D&D 5E what is it about 2nd ed that we miss?

[The Crimson Binome]

It makes no sense in terms of the history of the game. In AD&D, for instance, a high level druid may well have more hit points that a high level ranger (more d8s, and both may have no better than 16 CON), yet the ranger will have a higher to hit bonus (better table, more likely to have 17 STR).

The trends are accurate, within statistical variations of the dice, because the game mechanics actually are an accurate representation of the underlying behavior in pre-Spellplague Forgotten Realms (or any other setting that uses a given ruleset) to the degree that we actually care about modeling them.

That reality is complex enough that you probably wouldn't be able to re-construct the rules just by analyzing data in-game - not that anyone would do it, in-game, in any case - but all findings would be consistent with the actual ruleset. People who can fire a bow more accurately are generally tougher than people who can't, once you've corrected for all other variables, and someone achieving 50% accuracy against a target of AC 31 (over a sufficient sample size) cannot be reconciled with someone unable to survive a simple sword strike. It is mathematically improbable to the point of absurdity...

... unless you come up with some point discontinuity (minion's disease), or start saying that a hit isn't really a hit and there's no way to know what happened after rolling damage until you see whether they actually died from it, or some other plot-based hand-waving. At which point, again, the utility of the system as an objective resolution engine is significantly diminished.

 

[pemerton]

The trends are accurate, within statistical variations of the dice

What does this mean?

At 1500000 XP, a druid will be 14th level, have 14d8 hit points (plus 14 times any CON bonus up to +2), and will hit AC 10 on a 2 or better.

At the same XP total, a ranger will be 13th level (and half-way to 14th), will have 11d8 +6 hp (plus 11 times any CON bonus), and will hit AC 10 on a -2 or better.

At 750000 XP it's even more marked: the 13th level druid has 13d8 hit points and the same chance to hit; while the 11th level ranger has 11d8+2 hp yet hits AC 10 on a 0 or better.

And at 325,000 XP the druid has 12d8 hit points and hits AC 10 on a 4, while the 10th level ranger has 11d8 hit points and hits AC 10 on a 2, or on a 1 if the optional rule in the footnote is being used.

In other words, there is no uniform correlation between there hit point totals and their attack bonus. Other examples can also be given (and I gave one).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What does this mean?

It means that anyone roughly capable of injuring someone in plate armor with fifty-ish percent accuracy will also be tough enough to take a few arrows without dropping. There is a statistical correlation between accuracy and toughness. Both lines trend in the same direction.

The specific factors involved might be lost in the details, but the general rule is always true. It is an observation about how that reality actually works.

The players might care more about accurately tracking the variables for a PC, rather than for some random NPC who only shows up for five minutes, but the underlying reality - of which our rules are merely a reflection - doesn't treat them any differently.

 

[pemerton]

It means that anyone roughly capable of injuring someone in plate armor with fifty-ish percent accuracy will also be tough enough to take a few arrows without dropping.

Minions don't change this, though - they just shift the "did this hit badly enough to kill me or otherwise render me hors de combat" from the hit point stat to the defence stats. I suspect I'm not the only 4e GM to narrate misses against minions as grazes, when the mood takes me.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Minions don't change this, though - they just shift the "did this hit badly enough to kill me or otherwise render me hors de combat" from the hit point stat to the defence stats. I suspect I'm not the only 4e GM to narrate misses against minions as grazes, when the mood takes me.

Except you can still fire one arrow and drop a minion, which simply isn't possible against anyone else of that approximate skill level. (Not to mention things like area effects, and falling damage, which are always instantly fatal regardless of the minion's supposed toughness.)

Whether you choose to model that toughness through AC or HP is going to have a tremendous effect upon how the life of that creature actually plays out, which means the two models are irreconcilable.

 

[pemerton]

Except you can still fire one arrow and drop a minion, which simply isn't possible against anyone else of that approximate skill level. (Not to mention things like area effects, and falling damage, which are always instantly fatal regardless of the minion's supposed toughness.)

Whether you choose to model that toughness through AC or HP is going to have a tremendous effect upon how the life of that creature actually plays out, which means the two models are irreconcilable.

Why are AoEs instantly fatal?

 

[ZzarkLinux]

Saelorn, what you say sounds very complex!

the game mechanics actually are an accurate representation of the underlying behavior in pre-Spellplague Forgotten Realms (or any other setting that uses a given ruleset) to the degree (of desired modelling).

I agree. 2e had lots of novels that were written specifically based on the game mechanics. I guess 3e kept trend roughly the same. Over at GitP forum I still see people trying to stat out Elminster in the novels. Or how Rich deliberately hides the Class of some of the NPCs in the story, which drives some readers mad. Have you ever tried to tie the 2e mechanics back to protagonists in the novels?

