At first glance you come to the conclusion you have. However, it's misleading.
Yes, the d20 can only go so far. Once the bonuses begin growing above the 20 mark it seems unimportant to even roll that die. The truth is, though, that if done properly the opposed DC or opposed roll is also growing at the same rate.
When you roll an attack, the defender should have an equal chance of defending. In current D&D this isn't true. AC is static and requires magic items to increase (or obscure or rare bonuses from other sources, like class.) This can be fixed by adding Armor class based entirely on your level.
In truth, we could do away with numbers increasing based on your level all together. This would fix the math, and make the game work practically infinitely. However, most people would not like this course as it would diminish the illusion of character growth.
The best solution is stated above: Have important numbers scale with level, with additional character specialties influencing that number. Abilities, magic items, classes, everything as it is now, just add in bonuses where bonuses are due.
AC (touch, FF, et all); saves; attacks; Save DCs: these all need to grow in unison. If we control the number growth without impeding character development than we win.
You'd have to change every single monster first off, which violates backwards computability. Granted, that's shot anyways, but it'd make it worse.
Currently AC is a yes/no stat instead of a variable stat, but the swinginess of high level play is because enemies, even those not the best at melee can two round PC melees without fail, and sometimes one round them. So they either stay back instead of doing their job, they get killed first, or the party kills the enemy in 1 (maybe 2) rounds.
You can only cast Heal so many times after all, even if you are so inclined.
Note if the enemies use spells instead, they can do the same thing except to the entire party.
You'd have to change every single monster first off, which violates backwards computability.
I conclude that we don't have to. If you're up to the task, than so be it. It's not too hard to just make up the numbers on the fly or 5 minutes before combat, or at least, it shouldn't be.
So... you're either expected to do mental math for every single enemy, or play Magical Tea Party with the combat stats? That makes no sense whatsoever.
The moment you (Paizo) starts telling the DMs they need to do *insert critical stuff* themselves is the moment said DMs decide to purchase another product because if they could do the job better, they'd have already done so.
That would be the choice of Paizo to release a monster manual. Yes, it would be the most beneficial to do so, but it would require a lot of work. I'm not really sure they'd be allowed to do that, anyhow.
Paizo is just fixing fluff. If they actually fix the game in it's core, than it's not as backwards compatible as they want it to be. 4e got a lot right, but they lost all character creation in the process. given the right nudge 3.5, or 3p, could have the best mix of both systems.
It already isn't backwards compatible. And 'fixing fluff'? I do not think that term means what you think it means.
|
I was thinking idly about the problems of high level play last night, and it occured to me that one of the problems might be the size of bonuses (BAB, etc.) relative to the possible range of rolls on a d20.
In other words, the possible results on a d20 range from 1-20, which means that each 1 point in a roll represents 5% of the possible range. When you have a +20 bonus, that represents 100% of a possible d20 roll. Even a +15 bonus represents 75% -- a huge reduction of random variance, and thus a corresponding reduction in 'hit chance' on difficult rolls, and 'miss chance' on easy ones.
These are colossal fixed modifiers to a random roll. At 20th level, that means a BAB of 20 represents a +100% bonus to any die roll, for example -- and that's without strength modifiers, magic item bonuses, etc. etc.
Is part of the 'swinginess' of high level play -- the tendency of those who win initiative to win, for example -- due to the excessive size of the fixed modifiers making the random roll pretty much trivial? The exploding fixed modifiers seem to help create a binary situation in which some rolls are simply impossible, while others are inevitable. And this problem seems to me to be traceable, at least in large part, to the huge size of fixed modifiers relative to the random part of the roll.
Another way to look at it is that the d20 roll becomes a far lesser part of the total roll, percentage-wise. For example, when there is +5 fixed modifier, the d20 roll accounts for 80% of the possible range of numbers. Up it to a +40 fixed modifier, and the d20 roll is only 33% of the possible range of numbers.
What if the progression for stuff like BAB didn't go from +1 to +20, but stopped at +5 and then added iterative attacks? For example, a progression like +1, +2, +3, +4, +5, +5/+1, +5/+2, +5/+3, +5/+4, +5/+5, +5/+5/+1, etc., up to a maximum of +5/+5/+5+/+5 at 20th level? And the game was recalibrated so that the d20 roll itself remained at least 50% of any total roll?
I'm not sure I'm following this properly, so feel free to correct me as alot of the math you're spouting is making my head hurt. How is making the BAB progression go like you're suggesting any better than what we have now? Alot of what you're talking about seems rather incomplete to me and, pardon me for saying so, as I could be wrong, but it seems to me that you're phishing. Back up what you've got with something a bit more concrete (and understandable to laymen, as I'm no mathematical genius and don't profess to be one either as its not a requirement to play the game). Perhaps that will help with the responses you're getting.
It already isn't backwards compatible. And 'fixing fluff'? I do not think that term means what you think it means.
