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.
Can you give me an example of a group developing jargon that does not significantly simplify their communication (by expressing concepts, often common complex or technical concepts, more succinctly)? In every example I can think of, this is precisely how the jargon develops.
This may be an interesting-enough discussion for it's own thread.
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.Can you give me an example of a group developing jargon that does not significantly simplify their communication (by expressing concepts, often common complex or technical concepts, more succinctly)? In every example I can think of, this is precisely how the jargon develops.
This may be an interesting-enough discussion for it's own thread.
Jargon is just one aspect of the overall communication techniques developed within a group. Those communication techniques include "jargon", "slang", "rituals", "signs" and a host of other terms which essentially boil down to "means of communication".
It is not possible, for instance to define the point where "jargon" ends and "slang" begins. Or "colloquialism" or even "argot" which is probably the extreme form of what I'm talking about. All of this is part of a continuum of communication within a group.
It's just what people do. And have done forever. If you form a group, they will define their own cultural signals. That's how they KNOW it's a "group."
*sings to himself*
"X equals opposite b, plus or minus the square root of b squared minus 4ac, all over 2a!"
(to the tune of pop goes the weasel)
Good times, good times. :3
...
As to the actual substance of the thread; meh. I don't much care. Sure, in sheer ability to wreak havoc upon foes, high level wizards seem to be at the top of the heap. At the same time, d&d is not a solitary game. You play as a group and people have their roles. I've never thought of the fighter as a waste of space in my groups. Their ability to tank monsters and sheer damage output has always been greatly appreciated in any game I've ever played. Who else is going to keep the wizard alive long enough to cast his devastating spells?
Actually the power is not deterministic if you roll for hit points. Also are there logrythimic commoners.
The quadratic equation is not itself quadratic. (It's actually linear. The highest exponent is 1.)
Also, I agree that anything that's actually exponentially powerful is an exploit. So, yeah, quadratic wizard. Or if you think the exponent may be higher, polynomial wizard.
Fighter(L) = 10*L
Wizard(L) = 2*L^2
Cheat(L) = 1.5^L
So:
Fighter(1) = 10*1 = 10
Wizard(1) = 2*1^2 = 2
Cheat(1) = 1.5^1 = 1.5
Fighter(10) = 10*10 = 100
Wizard(10) = 2*10^2 = 200
Cheat(10) = 1.5^10 = ~58
Fighter(20) = 10*20 = 200
Wizard(20) = 2*20^2 = 800
Cheat(20) = 1.5^20 = ~3325
The idea of "bounded accuracy" is not new. 4e had number inflation galore and thus in 5e they try to lessen that.
Basically 100 1st Level Warriors will be much more of a threat to a 15th Level Fighter than before, where he could wade through them almost with total impunity .
3.5 and Pathfinder also have this "problem" (as seen in the excellent first Zeitgeist adventure) and it is of course the staple in all MMOs I know.
|
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.
Yes. I wasn't saying it contradicts bounded accuracy; I was merely dispelling the notion that the only way to differentiate low/high levels of play would be scaling hp/damage - nobody had mentioned the very key point of special abilities, which you clarified quite nicely by the way!
'Bounded Accuracy' is not the idea that DCs will stay static relative to bonuses, or even that improving a bonus requires the investment of resources-- 'bounded accuracy' is the idea that bonuses simply do not increase beyond a certain point, period.
Characters in the Next playtest don't improve their attack bonus, skills, or saving throws over the course of three levels. In PF, the Fighter, Clerics, and Rogue would have gained +2 BAB and the Wizard would have gained +1, while all of the characters would have gained +2 to their skills. In 4e, all of the characters' d20 rolls would have gotten a +1 bonus at 2nd level.
What this means is that higher-level characters in Next have more options, deal more damage, and have more staying power-- but attacks and defenses stay the same. What this means effectively is that characters can fight monsters way above or below their level, and while these fights would still be squash matches, there's still a point in rolling attacks; the low-level side will still be able to hit their enemies, and the high-level side will still be able to miss theirs.
