The Mathematical Model of the d20 System

[Johnny Angel]

All this does have consequences for 4e, though it's getting to where I feel I'm only beginning to understand 3.x. Now all of the sudden there's a new thing to learn. But in reference to the system discussed in which you can think of the power of a monster as the square of its CR, I wonder if this isn't what they've got in mind with the XP system in 4e. Each monster has a set XP, which might simply be that squared value the Grim Tales system talks about. Add it up until you get the number of XP points you want for the encounter, then skip the step of reducing it back down to an EL.

It seems to me that 3e was a huge leap forward in applying game theory to RPGs. I am inclined to think that a new version will be even more advanced in its thinking, yet what kind of higher-order thinking can I really expect from people who thought tieflings should be a core race, but gnomes shouldn't? Sigh.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

All this does have consequences for 4e, though it's getting to where I feel I'm only beginning to understand 3.x. Now all of the sudden there's a new thing to learn. But in reference to the system discussed in which you can think of the power of a monster as the square of its CR, I wonder if this isn't what they've got in mind with the XP system in 4e. Each monster has a set XP, which might simply be that squared value the Grim Tales system talks about. Add it up until you get the number of XP points you want for the encounter, then skip the step of reducing it back down to an EL.

Having looked at the XP tables, though, I do think 4e has some problems. The XP reward doubles for a creature every 4 levels. However-- talking out of my ass here-- I can almost guarantee you that the difficulty of a monster does not double every four levels.

In other words, the XP table does not track to the same curve as the difficulty posed by the monster.

So the PCs will almost always be better off fighting outside (above) their own "weight class." If you can fight a monster that is NOT twice as difficult and yet gain twice as much XP, that'd be the way to go.

It seems to me that 3e was a huge leap forward in applying game theory to RPGs. I am inclined to think that a new version will be even more advanced in its thinking, yet what kind of higher-order thinking can I really expect from people who thought tieflings should be a core race, but gnomes shouldn't? Sigh.

I am definitely more interested in the math of 4e than I am anything else.

 

[arscott]

I'm not sure how much of a problem that will be, Wulf.

four levels higher than the party is TPK range (The Black Dragon from DDXP was considered a possible TPK, and it was only three levels higher than the party). Contrast to 3e where the 15 minute day meant that characters could fight monsters CR +2 (double their normal XP) all the time.

Use of things like healing surges and per-encounter powers really reduce the party's ability to go nova, and therefore reduce their ability to fight foes that are much more powerful than one would expect.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'm not sure how much of a problem that will be, Wulf.

four levels higher than the party is TPK range (The Black Dragon from DDXP was considered a possible TPK, and it was only three levels higher than the party). Contrast to 3e where the 15 minute day meant that characters could fight monsters CR +2 (double their normal XP) all the time.

There's absolutely no difference between 3e and 4e with respect to the party's ability to "go nova" and tackle a monster above their weight class.

4e characters are just as able to leave the dungeon and reboot as they were in 3e.

4e does not change this, except to entice the PCs not to retire after 15 minutes by increasing their bottom baseline of power.

Moreover, the only viable comparison of PCs to monsters assumes a fresh combat. No other comparison can be done or should be done, because it is beyond the MM's control to determine whether the Solo Black Dragon is the first, second, or last monster encountered in the day. Monster design does not purport to anticipate this in any way.

 

[Victim]

I'm not sure how much of a problem that will be, Wulf.

four levels higher than the party is TPK range (The Black Dragon from DDXP was considered a possible TPK, and it was only three levels higher than the party). Contrast to 3e where the 15 minute day meant that characters could fight monsters CR +2 (double their normal XP) all the time.

Use of things like healing surges and per-encounter powers really reduce the party's ability to go nova, and therefore reduce their ability to fight foes that are much more powerful than one would expect.

It was a solo monster AND 3 levels higher.

I think a party might prefer to fight fewer monsters above their level, but only up to a point. A succubus seems like it'd wreck most first level parties, for instance. OTOH, it's non damaging attacks mean that the party can't 'heal' its damage easily; she can sort of take 2 characters out of the fight fairly quickly. A brute/soldier type monster might have the PCs healing the damage it can dish out for long enough to wear it down. I'm not sure they'd have enough per encounter healing though.

 

[SSquirrel]

It seems to me that 3e was a huge leap forward in applying game theory to RPGs. I am inclined to think that a new version will be even more advanced in its thinking, yet what kind of higher-order thinking can I really expect from people who thought tieflings should be a core race, but gnomes shouldn't? Sigh.

You answered your own question. Freakin geniuses! The only gnomes I like are my WoW toons and the 4E Gnome "Do you have a lair?" I actually didn't buy any products that had Tieflings in them from the 3.x era so they're new to me other than the planetouched pc race from FR. So not that I love Tieflings, I just dislike how D&D Gnomes have always been. Best Gnome in D&D was the DragonLance Tinker Gnomes, but it was too expensive to ever get to actually BUILD anything.

 

[occam]

Keep it up, occam.

My brain!!! He's coming for my BRAAAIINNN!!



Brain in a jar, though, huh? Could be interesting... would give me a lot of time for reading. Hmm....

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

My brain!!! He's coming for my BRAAAIINNN!!



Brain in a jar, though, huh? Could be interesting... would give me a lot of time for reading. Hmm....

"It's a life of quiet dignity."

 

[Nifft]

A lot of computer games get around the "just flavor differences" problem by using a rock-paper-scissors mechanic. Evasion trumps area effects, Touch attacks trump armor, etc. D&D may suffer from too many "trumps" (such as Mirror Image being better than all attacks, but then True Seeing making Mirror Image worthless)... but it's got some good ones too, I think.

So what are the good rock-paper-scissors groupings in D&D, and what are the bad ones?

I'll start: Incorporeal miss chance is bad. It's mitigated at high levels ONLY by the many attacks that a full-BAB class gets. Otherwise, PCs have the same chance of hitting a Shadow at 3rd level as they do at 30th -- with (very) few spells excepted. Moving to a "one big attack" system (like SW Saga) would remove even this mitigation.

Damage reduction is good. It works okay with 3.5e's multiple attacks, and works even better with SW Saga style "one big attack" combat.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'll start: Incorporeal miss chance is bad. It's mitigated at high levels ONLY by the many attacks that a full-BAB class gets.

And ghost touch...?