The Tragedy of Flat Math

[Scribble]

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.

What they said from the start was that as you advance monsters are still effective, but you need larger groups to make them a threat.

So you go from fighting one Kobold to a horde of Kobolds.

 

[tomBitonti]

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.

You could do that, but that's not what has been historically done (in D&D).

That goes to a basic over-engineering of the game system: Hit points represent that attacks are less effective. Attack bonus represents that hits are more likely. But, "hits" are a misnomer. A "hit" causes an expenditure of "plot budget", meaning, how long one can fight without assistance, and "hit points" are that budget.

That we have both is not entirely over-engineering, since we get two numbers to use as parameters. (A third number is AC.) That leads to a less linear model, with more interesting subtle features which also happens to match common ways of reasoning about fights. ("Common" does not necessarily mean "accurate in any real way".)

There are several tracks of related numbers: (AC, HP, AB), (DC, Save Bonus, HP), (Ability Bonus, Skill DC). For (AC, HP, AB), those can be adjusted as level increases say by increasing HP only, with AC and AB being modeled entirely by particular skill acquisition (better armor, a feat such as weapon focus), or they can be modeled with increases to (HP, AB), (3rd edition style), or could be modeled with increases to all three (4th edition style).

TomB

 

[KidSnide]

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.

That makes sense -- could easily happen.

-KS

 

[Azgulor]

Apologies for the tangent, but looking at the following statement:

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.

I have such a visceral negative reaction to how much is wrong in that sentence (from my PoV, obviously) that it reinforces the conclusion that players with my tastes and players with your tastes are HIGHLY unlikely to ever sit down at a game table and prefer the same edition.

And this, ultimately, is the mountain that WotC will never be able to climb. At best, they'll be able to skirt along a slope of the mountain. (Which could be more than enough customers for 5e to be a success by WotC's & Hasbro's measures). 5e/D&DN, in trying to "unify D&D fans" can only hit a "Good Enough" mark. 3e & 4e were divergent enough that no middle-ground option will satisfy the strong fans of either prior edition. At best, those fans can hope to find "enough" of their edition in 5e/D&DN to make it palatable to them.

The problem for WotC is, players don't have to settle for "good enough". There are enough alternatives out there, many in print, that the fanbase of each edition can be catered to without having to settle.

Perhaps the 5e-distinctions will come later on the innovation side. Guess we'll have to wait & see. But I'm not seeing any real game-changers thus far to push 5e into "breakout game" status.

 

[The Shadow]

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.

I have more than half a suspicion that they're going to bring back 'name level'. In other words, at some point, hit-point progression slows down dramatically.

If it happens at levels 9 or 10 again, though, that still might not be enough to avoid the problem you mention, though.

 

[nightwalker450]

I prefer the flat attacks and defenses. With only a minimal amount of scaling. Put the sliding scale on Hit Points and Damage. Since these are abstract representing dodge/luck/etc...

This means that you are better at dodging/hitting in the fact that each hit on you is a smaller portion of your hit points (thus less effective against you), and each time you hit, they are loosing a larger portion of their hit points (thus you're more effective against them).

Basically we don't need 2 systems accomplishing the same goals. Since it just escalates the difference more, and makes it harder and harder to use low level threats.

 

[cmbarona]

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

Not to derail the thread into the supposed power of orcs, but I'll point out that barbarian hordes have ravaged kingdoms within our own history when they manage to get powerful and organized enough. I don't see why the same can't be true for orcs, should they be an epic-level threat within a campaign. I don't think it's "bogus."

Along those lines, I think it's important to recognize that there should be a way for enemies to remain threats through an adventuring career, and it should somehow be built into the mechanics. Bounded math did it in 4e, scaling math in 3e (assuming you leveled up your monsters or put the heroes up against hordes). Is there room for epic characters with flat math? I think there can be, but I don't have ideas for how to do that. Does anyone else?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I have such a visceral negative reaction to how much is wrong in that sentence (from my PoV, obviously) that it reinforces the conclusion that players with my tastes and players with your tastes are HIGHLY unlikely to ever sit down at a game table and prefer the same edition.

