The Tragedy of Flat Math

[Remathilis]

I wouldn't call 4e's math an 'illusion.' Nowhere do the books promise that "You'll get better at hitting same-level foes as you gain levels," and I don't recall a dev every saying that.

If you don't like the relatively constant 50/50 hit rate of 4e, that's fine, but it's not a secret. And for most 4e fans, it's a feature!

No, the problem is that the math creates the illusion of progress when you're still only hitting at 50%. The ratio is the same: if it doesn't matter that I hit 50% of the time at first or tenth level, then it doesn't matter that my ratio is 1:2, 4:8 10:20, or 1,000:2,000; the math only creates the illusion of getting better. The chance to hit remains constant.

Is there an advantage to increasing the bonuses when the 50/50 hit ratio is constant?

 

[Blackbrrd]

For me the down tuning of the to-hit/AC scaling is very welcome. I really dislike it when mobs or characters have nearly no chance of hitting/missing. It makes some monsters just useless because they either kill the party or gets walked all over. For the simulationist in me, I want most mobs to be a threat to the characters throughout their career, or in a wide range.

I am a bit disappointed that they have such a huge scaling in damage/hp though. I don't really see why they need such a fast development in damage. I do see the need for some scaling to keep the DnD feel though and I like the scaling damage that the fighter gets - in place of spells for cleric/wizards and so on. It creates a good symmetry which keeps the different classes comparable in power and in how interesting the classes are to play in combat.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

No, the problem is that the math creates the illusion of progress when you're still only hitting at 50%. The ratio is the same: if it doesn't matter that I hit 50% of the time at first or tenth level, then it doesn't matter that my ratio is 1:2, 4:8 10:20, or 1,000:2,000; the math only creates the illusion of getting better. The chance to hit remains constant.

Is there an advantage to increasing the bonuses when the 50/50 hit ratio is constant?

Again, if there's any illusion, it's one that you've created because of your own preferences.

The advantage is:

1. Increasing numbers are satisfying, and reflect your ability to take on increasingly impressive foes. A 30th level fighter has the same chance to hit his 30th level nemesis as he had when they were both 1st level because they've both gotten more skilled. All other things being equal, why would either of them gain accuracy faster than dodginess?

2. A constant hit rate is easy to balance combat around. Not to say that an increasing hit rate is impossible to balance, but it's one more moving part so to speak. Also there comes a point where everyone is rolling the d20 as a mere formality, on the off chance that somebody rolls a 1. I don't know about you, but I don't think that's much fun.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Increasing numbers are satisfying

According to...?

 

[B.T.]

According to...?

Virtually everyone ever, hence its popularity. You could play a game in which your numbers stay constant and the only difference is a chance in powers, but I think that would be unsatisfying.

Is there an advantage to increasing the bonuses when the 50/50 hit ratio is constant?

Yes, and that's fighting enemies that are higher or lower level than you are.

 

[Remathilis]

1. Increasing numbers are satisfying, and reflect your ability to take on increasingly impressive foes. A 30th level fighter has the same chance to hit his 30th level nemesis as he had when they were both 1st level because they've both gotten more skilled. All other things being equal, why would either of them gain accuracy faster than dodginess?

But that goes back to my point. Both of them gained attack and defense at the same aptitude, so they cancel each other out.

Say Dirk Hero faces off with Vlad Evil. At first level, Dirk has a +5 to hit with his sword against Vlad's AC of 16. They meet again at the end of the campaign both level 30* and Dirk uses his sword of +20 vs. Vlad's AC of 31. And nothing has changed. That +15 did what exactly except bloat the math?

I guess I can see some merit when fighting a low-level foe or a higher level foe, but 4e's math makes both of those scenarios a waste of time. A low level foe (say, a level 1 orc vs a level 8 PC) cannot hit and only serves as a figurative minion (or worse, minions might have 1 hp, but their attack is still on par) while a foe too high (level 9 orc shaman vs. level 1 PCs) can't be hit, and will either kill them outright or descend into grindspace. Ergo, neither fight is fair, fun, or what have you. So you pitch a level 8 orc vs. a level 8 party to keep the fight fair, which is the same as bounded accuracy for a low-bonus orc vs. a low-bonus fighter.

