The Tragedy of Flat Math

Tequila Sunrise

Adventurer
Disclaimer: This is not a rant, or even a “Here’s how 5e should be written!” thread. Frankly I’d be happy to hate 5e, because I’m a broke college student and I don’t need any temptations to drop ~$90 on a new edition.

And even if the design team were to do things exactly as I’m about to suggest, I think I’d still prefer scaling math. 4e doesn’t do it exactly as I’d like, but the idea of not getting more skilled at hitting and avoiding hits as level increases is...well, whatever. All this is beside the point of this thread.

I don’t care for the abstraction involved with flat math, but it does create a very interesting opportunity design-wise. Whereas 4e innovated monster design in part with monster castes (minion, solo, etc.), 5e has the opportunity to innovate monster design with flat math. Here’s how it works: set up damage and hit point guidelines such that a monster say 10 levels below the PCs is effectively a minion, while a monster say 10 levels above the PCs is effectively a solo. Here’s the hard part: spells and abilities that inflict status effects have to be nerfed against foes of relatively high level, somewhat like how classic spells such as Color Spray and Holy Word have effects that vary with HD. Alternatively, foes of relatively high level should have some kind of universal resistance to status effects. And BAM, each monster only needs one stat block and one level to challenge parties of any level! No official castes needed; only XP values that reflect the virtual castes of monsters by level.

But here’s the rub: WotC is squandering this great opportunity for innovation.

Just as 4e is in part a reaction to 3.x’s unhelpful vagueries and obsfucatory rules, 5e is in part a reaction to 4e’s clinical precision. As a result, the team has apparently decided that math isn’t a 5e priority, so +X items and ability boosts aren’t being axed despite all the talk of “flat math.” (Sorry, but pretending that math doesn’t matter doesn’t make either of these any less important.) Monsters apparently still have levels, but I’ve no idea whether there are any guidelines to go along with them. So 5e doesn’t really have flat attack math...

...but let’s pretend it did. Imagine that the only attack/defense modifiers come from the basic properties of mundane equipment, possibly one-time choices like class and race, and possibly circumstantial modifiers. WotC is still shying away from innovation by falling back on 4e’s castes (haven’t seen a minion yet, but 5e has the other three), rather than taking advantage of the mathematical elegance of flat math. Don’t get me wrong; I love 4e’s monster castes! They make it possible to use a single monster over a huge range of levels and enjoy the benefits of scaling math. But if 5e is going the way of flat math, why half-arse it? Why not design to its strength?

I don’t know the answer, but it’s a wasted opportunity.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

As a result, the team has apparently decided that math isn’t a 5e priority, so +X items and ability boosts aren’t being axed despite all the talk of “flat math.” (Sorry, but pretending that math doesn’t matter doesn’t make either of these any less important.) Monsters apparently still have levels, but I’ve no idea whether there are any guidelines to go along with them. So 5e doesn’t really have flat attack math...

The monsters obviously have guidelines to go along with them. They just aren't done with them yet (or are ready to share). The designers have also said that +X items will run from +1 to +3. Likewise, the class document shows that to hit modifiers do go up with level. It's just rate of improvement is a lot slower than it used to be.

This isn't flat math -- it's flatter math. And that's fine with me.

WotC is still shying away from innovation by falling back on 4e’s castes (haven’t seen a minion yet, but 5e has the other three), rather than taking advantage of the mathematical elegance of flat math. Don’t get me wrong; I love 4e’s monster castes! They make it possible to use a single monster over a huge range of levels and enjoy the benefits of scaling math. But if 5e is going the way of flat math, why half-arse it? Why not design to its strength?

You're missing the other half of the monster castes. They aren't just about power level (which, as you note, could be all about the math). They are also about complexity. A monster that is going to make for a fun 15-30 minute fight by itself needs to have more tactical options than a monster that comes to the party with a half-dozen friends. The flat math allows you to use three 6th level "solo" monster as a 12th level encounter (numbers made up for example), but it is still useful to label monsters so DMs get a sense of their toughness and complexity.

As far as minions are concerned, the designers have said that D&DN minions are just lower level monsters.

-KS
 



It looks like flatter math is going to be the Charlie Brown Christmas tree of 5e.

