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

[GlassJaw]

Glad to see what started as an intelligent discussion has quickly deteriorated.

Mod edit: Dude, you are only adding to the derailing. If you have a problem, repost the post, or e-mail one of us. You know the rules - don't take it up in thread.

 

[Umbran]

galaga88 - I'm sorry, but sidetracking the discussion like that while it is slow is enough of a derailing as to qualify as threadcrapping. Between that and the language-filter avoiding you're doing, I'm going to have to ask you to leave this thread.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

*snip*
(No need to talk on topics the mods have already adressed. )

Anyone ever tried a different XP table for a linear power progression over time?

 

[Simplicity]

*snip*
(No need to talk on topics the mods have already adressed. )

Anyone ever tried a different XP table for a linear power progression over time?

Ha. Actually, almost everyone has. It was the old exponential XP table for D&D < 3e.
It doesn't really solve this problem though. The reason is that you really want to maintain a relatively linear advancement rate through the levels (so that players feel they are making some progress). Even though the earlier editions had an exponential table, the monster XP increased exponentially as well to maintain this linear advancement rate.

You could, however, only give hitpoints at levels 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32... etc. And similarly slow down the BAB and Save tables.

The high levels would be a terrible grind though.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

*snip*
(No need to talk on topics the mods have already adressed. )

Anyone ever tried a different XP table for a linear power progression over time?

While a legitimate question, I really have to ask if the XP gain rate is really even an issue. I don't mean that in a mean voice, but legitimately asking if I am missing something in your question. I mean, in terms of level-by-level power does it matter how fast I ghet from level x to level (x+1)? Of course, this question is a bigtime concern in determining how fast the characters get to and get through the "sweet spot" of any system.

To me what is more important with respect to power is the tangibles. BAB, AC, damage output, spell power, saves. How high those numbers get with respect to character level is where I am concerned.

I'd really like to find a system that follows a nice square root curve (or perhaps logarithmic - but that might be too little increase in the later levels). For example, the graph of f(x) = SQRT[x]. The power breakdown would look something like this:

[Sblock=Chart hidden for space concerns]

[I]Numbers Rounded to tenths for ease of comparison[/I]

[U]Level[/U] | [U]Power[/U] 
1     | 1
2     | 1.4
3     | 1.7
4     | 2
5     | 2.2
6     | 2.4
7     | 2.6
8     | 2.8
9     | 3
10    | 3.2
11    | 3.3
12    | 3.5
13    | 3.6
14    | 3.7
15    | 3.9
16    | 4
17    | 4.1
18    | 4.2
19    | 4.4
20    | 4.5
21    | 4.6
22    | 4.7
23    | 4.8
24    | 4.9
25    | 5

[/Sblock]

Looking at that chart, it would take a part 3 levels to make a full increase in potential. Then it would take 5 levels for another increase. Then it would take 7 levels. Etc. The point is that as the players get powerful, the power level actually slows down a bit to allow the sweet spot to expand.

In current D&D, my guess is that the average full increase in power is about every 2.x levels, where x is closer to zero than nine. This is about how long it takes a player to acheive an average increase to their saves, a full dice of HP attained, a new level of spells are attained, etc. About the only thing that is attained quicker than 2.x levels is BAB, but that is significant.

I also realize that my proposal for a power curve above is likely going to be popular among DMs and not players. Power is addictive. The more powerful someone's character gets, the more powerful they want them to get and the less time they want to spend getting there. What my proposal pushes for is just the opposite. It says to not waste too much time getting reasonably powerful and then enjoying it while it lasts.

IMNSHO, I think power curves that promote faster power growth serve to make for players having fun while DMs get frustrated with high level play. Games with lower power curves will be more likely to get old, but will probably be a blast to write adventures for and DM - because the players will stay at a stable power level longer.

 

[Gentlegamer]

At its heart, D&D is a game of tactical combat

I wholly and categorically disagree.

 

[GlassJaw]

I wholly and categorically disagree.

Given that 90+% of D&D's rules are for combat, how can you think otherwise?

Sure, individual campaigns can have more role-playing, investigation, story, etc but played by the book, D&D is a combat-oriented system, plain and simple.

 

[Gentlegamer]

A role-playing game is one that makes use of the participants' mental and social faculties. The physical faculties of the participants are not challenged, so there are more overt, written rules for adjudicating the physical actions of the participants' alter egos, the player characters. The mental and social challenges need far fewer written rules for adjudication, but are just as important, if not more so, than the physical challenges. The written content of the D&D rules is somewhat deceptive, in this sense. It would be a great mistake to reduce the game to mere combat encounters.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

It would be a great mistake to reduce the game to mere combat encounters.

Wulf didn't say D&D was reduced to a game of combat encounters. He said D&D, at its core, is a game of tactical combat. Because a quality is central to something doesn't mean that the quality is all that it is.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Wulf didn't say D&D was reduced to a game of combat encounters. He said D&D, at its core, is a game of tactical combat. Because a quality is central to something doesn't mean that the quality is all that it is.

As much as I agree with both of your sides, I have to side with this input. Nobody ever said D&D was solely a tactical combat game. And in spite of the fact that my gaming group has about 5% of our time spent on combat and the rest to other things ... combat is still core.

If you look at the typical character sheet, a good amount of the sheet is focused around combat. AC, Saves, Attack with different weapons, grappling, etc. Many of the feats on the sheet are combat driven. Many of the items a character carries are geared for combat influence.

D&D can (and in my games will) be much more than a game of combat. But combat will always be at its core.