The Tragedy of Flat Math

[Tequila Sunrise]

Patryn's answer is a good one, but my own way of running the game is more specific:

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?

#2 is the way to go. If I want the PCs to remind the players how far they've come since 3rd level, I'll use a horde of 8th level Warrior minions. If I want the players to encounter a group of bad@ss hobgoblin veterans for the first time, I'll use the Hand of Bane and a few leveled-up hobgobs. (Also 8th level.) Or more likely, I'll use a combination of both.

I'll also note that I rarely match a monster's level to the party's level exactly, so it's not as if level doesn't affect the basic to-hit numbers. (You just happened to pick the two levels that I assign to every lower-level monster I write.)

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.

#1 is true, and isn't at all unique to 4e. It's why you never find a great wyrm dragon in the first level dungeon. (Or if you do, your DM is either sadistic or intends it to be a plot device.)

Not sure what you mean by #2 , but yes, NPCs gain levels too. And dragons get older and bigger; there are plenty of in-game reasons why PCs would encounter leveled-up versions of foes they've previously encountered.

I've never seen #3 actually happen in play. When you encounter leveled-up foes in my game, they're either the same foes with a different stat block (minionized lower-level foes) or there's an in-game reason for being a similar level to the PCs (bad@sses are just higher level, like the PCs).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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!"

ProTip: D&D exists to feed player egos and fulfill adolescent power fantasies.

 

[billd91]

ProTip: D&D exists to feed player egos and fulfill adolescent power fantasies.

Maybe, but there is such a thing as gilding the lily.

 

[Steely_Dan]

ProTip: D&D exists to feed player egos and fulfill adolescent power fantasies.

Not a tip, and certainly not "pro", something for you, maybe, not for others.

 

[Tony Vargas]

ProTip: D&D exists to feed player egos and fulfill adolescent power fantasies.

That's certainly one way to derive enjoyment from it. Advancement can also feed a more sedate sense of accomplishment, though. And then there's all the touchie-feelie role-not-roll, collective-storytelling stuff...

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

I don't mind flatter math, but 4th edition was over 30 levels, and built in an effective BAB of 1/2 levels if equated to 3rd edition. I don't really perceive the level bonuses as a problem; I'm one of those weird individuals who likes to see numerical progress on a faster rather than slower scale, it is more satisfying for my sense of character advancement.

The problem comes from augments: racial bonuses, feats, and enhancements (spell/power or item). The worst offender is generally the latter, especially when stacking is introduced. A limit of +1 to +3 is acceptable for each, allowing a maximum of +3 to +9 (maybe a module scale limit, aka the famous "dial"); IMO, enhancements of any kind should not stack, except in very limited circumstances (artifacts or daily/nova abilities). It gets tedious when one has to become an accountant to figure out 7 different bonus sources.

 

[bbjore]

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

The advantage is that having a better chance of hitting a static DC as you get more experienced (level) is an easy to graps intuitive mechanic. It makes sense. As my fighter gets better at fighting, it is easier to for him to hit opponents that aren't getting better. It is intuitive that a 20th level fighter hits harder, more accurately, and is harder to hit than a 1st level fighter, because it has a clear analogs to our reality. A professional football player hits harder, throws more accurately, and is harder to tackle than a highschool football player or someone who has never played football at all.

The advantage of keeping monster attack and defenses similar to PC defenses on at at level basis is that it makes for well balanced encounters, and it is also intuitive. When you have to professional football teams match up (both sides roughly the same level), they can enjoy competing on a level playing field. You don't watch professional football players stomp the crap out of high school teams because it's not fun. So don't waste a lot of time playing out those encounters, just like in 3E you didn't have 20th level PCs playing against plain old kobolds.

It's not about feeding egos, it's about intuitive advancement. Creating relative differences in accuracy between the guys who are supposed to be really good at something, and the ones who aren't. Furthermore, in 4E, not all encounters are at level. In fact monster level should vary considerably, and of solo, elite, and minion mechanics should be used to make monsters work at different levels. Hobgoblins are elite at level 3, standard at level 6, and minions at lvl 12 and above. The monsters always have a chance of hitting, but the threat is diminished. It solves the same problem as bounded accuracy, it just does so in a different manner. They chose it because it makes for great at-level encounters. The problem is that it is unintuitive monster design. The same monster has different stats depending on who it is facing. This is jarring for people who want the game world to work the same for every creature. Pick where the intuitive mechanic is most important to you or where you're willing to accept distractions, but don't pretend there aren't advantages to either side.