What this means is that higher-level characters in Next have more options, deal more damage, and have more staying power-- but attacks and defenses stay the same. What this means effectively is that characters can fight monsters way above or below their level, and while these fights would still be squash matches, there's still a point in rolling attacks; the low-level side will still be able to hit their enemies, and the high-level side will still be able to miss theirs.
And it helps us dodge that ridiculous notion that suddenly every guardsman in the world is level 10, because the party is. Level 1 guards can still be a cause for concern. I like that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What this means is that higher-level characters in Next have more options, deal more damage, and have more staying power-- but attacks and defenses stay the same. What this means effectively is that characters can fight monsters way above or below their level, and while these fights would still be squash matches, there's still a point in rolling attacks; the low-level side will still be able to hit their enemies, and the high-level side will still be able to miss theirs.And it helps us dodge that ridiculous notion that suddenly every guardsman in the world is level 10, because the party is. Level 1 guards can still be a cause for concern. I like that.
As long as the local militia can't kill a dragon, it sounds great. Otherwise, why bother hiring adventurers?
|
|
What this means is that higher-level characters in Next have more options, deal more damage, and have more staying power-- but attacks and defenses stay the same. What this means effectively is that characters can fight monsters way above or below their level, and while these fights would still be squash matches, there's still a point in rolling attacks; the low-level side will still be able to hit their enemies, and the high-level side will still be able to miss theirs.
My concern is that this system will give players a false sense of hope - sort of like how the 3.5 damage reduction system lures players into fighting things they should really run away from.
Of course, the conniving DM in me likes the idea of the players charging the dragon only to be roasted alive.
Where does the actual term come from? It seems so abstract, given the concept it describes.
Beer.
'Bounded Accuracy' is not the idea that DCs will stay static relative to bonuses, or even that improving a bonus requires the investment of resources-- 'bounded accuracy' is the idea that bonuses simply do not increase beyond a certain point, period.
Characters in the Next playtest don't improve their attack bonus, skills, or saving throws over the course of three levels. In PF, the Fighter, Clerics, and Rogue would have gained +2 BAB and the Wizard would have gained +1, while all of the characters would have gained +2 to their skills. In 4e, all of the characters' d20 rolls would have gotten a +1 bonus at 2nd level.
What this means is that higher-level characters in Next have more options, deal more damage, and have more staying power-- but attacks and defenses stay the same. What this means effectively is that characters can fight monsters way above or below their level, and while these fights would still be squash matches, there's still a point in rolling attacks; the low-level side will still be able to hit their enemies, and the high-level side will still be able to miss theirs.
Well... mostly this.
But let's look at this to see what the WotC design team is having to deal with.
Let's just take the attack bonus as an example. In most existing versions of D&D or games inspired by D&D (including those d20 systems out there) the attack bonus has some scaling factor that is based purely on level. But that's only one way to increase attack bonuses. Here is a short list of ways to increase your attack bonus:
Attribute bonuses (str or dex usually, but sometimes wis or even int)
Feats (fighters can add up to +4 I think?)
Magic items (up to a +5)
Buffs (this is a tricky area since buffs can increase the attack directly or they can increase other things that increase the attack indirectly)
Size
I'm sure there are more.
If you wanted to implement a "bounded accuracy" system in PF you would have to address each of these areas. The same would have to be true in DDN.
So let's say, for example, that the game designers truly want to keep it within the realm of plausibility that a level 20 character could actually MISS a level 1 character in plate armor, let's say 25% of the time (meaning they would need a 6 to hit the level 1 character). If plate armor gives an AC of 9, then the maximum "bounded accuracy" to hit bonus the level 20 character could possibly have would be a +3 to their attack.
That means you couldn't even have a single bonus from each of the existing areas that can provide huge bonuses. A +1 each from magic item, feat and primary attribute reaches the "bounded limit" before you even consider anything else. Obviously any level increase would blow the whole concept out of the water.
