Could anybody give me a basic explanation about what is a quadratic wizard and bounded accuracy?
"Quadratic Wizard, Linear Fighter" is a concept that while fighters increase in power in a steady, constant rate (a straight line), wizards start off lower in power but greatly overtake them in the higher levels (a quadratic curve). General consensus is that Pathfinder greatly reduced the gaps at both ends.
See this article by Rodney Thompson (author of Star Wars Saga edition and upcoming D&D 5th edition) for Bounded Accuracy.
"Quadratic Wizard" is just a way of saying that magic users (compared to melee types) are weak at low levels but gain power quickly at higher levels, while melee types progress linearly.
Bounded accuracy is just a WoTC buzzword to say "we're changing the rules".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To roll a quadratic wizard you need (X+1)(X-1) dice.
I'm confused by the Bounded Accuracy article.
It seems like they've just put a fancy name on the way most games work; roll difficulty is objective and not affected by character competence... Did 4e do something differently?
"Quadratic" is actually a poor choice of mathematical analogy. "Exponential" would be better. The idea is that a level 4 fighter is roughly four times as powerful as a level 1 fighter (linear progression) but a level 4 wizard is 16 times as powerful as a level 1 wizard (exponential progression). Obviously that's not precisely accurate, but the idea has merit. Every new level of spells a full caster gains access to opens up an entirely new level of power for the caster while most of their already known spells are already increasing in power in a linear fashion and they typically even get more of them.
Bounded accuracy is the concept that tasks should not get easier simply because your character levels up. This is particularly evident in 4e where character's defenses, attack bonus and skills advance with no character investment simply by leveling up. The idea is that to improve your ability to hit an enemy, to succeed at a skill check or to be harder to hit yourself, you should have to invest actively in those things.
The game impact of the concept is that low level monsters in sufficient numbers will remain credible threats to even high level parties simply because they will still be able to hit and do damage to high level party members who have not invested specifically in improving defenses. Another example is that the DC of opening a lock should be the same for a level 1 or a level 15 character, and the difference in the ability to open the lock should be based on what the character has actively done to improve their lock-opening skills.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To roll a quadratic wizard you need (X^2+1)(X^2-1) dice.
I'll just take the derivative.
Realised my quadratic was wrong as soon as I hit submit, then my browser froze.
Also, what Evil Lincoln said. I think that Pathfinder already does "bounded accuracy" but the way WotC has described it is confusing.
Realised my quadratic was wrong as soon as I hit submit, then my browser froze.
Also, what Evil Lincoln said. I think that Pathfinder already does "bounded accuracy" but the way WotC has described it is confusing.
Pathfinder's Base Attack Bonus concept violates "bounded accuracy" as well. All characters simply get better at hitting you just by leveling up. Eventually this means even a 1/2 BAB character is able to easily hit even heavily armored opponents.
Pathfinder is way, way better than 4e where virtually every aspect of a character improves just by leveling up. But PF still has some non-bounded accuracy issues as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Quadratic" is actually a poor choice of mathematical analogy. "Exponential" would be better. The idea is that a level 4 fighter is roughly four times as powerful as a level 1 fighter (linear progression) but a level 4 wizard is 16 times as powerful as a level 1 wizard (exponential progression).
What you just described is a quadratic progression (x^2), not an exponential progression (e^x). So "quadratic" actually is the right choice of analogy if we're saying the wizard increases in power as the square of his level; specifically, the power W of a wizard expressed as a function of his level L is:
W(L) = W(1)*L^2
This equation is quadratic in terms of L, not exponential in terms of L.
|
Quadratic wizard is usually used in a discussion of "balancing" magic power. Unfortunately, the end result is usually accomplished by increasing the options and relative abilities of warriors, when the real way to accomplish this balance is in the spellcasting mechanics.
Magic = powerful AND risky AND difficult.
The game works great if you have all three qualifiers, and an argument can be made that using only two is the best approach. Leave only one and you have a system that is objectively unbalanced.
For example:
3rd Edition - powerful NOT risky NOT difficult = game breaks at high levels.
Pathfinder - powerful AND difficult NOT risky = game holds together better, but not perfectly.
