar to 4E, that monster 5 levels higher hits 65% of the time and would need 3 successful hits to take out the PC. That's 4.5 rounds. That's probably enough time for the PC to be healed by allies or whatever.

The 1st level NPC hits 15% of the time, so it would take 36 rounds to knock down the PC. A 6th level PC could probably take on 4 such foes most of the time without help from his allies. At 10.5 damage (8.5 at level 1, 10.5 at level 5 and 6), it takes 2 hits for the PC to take out a 20 hit point first level foe (without using any more potent abilities and without getting healed) and he probably has a 75% chance to hit (higher if using 4E to hit rules and options). It would take him 10 hits to take out his foes and that would require about 11 rounds. 4 foes in rounds 1 to 3, 3 foes in rounds 4 to 6, 2 foes in rounds 7 and 8, and 1 foe in rounds 9 to 11 for a total of 28 enemy man-rounds, not enough to take him out.

Obviously, we are not talking minions here, so it would be more grindy (shy of the PCs using larger resources) and most DMs wouldn't throw monsters 5 levels lower at a party, but if the DM did, the PCs could survive being outnumber 4 to 1 against foes that are not minions, just 5 levels lower.

I'm not convinced that this is more swingy and that PCs are more vulnerable than they were in 4E. If 2 NPCs got lucky and critted in this example, they would do 20 points of damage and bloody the PC, but with healing and such, that shouldn't be an issue. It might turn out that this is a bad system because it makes PCs too powerful, easily taking out lower and higher level creatures alike. One would have to solidify the math ranges to figure it out.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The problem here is you're making assumptions based off of 4e, and we're talking about various other options here KD. Forget about what 4e does, it is irrelevant.

The point of a 'fate point' or whatever exactly you want to call it was to give higher level PCs a better curve in your "few hit points" concept, nothing else mechanically. It works because it gives you a way for a higher level PC to be more durable in ANY encounter, regardless of the level of the opponent. That lets you have one high level guy be more effective vs tougher monsters, and really we don't care too much about weaker monsters, he'll be tougher against them as well, but mostly it will not matter much.

The other advantage is it gives lower level PCs a BIT of a buffer even against a really dangerous foe, so they can have some chance to react and run away, etc instead of just "dragon shows up, TPK", which is a bit of a nice feature now with 4e vs AD&D where it is just game over.

I'm simply not going to touch the whole gamist thing. You're not going to accept anything suggested, so best to just accept that you'd have to swallow it. If its a deal breaker, then well maybe there's nothing more to say there, eh? I'm not interested in a discussion with people that are just going to yell "unrealistic deal breaker" left and right. Sorry, but other people would like to have an interesting discussion on the mechanics of various proposals and there is just no point to that debate.