The Tragedy of Flat Math

[Someone]

The funny thing is, in the early days of 5e speculation someone creted a thread proposing flat(ter) increase of attack bonus, compensating it with increases in damage. Everyone piled in claiming it was a very bad idea.

 

[MarkB]

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.

This is already being done. Admittedly, it's being done through the awkward and ham-fisted method of using hit point limits on spells' effectiveness, something which could definitely do with being revised and improved - but the concept is already there, built into the spell rules.

 

[Bluenose]

What's important is that the math goes up slowly enough that low level monsters remain a threat to high level characters.

Wouldn't that work just as well or even better if it was hit points that advance slowly, rather than attack/defence bonuses? That a kobold can hit me even when I'm a 15th level fighter is irrelevant if it does 5 points of damage and I've got 150 hps. If I only have 20 hit points, then it's rather more significant. Increased defensive/offensive ability would still make the characters better, but a kobold would still be a a threat.

 

[bbjore]

I am a fan bounded accuracy in that I did think they needed to scale back the bonus ladder from 4E, and I definitely think the +0 to +12 at lvl 20 spread they probably have going now could work. I also dislike the fact that lvl 1 character are so similar and am worried about the fact that they bother with scaling defenses or have tied it all to armor class so my lvl 20 warrior is just as likely to get tagged with a status effect from a blow as he was a lvl 1 when not wearing armor. It's early, so I hope they fix that. But that's not what OP's post was about, it was about flat math.

The interesting thing is, I'm ok with completely or almost completely flat math. There's a lot of games out there that work with that. Dungeon world or rogue skills from earlier editions. It has the potential to be great. Player bonuses remain essentially static throughout the game, but as they grow in power you adjust PC rolls based on the challenges. You don't even have to do the solo or minion thing. You could simply say, those goblins are weaklings compared to your lvl 12 character, so you have a +3 to hit them and they have a -3 to hit you, or that Balor is an overwhelming foe, you have a -4 on all checks against him. It works for skill checks to. It's some really neat design space, but I think a lot of people would be bothered by it.

 

[pemerton]

Wouldn't that work just as well or even better if it was hit points that advance slowly, rather than attack/defence bonuses? That a kobold can hit me even when I'm a 15th level fighter is irrelevant if it does 5 points of damage and I've got 150 hps. If I only have 20 hit points, then it's rather more significant. Increased defensive/offensive ability would still make the characters better, but a kobold would still be a a threat.

Wouldn't this be turning D&D into RuneQuest or Rolemaster, though? It would increase the "rocket tag" dimension at the expense of that classic "bucket of hit points" D&D vibe.

 

[Bluenose]

Wouldn't this be turning D&D into RuneQuest or Rolemaster, though? It would increase the "rocket tag" dimension at the expense of that classic "bucket of hit points" D&D vibe.

I don't really think creatures that can knock off 1/20th of your hit points if they hit are that much of a threat without huge numbers being involved. Once you do provide those large numbers, it's AoE time and also favours characters who have ways to give themselves some form of protection from damage (almost certainly casters) over those with a large bucket of hit points. A general reduction in the amount of damage it takes to kill creatures, combined with improved defensive capabilities, would leave the threat intact without offering the PCs such a large pile of XPs.

And yes, this does have similarities to several other games. Since they've managed to create games where "low level" creatures remain significant threats, I think it's worth looking at how they do that. Whether this would be the right way for D&D to go if the aim is to create it's classic feel is another matter. I'm afraid if the design includes static attack and defence bonuses to keep low level creatures as a threat, I rather think that is already moving away from the "classic D&D" vibe from my perspective.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION], your point about the way different PCs interact with swarms of low-level combatants is a good one. Maybe they will reinstate some version of the 1st ed AD&D rule allowing fighters to attack a number of creatures of < 1HD equal to their level (the fighter's AoE, if you like!).

 

[Argyle King]

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.

Some of what you say here is part of why I would like flatter math. Personally, I find it far more interesting to have a broader play experience which allows me to explore multiple facets of my character and the world around me as opposed to traveling in a path which is so heavily bolted to being linear and vertical. I prefer my tabletop experience to be more like reading a book than watching a movie.

It's actually 4th Edition which helped me learn this preference. I highly enjoyed the lessened power curve between levels. Suddenly, I felt like could have a coherent story. My goblins didn't suddenly need to become ogres because the PCs went up a level. To some extent (other aspects of the game made me feel I had less,) I felt I had more freedom to tell my story. I enjoyed it to the extent that I sought out a game which didn't have levels at all.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.
-KS

it is entirely possible, that cleric and sorcerer´s attack bonuse never go up.
but taking pre 3rd edititionas a clue, I would expect, that the +1 per three levels would be the default for those classes.

the most important part of flat math is, AC not being a function of level. It should be easier to hit if you level up. What I am missing however are possibilities to resist spells more easily. I am not sure if more potent spells + ncreasing DC´s make for a good game. One thing, that made 3rd edition problematic. Without the aid of magic items, the fighter permanently fights for the opposite side...

 

[Sadras]

Wouldn't that work just as well or even better if it was hit points that advance slowly, rather than attack/defence bonuses? That a kobold can hit me even when I'm a 15th level fighter is irrelevant if it does 5 points of damage and I've got 150 hps. If I only have 20 hit points, then it's rather more significant. Increased defensive/offensive ability would still make the characters better, but a kobold would still be a a threat.

I don't see how it would work better.
By increasing hit points you are able to build entire mechanics integrated to hit point use, since hit points represent a number of things. For instance you could include the mechanic of those 4E spellcasters who "cut/bleed" themselves to improve their spells. You could incorporate hit point spend to "shake-off" effects. Whereas the other way - its just your boring combat expertise & power attack combos, and you can do that anyways without benefits.
Also your math of level 15 having 20 hit points and a kobold doing 5 points of damage - imagine what a dragon's damage output would be for comparison, outright kill I imagine.

I imagine what you are proposing works well for E6 though.