4th Edition - NOT powerful NOT difficult NOT risky = magic feels similar to any other abilities
5th Edition - my hope is "powerful AND risky OR difficult"
"Quadratic" is actually a poor choice of mathematical analogy. "Exponential" would be better. The idea is that a level 4 fighter is roughly four times as powerful as a level 1 fighter (linear progression) but a level 4 wizard is 16 times as powerful as a level 1 wizard (exponential progression).What you just described is a quadratic progression (x^2), not an exponential progression (e^x). So "quadratic" actually is the right choice of analogy if we're saying the wizard increases in power as the square of his level; specifically, the power W of a wizard expressed as a function of his level L is:
W(L) = W(1)*L^2
This equation is quadratic in terms of L, not exponential in terms of L.
Heh, too long since my math classes... My recollection is that any function which raises a value by any exponent is "exponential", while "quadratic" means functions restricted to a degree of 2. In other words "quadratic" is a subset of "exponential" where the degree is specifically "2".
Unless the wizard is exactly degree 2 more powerful (as opposed to, say degree 1.4, or degree 5) then "quadratic" seems a very specific way to describe the power curve.
The terms "linear" and "quadratic" are kind of misleading. I'd probably say "one-dimensional" (e.g. fighters get better at fighting, but that's about it) and "multi-dimensional" (e.g. wizards get better at blasting, and debuffing, and noncombat utility, etc., etc.).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heh, too long since my math classes... My recollection is that any function which raises a value by any exponent is "exponential", while "quadratic" means functions restricted to a degree of 2. In other words "quadratic" is a subset of "exponential" where the degree is specifically "2"."Quadratic" is actually a poor choice of mathematical analogy. "Exponential" would be better. The idea is that a level 4 fighter is roughly four times as powerful as a level 1 fighter (linear progression) but a level 4 wizard is 16 times as powerful as a level 1 wizard (exponential progression).What you just described is a quadratic progression (x^2), not an exponential progression (e^x). So "quadratic" actually is the right choice of analogy if we're saying the wizard increases in power as the square of his level; specifically, the power W of a wizard expressed as a function of his level L is:
W(L) = W(1)*L^2
This equation is quadratic in terms of L, not exponential in terms of L.
That's incorrect. "Quadratic" is a subset of "polynomial". "Exponential" means including the variable as an exponent, which is a different thing altogether.
Unless the wizard is exactly degree 2 more powerful (as opposed to, say degree 1.4, or degree 5) then "quadratic" seems a very specific way to describe the power curve.
Limiting our claim to degree 2 is not as limiting as you would think, but it's true that we're making a specific claim (just as we are when we call fighters "linear").
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's incorrect. "Quadratic" is a subset of "polynomial". "Exponential" means including the variable as an exponent, which is a different thing altogether.
Hmm... I wonder if this is a case of shifting mathematical terminology in the 30+ years since my last advanced math class. "Polynomial" as I remember mostly meant an equation with multiple exponential, linear and constant terms (thus the "poly" and "nomial"), whereas "exponential" meant any function which had a value raised to a power. Or at least that's my recollection. But it's been too long. A quick wikipedia check shows that you are using the same terminology that wikipedia uses.
My basic point stands though. Using the term "quadratic" implies a much more specific level of accuracy in the power curve than we can claim to have actually derived.
In fact if an actual polynomial could be derived, it would have to account for the boost in power every other level as new spell levels are obtained, so it would be a fairly complex equation with several terms I think.
UPDATE: Ah... a little bit more googling shows that I may have been thinking of "exponential growth curve" not "exponential function." There is a specific mathematical entity called THE exponential function which is e^x. However, "exponential growth" refers to any growth curve where the growth is non-linear. I think that's what was in my head, not THE "exponential function" itself.
The terms "linear" and "quadratic" are kind of misleading. I'd probably say "one-dimensional" (e.g. fighters get better at fighting, but that's about it) and "multi-dimensional" (e.g. wizards get better at blasting, and debuffing, and noncombat utility, etc., etc.).
I think this is better than "linear" and "quadratic" because it avoids the implied claim of specific knowledge of the power curve, but I'm not sure I would agree with this either.
