D&D 4E The Quadratic Problem—Speculations on 4e
- Thread starter Wulf Ratbane
- Start date
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
mmadsen said:
I never cared for that 25% figure to apply to "resources." I always preferred to think of it as "the percentage chance that one PC (of four) is killed."
Certainly at 1st level, this was more likely. It's very hard for an orc with a great-axe to do 2.5 points of damage to the party fighter, or 1 point of damage to the wizard. (But quadruple their starting hit points...)
AdmundfortGeographer
Getting lost in fantasy maps
Am I wrong in remembering that WotC R&D said something to the effect that they imagined the average party to be 5 PCs, not 4? That 4e playtests were going to be looking at testing monster effectiveness in 5 PC parties?mmadsen said:
Terraism
Explorer
Okay. This is sorta off-topic, and I don't intend to incite anything in the slightest. But I've just picked up Monte Cook's World of Darkness, found it interesting, and took a peek over there, only to find them indicting the d20/D&D system as being a tactical combat game whereas the World of Darkness is supposed to be a role-playing game, but this MC-adaptation "started its inexorable slide into tactical tabletop miniatures wargaming."Calico_Jack73 said:
Perspective? Opinion? Meet the continuum.
Cheiromancer
Adventurer
mmadsen said:
I think Nth level is *said* to be a CR N. However I think this is said falsely. It is also said that a CR N monster is a moderate challenge for an Nth level group. But both statements can't be true... Hmm, I'm repeating myself. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Wulf Ratbane said:
Yikes. If there's a 20% chance of a PC death in a moderate encounter, then there's a death about every 5 encounters... it means a PC only has a 50% chance of leveling up. I must be misunderstanding you.
Wulf Ratbane said:
Well, if one person is dropped to 0 hp (or into the negatives, but stabilizes) that is about 1/4 of the party's hit points. If the cleric then uses all his spells to heal the guy back up to full - he's converted one kind of resource into another. And what if the fighter would never have been brought low if the wizard had unloaded all his prepared spells on the monster before it closed to melee? These all seem more or less fungible, and so I don't have a problem calling them resources. But YMMV.
Eric Anondson said:
Sometimes a moderate encounter is expressed as using up 20% of the party resources. Use that figure for a five person party, and figure 25% for a four person party. That's my take on it anyway.
Last edited:
Upper_Krust
Legend
Hey guys!
apologies for coming late to this party, worked nightshift for each of the past seven nights.
Its going to take me a while to catch-up with all the posts, but I am sure I will.
One point I will address now, are the comments made by Andy Collins.
There are two ways to flatten the power curve. The first is to heavily stack the first level (or base character). An example of this type of progression would be WEG's d6 Star Wars, where characters start out fairly powerful and thus advancement means less.
In D&D terms 'heroes' could start out at 3rd-level (for instance) or some equivalent, although it would be called 1st-level. Just like you can have a 1st-level Ogre (who is more powerful than a 1st-level human), you could have a 1st-level 'Hero'.
The second method would seemingly be the 'drop off'. This would be a sort of tapering of the 1st/2nd Edition design (though not as obviously abrupt) whereby the actual power of a single level 'unit' is reduced over time.
So that if you compared the actual benefits of Level 1 with those gained at Level 30, the level 30 benefits would be notably weaker.
Personally I think the former system has some merit, whereas the latter system is self-defeating. It will be interesting to see which they have plumped for.
Indirectly, it seems as though they are stretching out the current 20 levels to 30 levels.
Andy's reasoning that reducing unit jumps of power will allow monsters to have a greater shelf life in your campaign is a valid one. However, its a false dawn if they are simply flattening out the power curve (which is what the current, albeit limited, evidence implies).
apologies for coming late to this party, worked nightshift for each of the past seven nights.
Its going to take me a while to catch-up with all the posts, but I am sure I will.
One point I will address now, are the comments made by Andy Collins.
There are two ways to flatten the power curve. The first is to heavily stack the first level (or base character). An example of this type of progression would be WEG's d6 Star Wars, where characters start out fairly powerful and thus advancement means less.
In D&D terms 'heroes' could start out at 3rd-level (for instance) or some equivalent, although it would be called 1st-level. Just like you can have a 1st-level Ogre (who is more powerful than a 1st-level human), you could have a 1st-level 'Hero'.
The second method would seemingly be the 'drop off'. This would be a sort of tapering of the 1st/2nd Edition design (though not as obviously abrupt) whereby the actual power of a single level 'unit' is reduced over time.
So that if you compared the actual benefits of Level 1 with those gained at Level 30, the level 30 benefits would be notably weaker.
Personally I think the former system has some merit, whereas the latter system is self-defeating. It will be interesting to see which they have plumped for.
Indirectly, it seems as though they are stretching out the current 20 levels to 30 levels.
Andy's reasoning that reducing unit jumps of power will allow monsters to have a greater shelf life in your campaign is a valid one. However, its a false dawn if they are simply flattening out the power curve (which is what the current, albeit limited, evidence implies).
It seems that monsters will have TWO numbers describing their power: Level AND fixed XP. The level of the monster is the middle of the range of PC levels he can meaningfully engage. XP is the overall danger posed by the monster.
In effect, there will be monsters of level 5 with high XP, designed to fight 5 level party by itself, and level 5 monsters with low XP, designed to fight level 5 party in groups of 10. But both will have BAB high enough to be able to hit the fighter, at least from time to time, and AC high enough to avoid being hit, at least from time to time. Level 5 minion dies after 1 hit, level 5 boss can survive 10 hits, but both are designed to fight level 5 PCs.
In effect, there will be monsters of level 5 with high XP, designed to fight 5 level party by itself, and level 5 monsters with low XP, designed to fight level 5 party in groups of 10. But both will have BAB high enough to be able to hit the fighter, at least from time to time, and AC high enough to avoid being hit, at least from time to time. Level 5 minion dies after 1 hit, level 5 boss can survive 10 hits, but both are designed to fight level 5 PCs.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
Baduin said:
Very nice observation, thank you. Very nice.
(That actually takes a big step towards answering UK's 30th level party question.)
Similar Threads
D&D 3E/3.5
Homebrew Content