People who can fire a bow more accurately (or have a higher base-attack-bonus) are generally tougher than people who can't

So 2e "Level" was a general indicator to track of increasing HP and Attack Bonus. Which I suppose can mean "general martial-threat from a person of that class". So I have a few questions:
- In your 2e games, could your PC learn the Class of the enemy character?
- In your 2e games, could your PC learn the Level of the enemy character?
- Does this formula " Level = HitDice join BAB" get ignored for caster classes?
- Do you think it is viable to calculate the Challenge Rating for an individual PC?
- How do you feel on existing classes or monsters that may break this system? Like 5e Intellect Devourer, which is supposedly a level 2 monster that can SaveOrDie Level 20 martial classes? Would it bother you if these exceptions were to exist in your 2e game?
- What about THACO? Is it possible to model 2e setting-mechanics without THACO?

unless you come up with (...) minions, or start saying that a hit isn't really a hit, (...) or some other plot-based hand-waving. At which point, again, the utility of the system as an objective resolution engine is significantly diminished.

This can be said of Challenge Rating for me, which is why I dislike CR in general. "The utility of the CR system as an objective resolution engine" is nil IMO. I feel like CR can only really reflect the amagalam of HP and BAB, because spells, skills, and feats will wildly vary in the monster anyway. So CR just becomes a redundant way to calculate a monster's level.

I think 4e fans already decided that the value of that "2e global class-based martial-only HP BAB resolution system" is already dimished, so we jumped to 4e or other systems. But I'm curious:
- Do you feel that 5e "acceptably matches" this model of "martial-based levelling mechanics found in 2e settings"?
- Do you think that WotC can marry the D&D Brand to "2e Setting-Specific Resolution" and still attract new gamers?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Why are AoEs instantly fatal?

Because they deal damage, and one point of damage is fatal to a minion (unless the attacker decides to leave them alive, I guess).

I guess there might be some AoEs that require an attack roll to deal damage, so the minions wouldn't die from partial damage on a failed attack, but I don't remember any of those coming up during the time I was playing. I do very distinctly recall AoE attacks that did damage without requiring an attack roll, even if it was only 4 damage, because that was sufficient to kill all minions on the scene.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Because they deal damage, and one point of damage is fatal to a minion (unless the attacker decides to leave them alive, I guess).

I guess there might be some AoEs that require an attack roll to deal damage, so the minions wouldn't die from partial damage on a failed attack, but I don't remember any of those coming up during the time I was playing. I do very distinctly recall AoE attacks that did damage without requiring an attack roll, even if it was only 4 damage, because that was sufficient to kill all minions on the scene.

That is very weird. I can think of a tiny handful of powers that are (a) AoE, (b) do damage without rolling to hit, and (c) aren't daily powers. Orbmaster's Incendiary Detonation comes to mind when used by an actual orb-wizard. (And Rain of Steel from a fighter using a daily power also does). But they are rare enough that either you were playing with a skilled min-maxer (I managed to create a warlock who blew up cursed enemies they killed like grenades, and managed minion chain reactions on a couple of occasions) or, more likely, someone got the rules wrong. Generally autodamage was rare and paid for it by being cheap - doing only enough damage to kill a minion. (And then there were powers like Cleave - two for one attacks to hit someone and also kill a minion, but they had their weaknesses too)

And that's ignoring monster-vault era minions like Kobold Tunnelers who have an encounter interrupt power to go to ground if someone drops a burst on them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If it can't model an objective reality, then it marks a huge step back from every previous edition of the game.

No step back at all, actually. No version of D&D has ever come close to modeling a reality. They model a fantasy. Mostly pretty badly, depending on exactly what you're going for with your fantasy.

So back on topic, this is something that 2E definitely handled better than 4E or 5E.

I know you started with 2e, and you have this vision of it as perfectly modeling what D&D is supposed to model, but that's because you formed your vision of what D&D was modeling based on 2e, not because it was any good at modeling anything. Any system is just perfect at tautologically modeling itself.

That gets back to your definition of "good", though. Is +5 good enough to qualify? I mean, you can hit a DC 25 with that, which most people cannot, though you might still fail a DC 10 check (about 20% of the time). If you set the bar at never failing a DC 15 check, then you would need Expertise and a proficiency bonus of +5, in addition to a stat of 18 or higher.

Checks happen when the DM says they do. If 'being a good blacksmith' means never 'failing a DC 15 check' and the DM decides a blacksmith with a +5 doing routine work on a daily basis doesn't need to make checks, then +5 is a good blacksmith, if he calls for a DC 15 when a PC tries to do some blacksmithing, even a PC with a +10 has a chance of failing - I guess that's why he's an adventurer. ;P

(And because of the way 5E measures proficiency bonus, relative to CR rather than Hit Dice, this theoretical blacksmith would probably have around 500 HP in order to generate enough defensive CR to make up for its lack of offensive CR.)

Meh, he doesn't need to be a particular CR to be a 'good blacksmith' whom the DM allows to do blacksmithy things without a roll.

It doesn't need to be an OotS style of causal relation with actual levels, but the ability to hit and take a hit are clearly both linked to something that actually exists within the world (such as skill at arms, or actual combat experience), and whatever complex formula actually governs that stuff simply does not allow for anyone to drop from a single arrow hit.

You refute this assertion, yourself:

In some worlds, arrows can kill someone in one hit.

In any D&D world, it just depends on the person.