2. A constant hit rate is easy to balance combat around. Not to say that an increasing hit rate is impossible to balance, but it's one more moving part so to speak. Also there comes a point where everyone is rolling the d20 as a mere formality, on the off chance that somebody rolls a 1. I don't know about you, but I don't think that's much fun.

Granted, always-hit/can't hit scenarios suck. The problem of making everyone hit, save, and defend equally though is you're stuck with more or less the same level for everything. A mage and a fighter (having similar strength or melee training) use the same attack # for base attacks with a sword. Mr. Book-It and Riddle of Steel have the same to Hit at the same level. AC scales similarly only really being different by armor worn. All your defenses are the same, accounting for a 1-2 point class bump (since you get your choice of two scores to add to them, you just need one good S/C, one good D/I, and one good W/Ch to make your saves. 8-dump the other three scores). All those numbers make the classes perfectly numerically similar, which adds to the blandness to a class structure already laden with the same power acquisition scale and overlapping "role" mechanics.

I don't want 3e's swing, but 4e's TOO sculptured. I hope Next finds a middle between them.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Say Dirk Hero faces off with Vlad Evil. At first level, Dirk has a +5 to hit with his sword against Vlad's AC of 16. They meet again at the end of the campaign both level 30* and Dirk uses his sword of +20 vs. Vlad's AC of 31. And nothing has changed. That +15 did what exactly except bloat the math?

It made it so that the orcs that Dirk faced on the way to Vlad also required an 11+ to hit, but when those same orcs* try to stop him now, he can steamroll right over them

Sure, Vlad's still a threat, but that's because Vlad's Dirk's nemesis; if Dirk could steamroll Vlad, it wouldn't look as good on film.

I guess I can see some merit when fighting a low-level foe or a higher level foe,

See? You figured it out all by yourself! Good man!

but 4e's math makes both of those scenarios a waste of time.

No, it doesn't. It makes them interesting for the same reason that such fights are interesting in 3E, and 2E, and (I guess) 1E, and RC: it shows the players how far they've come or, alternatively, how far they have left to go.


* Okay, the original orcs are likely dead, so they aren't the *same* orcs; they're just oddly similar.

 

[Remathilis]

No, it doesn't. It makes them interesting for the same reason that such fights are interesting in 3E, and 2E, and (I guess) 1E, and RC: it shows the players how far they've come or, alternatively, how far they have left to go.

Ok, riddle me this:

A group of 5 young heroes break into a hobgoblin cave. They're about 3rd level. They take out some grunts (level 3 minion), some soldiers (lvl 3), archers (lvl 3) and a warcaster leader (lvl 3). Each of these challenges are even and appropriate for our young heroes.

The next time they face hobgoblins though, they're 8th level. The DM has two choices:

1.) Re-use the level 3 hobgoblin stats. PCs cake-walk over them.
2.) Up the level of a few hobgoblins per the DMG, then use the Hand of Bane (lvl 8) and Warrior (lvl 8 minion) along with. This keeps the challenge even and allows them another challenging battle with hobgoblins.

Which are you supposed to do?

The DMG suggests 2 is the better choice and you should do that since option 1 is clearly a waste of time. The PCs are too powerful for it. However, that suggests a certain design of worldview:

1.) Higher, more powerful hobgoblins have been living in the world, but you encountered only their weak brethren the first time;
2.) Either your hobgoblins become better/tougher/smarter at roughly the same as the PCs or
3.) The PCs really aren't all that more powerful overall. Sure, the PC's numbers increased, but so did the monster levels, the DCs, and the like. Aside from more abilities (aka new powers), the PCs aren't all that different. They're still fighting a hobgoblin with a roughly even chance of hitting it.

Which rationale is it? If 3, then lets dispose of the middleman and go bounded accuracy. That way, a door's DC isn't "hard", its "20" and its true if your 1st or 15th level and your not compensating for a +8 level bonus to strength checks. You're not leveling up hobgoblins to keep them relevant, you are using the same hobgoblins and they pose a threat (abit a smaller one now).

