D&D 5E The math of D&D Next; a moderating proposal

[Essenti]

<Snip> If armor classes are constrained to a certain spread while attack values increase modestly this might be a real possibility. AD&D did it and it felt good to get the upper hand in combat.
Rogues didn't need the cheesy sneak attack devised in 3e to make a difference in combat, Mages could occasionally deal a telling blow without having to use their mighty spells to do it, Druids and rangers didn't need to rely on their animal companions to gain an advantage.

While I do like simplifying the math even further, this still continues to enforce the strength is better than speed mentallity, which should NOT be so one sided. The post in this thread about attacks missing less because experienced combatants know when not to waste an attack is accurate, but we are continuing to punish a dodge focused character for no good reason. If you can't create a character that is good at avoiding being hit in melee, then the math is still broken.

 

[am181d]

I absolutely agree with this. We want the players to succeed most times they get to act. Conversely, you can drop monsters to succeed a bit less often because they all sort of get rolled up into the DM's turn and so long as a couple of them succeed you got a good round.

I'd like to see a mix of monsters who (a) hit less often but do massive amounts of damage (e.g. ogres?) and (b) hit more often but do signficantly less damage (e.g. kobolds?). Once you have a sense of what the PC's AC ranges will be, you should be thinking more about damage dealt over time rather than a monster's to hit ratio.

 

[Szatany]

And it makes sense, particularly in combat. Experienced fighters land a higher percentage of their blows than inexperienced fighters, even against opponents of equal skill.

QUte the opposite, it makes no sense.
If 2 inexeprienced fighters fight, the fight will be over quickly because neither of them knows how to parry effectively and very soon one of them will land a lucky blow on another.
High level fighters, on the other hands, if evenly matched, can battle for ten of minutes (or hours in fiction), sometimes even deciding to just walk off, since neither can defeat the other one's defenses.

 

[paladinm]

What would be the effect, if any, of a rogue's backstab/ sneak attack ability?

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

Well . . .

Some more thoughts:

The critter (character) with AC 30 is very rare, even at max level. The critter (chracter) with +20 attack bonus is very rare, even at max level.

1st Level
PCs:

• Optimized for attack bonus: +5 attack bonus, but no other neat combat traits or tricks and minimal defense (AC 11 or 12?)
• One trick pony: +4 attack bonus, single special ability, minimal defense (AC 11 or 12)
• Well-rounded striker type: +3 attack bonus, extra manuever/ability (sneak attack?), with decent defense (AC 13)
• Defender trick: +2 attack bonus AC 14, defensive special ability
• Optimized for defense: +2 attack bonus, 15 AC, no other "neat" traits

Monsters (goblins or kobolds):

• Minion: AC 11 or 12, 1 hp, fixed low damage
• Goon: AC 11 - 13, hp ~1.5 * average damage (two hits should kill), fixed lowish damage
• Standard striker: AC 11 - 13, hp 3 * average PC damage (3 - 4 hits to kill), normal monster damage, some attack trait/ability
• Standard soldier/defender: AC 12 - 14, hp 3 * average PC dmg, normal monster damage, some defender trait/ability
• Boss: AC 14 - 15, hp 6 to 8 * average PC dmg, bonus damage, 2 or more traits/abilities

Only the toughest of critters has an AC requiring a roll of 10 by the optimized attack bonus PC, and most critters are easily hit on 8ish or higher by the non-optimized PC. In a similar way, the monsters' attack bonus is in the +1 to +3 range for most critters, but maybe a boss or a special striker (artillery?) has a little better attack bonus or (probably) better damage.

As the PCs level goblins and kobolds can still be a viable threat for several levels, because by say 10th level attack bonus and AC have gone up somewhere between 3 and 5. In the meantime bigger and tougher monsters have slightly better defenses, attacks, and hp, but not some huge level 6 vs. level 1 OMG we can't touch this guy difference.

Continue the flatter math to max level:
PCs:

• Optimized for attack bonus: +20 attack bonus, but very few tricks, and low defense (AC 25 at best)
• Well-rounded striker type: +17 attack bonus, several manuevers/abilities, with decent defense (AC 27)
• Optimized for defense: +15 attack bonus, AC 30, and very few tricks

Monsters (dragons and giants):

• Minion: AC 24 or 25, 1 hp, fixed low damage
• Goon: AC 24 - 26, hp ~1.5 * average damage (two hits should kill), fixed lowish damage
• Standard striker: AC 24 - 26, hp 3 * average PC damage (3 - 4 hits to kill), normal monster damage, some attack trait/ability
• Standard soldier/defender: AC 25 - 27, hp 3 * average PC dmg, normal monster damage, some defender trait/ability
• Boss: AC 27 - 30, hp 6 to 8 * average PC dmg, bonus damage, 4 or more traits/abilities/tricks

The above lists your "max level" (20 or 30) critters. They are the toughest possible monsters in the game. In the meantime, those monsters that were challenging 5 or even 10 levels ago, because the math is flat, are still interesting, if not quite as difficult.