If it is even possible for a character to be able to boost attack rolls from different sources (let's say JUST primary attribute and magic item) then for there to be any realistic bounded limit which will allow low level characters to hit high level characters and high level characters to miss low level characters, you are talking about maximum bonuses of just a few points. In other words a +3 sword would likely have to be an ARTIFACT, and a storm giant would have no more than a +2 from strength.
Now, considering all of that, what happens with temporary buff spells?
This is a really radical change to the existing combat mechanic. I've had mid-level PCs who have been able to get their attack bonus approaching +20.
One other comment. If "bounded accuracy" ONLY meant that there is some upper bound that you cannot exceed, then all game systems already implement "bounded accuracy" since none of them have infinite bonuses (pun-pun aside). So clearly when Wizards uses "bounded accuracy" as a "new" concept in their design, they don't just mean that there is some upper limit to bonuses.
They mean the other things we've been talking about. No automatic increase by level, much lower maximum bonuses from other effects, etc. Which is why we've been focusing on those things, since that's the parts of the game that it will actually have an effect upon.
I remember an article saying a L2 spell(Grease) should not be able to bring down a higher level fighter in armor. Would that be an example as well?
Hm... I haven't seen this addressed directly in any of the playtesting results or discussion I've reviewed, but it's an excellent question.
Based on the philosophy of "bounded accuracy" I would say that this sort of thing probably would be an example. After all, there will be some means of determining if the grease spell has an effect on a target, and that effect will be impacted by "bounded accuracy" either through a "to hit" roll or some sort of "saving throw" and both of those are targets of bounded accuracy...
So, yeah, I think spells like grease when cast by a level 3 wizard would absolutely be expected to have a potential impact on a level 20 fighter.
|
There's another way that a (heavily houseruled OD&D/1e) DM I used to play under implemented bounded accuracy: regardless of bonuses, you could do no more than double what you rolled, with penalties applied before doubling*. IIRC, that didn't apply to weapon damage, but I may be wrong on that.
*Do something like that in PF/3.x, and it makes damage reduction really tough.
|
|
I remember an article saying a L2 spell(Grease) should not be able to bring down a higher level fighter in armor. Would that be an example as well?Hm... I haven't seen this addressed directly in any of the playtesting results or discussion I've reviewed, but it's an excellent question.
Based on the philosophy of "bounded accuracy" I would say that this sort of thing probably would be an example. After all, there will be some means of determining if the grease spell has an effect on a target, and that effect will be impacted by "bounded accuracy" either through a "to hit" roll or some sort of "saving throw" and both of those are targets of bounded accuracy...
So, yeah, I think spells like grease when cast by a level 3 wizard would absolutely be expected to have a potential impact on a level 20 fighter.
What Catprog was recalling, slightly in error, was the suggestion on the development blogs (or was it L&L) that grease is an example of a spell that was overpowered in 3rd Edition, since it could severely hamper a 20th-level cleric in heavy armor, likely with no ranks in Balance. So the idea was that with bounded accuracy, in this case through the ability score system, the cleric could still be affected but would at least have a chance to remain standing.
But your side of the argument holds - a fighter is just as likely to be affected, unless he has chosen to specialize in balancing.
I remember an article saying a L2 spell(Grease) should not be able to bring down a higher level fighter in armor. Would that be an example as well?Hm... I haven't seen this addressed directly in any of the playtesting results or discussion I've reviewed, but it's an excellent question.
Based on the philosophy of "bounded accuracy" I would say that this sort of thing probably would be an example. After all, there will be some means of determining if the grease spell has an effect on a target, and that effect will be impacted by "bounded accuracy" either through a "to hit" roll or some sort of "saving throw" and both of those are targets of bounded accuracy...
So, yeah, I think spells like grease when cast by a level 3 wizard would absolutely be expected to have a potential impact on a level 20 fighter.
