What's wrong with scaling (and levels, bonuses, advancement, etc)?

[Kzach]

Could you clarify what you meant there for me?

In standard 4e, a 1st-level goblin anything is a smudge next to a 30th-level character.

But remove scaling and that 1st-level goblin CAN be a viable threat to a 30th-level character. You'll still probably turn it into a smudge on your turn but it will be because you have so many options to deal with that 1st-level goblin, options that you didn't have at 1st-level, and not because you simply have way huger numbers attached to your character.

As a for instance, let's say you're character is sleeping and somehow a 1st-level Goblin Cutthroat has sneaked up to your character's bedside and performs a coup de grace. Without scaling it has a genuine chance of not only hitting your character, but of actually killing it. 2d6+5 as a crit would be 17 damage which would be close to the bloodied value.

Now consider the standard system. That 1st-level cutter wouldn't even be able to hit your character's sleeping form with a natural 20, let alone do enough damage to be more than a nuisance which you could just swat as soon as you had your turn.

For some people the way 4e works now is great. Your character becomes essentially invincible to anything more than 5 levels below it. And with optimisation, you can't even challenge a group with monsters 5 levels above it. If that's fun for them, good for them. But for me, my biggest gripe with D&D has always been that disconnect created by levels. So for me, getting rid of scaling (and optimisation, which is partly caused by scaling) would be a godsend and it's something that I'd love to see as being at least an alternative option in the core rules of a new edition.

 

[FireLance]

I don't think he did. In 4e the effect of bonuses on rolls to hit are often invisible while the effect of bonuses on damage rolls are. If you need a to roll an 11 to hit something at level one, by the time you get a +n[/n] weapon enemy defenses have increased so that you still need to roll an 11 to hit. On the other hand the effect of bonuses on damage rolls is highly visible: a +1 damage bonus noticeably increases damage dealt because the damage total a character inflicts has increased.

Actually, although the damage bonus is more "visible" than the attack bonus, I think (just a general feeling - have not actually done the math) the damage bonus actually scales more slowly compared to monster hit points than the attack bonus with respect to monster defenses.

In other words, as you go up in levels, even if the chance of hitting the monsters remains the same and you deal more damage with each hit, you're going to need more hits to take each one down.

In any case, none of the above actually detracts from the key point that the significant variation in attack bonus from magic weapons is the main problem, and solutions to "fix" it will have to address it somehow.

While the math should be able to take it into account, what is important is when, where, how often and in what situations that the math these bonuses into account. If the math always takes those bonuses into account when determining the base hp, hit bonuses and defenses of monsters then you get a narrow linear scale that is effectively identical to one where those bonuses were never given or taken into account.

Could you elaborate on this? Certainly, the broad outcomes of each fight (who wins, length of combat) generally boil down to factors such as relative chances to hit, damage output and durability (hit points, healing, etc.). There is some scope for trade-offs while holding expected results constant (e.g. increasing one party's chances to hit and damage output while increasing the durability of the other party), and small changes in various factors are unlikely to result in significant changes in the outcomes, but large changes will (such as using +1 weapons when the system assumes the use of +6 weapons).

If the math still takes into account that level 1-10 characters will have +0 equipment, 11-20 +1 and 21 30 +2, this is only changing scale and the unit of measurement and not really influencing the underlining math. This is like saying 212°F, 100°C, and 373.15°K are different temperatures.

Yes and no - the variation is now narrower. A Heroic-tier PC with an artifact weapon will be more effective than a Heroic-tier PC with a normal weapon, but the difference will not be as great as a Heroic-tier PC with a +6 weapon compared to a Heroic-tier PC with a non-magic weapon. Effectively, the narrower variation would allow any level PC to adventure with any type of gear and not be significantly over- or under-powered.

This doesn't really do what you think it does. I doesn't change the math and just hides where the bonuses are coming from. I even argued with you about this sort of thing back in March in a topic I made about Wealth by Level guidelines.