In short, you're cutting out the middle man and keeping the DC/stats the same rather than continuing an arms race against the PCs as they rocket up the level ladder.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Ok, riddle me this:

A group of 5 young heroes break into a hobgoblin cave. They're about 3rd level. They take out some grunts (level 3 minion), some soldiers (lvl 3), archers (lvl 3) and a warcaster leader (lvl 3). Each of these challenges are even and appropriate for our young heroes.

The next time they face hobgoblins though, they're 8th level. The DM has two choices:

1.) Re-use the level 3 hobgoblin stats. PCs cake-walk over them.
2.) Up the level of a few hobgoblins per the DMG, then use the Hand of Bane (lvl 8) and Warrior (lvl 8 minion) along with. This keeps the challenge even and allows them another challenging battle with hobgoblins.

Which are you supposed to do?

What's the DM's goal?

Are you showing how the PCs, having gone out into the world and gained power, are now far superior to the foes they once fought? If so, use the level 3 hobgoblin stats.

Or, are you showing how the PCs, having gone out into the world and gained powr, are now facing the elite hobgoblin castes, who have heretofore been working "somewhere else" but have arrived to prevent the PCs from spoiling their plans? If so, use the level 8 hobgoblin stats.

Or, perhaps better, mix the two - have some of the level 3 guys still hanging around, supported by the level 8 guys, and gradually shift the balance as the PCs get closer to the climactic encounter.

I don't see how this is a meaningfully different question than what you'd ask in a 3E game:

A group of 5 young heroes break into a hobgoblin cave. They're about 3rd level. They take out some grunts (CR 1/2 Warriors), some soldiers (CR 1 Fighters), archers (CR 1 Rogues) and a warcaster leader (CR 3 Cleric). Each of these challenges are even and appropriate for our young heroes.

The next time they face hobgoblins though, they're 8th level. The DM has two choices:

1.) Re-use the low-level 3 hobgoblin stats. PCs cake-walk over them.
2.) Add class levels and equipment to the hobgoblins per the MM. This keeps the challenge even and allows them another challenging battle with hobgoblins.

The DMG suggests 2 is the better choice and you should do that since option 1 is clearly a waste of time. The PCs are too powerful for it. However, that suggests a certain design of worldview:

1.) Higher, more powerful hobgoblins have been living in the world, but you encountered only their weak brethren the first time;
2.) Either your hobgoblins become better/tougher/smarter at roughly the same as the PCs or
3.) The PCs really aren't all that more powerful overall. Sure, the PC's numbers increased, but so did the monster levels, the DCs, and the like. Aside from more abilities (aka new powers), the PCs aren't all that different. They're still fighting a hobgoblin with a roughly even chance of hitting it.

Alternatively, you could substitute giants for the hobgoblins.

I don't see this as a bug but a feature, to begin with, and it certainly isn't a bug introduced by 4E.

EDIT:

Continuing, the 4E advice to skip the level 3 hobgoblin encounter makes sense because, in all likelihood, it won't play out interestingly at the table - it's such a cakewalk that the PCs wont need to use interesting tactics, impressive abilities, or, otherwise, much thought to win. And if it's such a foregone conclusion, why waste valuable table time playing it out?

That advice makes sense for the vast majority of cases.

However, sometimes, you want to reinforce how good your PCs have gotten, in which case, playing out 1-or-2 "compstomps" is a good way to drive it home.

 

[Remathilis]

Continuing, the 4E advice to skip the level 3 hobgoblin encounter makes sense because, in all likelihood, it won't play out interestingly at the table - it's such a cakewalk that the PCs wont need to use interesting tactics, impressive abilities, or, otherwise, much thought to win. And if it's such a foregone conclusion, why waste valuable table time playing it out?

That advice makes sense for the vast majority of cases.

However, sometimes, you want to reinforce how good your PCs have gotten, in which case, playing out 1-or-2 "compstomps" is a good way to drive it home.

All this proves to me is that the inflated math is there to feed Player ego and powergaming fantasies. "Look at me! I have a +56 to hit! Fear my wrath 3rd level hobgoblins! What? Orcus has a 75 AC?!? Bring it on!"