If it were me I'd probably use the following terms:
Fighter - continuous function
Wizard - non-continuous function
But even this isn't really accurate since the acquisition of feats is also a non-continuous adjustment to the fighter's power curve.
There probably isn't a good mathematical description, so in the absence of anything everyone would agree with, "linear" and "quadratic" at least gets the concept across.
Bounded accuracy is the concept that tasks should not get easier simply because your character levels up. This is particularly evident in 4e where character's defenses, attack bonus and skills advance with no character investment simply by leveling up. The idea is that to improve your ability to hit an enemy, to succeed at a skill check or to be harder to hit yourself, you should have to invest actively in those things.
It saddens me that this is being marketed as innovation when the majority of non-D&D RPGs went this way 25 years ago.
"Bounded Accuracy" is really a rather obscure way of putting it, too. I wonder if the author was a communications major.
Bounded accuracy is the concept that tasks should not get easier simply because your character levels up. This is particularly evident in 4e where character's defenses, attack bonus and skills advance with no character investment simply by leveling up. The idea is that to improve your ability to hit an enemy, to succeed at a skill check or to be harder to hit yourself, you should have to invest actively in those things.It saddens me that this is being marketed as innovation when the majority of non-D&D RPGs went this way 25 years ago.
30 years ago I created my own RPG rules system which followed this concept because I was frustrated with how things got silly just because characters leveled up.
This is actually one of the things in the D&D Next design that I am very pleased to see. There's a lot I don't like in DDN right now, but this concept is one that has frustrated me for years.
Of course I don't even like the fundamental concept of "classes" anyway...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quadratic Wizard :
The Quadratic Wizard is...
Actually, it's rather complicated...
Here, I'll just post the formula and it'll all make sense...
-BibbityBobbityBoo +/- Square Root(BibbityBobbityBoo^2 - 4AbraCadabra)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2Abra
|
It saddens me that this is being marketed as innovation when the majority of non-D&D RPGs went this way 25 years ago.
Its an innovation for D&D, at least compared to 3rd and 4th editions (I am not too familiar with prior editions), and its a good one too. Its nice to see WotC still have some balls to make some quite innovative changes to the rules system despite being back a lot of sacred cows just because that makes it "feel" like D&D.
Just to point it out, the saving throw progression in PF also violates the "bounded accuracy" concept. Why should you get better at dodging fireballs just because you leveled up? What aspect of leveling up makes you more resistant to poison? Harder to petrify? etc...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bounded accuracy is the concept that tasks should not get easier simply because your character levels up. This is particularly evident in 4e where character's defenses, attack bonus and skills advance with no character investment simply by leveling up. The idea is that to improve your ability to hit an enemy, to succeed at a skill check or to be harder to hit yourself, you should have to invest actively in those things.It saddens me that this is being marketed as innovation when the majority of non-D&D RPGs went this way 25 years ago.
"Bounded Accuracy" is really a rather obscure way of putting it, too. I wonder if the author was a communications major.
I've said this over and over again with my friends and possibly on these boards as well, but here it goes again:
D&D (and therefore PF) has a terrible game engine. If it wasn't for the name and the feel and the familiarity, I would not play the game.
I applaud 4e trying to change things, but the flip side is that I am too lazy to learn a new engine. And as it turns out, lots of people agreed and stuck with d20 and 3.5.
Doesn't 3rd Edition already have bounded accuracy for non-opposed skill DCs? Jumping, balancing, climbing, etc. doesn't get any harder at higher levels.
Thanks a lot! I "understand" the concepts now. I am very happy to see how many answers the posts gets around here! Pathfinder community for the win!
|
|
Just to point it out, the saving throw progression in PF also violates the "bounded accuracy" concept. Why should you get better at dodging fireballs just because you leveled up? What aspect of leveling up makes you more resistant to poison? Harder to petrify? etc...
From my point of view, it represents the results of training and exposure to those dangers over the adventuring career.
Now, why the fighter has only one good save is beyond me...
Doesn't 3rd Edition already have bounded accuracy for non-opposed skill DCs? Jumping, balancing, climbing, etc. doesn't get any harder at higher levels.