Wait, you think my statement is wrong, or you think it's wrong/sad that D&D fans have such a wide range of tastes, and are therefore unlikely to all sit down to play one edition together?

And this, ultimately, is the mountain that WotC will never be able to climb. At best, they'll be able to skirt along a slope of the mountain. (Which could be more than enough customers for 5e to be a success by WotC's & Hasbro's measures). 5e/D&DN, in trying to "unify D&D fans" can only hit a "Good Enough" mark. 3e & 4e were divergent enough that no middle-ground option will satisfy the strong fans of either prior edition. At best, those fans can hope to find "enough" of their edition in 5e/D&DN to make it palatable to them.

The problem for WotC is, players don't have to settle for "good enough". There are enough alternatives out there, many in print, that the fanbase of each edition can be catered to without having to settle.

Perhaps the 5e-distinctions will come later on the innovation side. Guess we'll have to wait & see. But I'm not seeing any real game-changers thus far to push 5e into "breakout game" status.

Agreed 100%.

 

[slobster]

Wait, you think my statement is wrong, or you think it's wrong/sad that D&D fans have such a wide range of tastes, and are therefore unlikely to all sit down to play one edition together?

I think he means that he finds the phrases "3.x’s unhelpful vagueries and obsfucatory rules" and "4e’s clinical precision" to be unhelpfully standoffish. Well, to be fair, that's how I see those phrases. He could have a different opinion.

Regardless of whether your underlying point is correct or not, using phrasing like that makes it look like you are looking for a fight, not a conversation.

To address your OP, I agree with some of your points and disagree with others. A lot of people have written a lot of good stuff about why a "solo" monster is more than just a monster with more hit points and more damaging attacks. Solo monsters need more actions. They need ways to resist action denial. They should have the ability to put the hurt on many PCs at once, without the ability to focus fire and absolutely shred one PC at will. They should be more complex than other monsters, because the GM has the ability to focus on the single creature in a solo fight. A creature designed for solo level complexity won't be a good fit when run in groups of 5, no matter the capabilities of the PCs opposing it, because that would put too great a load on the GM.

On the other hand, I agree that minions can be replaced, in a flat math system, with enemies that are simply much lower level than the PCs. I also agree that magic weapons and armor should drop the magical bonuses to accuracy, especially if they aren't built in to the monster math (and they shouldn't be). Well, they can keep +1 accuracy and +2 accuracy weapons, but nothing larger. And an accuracy weapon should be no more common than a flaming weapon or a winged shield. No more mystical accuracy bonuses to every magic weapon.

 

[Azgulor]

I think he means that he finds the phrases "3.x’s unhelpful vagueries and obsfucatory rules" and "4e’s clinical precision" to be unhelpfully standoffish. Well, to be fair, that's how I see those phrases. He could have a different opinion.

That pretty much sums it up. I don't doubt that TS sees 3e & 4e as he describes, but I don't see 3e as having "unhelpful vagueries and obfuscatory rules" and I certainly don't view 4e as having "clinical precision". As I stated with the rest of my post, if you've got people viewing 3e & 4e that differently, the best 5e can reasonably expect to do is to find the right "middle ground". Middle ground is ok when there are no better options. However, there a quite a few options that don't require a gaming group to compromise on stuff they don't care for & shell out money for a new game.

It's a game. I want to have fun. Playing a system I don't care for isn't fun. Spending money on a game I don't like isn't just "unfun", it's dumb.

And that is the biggest hurdle that I see to D&D unification - D&DNext can't settle for "good enough" - it has to be GREAT. If it isn't great, it won't pull enough people from the games that already cater to their tastes. Unfortunately, the fanbase is now pretty widely diverged on what might constitute Great. I think WotC could pull it off, but it's no sure thing.

Oh, and before anyone goes there, I could give a wererat's turd whether the fantasy RPG I play is called D&D or not. Between major publishers, 3PPs, largest GenCon attendance ever, etc. I don't have to support D&D "for the good of the hobby". The hobby is doing just fine, IMO.