You are correct that it doesn't change the math. However, it does allow the system to work more-or-less as intended without requiring the DM to give out magic items. Probability-wise, the chances of winning a fight and the likely duration of the fight do not change even if the source of the bonus does, as long as the bonus remains the same.

All they do is minimize the visibility of magical equipments effect on their ability to hit.

No, the first case narrows the effect of magical equipment, and the second case eliminates it.

Do not forget that characters and monsters get hp and abilities as they level. A 6th level Fighter with normal equipment and a 1st level Fighter armed with +5 equipment may have the same EL but in a fight between the two the 6th level fighter will have an advantage.

Of course, that is an extreme example. The difference between a 15th-level character with +3 equipment and a 17th-level character with +1 equipment would be less stark.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

Actually, although the damage bonus is more "visible" than the attack bonus, I think (just a general feeling - have not actually done the math) the damage bonus actually scales more slowly compared to monster hit points than the attack bonus with respect to monster defenses.

In other words, as you go up in levels, even if the chance of hitting the monsters remains the same and you deal more damage with each hit, you're going to need more hits to take each one down.

I'm talking more about player psychology than statistics.

In 4e due to the way attack rolls and defenses are set up, hits and misses are based around a number on a d20. In most classes this reference number is ~11, though there are a few classes(Rogue) that this number gets to around 6. When you face an equal level opponent, a hit or miss is roughly determined by whether the number you rolled is higher or lower than the reference number. This can make it seem like characters do not improve their ability to hit as they increase in level.

Damage on the other hand is a visibly increasing total. A hit for 10 damage is "bigger" than a hit for 4 damage even when the hit for 10 takes away only 2% from a monsters full hp total and the 4 damage hit took away 10% of another monsters hp total.

Another bit of player psychology has a monster that takes more hits to kill is tougher, and players like taking out tougher opponents.

In any case, none of the above actually detracts from the key point that the significant variation in attack bonus from magic weapons is the main problem, and solutions to "fix" it will have to address it somehow.

Its not the variation of the numbers that is the problem, the problem is how visible the effects of that variation are.

Could you elaborate on this? Certainly, the broad outcomes of each fight (who wins, length of combat) generally boil down to factors such as relative chances to hit, damage output and durability (hit points, healing, etc.). There is some scope for trade-offs while holding expected results constant (e.g. increasing one party's chances to hit and damage output while increasing the durability of the other party), and small changes in various factors are unlikely to result in significant changes in the outcomes, but large changes will (such as using +1 weapons when the system assumes the use of +6 weapons).

My comment wasn't pertaining to the tactical details of combat, but to monster design space. In 4e the monster defenses are determined by a formula similar to this:

Defense = 10 + (monster type bonus) + (1/2 Level) + (Level/5 rounded up to a whole number)

A PCs attack bonus is determined by a formula similar to this one:

Attack bonus = 10.5(aka d20) + (weapon proficiency bonus) + (1/2 Level) + (Level/5 rounded up to the nearest whole number)

If you plot these two formulas on a graph you end up with a pair of narrow bands that stay parallel even when they jump after every 5th level.

The graph itself is a representation of the available design space, and the band are how much of that design space is taken up by 4e. If you remove the "(Level/5 rounded up to the nearest whole number)" portion of the formulas and then plot them again you will find that the band take up the exact same amounts of design space meaning that the (Level/5 rounded up to the nearest whole number) portion is meaningless from a design space use perspective.

I don't like when something is meaningless when it could actually be used to expand how design space is used.

Yes and no - the variation is now narrower. A Heroic-tier PC with an artifact weapon will be more effective than a Heroic-tier PC with a normal weapon, but the difference will not be as great as a Heroic-tier PC with a +6 weapon compared to a Heroic-tier PC with a non-magic weapon. Effectively, the narrower variation would allow any level PC to adventure with any type of gear and not be significantly over- or under-powered.

So your answer for having to much design space is to get rid of the excess?