The rules of all of these games are complex and include aspects that are both bounded accuracy and not bounded accuracy. In general 4e has more problems with the concept than earlier versions of the game. In fact 4e made it such a core concept that DCs actually scale by level to keep some sense of challenge in the game. That leads to the bizarre notion that the DC to break down a wooden door is higher for a level 15 character than it is for a level 5 character. Otherwise the only way to provide a challenge for high level 4e characters is to have every door be a magically enhanced adamantium door or else the party can just blow on the door to knock it down.
Anytime you see a numerical bonus or adjustment added to a character attribute strictly because the character leveled up, you are introducing non-bounded accuracy to the game.
What WotC is trying to do in DDN is to say that it is as hard for a level 15 character to hit an enemy in plate armor as it is for a level 1 character. Of course by level 15 the character will have had many more opportunities to actively pursue ways to improve their chance to hit armored opponents, but that is an ACTIVE decision.
The idea is that this will end up with characters having to make choices, and those choices will mean that characters will be far less "cookie cutter" than they are in current game systems. If you want to be able to open locks easily, you'll have to choose that skill over something else. You won't just get better automatically.
One consequence of this will be that encounters can utilize a much larger set of NPCs or monsters since low level enemies don't become such a trivial challenge that PCs can literally ignore them.
One example they use is that in DDN a low level party could not challenge a powerful dragon in a straight up fight, but if they can raise the entire town and pelt the dragon with arrows, that's a credible threat to the dragon because the dragon's AC would be hittable by even commoners shooting bows.
To make leveling up meaningful they will be focusing on hit points. That way even if a goblin can hit a level 15 character, the damage will be minimal for a level 15 character. BUT a dozen goblins could conceivably wear the level 15 character down.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I'm not sure what makes "getting better at something you didn't explicitly practice in game time when you level" objectionable when "getting harder to kill when you level" isn't. Levels are abstractions and we're not accounting for every minute of a character's time, so why sweat it? If you like that sort of thing there have been game engines out there that do the explicit investment thing pretty well for a long time--RuneQuest/BRP, SPI's old DragonQuest, and Rolemaster all date back to the early 80's, and there have no doubt been many more over the years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought the Quadratic wizard was a new Archetype and Bounded accuracy a new class feat...sigh
Quadratic Wizard :
The Quadratic Wizard is...
Actually, it's rather complicated...
Here, I'll just post the formula and it'll all make sense...
-BibbityBobbityBoo +/- Square Root(BibbityBobbityBoo^2 - 4AbraCadabra)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2Abra
No factor of Alakazam. C-.
So theoretically a level 1 character could kill a a level 20 one given the bounded accuracy?
The rules of all of these games are complex and include aspects that are both bounded accuracy and not bounded accuracy. In general 4e has more problems with the concept than earlier versions of the game. In fact 4e made it such a core concept that DCs actually scale by level to keep some sense of challenge in the game. That leads to the bizarre notion that the DC to break down a wooden door is higher for a level 15 character than it is for a level 5 character. Otherwise the only way to provide a challenge for high level 4e characters is to have every door be a magically enhanced adamantium door or else the party can just blow on the door to knock it down.
I guess I don't see the problem with the fact that most doors will be trivial for high-level parties to break down. Mundane tasks being trivial at high levels is fun!
The idea is that this will end up with characters having to make choices, and those choices will mean that characters will be far less "cookie cutter" than they are in current game systems. If you want to be able to open locks easily, you'll have to choose that skill over something else. You won't just get better automatically.
Isn't that what skill points do?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So theoretically a level 1 character could kill a a level 20 one given the bounded accuracy?
Not in practice, because damage and HP will still scale with level.
Think of it like Final Fantasy games -- the main difference between levels is how much damage you deal and how much damage you can take. If you try to take on enemies 30 levels higher than you, you're going to lose because they can 1-hit you and they have 100x your damage output in HP... but your hit still connects and deals damage, just not enough damage.
So theoretically a level 1 character could kill a a level 20 one given the bounded accuracy?
You can always look up the article on the Wizards website and read it yourself if you want WotC's own words to contemplate.
As I understand it, the concept that they are investigating is whether the game benefits from multiple levels of unbounded accuracy. Or is it sufficient to simply increase the character's hit points?
