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

[KarinsDad]

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.

No, it's the only similar mathematical model that we can look at to form a baseline. If you look closer, you'll see that although I based my (rather primitive) examples above on a similar system which is not 4E. But without a detailed mathematical model, we can talk about this until we are blue in the face and assumptions about how it works are merely that, assumptions.

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 might work, but who's to say that it is even needed? Again, you are making assumptions here about how a different system will work. I'm not convinced it will work they way you are assuming and I'm not convinced that any sort of correction (fate points, or anything else) is even needed.

So, if you have something concrete to back up a position that something else is needed, please post it. Don't just assume that something is needed because as we have seen repeatedly with game systems, the proof is in the pudding, not in the recipe.

There used to be a guy here on the boards that would do statistical analysis on these types of things. I forget his name, but it began with an E. That's the guy we need looking at this.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No, it's the only similar mathematical model that we can look at to form a baseline. If you look closer, you'll see that although I based my (rather primitive) examples above on a similar system which is not 4E. But without a detailed mathematical model, we can talk about this until we are blue in the face and assumptions about how it works are merely that, assumptions.



It might work, but who's to say that it is even needed? Again, you are making assumptions here about how a different system will work. I'm not convinced it will work they way you are assuming and I'm not convinced that any sort of correction (fate points, or anything else) is even needed.

So, if you have something concrete to back up a position that something else is needed, please post it. Don't just assume that something is needed because as we have seen repeatedly with game systems, the proof is in the pudding, not in the recipe.

There used to be a guy here on the boards that would do statistical analysis on these types of things. I forget his name, but it began with an E. That's the guy we need looking at this.

What I'm saying is that arguing that because 4e PCs wouldn't need this that it is not a good idea isn't really a useful argument because, as you have noted yourself, we don't know anything much at all about the other mechanics of such a game.

Of course I don't KNOW what might or might not absolutely be needed in a game that doesn't exist, but given JUST the mechanics we've looked at it seemed like a pretty fair guess that the fate point concept would solve certain problems. Are there other ways to do that? No doubt there are many possible approaches. I wasn't disparaging any of them by talking about one possibility.

I think theorycrafting is OK, but it isn't really a very good way to design a system IMHO. Having built a few different game systems of different types what I've seen is that this kind of analysis is pretty useful for telling you what to change when you have a problem, but the core design is best done from a standpoint of how it will feel and tested for that in play. Then you can say "Hmmmm, this is OK, but lets try adding this other thing and see if it pumps it up a bit".

In any case, it has been an interesting discussion overall. I think basically its gone about as far as it can without someone drawing up a basic system to test. I doubt I'm going to do that real soon, and I doubt 5e will change the core math a lot for various reasons, so it will probably have to wait for another day.

 

[KarinsDad]

Of course I don't KNOW what might or might not absolutely be needed in a game that doesn't exist, but given JUST the mechanics we've looked at it seemed like a pretty fair guess that the fate point concept would solve certain problems.

What problems? How do you deduce that these problems will exist at all? The little bit that I've examined seems to indicate that the game system won't be that significantly different than 4E with the major exception that the numbers will be smaller and easier to manage. Granted, at really low level, if D8+4 is still used, it has the potential to be 12 and hence, a higher percentage of hit points, but I'm not seeing where this is necessarily game breaking.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What problems? How do you deduce that these problems will exist at all? The little bit that I've examined seems to indicate that the game system won't be that significantly different than 4E with the major exception that the numbers will be smaller and easier to manage. Granted, at really low level, if D8+4 is still used, it has the potential to be 12 and hence, a higher percentage of hit points, but I'm not seeing where this is necessarily game breaking.

Well, we know NOTHING about what the numbers will be in the actual 5e engine. There are 2 proposals in this thread. Either one of which might well use such a system profitably. That's all I was talking about.

 

[Dragonblade]

What problems? How do you deduce that these problems will exist at all? The little bit that I've examined seems to indicate that the game system won't be that significantly different than 4E with the major exception that the numbers will be smaller and easier to manage. Granted, at really low level, if D8+4 is still used, it has the potential to be 12 and hence, a higher percentage of hit points, but I'm not seeing where this is necessarily game breaking.

Where have you heard that? So far, I don't think we know anything about how 5e will handle hitpoints. The L&L columns have hinted about skills and ability scores but thats about it.

Honestly, I don't see how 5e damage and HP can be less than the 4e model, without going back to super fragile level 1 PCs that existed in prior editions. For an edition thats supposed to be unifying, I would have a hard time going back to the death by housecat paradigm.

Even if I lowball my assumptions and say a level 1 orc foot soldier does 1d8 damage with no bonus, and I assume a PC can take say 4-5 of those hits before dropping, then starting HP has to avg. around HP 20-25 at level 1.

There is just no way around it. Giving monsters flat damage instead of rolling damage dice, or introducing some sort of fate point plot protection mechanic just doesn't feel like D&D to me.

