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

[Hassassin]

I just want to make sure we're on the same page here.

It seems to me like you a talking about enemy attack vs. player defense (and enemy damage vs. player hp).

I think monsters, NPCs and PCs should be based on the same math. Hence, I meant both ways, assuming PC fighter against NPC fighter. Other classes can have somewhat different to-hit chances.

That doesn't mean you need to create NPCs as PCs (but you can). It also doesn't mean there can't be a lot of monsters that have lower AC and higher hp (against which PC hit chances are better). The main wish I have is that to-hit chances improve instead of the "running in place" feeling of 4e (and to a degree 3e).

 

[Libramarian]

However, I have yet to meet a player who doesn't get frustrated when he's incapable of doing anything meaningful because he just can't seem to roll well enough.

Too much focus on the sweet spot I think.

In AD&D at first level, hit chance is too low. You often have like 35-40%, which is pretty damn whiffy.

Still, the strongest reaction to this I have seen I would call...bemusement. Not even frustration. It's kind of silly and annoying, but then again when you hit the damage is quite dramatic in relation to HP, so it evens out. Not a huge deal.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Too much focus on the sweet spot I think.

In AD&D at first level, hit chance is too low. You often have like 35-40%, which is pretty damn whiffy.

Still, the strongest reaction to this I have seen I would call...bemusement. Not even frustration. It's kind of silly and annoying, but then again when you hit the damage is quite dramatic in relation to HP, so it evens out. Not a huge deal.

Sure, it might be bemusement the first or second time it happens. I have never seen a player who misses half a dozen times in a row bemused. Only frustrated. At a 35% hit rate, that sort of thing is not uncommon.

There are plenty of stories of people who didn't even bother to name their characters until level 2, because the game was so whiffy. That's not the kind of game I run, and it's definitely not the kind of game I want to play.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Sure, it might be bemusement the first or second time it happens. I have never seen a player who misses half a dozen times in a row bemused. Only frustrated. At a 35% hit rate, that sort of thing is not uncommon.

There are plenty of stories of people who didn't even bother to name their characters until level 2, because the game was so whiffy. That's not the kind of game I run, and it's definitely not the kind of game I want to play.

Lots of swing caters to the playstyle of "the story simulated is what happened when we tried it." I know, because there are times when I like that style, and early, low-level D&D (or RuneQuest or something similar) are very good at delivering it. Relatively low percentage chances to do something that is highly effective, works well in such a story, because you have rising tension of "nothing happens, nothing happens, nothing happened again!" with everyone knowing that when "something happens" it will be big. It's the most dramatic in something like RQ, where at low levels you can get, "missed, missed, missed, troll took a spear impalement to the right eye and died."

However, when you want something more like a reasonably positive (i.e. not overtly dismal or negative) fantasy novel, you have to play a lot of characters in such a system before you get an outcome to match expectations. The math conspires against you. Or you fudge to get around the fact that the math conspires against you. The more sustained the play, the more the expectations that the characters will continue, the more true this becomes.

 

[Libramarian]

The straightforward solution would be to encourage people who don't like the low level swinginess to start at a higher level.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The straightforward solution would be to encourage people who don't like the low level swinginess to start at a higher level.

I don't have much issue with starting at a higher level. In fact, they've mentioned that they might make it so that the game expects more experienced players to start above level 1 (distributing basic class features over a few levels, to make the game easier for beginners to parse).

However, that only solves one end of the issue. If the accuracy rate constantly changes, then the sweet spot only exists for a handful of levels. A 95% chance of success is almost as bad as a 5% chance of success. Is your advice then to start at a higher level and quit the campaign early? Should those of us who prefer a bit of mathematical rigor to our games only play between levels 5-10? That doesn't strike me as a game I'd play.

I don't mind if those who like a changing rate of accuracy can play the way they like. However, there are many of us who prefer the sweet spot. We should also be able to play the way we like.

 

[Hassassin]

Should those of us who prefer a bit of mathematical rigor to our games only play between levels 5-10? That doesn't strike me as a game I'd play.

I don't mind if those who like a changing rate of accuracy can play the way they like. However, there are many of us who prefer the sweet spot. We should also be able to play the way we like.

Mathematical rigor? There's nothing unrigorous about progression. I would call it constant degree of swinginess.

Anyway, like so many other play style differences (e.g. lethality), this is most easily adjusted by the DM through monsters. The DMG should probably give the tools for it, but I'm not sure what they should look like. If it's important one way or another to a large part of the gaming population, of course.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Mathematical rigor? There's nothing unrigorous about progression. I would call it constant degree of swinginess.

Anyway, like so many other play style differences (e.g. lethality), this is most easily adjusted by the DM through monsters. The DMG should probably give the tools for it, but I'm not sure what they should look like. If it's important one way or another to a large part of the gaming population, of course.

Yeah, I should have just said less swingy. I was thinking about swingy games that lack mathematical rigor when I said that, but you're right in that any swingy game could have a solid mathematical basis.

As to play style differences, it's not about lethality (you could design a highly lethal system centered on the sweet spot; just make damage high compared to hp) but rather predictability (or perhaps the word I'm looking for is reliability). I like player skill to be more of a factor than luck. Too much swing renders player skill meaningless in combat (unless you work "outside" the system, but I'm discussing the actual combat system here). Too little swing effectively eliminates luck.

IMO and IME, it's only around the sweet spot that my group and I find the proper balance where skill is more important than luck, but luck is still a significant factor.

Monster math is certainly one way to go about it, though it potentially renders Monster Manuals less useful for one of the two viewpoints (because unless they give both numbers in the entry, either you or I will have to rework the numbers according to the guidelines). I'd prefer a more elegant approach but, admittedly, am not confident that it exists.

 

[Hassassin]

Monster math is certainly one way to go about it, though it potentially renders Monster Manuals less useful for one of the two viewpoints (because unless they give both numbers in the entry, either you or I will have to rework the numbers according to the guidelines). I'd prefer a more elegant approach but, admittedly, am not confident that it exists.

You don't have to change monster math, exactly: just changing the encounter should be enough. In an encounter with multiple lower level creatures the PCs will on average have a higher hit chance than in an encounter with only one higher level creature. Both encounters can have the same overall level. So regardless of how 5e by default works, you could get another progression by moving from fewer average enemies at low level to more at high level, or vice versa.

 

[Fanaelialae]

You don't have to change monster math, exactly: just changing the encounter should be enough. In an encounter with multiple lower level creatures the PCs will on average have a higher hit chance than in an encounter with only one higher level creature. Both encounters can have the same overall level. So regardless of how 5e by default works, you could get another progression by moving from fewer average enemies at low level to more at high level, or vice versa.

I see what you're getting at, but by that logic you could easily simulate a hit progression in the 4e math by just changing the levels of the monsters the PCs encounter. Just use high level creatures when the PCs are low level, and low level creatures when the PCs are high level.

I'm a little dubious as to whether those who don't like consistent accuracy would be satisfied with that, however.