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

[AdmundfortGeographer]

This gave vastly different results, as combat-power typically more than doubled with level. In fact, the curve was exponential -- e^x.

Intriguing.

Exponential? We're full circle! Yikes!

(Couldn't resist)

 

[Stalker0]

Something to consider:

The assumption of the model is on a the basis of a static challenge, aka, a party is growing stronger against an enemy that stays the same.

But in most campaigns, monsters scale with the power of the pcs (for the purpose of encounters and not world building).

In that respect, we note that in 3e, damage and attack rolls tend to scale much quicker than AC. If we further include the prevalence of nasty status effects, crippling effects, and save or dies we note a concordance with the empirical results most people notice at high levels....offense trumps defense.

So if we return to the basic equation for the models here: Combat Power = Damage over time x combat staying power, you will note that while DOT is going up, CSP is dropping. So high level parties are not actually more powerful than their medium level ones, but simply that the fights decrease in length.

An example is that an 8th level party fightning a CR 8 monster might last for 4 rounds. A 20th level party vs a CR 20 monster will often last a single round.

 

[Nifft]

Looking at the Google spreadsheet make it really clear that the game changes every five levels.

IMHO it might be better to analyze each set of 5 levels as a different game -- and to consider the Sorcerer instead of the Wizard, so his big spell-level boosts come at 6, 12 and 16 instead of 5, 11 and 15.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Cheiromancer]

Looking at the Google spreadsheet make it really clear that the game changes every five levels.

What nonsense! Next you'll be suggesting names for these four distinct quartiles of play- Gritty fantasy, Heroic fantasy, Wuxia, and Superheroes. Or something. Sheesh.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Next you'll be suggesting names for these four distinct quartiles of play- Gritty fantasy, Heroic fantasy, Wuxia, and Superheroes.

Or find a way to break it down into three tiers, and call them something like, um, heroic, paragon, and epic?

 

[mmadsen]

Looking at the Google spreadsheet make it really clear that the game changes every five levels.

Well, it makes it clear that the Fighter gets another attack every five levels.

If you look at the second sheet where the Fighter is dynamically compared to his counterpart one level behind, where the curve is exponential, then the game looks like it changes very, very dramatically. Whatever level you look at is in a totally different scale from three or four levels earlier -- to the point that all earlier levels look like a straight line skimming along at zero.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I don't quite get the google spreadsheet. I'm trying to figure out how a battle between a 17th level and a 16th level fighter would go - supposedly the power ratio is 3.31. But I'm having trouble with the numbers. For instance, the F17 is supposed to make 2.1 hits per round against the F16, but I only get 1.95 (90% plus 65% plus 40%). The F16 makes 1.35 hits per round against the F17. Multiply by the appropriate ratios for damage and hit points and you get that the ratio is 7078:4436, or 1.59:1. Which is still surprisingly good, but it is not 3.31.

edit

At 16th level (and higher) a Fighter has four iterative attacks. Thus, the Ftr17 hits the Ftr16 at 90% + 65% + 40% + 15% = 2.1 hits per round.

D'oh!

Still, do the numbers work out to 3.31? I get 2.1 hits/round vs 1.4 hits per round (the F16's fourth attack hits only a 20, and .70 + 0.45 + 0.20 + 0.05 = 1.4) and the hit points are 132 vs 124, damage per hit 27.5 vs 26.5. I get a power ratio of 7623 to 4600.4 or 1.65.

Hmmm. I must still be doing something wrong. I'm missing a factor of 2 somewhere.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Well, it makes it clear that the Fighter gets another attack every five levels.

You should start dropping iterative attacks from your consideration.

At least, if you want the thread to be "Speculations on 4e."

 

[Cheiromancer]

You should start dropping iterative attacks from your consideration.

At least, if you want the thread to be "Speculations on 4e."

If we don't know what the baseline power curve is, we are lacking a crucial bit of information about what a change would be. Before we speculate on what might be, we need to be clear about what is.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If we don't know what the baseline power curve is, we are lacking a crucial bit of information about what a change would be.

We're fairly certain iterative attacks are gone.

As far as the power curve goes, we also have hints that 1st-30th feels like the current 4th-14th.

Before we speculate on what might be, we need to be clear about what is.

Respectfully, I disagree. You don't need to be any more clear about what 3e WAS than "unsatisfactory." It's gone.

It's safe to speculate on 4e. I get more satisfaction from designing forwards than indulging in any more reverse engineering of 3e.

Start with a baseline (four PCs can handle four 1st Level "brutes"), speculate what the power curve will be, and design forwards. At least, that was the intent with my OP.