The Mathematical Model of the d20 System

[Nifft]

And ghost touch...?

Ah, right. Should have discussed that (and Ghost Attack [psionic]). Neither is a level-based thingy. It's more like having a Cold Iron weapon vs. a critter with DR/cold iron. Sure, higher level means you may have more wealth, and wealth can buy you both a Ghost Touch weapon and a Cold Iron weapon, but that's a campaign assumption and not a mechanic per se.

The level-based improvements I was talking about were assuming we don't have the specific "bypass" item.

Cheers, -- N

 

[ValhallaGH]

The level-based improvements I was talking about were assuming we don't have the specific "bypass" item.

Not to be snarky, but when, beside plot, have you ever actually needed a bypass item? I know DR 30 creatures that have gone down to a party armed with nothing better than masterwork steel weapons, simply because of power attack and other mechanics that let them put out massive amounts of damage. Similarly I've seen parties forget that incorporeal creatures had a miss chance because they were on the 'always hit' end of the bell curve. In another similar vein, I've had characters with larger kill counts while prone (in a total of three combats) than they had during all their non-prone combats combined, simply because they weren't willing to provoke the attack of opportunity for standing up.
Seriously, I don't understand the obsession over bypass items. Aside from plot points and GM fiat (such as 'you die, no save'), I've never seen or stumbled across a d20 mechanic that needed a bypass item, just a lot of them that had bypass items. Characters in 3.x have always had other options that let them win; those options may have been sub-par but they still worked.

 

[arscott]

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.

It's not the ability to go nova that matters. Players can expend all of their daily abilities in one combat far more effectively in 4e than in previous editions.

It's the effectiveness of the tactic. Consider what happens to the fight if every one of the pregens expends their daily power against the black dragon:

[SBLOCK](note: Entries list the damage that exceeds that granted by the character's at-will powers. The dragon has save +5, so he'll have any (save ends) effects for an average of 1.25 rounds)

Paladin:
+15.625 damage on a hit, +3.125 on a miss

Cleric:
+15.25 damage on a hit, +8.75 on a miss
(hit figure assumes that the cleric continues to hit with an attack as long as the dragon remains vulnerable to his attacks)

Fighter:
+11 damage, always (the power can be re-used until it hits)

Ranger:
None. His power is useless against single foes.

Wizard (acid arrow):
Hit: -9.125 damage(the dragon is acid resistant)

Wizard (sleep):
Hit: -10 damage, and the dragon is slowed (speed reduced to 2) for a round. Then sleeps for an average of .25 rounds
Miss: the dragon is slowed for an average of 1.25 rounds.

Warlock:
Hit: +8, and you can slide the dragon 3 squares.
Effect: You can slide the dragon 1 square per round for an average of .25 rounds[/SBLOCK]
Assuming they all hit (and discounting the wizard, who does less damage with his dailies than with magic missile), that's about 50 extra damage. That's nice, but It'll hardly end the combat--the black dragon has 280 hp.

Contrast that to a 3e party. The Ideal 3e party was expected to expend about 25% of it's resources per encounter. So when a caster went nova, he was hypothetically expending four times as much power as expected (realistically, this was more like twice the power, unless he was optimized for effective nova-ing with quickened spells and the like.

 

[Nifft]

Not to be snarky, but when, beside plot, have you ever actually needed a bypass item? [...]
Seriously, I don't understand the obsession over bypass items.

Since this discussion so far involves NOT having the "bypass items", what are you talking about?

-- N

 

[ValhallaGH]

Since this discussion so far involves NOT having the "bypass items", what are you talking about?

-- N

Heh. Sorry, I'm projecting from many gamers I know onto your statement. My point is that all 'must have bypass' abilities such as DR, Incorporeal, being tripped, etc, all have work-arounds that don't bypass the ability. There's still a chance to hit incorporeal, you can deal enough damage that it goes above DR, and you can fight while prone (to name specifics). Yet many, many gamers are horrified at the thought of not having the 'bypass item' and will waste three or four rounds of combat trying to generate said item (at least twice I've seen while the enemy had less than 20 hp left).

My point being that abilities that 'must be bypassed' never actually must be, except for 'plot only' situations. Otherwise, the party can just be themselves until they win.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Contrast that to a 3e party. The Ideal 3e party was expected to expend about 25% of it's resources per encounter. So when a caster went nova, he was hypothetically expending four times as much power as expected (realistically, this was more like twice the power, unless he was optimized for effective nova-ing with quickened spells and the like.

I'll just say your understanding of the model is extremely muddled, and leave it at that.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'll just say your understanding of the model is extremely muddled, and leave it at that.

Please, do not leave it at that. I want to know how you see or understand it. Maybe I am really missing something, but I think that arscott isn't far off from how 3E works.