So once you have established that HP/damage baseline, you can only go up. If you assume that your game's damage system will involve multiple damage dice, like say 10d6 fireballs eventually becoming a reality, then HP has to scale with it.

If people have this dream of going to some 1e style damage system where even adult dragons only had like 50 HP, I just don't see that as a realistic expectation at all.

While 5e may try to capture some of the feel of 1e/2e, I would be stunned if its mechanics weren't firmly rooted in the mathematical foundation laid down in 3e and refined in 4e. And that means by say level 10, PCs and monsters should have around 75-100+ HP and be doing 20-25+ damage a hit or more.

 

[KarinsDad]

Honestly, I don't see how 5e damage and HP can be less than the 4e model, without going back to super fragile level 1 PCs that existed in prior editions. For an edition thats supposed to be unifying, I would have a hard time going back to the death by housecat paradigm.

Even if I lowball my assumptions and say a level 1 orc foot soldier does 1d8 damage with no bonus, and I assume a PC can take say 4-5 of those hits before dropping, then starting HP has to avg. around HP 20-25 at level 1.

Your assumptions are way off. Even in 4E, first level monster damage is 9 vs. PCs with 20 to 30 hit points.

That's typically 2 to 3 hits to take a PC out, not 4 to 5.

The way 4E handles that though is that monsters need a 9 to 15 to hit (defense depending) or maybe a 12 average (+5 vs. AC 17), so it takes 4 attacks on average to take out the 20 hit point AC 14 PC, 6 attacks to take out the 25 hit point AC 17 PC, and 9 attacks to take out the 30 hit point AC 20 PC.

So if 2 or 3 (usually 3) successful hits at first level works for 4E, why wouldn't it work for 5E?

Granted, the original core game had about a 6 point first level monster damage average, but that was changed because it was ridiculously easy and it became worse as more options became available in the splat books.

 

[OpsKT]

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.

Castles & Crusades got rid of feats and skills and works pretty good.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Your assumptions are way off. Even in 4E, first level monster damage is 9 vs. PCs with 20 to 30 hit points.

That's typically 2 to 3 hits to take a PC out, not 4 to 5.

The way 4E handles that though is that monsters need a 9 to 15 to hit (defense depending) or maybe a 12 average (+5 vs. AC 17), so it takes 4 attacks on average to take out the 20 hit point AC 14 PC, 6 attacks to take out the 25 hit point AC 17 PC, and 9 attacks to take out the 30 hit point AC 20 PC.

So if 2 or 3 (usually 3) successful hits at first level works for 4E, why wouldn't it work for 5E?

Granted, the original core game had about a 6 point first level monster damage average, but that was changed because it was ridiculously easy and it became worse as more options became available in the splat books.

Yeah, this is true. Of course GENERALLY you'll have more than just at-wills coming in (especially early on), and some will bypass AC. So it is a bit variable in reality. A nice at-level brute can reasonably flatten some PCs in 3 rounds, and I think that was about what they planned on, that if you started to get bounced around hard you'd be in trouble after a round, maybe get hit with a heal, then be on the edge again with a couple more swings, and then generally the tide turns and you're down to the 'takes 5 or 6 attacks' sort of at-wills again.

I think DB is right though, it is HIGHLY likely the game will be built out from basic 4e type mechanics. Numbers may be tweaked down some, but I think we won't see the level of 'glass characters' that you had in AD&D and before. Maybe the average PC will take 2 hits to knock down vs 3 and the fighter 4 vs 5 or 6. Individual monsters will probably be a bit lower hit points as well, but I think we'll still see 1st level hit points in the 10-20 point range for monsters.

 

[Hassassin]

Honestly, I don't see how 5e damage and HP can be less than the 4e model, without going back to super fragile level 1 PCs that existed in prior editions. For an edition thats supposed to be unifying, I would have a hard time going back to the death by housecat paradigm.

Just halve all damage and hp numbers of both PCs and monsters in 4e. You've got a system with lower damage and hp, but no more fragility.

 

[Lordhawkins9]

One of my biggest problems with 4E was the notion that 1st level characters had 30 hitpoints. Then...to challenge them, Kobolds had 30 hitpoints. Local peasants...1 hitpoint (minions).

With those numbers, Kobolds weren't just a small problem to a village....they'd wipe it out!

I'd prefer a system that starts 1st level characters at a more reasonable pace than 4E's peasant to God progression just by chosing to become an adventurer.

Don't like the more fragile 1st level characters...don't start at first.

That doesn't mean we need to go back to 1E fragile though. If everything has starting HP equal to a die-roll + con score, most commoners are still going to break 10 HP...enough to live through a blow or two at d8 damage. Then we don't need 1st level characters with 30+ and Kobolds with 30+ HP. Without these beefy monsters, commoners can actually survive in a not-so-safe world that D&D is.