But at the extreme, if you assume a level 1 character who has totally maxed out their ability to inprove AC, hit and damage vs a level 20 character who has totally ignored their ability to improve their AC, hit and damage, then if they stand there and trade blows, then yes, perhaps the level 1 character would win that "fight".
Of course that would be a pretty stupid level 20 character who has totally ignored melee combat but who insists on slugging it out with an armored, weapon wielding assailant, of ANY level.
Frankly in that scenario I'd root for the level 1 character.
In reality that level 20 character is going to have focused on SOMETHING of value that would allow them to squash the level 1 character like a bug.
Like maybe a magic missile spell for example.
The rules of all of these games are complex and include aspects that are both bounded accuracy and not bounded accuracy. In general 4e has more problems with the concept than earlier versions of the game. In fact 4e made it such a core concept that DCs actually scale by level to keep some sense of challenge in the game. That leads to the bizarre notion that the DC to break down a wooden door is higher for a level 15 character than it is for a level 5 character. Otherwise the only way to provide a challenge for high level 4e characters is to have every door be a magically enhanced adamantium door or else the party can just blow on the door to knock it down.I guess I don't see the problem with the fact that most doors will be trivial for high-level parties to break down. Mundane tasks being trivial at high levels is fun!
The idea is that this will end up with characters having to make choices, and those choices will mean that characters will be far less "cookie cutter" than they are in current game systems. If you want to be able to open locks easily, you'll have to choose that skill over something else. You won't just get better automatically.Isn't that what skill points do?
Avalon, WotC might say "if you want mundane tasks to be trivial, then invest your resources in making them trivial."
As I have said before, ALL of the current game systems have SOME aspects of bounded accuracy and SOME aspects of non-bounded accuracy in them. So, sure, you can point to something in any of the game systems to say "see! they do it!" for both sides of this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules of all of these games are complex and include aspects that are both bounded accuracy and not bounded accuracy. In general 4e has more problems with the concept than earlier versions of the game. In fact 4e made it such a core concept that DCs actually scale by level to keep some sense of challenge in the game. That leads to the bizarre notion that the DC to break down a wooden door is higher for a level 15 character than it is for a level 5 character. Otherwise the only way to provide a challenge for high level 4e characters is to have every door be a magically enhanced adamantium door or else the party can just blow on the door to knock it down.I guess I don't see the problem with the fact that most doors will be trivial for high-level parties to break down. Mundane tasks being trivial at high levels is fun!
Exactly.
I recently had a small team of cruciodaemons spend two weeks setting up a trap for a party, involving a tremendous number of greater glyphs of warding all over a manor house.
Once they dispatched the pesky daemons, the fighter spent the afternoon walking all over the house and opening every box, cupboard, drawer and closet, setting off all the glyphs. He thought it was great fun.
For a low-level party, the house would have been instant death. For them, it was an idle distraction.
|
|
The rules of all of these games are complex and include aspects that are both bounded accuracy and not bounded accuracy. In general 4e has more problems with the concept than earlier versions of the game. In fact 4e made it such a core concept that DCs actually scale by level to keep some sense of challenge in the game. That leads to the bizarre notion that the DC to break down a wooden door is higher for a level 15 character than it is for a level 5 character. Otherwise the only way to provide a challenge for high level 4e characters is to have every door be a magically enhanced adamantium door or else the party can just blow on the door to knock it down.I guess I don't see the problem with the fact that most doors will be trivial for high-level parties to break down. Mundane tasks being trivial at high levels is fun!
That's not really a good example of bounded vs. unbounded, though, in that the reason doors tend to be easier for high-level characters to break down is increased STR, rather than taking ranks in the Doorbreaking skill. Independent of magic, a Wiz1 with STR 8 and a Wiz20 with STR 8 have the same chance of breaking down a given door, while the Ftr20 with STR 29 has a much easier time of it than the Ftr1 with STR 18. The fighter doesn't pump STR to make it easier to break down doors; it's a side effect of pumping STR to make it easier to kill things.
For a low-level party, the house would have been instant death. For them, it was an idle distraction.