You are correct that it doesn't change the math. However, it does allow the system to work more-or-less as intended without requiring the DM to give out magic items. Probability-wise, the chances of winning a fight and the likely duration of the fight do not change even if the source of the bonus does, as long as the bonus remains the same.

You can call a rabbit a shmerp, but that doesn't make it any less of a rabbit.

No, the first case narrows the effect of magical equipment, and the second case eliminates it.

All they are doing is hiding the symptoms of the problem and not actually solving the problem.

Of course, that is an extreme example. The difference between a 15th-level character with +3 equipment and a 17th-level character with +1 equipment would be less stark.

The level 17 character still has a better than even chance to win.

 

[SpydersWebbing]

I'd go the opposite way. Increasing AC is explained clearly in the course of the game. Increasing attack bonuses makes sense in the context of the game. The explanation of HP as increasing luck really, really starts to get stretched. My goblin, 30 lbs, average strength and health, who gets caught in a null-magic zone by an orc, is guaranteed to survive three strikes from a greataxe (1d12+3 * 3 = 45 versus 51 HP for being a 20th level wizard) and on average will survive six hits. How? Don't tell me that losing HP isn't necessarily damage; then you've got a mechanic where you roll to hit but a hit isn't necessarily a hit. You're separating the fluff from the mechanics, and blurring the meaning of AC and HP.

No, IMO, characters should be able to magically and mundanely make themselves harder to hit, and should skillfully and magically hit better, but ultimately they're just flesh and blood, and when they take a hit, the rules should reflect that.

Wait, how does increasing HP, which has always stood for the increasing luck, durability, and grit of a character, not make sense? Historically it's always represented turning a lethal hit into a near miss or a scrape. This has always been the case in DnD, to the point that what you bring up is not DnD by definition.

The ascending HP model effectively explains the goblin being able to narrowly get out of the way and keep going. The attack roll missing is not the model of someone completely getting out of the way, it's the attacker botching the attack and looking like a dunce in the process, otherwise critical misses and hits wouldn't be seen as entirely the attacker's fault/fortune. What you're bringing up is pretty thoroughly against the spirit of DnD as I know it.

Your model doesn't work for another reason: it's a pain in the ass to implement. Every other level increasing everything by 1? Really? Or is it every level? Doesn't matter, the math in the majority of cases means next to nothing, and turns into a pointless scribbling on the character sheet, with ascending numbers that model the same bloody thing each and every time without an actual change in the meaning of the numbers. Giving the players more options is meaningful to them. I've never run into a player who didn't appreciate another feat or power, but I've never met a player who wanted to give himself a constant +1, especially when he notices that his chance to hit don't actually change. HP, on the other hand, is very simple and increases enough so that higher damage hits mean something.

In conclusion: it's far easier on everyone involved to increase the number of options and keep the math more or less the same throughout the game. Then you don't have this ridiculous every-other-level-workload that one of my players (rightfully) pointed out looked a lot like filling in the ACT. When one of my players makes a comment like that (and is not a bimbo by any stretch of the word) then I know the RPG I'm playing has done something wrong.

 

[FireLance]

I'm talking more about player psychology than statistics.

I think the difference in our approaches is that I'm coming from a purely mathematical angle.

Its not the variation of the numbers that is the problem, the problem is how visible the effects of that variation are.

However, from the mathematical perspective, the variation is the problem.

My comment wasn't pertaining to the tactical details of combat, but to monster design space. In 4e the monster defenses are determined by a formula similar to this:

Defense = 10 + (monster type bonus) + (1/2 Level) + (Level/5 rounded up to a whole number)

A PCs attack bonus is determined by a formula similar to this one:

Attack bonus = 10.5(aka d20) + (weapon proficiency bonus) + (1/2 Level) + (Level/5 rounded up to the nearest whole number)

4E's monster math for defenses actually works out to:
Defense = 10 + (monster type modifier) + Level

This discrepancy in the formulae is why some players believe that the Expertise feats are "taxes" and that without them, the players' attack bonuses fall behind monster defenses by too much as the PCs gain levels for them to enjoy playing the game.