What Catprog was recalling, slightly in error, was the suggestion on the development blogs (or was it L&L) that grease is an example of a spell that was overpowered in 3rd Edition, since it could severely hamper a 20th-level cleric in heavy armor, likely with no ranks in Balance. So the idea was that with bounded accuracy, in this case through the ability score system, the cleric could still be affected but would at least have a chance to remain standing.
But your side of the argument holds - a fighter is just as likely to be affected, unless he has chosen to specialize in balancing.
Ah... yeah, I remember that argument.
I don't agree with it, by the way. I have no problem with a clumsy armor-clad cleric who has ignored any skills or abilities to improve their balance being knocked on their arse by a spell like grease, or even a casually tossed flask of oil.
I see no reason whatsoever simply being a higher level means he should be able to ignore his limitations of dexterity and choice of armor.
Using grease on such a character falls into the category of "excellent tactics dude!" in my opinion.
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.
The problem with that idea, is the players of spellcasters really REALLY hated that aspect of magic in D&D and AD&D. Decades of complaints about magic is what lead to 3rd edition taking out things like:
* Immediate loss of spell if hit in combat* 10 minutes per spell level per spell memorization
* Having to find or trade for all spells
* Limited spells per level (1 at 1st. level, and so on)
* Spells with major bad effects (Haste, Wish, etc.)
Etc.
Really, 3.0 and post 3.0 games simply gave the players what they wanted, because in practice the "risky and difficult" parts of magic turned out to be unfun for a lot of players. So in practice it's actually more fun for more people to give non spellcasters more ability to contribute.
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...
Obviously evolution in D&D worlds is Lamarkian. Practice makes you better.
Of course in my "literal D&D" idea, adventurers are inhabited by spirits called furies that grow with experience, and make their hosts more and more superhuumanly resilient. Hence you can literally hack a person apart so their limbs are hanging by threads, they've bled gallons of blood, and they'll still fight on like nothing happened (strongly influenced by the fight scenes in the Saint Seya anime).
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...Obviously evolution in D&D worlds is Lamarkian. Practice makes you better.
This assumes that you've actually had to dodge fireballs, you've fought off poison and you've been petrified a few times.
The mechanic makes no such assumption. It just makes you better whether you've "practiced" or not.
|
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...
We should compare notes sometime :-)
Thirty years ago I too created my own classless rules set which was based around the "learning by doing" concept - you could only advance in skills that you used (and the more you knew, the harder it was to advance).
There was a lot of behind-the-scenes book-keeping to keep track of all this - it's better-suited to a CRPG than to a table-top game. So after a while we went back to playing something a lot closer to AD&D2 (though I still kept my own mana-point magic system rather than the Vancian fire-and-forget magic of by-the-book AD&D). I was lucky enough to have a group of players who were happy winging it ("Not so much rules, as guidelines", as Capt. Barbosa would put it). With different players a more rules-heavy setting may have worked better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We should compare notes sometime :-)
Maybe we should...
Thirty years ago I too created my own classless rules set which was based around the "learning by doing" concept - you could only advance in skills that you used (and the more you knew, the harder it was to advance).
There was a lot of behind-the-scenes book-keeping to keep track of all this - it's better-suited to a CRPG than to a table-top game. So after a while we went back to playing something a lot closer to AD&D2 (though I still kept my own mana-point magic system rather than the Vancian fire-and-forget magic of by-the-book AD&D). I was lucky enough to have a group of players who were happy winging it ("Not so much rules, as guidelines", as Capt. Barbosa would put it). With different players a more rules-heavy setting may have worked better.
This sounds eerily like what we did. The game was entirely "skill" based where "skills" were not like PF skills, but were any sort of learned or practiced ability. To get better at casting spells, you had to cast spells. We had a mana-based spell system too, not a Vancian one. It wasn't even level-based, you just kept track of different abilities and when you got better at them (or worse, you could lose abilities through neglect) you updated your character sheet.