The question that is being asked by WotC is whether this end result benefits the game or not. Would the game experience have been improved if the glyphs had been a serious threat to the fighter?
I could argue that both ways.
I would be very interested in the breakdown of player styles on this issue.
I've seen a few posts here on this thread presenting the proposition that it is fun for very high level characters to have "mundane" or low level things be trivial challenges for them. I suppose the argument is something like "We're practically gods! You think a wooden door is going to stop us? Ha!"
The counter-argument to this is the idea that if someone in the party has not built up their ability to open locks or knock down doors, then a wooden door SHOULD be a challenge for that party. After all, why would simply having been adventuring for a while make a wooden door easier to open or knock down?
My suspicion is that the reaction here breaks down like many things break down along the "gritty vs showy" lines that I see a lot in these sorts of discussions.
I tend to be more of a "gritty" gamer. I like the idea that the game world has some elements and limitations that resemble the real world. As such I am fine with the idea that a level 20 character might find knocking down a door to be a difficult task if they've never invested any resources in attributes that make knocking down doors easier.
I suspect that the more cinematic "showy" players would be the ones who feel like their level 20 character shouldn't be inconvenienced by "mundane" problems like wooden doors or low level traps.
I would be interested in seeing if there is some correlation to the appreciation of "bounded accuracy" and appreciation of "grittiness".
Where does the actual term come from? It seems so abstract, given the concept it describes.
Where does the actual term come from? It seems so abstract, given the concept it describes.
I've done some googling and I don't see much outside of D&D discussions that even reference the concept.
I don't like the term either. I think it obscures the concept it is trying to define rather than clarifying it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And thus, jargon was born.
It does seem a bit hubristic, claiming that this is a revolutionary concept. I often marvel at just how much innovation in RPGs was left by the wayside when 3e first came out... people suddenly forgot what used to miff them about the earlier editions and embraced the nostalgia. Now they're "innovating" those same developments 20 years later.
I'm not saying I won't try it, but that article (and that jargon!) sure seems like we're peering up from the base of the ivory tower once more.
Evil, yeah, I agree. However I have long ago accepted that every field of human endeavor, no matter how trivial or profound, will develop their own impenetrable jargon.
I personally believe this is a form of tribalism and creates a means for the members of the tribe to be able to accurately and quickly determine the tribal status of others. How thoroughly a person masters the jargon determines how quickly or well they are accepted into the tribe.
I don't think it's even conscious. It's as instinctive as the barking of dogs.
The counter-argument to this is the idea that if someone in the party has not built up their ability to open locks or knock down doors, then a wooden door SHOULD be a challenge for that party. After all, why would simply having been adventuring for a while make a wooden door easier to open or knock down?
Absolutely. That's a lot of the fun for me as GM - putting what are sometimes pretty mundane challenges in front of the party that end up being difficult, and on other occasions putting insane challenges in front of them and having them walk right over them.
There's such a wide disparity in the party that it's downright fascinating to watch sometimes (for example, their Spot checks range from +0 to something like +90, etc.).
Evil, yeah, I agree. However I have long ago accepted that every field of human endeavor, no matter how trivial or profound, will develop their own impenetrable jargon.
I personally believe this is a form of tribalism and creates a means for the members of the tribe to be able to accurately and quickly determine the tribal status of others. How thoroughly a person masters the jargon determines how quickly or well they are accepted into the tribe.
I disagree.
I think jargon arises because specialized groups develop linguistic shortcuts to concepts they encounter frequently. Although in practice it might be used as a marker for tribal identity, I don't thinks that's the motive for it. The motive is just the natural human inclination to give names to important things.
|
|
So theoretically a level 1 character could kill a a level 20 one given the bounded accuracy?Not in practice, because damage and HP will still scale with level.
Think of it like Final Fantasy games -- the main difference between levels is how much damage you deal and how much damage you can take. If you try to take on enemies 30 levels higher than you, you're going to lose because they can 1-hit you and they have 100x your damage output in HP... but your hit still connects and deals damage, just not enough damage.
Final Fantasy is definitely not how I want D&D to develop. :)
But FF also adjusted relative damage output based on level, not relying just on the raw numbers.