On another note, PC of the same level had similar accuracy and defenses again, because they were similarly skilled. They used different methods to obtain those stats, but the stats were similar because the PCs were of a similar level. If the mage was considerably more accurate with his spells than the fighter was with his weapon, why would they be the same level?

Personally, I think 4E went to far with the scaling, but I don't think scaling should go away. I'm all for reigning it in (bounding it), and I think the +0 to +12 spread they got going now is pretty awesome. I hope they do the same for defenses so a fighter gets slightly better at avoiding being hit as he becomes more experienced just like he fighter gets small bumps in accuracy.

 

[Starfox]

The roles of minion/normal/elite/solo (to use 4E parlance) are completely independent of monster levels. To say that a critter 10levels above the party are "solos" is to misunderstand how solos work in 4E.

Solos need more hp and more status resistance than other critters, regardless of level. This is action-economy thing - every action you steal from a solo is worth 4x the actions you steal from a normal critter.

A solo at +10 levels is a tough solo. A minion at +10 levels is a tough minion - dangerous but still a minion. A lucky shot still takes it out.

 

[Remathilis]

The advantage is that having a better chance of hitting a static DC as you get more experienced (level) is an easy to graps intuitive mechanic. It makes sense. As my fighter gets better at fighting, it is easier to for him to hit opponents that aren't getting better. It is intuitive that a 20th level fighter hits harder, more accurately, and is harder to hit than a 1st level fighter, because it has a clear analogs to our reality. A professional football player hits harder, throws more accurately, and is harder to tackle than a highschool football player or someone who has never played football at all.
[snip]

While I agree to that in principle, the fact that 4e has no static DCs defeats the purpose.

Most of 4e's skill checks are set vs. level for easy, medium and hard (there are some that are static, like climb and heal, but they seem to be formalities than challenges). So assuming the DM is giving his players "appropriate" challenges, he really is just making the DCs higher to compensate for the higher bonuses, defeating the purpose.

Personally, I think 4E went to far with the scaling, but I don't think scaling should go away. I'm all for reigning it in (bounding it), and I think the +0 to +12 spread they got going now is pretty awesome. I hope they do the same for defenses so a fighter gets slightly better at avoiding being hit as he becomes more experienced just like he fighter gets small bumps in accuracy.

We agree on this though.

 

[slobo777]

While I agree to that in principle, the fact that 4e has no static DCs defeats the purpose.

Most of 4e's skill checks are set vs. level for easy, medium and hard (there are some that are static, like climb and heal, but they seem to be formalities than challenges). So assuming the DM is giving his players "appropriate" challenges, he really is just making the DCs higher to compensate for the higher bonuses, defeating the purpose.

4E's skill checks are just as static as 3E. As well as easy/medium/hrad, you also select the level of the challenge. This is always the same number. Edit: So scaling the Slimy Cliffs might be a Level 6 Hard Athletics check. It's always that, same as if in a 3E adventure, the Slimy Cliffs were presented as needing a DC 23 Climb check to scale. If DCs for "standard scenarios" presented in the skill sections of 4E were presented this way, it may of helped (well, helped with comprehension, but overall I suppose not, since it would require players to cross-reference to a table).

What 4E does (badly IMO) is short-circuit DM design skills of picking appropriate challenges. It also lacks descriptions for what the DCs represent.

So in 3E you might look through a list of defined and described things with assigned DCs and decide which would be appropriate for, say, an area to explore with 8th-level characters.

The same thing in 4E is done by assuming the challenges are appropriate for 8th level, and using the DCs directly (edit: and just as with monsters, you can use skill DCs from +- levels when it seems appropriate). Then, afterwards, you come up with the description of why they are particularly difficult. This is supposed to result in a game with a meaningful chance of success or failure, without forcing the DM to e.g. have all the locks made of steel by dwarves (because the Dwarven Steel Lock is the only lock in the book with a DC that challenges an 8th-level rogue). But the DCs are inherently static - the exact same challenge appearing again in the game should have the same DC.

However, most people's initial reaction to 4E's skill chart is "that's silly - stuff just gets harder when I go up a level?" It kind of misses the point, but I think the DMG was too quick to present the results and not show the workings.