I don't see why. Totally flat math implies that there is zero improvement of to hit scores as characters level. Why is that a plus? There's a reason to hit scores went up in previous editions of D&D -- getting better is fun.

What's important is that the math goes up slowly enough that low level monsters remain a threat to high level characters. I don't know what the right rate is (and I'm certainly not convinced that the playtest hit it in the latest version), but you get the advantages of flatter math if a 1st level monsters hits a 1st level cleric on a 11, hits an 9th level cleric on a 15 and hits a 17th level cleric on a 19. (Not exact numbers, obviously.)

Constant to hit scores aren't important. All that's important is that the to hit bonuses and ACs grow slowly enough that monsters remain useful for a much longer period of time than they used to. That's the advantage of flatter math.

-KS
 

I don't see why.
I meant it in the sense that the developers' statements were misinterpreted, expectations were raised beyond what they actually promised to deliver, and the developers ended up getting blamed for failing to deliver something that they never promised in the first place.

So, in 4e, the developers promised that the Christmas tree of magic items would be trimmed down into a Charlie Brown Christmas tree. And they delivered - the Big Six magic items (actually more than six if stat boost items were counted separately) were trimmed down to just three (at first), or zero if you use the inherent bonus system (released later). Yet somehow, there is this persistent and pernicious belief (I'm being generous here) that the developers promised magic items would not be required and that they failed to deliver. (As a side note, even without using inherent bonuses, you can run a campaign in which the PCs never get a single magic item, but the concept of just using lower-level monsters with lower attack bonuses and defenses to offset the lack of bonuses from magic items seems to be somehow alien to the complainers.)

And it seems to be happening again. The expectations of "bounded accuracy" and "flatter math" seem to be twisted beyond what the developers promised into expectations of completely flat math, and when the PCs do gain bonuses from level increases, stat increases, and (presumably optional) magic items, they're going to get blamed again for failing to deliver.

Disclaimer here, though. I am not a fan of flatter math. I am even less of a fan of completely flat math. At this point, I am not particularly a fan of 5e, either, although there are some elements that I do find redeeming (such as Hit Dice, Combat Expertise dice, and the bonuses gained by sorcerers when they spend Willpower). However, if (as is likely) I do criticize 5e, it's going to be based on what's actually printed and what the developers have actually said.
 

It does seem like the math is there though. The only arbitrary looking thing is the ability scores of the monsters which seem to come out of nowhere.
 

(As a side note, even without using inherent bonuses, you can run a campaign in which the PCs never get a single magic item, but the concept of just using lower-level monsters with lower attack bonuses and defenses to offset the lack of bonuses from magic items seems to be somehow alien to the complainers.)

The complainers never got that in 3e either, so it's no surprise they didn't cotton on to it in 4e either.
 

There's a reason to hit scores went up in previous editions of D&D -- getting better is fun.
That depends, doesn't it? If getting better makes the game more boring, then it isn't fun. Hence the pressure to scale AC with attack bonuses, so that there is still excitement and variability in combat.

Provided you mostly use opponents of around the PCs' level, 4e is a pretty flat maths game. Some people deride this as "a treadmill". My own view is that they somewhat miss what 4e is aiming at (eg via the device of "tiers"): the fun part of getting better in 4e isn't that the maths changes (it is flat, because of the uniformity and transparency of scaling); it's that the fiction changes. The fictional stakes become higher and more complex, although in many ways the mathematical stakes of action resolution remain largely the same throughout the game.

This is one of several respects in which 4e resembles some indie RPGs.

But I don't think 5e is going to resemble an indie RPG very much, and I therefore think it will not rely solely on the fiction to carry the weight of "getting better", and I therefore think that it won't use flat maths. Or get rid of +X weapons. Etc. Which may well mean that, even as your guy is getting better, the mechanical play of the game will get less rather than more exciting - though it's too early to judge that at this stage.
 

I don't find bigger numbers being that exciting, it's just a math headache and it lead to weird things like lvl 26 orcs who could have wiped out the kingdom the players saved during the heroic tier...

The most common expression around our 4e table is "that's bogus".

I like the idea of flatter math, my main problem with the current playtest is that the initial bonuse are a bit to high for my tastes.

Warder
 

Remove ads

Top