In the above math the worst PC vs. monster situation is defense optimizer at +15 to hit vs. AC 30 boss. Yeah, that sucks for him. But most of the time he's fighting critters that are not max level and are standard critters with AC starting around 24 or so (9 or better to hit). The attack bonus optimizer nails everyone all the time, except the boss and sometimes the tough defenders.



Sneak attack is a trait or trick. Maybe it's attack bonus? Maybe it's damage bonus? I think conditional damage bonus with combat advantage like in 4e.

Anyhow, in this wide range of options you can choose to optimize your attack roll at the expense of everything else, or you can balance your choices.

 

[the Jester]

I'd prefer to see the maximum bonus lower than +20- more like +12 or +15 for a truly ultra-optimized pc.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Well . . .

Some more thoughts:

The critter (character) with AC 30 is very rare, even at max level. The critter (chracter) with +20 attack bonus is very rare, even at max level.

1st Level
PCs:

• Optimized for attack bonus: +5 attack bonus, but no other neat combat traits or tricks and minimal defense (AC 11 or 12?)
• One trick pony: +4 attack bonus, single special ability, minimal defense (AC 11 or 12)
• Well-rounded striker type: +3 attack bonus, extra manuever/ability (sneak attack?), with decent defense (AC 13)
• Defender trick: +2 attack bonus AC 14, defensive special ability
• Optimized for defense: +2 attack bonus, 15 AC, no other "neat" traits

Monsters (goblins or kobolds):

• Minion: AC 11 or 12, 1 hp, fixed low damage
• Goon: AC 11 - 13, hp ~1.5 * average damage (two hits should kill), fixed lowish damage
• Standard striker: AC 11 - 13, hp 3 * average PC damage (3 - 4 hits to kill), normal monster damage, some attack trait/ability
• Standard soldier/defender: AC 12 - 14, hp 3 * average PC dmg, normal monster damage, some defender trait/ability
• Boss: AC 14 - 15, hp 6 to 8 * average PC dmg, bonus damage, 2 or more traits/abilities

Only the toughest of critters has an AC requiring a roll of 10 by the optimized attack bonus PC, and most critters are easily hit on 8ish or higher by the non-optimized PC. In a similar way, the monsters' attack bonus is in the +1 to +3 range for most critters, but maybe a boss or a special striker (artillery?) has a little better attack bonus or (probably) better damage.

As the PCs level goblins and kobolds can still be a viable threat for several levels, because by say 10th level attack bonus and AC have gone up somewhere between 3 and 5. In the meantime bigger and tougher monsters have slightly better defenses, attacks, and hp, but not some huge level 6 vs. level 1 OMG we can't touch this guy difference.

Continue the flatter math to max level:
PCs:

• Optimized for attack bonus: +20 attack bonus, but very few tricks, and low defense (AC 25 at best)
• Well-rounded striker type: +17 attack bonus, several manuevers/abilities, with decent defense (AC 27)
• Optimized for defense: +15 attack bonus, AC 30, and very few tricks

Monsters (dragons and giants):

• Minion: AC 24 or 25, 1 hp, fixed low damage
• Goon: AC 24 - 26, hp ~1.5 * average damage (two hits should kill), fixed lowish damage
• Standard striker: AC 24 - 26, hp 3 * average PC damage (3 - 4 hits to kill), normal monster damage, some attack trait/ability
• Standard soldier/defender: AC 25 - 27, hp 3 * average PC dmg, normal monster damage, some defender trait/ability
• Boss: AC 27 - 30, hp 6 to 8 * average PC dmg, bonus damage, 4 or more traits/abilities/tricks

The above lists your "max level" (20 or 30) critters. They are the toughest possible monsters in the game. In the meantime, those monsters that were challenging 5 or even 10 levels ago, because the math is flat, are still interesting, if not quite as difficult.

In the above math the worst PC vs. monster situation is defense optimizer at +15 to hit vs. AC 30 boss. Yeah, that sucks for him. But most of the time he's fighting critters that are not max level and are standard critters with AC starting around 24 or so (9 or better to hit). The attack bonus optimizer nails everyone all the time, except the boss and sometimes the tough defenders.



Sneak attack is a trait or trick. Maybe it's attack bonus? Maybe it's damage bonus? I think conditional damage bonus with combat advantage like in 4e.

Anyhow, in this wide range of options you can choose to optimize your attack roll at the expense of everything else, or you can balance your choices.