But it was a godawful bookkeeping nightmare. And while my main group was very forgiving and interested in pursuing unique game rules, it became clear when we lost one of our key players to a job move that if we wanted to have the ability to bring in new players, we needed to follow an existing game system... So the skill and mana based system was retired... sigh...
|
|
* Spells with major bad effects (Haste, Wish, etc.)
Etc.
The major bad effects came in with 1e, and the folks I was playing with at the time thought they were a rather pathetic and heavyhanded attempt to nerf the spells.
Of course in my "literal D&D" idea, adventurers are inhabited by spirits called furies that grow with experience, and make their hosts more and more superhuumanly resilient. Hence you can literally hack a person apart so their limbs are hanging by threads, they've bled gallons of blood, and they'll still fight on like nothing happened (strongly influenced by the fight scenes in the Saint Seya anime).
I had something like that as well in a short-lived 1e campaign; the vast majority of people were 0-level, but PCs and important NPCs were god-touched. That was mostly because the gods loved to watch people do interesting things, and would intervene on their behalf to stretch out the entertainment. Which was why thieves had the lowest xp to level, because caper movies are more entertaining when the main characters are competent; clerics were next up, because for them it was quid pro quo; fighters were next, because it took a lot of juice to get them to where they could survive the sorts of injuries they got; and magic-users were highest of all, because they used it in world-shattering ways. (Besides, high-level magic-users were starting to edge into "dangerous to us" territory....)
The best way I could explain the concept of a "Quadratic Wizard" would be to go back to first edition AD&D. This system was full of a horrible concept of suck-now, be godlike later. Magic-users were among several classes (including monks and multi-class characters) that were almost unplayable for the first couple of levels, but became godlike toward the end of the game. Over the last couple of decades the concept of sucking for extended periods of time has thankfully been removed from the game, but much of the become-a-god-at-high-levels remains.
Another legacy of this was the related concept that your magic is very limited, but very powerful. In most cases the limits were removed, but the spells remained powerful. Evocation is in a way an exception, although a modern "evoker" still probably has 3-4 times as many spells as a AD&D magic-user.
As for bounded accuracy, it sounds like they are going back to the concept of AC going from 10 to -10 like in the good ole daze. I like the idea of many things not improving without investment, regardless of a characters level (skills), but think there should be an inherent increase in power for some things (saves and attacks).
The bottom line is that there are only 20 different results, unless you want to go to a d100 system. If you knock off 1's and 20's as auto failure and success, and consider 2's and 19's as expected failure and success, there isn't much room if you want to have a game that works well at 20+ levels. Then again, I would be surprised if they keep most of the teen levels...
The bottom line is that there are only 20 different results, unless you want to go to a d100 system. If you knock off 1's and 20's as auto failure and success, and consider 2's and 19's as expected failure and success, there isn't much room if you want to have a game that works well at 20+ levels. Then again, I would be surprised if they keep most of the teen levels...
Yep. I also think they will redefine "levels" so that the game either advances much more slowly, or it maxes out earlier. Most of the really intractable problems with the rules as they exist now either become visible, or are greatly exacerbated by reaching the highest levels of the game.
For that reason our group typically starts to lose interest in playing characters once they get to level 14 or so. The vast majority of our play occurs between levels 4 and 12.
Bounded accuracy is a concept that will have significant issues with any sort of progression that moves from commoner to demi-god. I suspect what we'll see is a breakdown of the game into "tiers" much like 4e, but even more rigidly defined.
One thing I have to give 4e credit for is that they did manage to make a game that did not become unplayable at high levels. I play a level 22 ranger and the game is as balanced at this level as it was at level 8. Now my personal opinion is that they threw the baby out with the bathwater to attain that goal, but you still have to give them credit. They managed to do it.
Many percentile systems do something like this, IIRC. It's usually hard to exceed 100%. Compare that to most d20 games, where a +40 isn't too unusual at high levels.
