Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
The Mathematical Model of the d20 System
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 4201351" data-attributes="member: 94"><p>Lanchester. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The problem with D&D is the number of absolutes and asymmetrics in the system may very well decide the issue: Lanchester's Square Law isn't a sufficient model.</p><p></p><p>Unless you can quantify the absolutes and asymmetrics so that you have a clear understanding of their contribution to the overall effectiveness of a unit.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I assume you mean 2-on-2, since a dogfight between two jets (1-on-1) is both Linear and Squared. "1" works out neatly like that on both sides of the equation. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></p><p></p><p>Anyhow IIRC Lanchester developed his ideas at the birth of aerial combat specifically to make those predictions.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As far as I am concerned, if you can't find a model that works reasonably well without a calculator (although tables are OK from this designer's standpoint) then the gains are negligible. It's far better at that point to keep the encounter constrained within certain boundaries that ensure that the differences the Square Law would inject into the system are kept to a minimum. </p><p></p><p>However, </p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> We have been told that the power curve in 4e has been stretched and flattened, and</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> 4e removes many absolutes and asymmetric abilities, which should actually make them hew closer to the Lanchester model, and</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> the number of creatures in a combat are determined by the XP budget, and </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> the XP awards are definitely <em>not</em> smooth or flat, </li> </ul><p></p><p>... I have concerns. A DM faithfully following the system may find himself overpowering the PCs with swarms of lesser creatures, and his "tough fights" with Elites and Solos will feel just the opposite.</p><p></p><p>Yet the PCs are going to get comparatively less XP for the toughest (swarm) fights and comparatively more XP for the easier (boss) fights, with respect to the actual difficulty they have with the encounter.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think so too, and I really like the looks of it so far. Giving Elite and Solo creatures extra actions and "interrupts" means that you can increase their overall effectiveness without having to increase the "statblock" as much.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Wulf Ratbane, post: 4201351, member: 94"] Lanchester. :) The problem with D&D is the number of absolutes and asymmetrics in the system may very well decide the issue: Lanchester's Square Law isn't a sufficient model. Unless you can quantify the absolutes and asymmetrics so that you have a clear understanding of their contribution to the overall effectiveness of a unit. I assume you mean 2-on-2, since a dogfight between two jets (1-on-1) is both Linear and Squared. "1" works out neatly like that on both sides of the equation. :D Anyhow IIRC Lanchester developed his ideas at the birth of aerial combat specifically to make those predictions. As far as I am concerned, if you can't find a model that works reasonably well without a calculator (although tables are OK from this designer's standpoint) then the gains are negligible. It's far better at that point to keep the encounter constrained within certain boundaries that ensure that the differences the Square Law would inject into the system are kept to a minimum. However, [list] [*] We have been told that the power curve in 4e has been stretched and flattened, and [*] 4e removes many absolutes and asymmetric abilities, which should actually make them hew closer to the Lanchester model, and [*] the number of creatures in a combat are determined by the XP budget, and [*] the XP awards are definitely [i]not[/i] smooth or flat, [/list] ... I have concerns. A DM faithfully following the system may find himself overpowering the PCs with swarms of lesser creatures, and his "tough fights" with Elites and Solos will feel just the opposite. Yet the PCs are going to get comparatively less XP for the toughest (swarm) fights and comparatively more XP for the easier (boss) fights, with respect to the actual difficulty they have with the encounter. I think so too, and I really like the looks of it so far. Giving Elite and Solo creatures extra actions and "interrupts" means that you can increase their overall effectiveness without having to increase the "statblock" as much. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
The Mathematical Model of the d20 System
Top