If you plot these two formulas on a graph you end up with a pair of narrow bands that stay parallel even when they jump after every 5th level.

The graph itself is a representation of the available design space, and the band are how much of that design space is taken up by 4e. If you remove the "(Level/5 rounded up to the nearest whole number)" portion of the formulas and then plot them again you will find that the band take up the exact same amounts of design space meaning that the (Level/5 rounded up to the nearest whole number) portion is meaningless from a design space use perspective.

I don't like when something is meaningless when it could actually be used to expand how design space is used.

Removing the attack bonus from magic weapons from both formulae doesn't actually expand the design space. Don't mistake the consequence for the cause. If you want the PCs to have a certain chance of victory over the monsters, and you want fights to last a certain number of rounds on average, you need to have a certain relationship between monster defenses and PC attack bonuses, and monster durability and PC damage output. Given the simplicity of the monster defence formula, I suspect that it is the base formula, and the PC attack bonus formula was put together based on traditional sources of PC bonuses: ability scores, level, magic items and feats.

Like I mentioned, there is some scope for trade-offs - lower defences can be offset by higher durability, for example, but the trade-offs are quadratic (or possibly asymptotic), not linear, and the difference between trade-offs at extreme ends of the "to hit" probability scale can be quite substantial. When you hit 50% of the time, a +1 bonus to hit increases your damage output by 10%. At this to hit chance, reducing monster defences by 1 point can be offset by a 10% increase in durability. However, when you hit only 5% of the time, a +1 bonus to hit increases your damage output by 100% (ignore the effect of critical hits for now). At this to hit chance, monster durability needs to double to compensate for a 1 point reduction in monster defenses.

Math will not expand your design space. Willingness to accept more varied outcomes will. Math will tell you what are the likely consequences of tinkering with the default elements, though. If you are willing to accept that some fights will take half as long (or twice as long) math will tell you that you can halve (or double) monster durability, or you can adjust monster defenses so that the PCs hit twice as often or half as often.

So your answer for having to much design space is to get rid of the excess?

Nope, the answer is to reduce the variation in bonuses from magic items so that what weapon you are using matters less to your hit chance.

You can call a rabbit a shmerp, but that doesn't make it any less of a rabbit.

Exactly. The math doesn't care where you get the bonus from, as long as you have the bonus. If you want more freedom to vary the PCs' equipment while maintaining the same battle outcomes, just make sure that the bonus that the PCs should have got from equipment comes from another source.

All they are doing is hiding the symptoms of the problem and not actually solving the problem.

They solve a problem. Admittedly, it might not be the problem you have in mind.

The level 17 character still has a better than even chance to win.

Sure, but the question is: how significant is his advantage? Most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a fair coin and a coin with a 55% chance of turning up heads until after they have flipped both coins several times. Most games also tend to feature monster vs. player battles more than player vs. player, and the PCs would also tend to be similarly equipped. A player with a 15th level PC and a +3 magic weapon fighting a 15th level monster would usually only know whether or not he defeated the monster, and not whether he would have done better with a 17th level PC and a +1 magic weapon.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The one downside to including inherent bonuses and then reduce the magic items from +5s/+6s down to +1s/+2s... is that that takes the 'magic' out of the magic items even moreso than it already does.

When PCs can gain +1s and +2s from things like combat advantage, leader buffs, feats other powers, etc... getting a magic weapon that also grants you a +1 or +2 is like "yeah, whatever". It's just one more small bonus in a sea of small bonuses that add up to whatever the expected attack bonus a PC is supposed to have.

At least a +5 or +6 in comparison to the other attack bonuses PCs get during the course of encounter (now that powers like Lead The Attack have gotten nerfed) at least seems to make it more important. A PC might have a +1 from this bonus, a +2 from this bonus, this feat counteracts what would have been a -2 penalty... and then on top of that, a whopping +5 from the massive magic weapon. Comparatively, that magic item has more heft to it when showing the power of the character.