Implementing bounded accuracy in a d20 system is going to take a lot of careful planning and some hard rules on expansion material. But it's not impossible.
Let's look at the attack vs AC (assuming they keep AC). In d20, you have a (10 + attack - AC) * 5% chance of hitting. For bounded accuracy to work, a level 1 and a level 20 character should have just as much trouble hitting a heavily armored opponent if they never improved their attack. That part's easy, remove BAB. Assuming you're attack doesn't go up on its own, neither does your hit chance. On the other hand, a level 20 character that spent all their resources improving their hit chance should still be able to miss a heavily armored opponent. Well, if they keep the 1s always miss, that's already handled. More importantly, a level 1 character with no resources in attack should still be able to hit a level 20 character with everything in AC. Again though, the auto-hit on 20 covers that.
A more interesting question is, how big of a bonus can you allow them to accumulate without relying on auto-hit/auto-miss. For low levels, if we say the lowest AC can get is 5 (major penalties), then for a level 20 character to have any chance of missing, they would be restricted to a +4. That's not a terribly realistic expectation. If the lowest was 10 (so no AC penalties, or accept that an AC penalty can lose the miss chance) the highest bonus would be a +9. Not awful, but let's see how that compares the other way.
If the highest a level 20 character's attack bonus could be is +10 (let's say we'll let them be sure to hit anything with absolutely no AC bonuses), then how high can AC be? For there to still be a chance to hit with a +10 attack, the AC would have to be 29 or less. Plenty of room there, but that would be unhittable to someone with no attack bonus. With a +0, that'd only be 19 (plate). If we assume that someone with absolutely no attack bonuses might not be able to hit, then we could let it be 20.
TL;DR:
So using a d20 roll, you have to limit attack and AC bonuses to +10. That's doable, but only just, and you would have to be very careful of power creep. Also, you'd likely have to redefine the AC of most items. Plate might only be +5, and magic might only add another +2. You might get almost no bonus from stats, which leaves only another +2 or +3 from feats and abilities. It'd probably be fine to allow limited-use abilities to raise it a bit further though.
Edit: Assuming that leveling mainly gives you more abilities, rather than better abilities (plus the previously mentioned hp), abilities that actually permanently increased your attack bonus or AC would have to be rare and precious. Over a 20 level game, you might get one every 6 levels or something.
All of this applies to saves, skills and several other things too.
Edit again: This also means that someone with maxed attack could hit someone with maxed defense 50% of the time. I'm not sure whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.
So wanted to throw in a math joke here, but it looks like all the good ones have already been done/covered. ;-)
So wanted to throw in a math joke here, but it looks like all the good ones have already been done/covered. ;-)
Why was six scared of seven? Because seven eight nine.
See, there was one left.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a mathematics professor, reading this thread made me cry a little on the inside.
|
|
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.
The problem with that idea, is the players of spellcasters really REALLY hated that aspect of magic in D&D and AD&D. Decades of complaints about magic is what lead to 3rd edition taking out things like:
* Immediate loss of spell if hit in combat
* 10 minutes per spell level per spell memorization
* Having to find or trade for all spells
* Limited spells per level (1 at 1st. level, and so on)
* Spells with major bad effects (Haste, Wish, etc.)
Etc.Really, 3.0 and post 3.0 games simply gave the players what they wanted, because in practice the "risky and difficult" parts of magic turned out to be unfun for a lot of players. So in practice it's actually more fun for more people to give non spellcasters more ability to contribute.
But the problem wasn't giving in to the demands, it was giving in to all of the demands. The system would probably hold up much better with only a few of the things you listed still present. Perhaps presented as an option for DMs (high magic: choose 0-1, medium magic: choose 2-3, low magic: use all).
|
|
We should compare notes sometime :-)Maybe we should...
Thirty years ago I too created my own classless rules set which was based around the "learning by doing" concept - you could only advance in skills that you used (and the more you knew, the harder it was to advance).
