D&D 4E The Quadratic Problem—Speculations on 4e

[Simplicity]

When you're talking about rate of increase, an exponential function grows faster than a quadratic (indeed any polynomial) function for any exponent greater than 1. To suggest otherwise, is simply not correct.

D&D power increases are currently quadratic in nature for the reasons you've stated, but your theory that they *must* be is also incorrect.

For example, if the kill power were made sub-linear.. (ax^(1/2) + b)
And the hit points are made sub-linear (cx^(1/2) + d)

 

[grimslade]

My math is worse than my english (and english is my mother tongue) but:
Are we talking about one continuous line with 4E? They keep mentioning the breaks of every 10 levels. 1- Heroic 11-20 Paragon 21-30 Epic It was reiterated in one of the developer blogs about developing the MM that they were almost done tweaking the monsters up to level 10. It seemed to me that there was a mathematical break at 10.
Will there be a significant ramp up of power at each of the 'breaks' at every 10 levels?
To use the equation, will the a and b values change at 11th level and again at 21st?

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Wulf, the name calling is not acceptable. I don't care how good the content in the rest of the thread is - I'm going to have to ask you to not post in it again. Please e-mail me if you want to discuss this.

Why not go ahead and close it then. It's his thread.

 

[BryonD]

Why not go ahead and close it then. It's his thread.

Seconded.

 

[BryonD]

Umbran,

May we re-start this thread in a few days?

 

[Oldtimer]

Fair enough-- I refuse to have a discussion with a useless pedant who insists that "exponentially" must mean, "Involving the constant e" as opposed to, "Involving an exponent."

If you have a problem with using the term "exponential" more colloquially to describe the power curve of D&D-- take it up with Bruce Cordell.

Sorry Wulf, but "exponential" does not simply mean "involving an exponent". If Bruce Cordell is using it that way, he doesn't know what he is talking about.

I liked your formulas and the discussion, but fair is fair - your use of "exponential" is simply wrong.

 

[BryonD]

Sorry Wulf, but "exponential" does not simply mean "involving an exponent". If Bruce Cordell is using it that way, he doesn't know what he is talking about.

I liked your formulas and the discussion, but fair is fair - your use of "exponential" is simply wrong.

I see it used that way all the time. But all I got's a masters degree in engineering, so what do I know..... (there is a distinction in the language between "an" exponential relationship and "the" exponential function. The meaning within context here was abundantly clear.

 

[Umbran]

Folks - as per the rules, stop discussing the moderation in-thread.

Personally, I think there's so much meat to this thread that killing it completely is doing the boards a disservice. So, if he so desires, Wulf will be back in here on Monday. You may continue to discuss without him if you wish.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I apologize for the snarky threadcrap that hurt a thread people seemed to be enjoying.

 

[Oldtimer]

I see it used that way all the time. But all I got's a masters degree in engineering, so what do I know..... (there is a distinction in the language between "an" exponential relationship and "the" exponential function. The meaning within context here was abundantly clear.

I will simply refrain from commenting on that, since we've been told to drop this.

Nevertheless, the basic problem remains. The power growth must be non-linear (or must it?), so how can it best be flattened. Food for thought.