From what I've gathered on the L&L column, it's not just about damage/hp, but also special abilities. A 1st-level character will not be able to handle higher level monsters, because the monsters will likely be able to fly, teleport, summon reinforcements, and generally just take actions that a low-level party cannot handle.
Which, of course, mandates the need for a clear CR system so that DMs are not deceived by low AC/Atk into thinking a monster is an appropriate challenge.
Evil, yeah, I agree. However I have long ago accepted that every field of human endeavor, no matter how trivial or profound, will develop their own impenetrable jargon.
I personally believe this is a form of tribalism and creates a means for the members of the tribe to be able to accurately and quickly determine the tribal status of others. How thoroughly a person masters the jargon determines how quickly or well they are accepted into the tribe.
I disagree.
I think jargon arises because specialized groups develop linguistic shortcuts to concepts they encounter frequently. Although in practice it might be used as a marker for tribal identity, I don't thinks that's the motive for it. The motive is just the natural human inclination to give names to important things.
Well, I would argue that it's both. But the fact that groups develop jargon even when there is no need for it would indicate to me that it's not just about "naming things". There's definitely more to it than that.
From what I've gathered on the L&L column, it's not just about damage/hp, but also special abilities. A 1st-level character will not be able to handle higher level monsters, because the monsters will likely be able to fly, teleport, summon reinforcements, and generally just take actions that a low-level party cannot handle.
I think this is conflating different mechanical aspects of the game.
Of the actions you mentioned, I would expect a first level character in DDN to have to deal with all except teleport. There are first level flying creatures, first level NPCs will be able to magically or mundanely summon reinforcements etc. In fact I would have no problem with first level monsters who can even teleport.
But I think the essence of what you are saying is that difficulty level of monsters will be more than just hit points, higher level monsters (and PCs) will be more capable than lower level monsters (and PCs).
But that doesn't contradict the concept of "bounded accuracy". All it says is that as characters, NPCs and monsters advance, they will have more abilities to call on. For PCs those could be in the form of feats, traits, magic items, skills, etc. For monsters it will be in the form of extraordinary, supernatural or magical abilities.
But if bounded accuracy is followed as it is outlined, that teleporting, summoning, multi-attacking monster you are fighting, if wearing only leather armor, and having no other attributes to boost AC, will be as easy to hit as any other leather armor wearing enemy.
So theoretically a level 1 character could kill a a level 20 one given the bounded accuracy?Not in practice, because damage and HP will still scale with level.
Think of it like Final Fantasy games -- the main difference between levels is how much damage you deal and how much damage you can take. If you try to take on enemies 30 levels higher than you, you're going to lose because they can 1-hit you and they have 100x your damage output in HP... but your hit still connects and deals damage, just not enough damage.
Final Fantasy is definitely not how I want D&D to develop. :)
But FF also adjusted relative damage output based on level, not relying just on the raw numbers.
From what I've gathered on the L&L column, it's not just about damage/hp, but also special abilities. A 1st-level character will not be able to handle higher level monsters, because the monsters will likely be able to fly, teleport, summon reinforcements, and generally just take actions that a low-level party cannot handle.
Which, of course, mandates the need for a clear CR system so that DMs are not deceived by low AC/Atk into thinking a monster is an appropriate challenge.
Of course there is going to be CR system, damage and HP grow with level, first level mooks while still able to damage the party can't deal enough damage to present a threat unless they got strenght in numbers, wich is kinda like the CR system we got now, only that it holds for very CRs lower than the PCs, 4096 CR 1/4 Kobold Experts aren't really a challenge for a 19 APL party.
Humbly,
Yawar
A term used by people that don't understand the basics of math to explain a supposed exponential growth in a casters power as time progresses. It is often paired along side an idea that a martial classes power can be explained as a linear regression.
it's a wizard that has the same height and width.
Most of the quadratic wizards are dwarfs, but exceptions have been known.
(no really, if you would normally express power level as a function of lvl with a linear function, then the wizard would be more of a quadratic function, not exponential though)
only exploits have an exponential growth, I actually don't know any in PF. Or a geometric series, such as the leadership cohort who has leadership, and his cohort too, and and so on.