There was a lot of behind-the-scenes book-keeping to keep track of all this - it's better-suited to a CRPG than to a table-top game. So after a while we went back to playing something a lot closer to AD&D2 (though I still kept my own mana-point magic system rather than the Vancian fire-and-forget magic of by-the-book AD&D). I was lucky enough to have a group of players who were happy winging it ("Not so much rules, as guidelines", as Capt. Barbosa would put it). With different players a more rules-heavy setting may have worked better.
This sounds eerily like what we did. The game was entirely "skill" based where "skills" were not like PF skills, but were any sort of learned or practiced ability. To get better at casting spells, you had to cast spells. We had a mana-based spell system too, not a Vancian one. It wasn't even level-based, you just kept track of different abilities and when you got better at them (or worse, you could lose abilities through neglect) you updated your character sheet.
But it was a godawful bookkeeping nightmare. And while my main group was very forgiving and interested in pursuing unique game rules, it became clear when we lost one of our key players to a job move that if we wanted to have the ability to bring in new players, we needed to follow an existing game system... So the skill and mana based system was retired... sigh...
That actually sounds a whole lot like SPI's DragonQuest, which was fairly playable in its own odd way.
That actually sounds a whole lot like SPI's DragonQuest, which was fairly playable in its own odd way.
This sounds eerily like what we did. The game was entirely "skill" based where "skills" were not like PF skills, but were any sort of learned or practiced ability. To get better at casting spells, you had to cast spells. We had a mana-based spell system too, not a Vancian one. It wasn't even level-based, you just kept track of different abilities and when you got better at them (or worse, you could lose abilities through neglect) you updated your character sheet.But it was a godawful bookkeeping nightmare. And while my main group was very forgiving and interested in pursuing unique game rules, it became clear when we lost one of our key players to a job move that if we wanted to have the ability to bring in new players, we needed to follow an existing game system... So the skill and mana based system was retired... sigh...
Never played that. We did use a hex grid though. I've still got a notebook full of my hex maps. But as complex as I thought our system was, it was pretty simple in comparison to what I read on that link. Still, I sorta wish I had known about that and tried it a few times. I might have learned something I could have put to use.
Our spell casting was really simple. Probably too simple. For damage spells you basically picked a type of energy and a means of delivering it, then pumped mana to build up damage. For example you could pick fire in a sphere at range and pump some mana to create Xd6 of damage in that area, or you could pick cold in a line for a set distance and pump mana for damage. Mind affecting spells were never really fleshed out, I think we had some illusion and charm spells, but that was a really difficult thing to work out with the mana approach. As I said, we eventually gave it up.
|
|
The spells I used were pretty much the same spells as in AD&D, just a different system to limit spells per day, and the ability to cast any spell you knew (much like Pathfinder's Sorcerers). Casting higher-level (higher damage, &c.) versions of spells cost more mana points, and had a higher chance of spell failure. Mana recovery was more complex than "everything back after eight hours" - casting higher level spells also took longer to recover from.
One thing I liked was that you could convert hit points to mana if you really wanted to. Gave a real sense of sacrifice to the process. Especially since magic users were pretty fragile to begin with.
|
'Bounded Accuracy' is not the idea that DCs will stay static relative to bonuses, or even that improving a bonus requires the investment of resources-- 'bounded accuracy' is the idea that bonuses simply do not increase beyond a certain point, period.
Characters in the Next playtest don't improve their attack bonus, skills, or saving throws over the course of three levels. In PF, the Fighter, Clerics, and Rogue would have gained +2 BAB and the Wizard would have gained +1, while all of the characters would have gained +2 to their skills. In 4e, all of the characters' d20 rolls would have gotten a +1 bonus at 2nd level.
What this means is that higher-level characters in Next have more options, deal more damage, and have more staying power-- but attacks and defenses stay the same. What this means effectively is that characters can fight monsters way above or below their level, and while these fights would still be squash matches, there's still a point in rolling attacks; the low-level side will still be able to hit their enemies, and the high-level side will still be able to miss theirs.