Inconceivable!
I was over exaggerating. I mean they are only fixing minor issues, yet issues that needed to be fixed, for sure. Skills, class abilities, feats: These are all issues that really didn't need to be done, or are very easy to fix. Heck, I've done half of what they've published as house rules before I picked up a paizo book.
I just think they are going too easy on things.
Off topic, C_B, didn't you leave these boards, never to return?
I agree. I also think that my solution was too extreme, but I threw it out in an effort to shake things up and get people thinking outside the box a bit when they go to fix high level play.
Don't sell yourself short, Mr. Bean. I've recognized and worked with the issue myself.
What Fourth Edition shows us is that to keep the d20 meaningful, the X in d20+X has to scale just as quickly as the target number. Their solution is to have all attack bonuses and defenses scale at the same rate: +1/2 lvls. It might not be an acceptable solution to us (we're all on the Pathfinder boards and not the Fourth Edition boards for a reason), but it's something to consider when we look for our own solution.
I've become of the opinion that the issue is not the X in d20+X getting bigger, as the target numbers can be scaled, but it's how that X becomes much more spread out between two PCs (or monsters) in high-level play. For example, a Fighter's attack might be d20+5 at 1st, while the Rogue's may be d20+4 at 1st. Not a very large spread. But at 16th, that Fighter's attack might be d20+45, while the Rogue's is at d20+30. Much more spread out.
Following the example, at 1st level, the number needed on a d20 to hit an enemy only has a one-point difference. The Fighter needs a 12 to hit AC 17, while the Rogue needs a 13. But at 16th, the number needed on that d20 has a fifteen-point difference. Where the Rogue needs a 17 to hit AC 47, the Fighter needs a 2.
So, how does a DM present a monster whose AC is a challenge to one of the PCs but not either a pushover or unhittable to the other? If the monster's AC is hittable by our Rogue, our Fighter can roll 2s. If the AC is a challenge to our Fighter, requiring, say, more than 10 to hit it, his Rogue friend is looking for 20s.
Notice the problem isn't the value of X in d20+X, it's the spread of the values of X and the system being unable to accomodate all values of X.
The same issue applies to skill DCs, like, for example, Stealth. Let's say a Cleric's Stealth modifier is -3 while a Rogue's Stealth modifier is +52. If the party tries to sneak around, either the Rogue will auto-succeed or the Cleric will auto-fail.
So how does one fix the issue? Fourth Edition's solution is to reduce the spread of values of X by having X scale much more equally across all PCs and monsters. It goes so far as to equalize everyone's BAB, base saves, and skill ranks. But that's not what we want, is it?
-Matt
Off topic, C_B, didn't you leave these boards, never to return?Sure, I'm a convert. I tried out 4th edition and it palled, so now I'm a partial Paizoan, or whatever the term is. Hope you don't mind if I admit I was wrong and return to the fold? ;)
(Although the high level play still gets my goat.)
Hey, no harm no foul.
Just argue extra-hard now in favor both games co-existing, and all is forgiven! Welcome back!
|
|
As has been stated many times on many threads...nothing has been finalized yet. Things that are in the Beta are not set in stone. Changes could occur at any moment and at any time before the final release date for the Pathfinder RPG.
And as far as the backwards compatibility issue is concerned, the system presented is backward compatible. Truly. Just as 3.5 is with 3.0; just as 3.0 is compatible with 2nd Edition and 2nd is compatible with 1st Edition. It may not seem like it on paper, but it is where it matters the most: in the spirit of the game. Whether they're called non-weapon proficiencies or skills, the intent is the same. Whether it is called BAB or THAC0 the intent is the same. The intent being that the game is a physical simulation of our imaginations laid out for the world to see. Games can be as complex we want them to be. It shouldn't have to be about how complex (or simple) we can make it, it should be all about how much fun we can have while playing it.
Bottom line, they're fixing some of the problems, but at the same time they can't fix all of the problems. Why is that you ask? Well, that would imply that they are going for the 'perfect' game. There is no such thing, as any game made by humans is going to be inherently flawed in someway because humans as a species are not perfect. Somewhere out there, some one is going to pick up their copy of Pathfinder RPG and find that they disagree with how Paizo did this aspect of it or that aspect of it. Those that do usually house rule and move on. Those that don't...well, those that don't find their way here and voice their concerns. Not a bad thing mind you, but it is a cause for a lot the errata, splatbooks, and supplements that are being put out. It's a circular thing. Or is that cyclical? I can never remember, as sheep such as myself who are just happy to be playing the game, don't seem to matter in the scheme of things. Its the squeaky wheels of the gaming set that always dictate how things should be.
Sorry that last part was excessively bitter on my part, but I'm one tired and jaded gamer. I want to be able to play my game without having to worry that the people I give my money to won't pull the rug out from under me...as has been done before. To that end, I'm placing my faith in Paizo. So far, that faith has been justified.