Back in the earlier days... when PCs had their THAC0 chart and those numbers never changed during individual battles and barely changed upon level up... that +1 to +3 magic weapon found was HUGE. Normally a single point of combat effectiveness every other level or every third level (for all the non-fighters) suddenly got bumped a whole point in the midst of an adventure? That was a goldmine. And that's why the magic items were fantastic.

But now, with a PCs attack bonuses completely fluid not only every level, but also in every encounter... magic items are just additional no-name plusses floating in a sea of no-name plusses. And there's not much you can really do about it.

 

[Janx]

I didn't read this whole thread. it wiggled around a bit in the beginning anyway.

I like levels. Assuming stuff is balanced, it's an easy mechanic for judging the difficulty level. I didn't like ShadowRun's lack of levels, forex, because there wasn't a tool for setting difficulty level relative to the PCs.

I like encounters to be fair. That is, enough clues and warnings IF something is beyond the PCs ability, or everything in the encounter is beatable IF the party uses its brain.

I never want to run a setup where the encounter entices the party into it only to screw them because it was deliberately beyond their level.

I like Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. If you level up, the monsters level up. This leads to the hack of never leveling up your PC, but building up your skills so you can kill all the 1st level monsters easily.

That's not a good thing. I would have preferred:
each "adventure" has a level availability that hides it until I'm ready
wilderness encounters/dungeons get harder as I get farther from civilization.

Thus, you still get level appropriate adventures, and you can wander into more trouble than you can handle.
Additionally, you can still find easy stuff to kill, thus showing how much you've improved.

I suspect people want:
to be able to get into too much trouble (realistiic)
as you improve, you can go back and enjoy your skill against those weaker oponents (oblivion removes them)

 

[prosfilaes]

Wait, how does increasing HP, which has always stood for the increasing luck, durability, and grit of a character, not make sense? Historically it's always represented turning a lethal hit into a near miss or a scrape. This has always been the case in DnD, to the point that what you bring up is not DnD by definition.

"Is not D&D by definition" is a pretty dangerous statement around here.

How does "hits" not being hits and people having a finite amount of luck that runs out as people strike at them make sense?

I've been around D&D for approaching two decades; I have never thought that when you "hit" an enemy, that you were doing anything but hitting an enemy. I suspect that the people I play with would agree with that. Furthermore, there were complaints about HP, particularly falling damage, in the Dragon even in the earliest days. Even now, I've heard complaints on ENWorld about PCs who will jump off cliffs knowing they can take 80' of falling damage.

Your model doesn't work for another reason: it's a pain in the ass to implement. Every other level increasing everything by 1? Really?

Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're referring to D&D 4, it's not my game. Certainly AC doesn't just increase on its own. And I don't see why HP is any different; if you start with x HP with hits doing x/4 HP and end with y HP with hits doing y/4 HP, you haven't really changed anything.

 

[SpydersWebbing]

"Is not D&D by definition" is a pretty dangerous statement around here.

How does "hits" not being hits and people having a finite amount of luck that runs out as people strike at them make sense?

I've been around D&D for approaching two decades; I have never thought that when you "hit" an enemy, that you were doing anything but hitting an enemy. I suspect that the people I play with would agree with that. Furthermore, there were complaints about HP, particularly falling damage, in the Dragon even in the earliest days. Even now, I've heard complaints on ENWorld about PCs who will jump off cliffs knowing they can take 80' of falling damage.

Funny, that's never how I understood it, mostly because I grew up with 3.5 where they out and out say that HP represents your ability to take a hit and make it a graze, as opposed to a dangerous hit. According to those rules you really only take about one or two real "hits".

Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're referring to D&D 4, it's not my game. Certainly AC doesn't just increase on its own. And I don't see why HP is any different; if you start with x HP with hits doing x/4 HP and end with y HP with hits doing y/4 HP, you haven't really changed anything.

Ah, so you're talking about increasing AC via items and such? That's a rather big difference. I don't like it, but that's a bit more palatable.