The basic idea is to (on average) challenge PCs with encounters equal to the party level (assuming a standard 4-member party with the typical classes, at least). Such an encounter costs around 20 (or 25%?) of the party's resource, if nothing goes horribly wrong due to bad tactics or bad dice rolling (what I don't know how much "system mastery" is supposed to improve this). It's not really useful to "nova" in such encounters and expend more (spell) resources. But you certainly won't feel challenged that much if you know you still have a fireball or Cure Serious Wounds spell handy.

"Novaing" means expending most of the resources you have available per each encounter. In 3E, this is basically the same as the resources per day you have.
In 4E, this is different. A lot of your resources are only per encounter, and you have some extras that are per day. you can still nova, but the potential benefit (going from 20-25 % to 90-100 % in 3E) is lower (going from ~70-80% to 90-100 % in 4E).

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Please, do not leave it at that. I want to know how you see or understand it.

1) The ability for a PC to use 100% of his resources in a fight is unchanged from 4e to 3e.

2) The CR of a creature is not based on how many resources you have used, or have left. CR is a fixed value representing combat effectiveness/threat, and it assumes a fresh party. (If it didn't, it would be ing useless.)

3) It is impossible (well, not impossible, but impractical) for a monster's effectiveness to double every 4 levels. However, in 4e, the XP award for a monster doubles every four levels. The power curve does not advance as fast as the XP curve.

4) Ergo, it is more efficient for the 4e party to fight above their level. They will earn XP faster than the threat increases. And it doesn't matter if they have to "go nova" to do this, because-- just exactly as was true in 3e-- there is no penalty for retiring for the day.

5) 4e does not contain any disincentive to abandon the 15-minute adventuring day.

Rather, it contains incentives to keep adventuring: Namely, your baseline "weakest state" is more powerful than it was in 3e.

However, the fact that a "depleted" 4e party may continue on at 75% of their optimal state does not mean that they must continue on at 75% of their optimal state. If they want to, they can also leave for the day.

In 4E, this is different. A lot of your resources are only per encounter, and you have some extras that are per day. you can still nova, but the potential benefit (going from 20-25 % to 90-100 % in 3E) is lower (going from ~70-80% to 90-100 % in 4E).

We're not discussing the benefits of going nova or not going nova. It's irrelevant to the fact that the XP curve advances faster than the difficulty curve, except to point out that if 4e characters want to expend 100% of their resources in every single fight, their ability to do so is no more curtailed than it was in 3e. (That is to say, the DM either allows them to get away with the 15 minute adventuring day, or he doesn't.)

 

[Nifft]

1) The ability for a PC to use 100% of his resources in a fight is unchanged from 4e to 3e.

Wait, isn't that the whole point of those Per-Encounter doohickeys? That you will have at least one (set of) trick(s) which are neither at-will nor which you can "use up" in a single encounter? Or am I missing something basic.

2) The CR of a creature is not based on how many resources you have used, or have left. CR is a fixed value representing combat effectiveness/threat, and it assumes a fresh party.

But the party goes through 4 encounters per day -- the 4th encounter's EL can't assume a fresh party!

5) 4e does not contain any disincentive to abandon the 15-minute adventuring day.

Rather, it contains incentives to keep adventuring: Namely, your baseline "weakest state" is more powerful than it was in 3e.

Ah, yes. This I buy totally.

I'd posit that, for my group at the very least (but hopefully many others), the players want to keep adventuring, and the "15 minute work-day" is more a product of the players' fear (and resultant overkill) than it is a result of munchkinism and their desire to take on foes above their level.

So the mere ability to carry on, even without any incentive to do so, may very well be sufficient to change their playstyle -- since they would be changing to a playstyle they prefer.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Wait, isn't that the whole point of those Per-Encounter doohickeys? That you will have at least one (set of) trick(s) which are neither at-will nor which you can "use up" in a single encounter? Or am I missing something basic.

Look, this is very simple. Take your 4e character and walk into the first room in the dungeon.

Can you or can you not, if you so choose, use everything you've got? Burn through your dailies, burn through your per encounters, and then burn through your at-will.

I don't CARE whether or not "going nova" in 4e means you'll be at 0% or 75% in the next encounter. It's irrelevant.

But the party goes through 4 encounters per day -- the 4th encounter's EL can't assume a fresh party!

CR/EL has no frakkin clue how many encounters you have already had, nor does it have any clue when the party is going to decide to retire for the day.

When you see "EL5" printed in the module, the ONLY thing that number purports to be reflective of is a fresh party. It purports to be quantifiable, and, with a fresh party, it largely is.

(Mostly at low level. And as long as you have a largely homogenous group of creatures. And as long as they don't outnumber the PCs by more than 4 to 1 or so... But I digress.)

Do you, as the DM, know that it is going to be tougher if the party is worn down? Yes you do. But no longer in a quantifiable way.

Do you, as a DM, have any actual mechanics, any tools at all, for interpreting what EL5 means after 1, 2, 3, or 6 encounters? No.

Tell me:

What is the CR of an orc?

What is the CR of an orc if he appears in the 2nd encounter of the day?

The third?

The fourth?

Is this a math thread, or a thread for parroting back the "common wisdom" or the "marketing" of the design?