By varying both PC attack bonus and AC, you're creating too large a range in my opinion. By letting hp and damage do more of the heavy lifting, you can narrow that range while still maintaining differentiation.

It isn't as though the worst attacker under this system is a wizard trying to melee a dragon. I's a heavily armored fighter who's effectively best ignored. He rarely hits and he can rarely be hit. Because of his high defenses and minimal threat, enemies will go out of their way to make him the lowest priority, rendering his defense effectively useless. That doesn't strike me as much fun for anyone. Moreover, it seems like a design trap.

Either you should have attack and defense deviate by only one point, or keep defense constant (by level) and only vary attack. Then you can give those who favor attacking better damage, and those who favor defense better hp.

I'd say that in order to keep things reasonable, the worst attack against the best defense should have a 55% chance of hitting (hit on a natural 10). The best attack against the worst defense should have a 75% chance of hitting (hit on a natural 6). Personally, I'd prefer an even narrower range from 60% to 70%, but that's probably too narrow for many.

Not only does this keep the numbers close to the sweet spot, it renders bonuses and penalties meaningful. For example, under your proposed numbers, the worst attack against the best defense, when blinded (-5 penalty), only hits on a natural 20. Similarly, the best attack against the worst defense, with combat advantage (+2 bonus), only misses on a natural 1.

IMO, it should be almost impossible to achieve a "cannot miss" or a "cannot hit" situation. Under my proposed numbers, the worst attacker still has a 30% chance to hit when blinded. The best attacker has an 85% chance to hit with combat advantage. Even after modifiers, the roll remains meaningful.

Again, tougher creatures should have more hp rather than higher AC, and dangerous creatures should have more damage rather than a higher attack bonus. You can make a creature last the same amount of time (on average) using either method, but if you use hp at least the players get to feel like they're making progress. It might still take them 5 rounds to slog through a defense-oriented creature, but at least those five rounds won't be: miss... miss... miss... oh dear gawds of gaming, why do you hate me so... FINALLY, I hit it and kill it!

 

[StarFyre]

Personally, my group and myself have never found 'higher numbers' to be an issue. In fact, it gives a more granular difference where each different piece of equipment, each tactical advantage you try, each magic item, and each ability makes a difference.

I compare this, for ease, to warhammer where everything is based on a d6, and stats go from 1-10 (with only wounds, and # of attacks being allowed beyond 10).

In that system, Ogres are as tough as a lizardmen or chaos warrior or tough elf. THey are described as being a lot more tough, but gameplay wise, they aren't. Instead, they have more wounds (ie. hp). FLuffwise, it should be both. But giving them a 5 toughness, would tips the scales too much and their point cost would have to increase drastically. Since the 'math' is very flat in warhammer this works fine (although in many cases it doesn't make sense, and wierd stuff does happen in the game).

I think the main issue with the escalating values is what another person here posted; monsters, etc become less interesting most of the time since it's hard to think of cool abilities, etc to make tougher and tougher encounters fun.

Shouldn't the focus be on that (the fun factor) as opposed to putting artificial caps on things?

Sanjay

 

[Essenti]

<snip>
Because of his high defenses and minimal threat, enemies will go out of their way to make him the lowest priority, rendering his defense effectively useless. That doesn't strike me as much fun for anyone. Moreover, it seems like a design trap.
<snip>

Gah... I wasn't thinking about the heavily armored tank when I was thinking of high defense characters, more along the lines of the warrior with light or no armor but can move like the wind and dodge and evade attacks with lightning reflexes. But then, D&D always failed to accurately represent this kind of character, sure they could avoid getting nailed by wizards and dragonsbreath, but they were a pincussion for melee fighters... which has never ever sat right with me.

I agree with the points you've mentioned, they are indeed a design trap and need to be addressed.

 

[enigma5915]

Only because experienced fighters make better judgments on which "openings" to pass up, instead of flailing around. In an abstract system like D&D, where the roll to hit is to represent the reasonable opening to attempt, there is no particular reason to think that fighters attack will progress faster than their defense.

If you want to look at historical arms manuals, the progressions seems to be that one goes from "tenative but somewhat reckless (i.e. ignorantly and inexpertly trying things while keyed up on fear and excitement)" to "highly defensive (i.e have discovered that getting whacked hurts)" to "a balance of attack and defense (designed to win most efficiently)".

According to that logic, experienced characters would attack far less often, but would make someone really hurt when they did attack.

Suffice it to say that when modeling a fantastical game, there is no particular reason to think that "experienced fighters land a higher percentage of blows" other than you think it will have good game play, for some reason. An appeal to perceived reality is not one of them.

This is what I have been considering. Combat shouldnt be about how many hits i can take, but how many I can avoid. Any hit should be unwanted and have side effects....that why people use cover..except for the british red coats that is...