Pretty much this.
For bounded accuracy to work one of the normal factors in the equation (BAB, AC, modifiers) have to cap at a pretty early point. My guess is that AC is going to be hard tied to some fixed values with max AC hittable (in theory) by the lowest level attacker. And since AC gets fixed to a narrow range that means that the available range for modifiers as players level up, be it from increased levels, stats or the addition of magic items is also pretty narrow - so that the fixed value (AC in this case) stays relevant, even if the highest value is easily beatable when the players reach their endpoints in their careers.The big problem I see with a system like this is that it will narrow the range of to a E10 style game - unless they can come up with some kind of advancement ability that isn't tied to a bonus that affects a standard mechanical function of the game (attacks, skill checks, etc) that you can assign to players after they plateau in the system.
That's my takeaway on it...
-Aux
I think 20 levels are still doable, but only just. Basically, each level you get more and better options, but only a select few give straight bonuses. So a fighter reaching level 5 might gain a reroll a miss once a day ability, but his actual attack bonus wouldn't go up. Wizards would get new spells, but the save DCs would stay the same. You could only reasonably hand out static +1s every 5 or 6 levels, which is pushing how far apart you can space things.
I feel like fleshing that idea out, but I have too many other projects I'm more interested in right now.
As a mathematics professor, reading this thread made me cry a little on the inside.
*pats shoulder*
It's okay, big guy. Let it all out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Burning Wheel is a system where you get better in any particular skill by using that skill.
In fact, I think Burning Wheel addresses many of the problems with the D&D engine mentioned here and elsewhere.
Burning Wheel is a system where you get better in any particular skill by using that skill.
In fact, I think Burning Wheel addresses many of the problems with the D&D engine mentioned here and elsewhere.
But it doesn't work well for a 4-5 man squad of superheroes routinely fighting monsters against which every player gets a moment in the spotlight. And the GM basically has to make monsters from scratch, which can be done very simply, but lacks a kind of depth that Pathfinder Bestiaries have.
I am madly in love with Burning Wheel, but it isn't in a position to replace Pathfinder for my nostalgia-based, combat-centric, superhero games.
If I want to run a "grown up" game that is more like a dark/gritty fantasy novel, Burning Wheel is my new weapon of choice.
Germane to the advancement discussion, BW does have characters advancing by using the skill, but it also constrains when you roll at all. If something doesn't pose an obstacle to one of your character's defined beliefs, then it gets GM fiat. This helps to rein in the potential abuse of a use-advance system.
Trouble is, for some reason they use a complicated table for advancement rather than a simple rule of thumb. That's a little annoying, but in practice you just write the numbers on the sheet and check for the new number very occasionally.
|
|
I think 20 levels are still doable, but only just. Basically, each level you get more and better options, but only a select few give straight bonuses. So a fighter reaching level 5 might gain a reroll a miss once a day ability, but his actual attack bonus wouldn't go up. Wizards would get new spells, but the save DCs would stay the same. You could only reasonably hand out static +1s every 5 or 6 levels, which is pushing how far apart you can space things.
I feel like fleshing that idea out, but I have too many other projects I'm more interested in right now.
Or the fighter gets additional attacks per round, damage bonuses, or other options beyond just hitting--disarm, sunder, like that.
In fact, I think Burning Wheel addresses many of the problems with the D&D engine mentioned here and elsewhere.
Yeah BW works well with like 2 - 3 players, that are all good roleplayers. But their combat system breaks down hard core once the GM has to plan out more than a couple of NPCs actions at a time.
That is why they have a mass combat option, because unless you can literally play chess with 4 people at the same time, the GM is going to default to some very simple combat options.
Honestly it works well even when it is just GM and one player.
Also tracking skills is a pain in the butt.
Yep. You're both right. BW addresses some issues that PF doesn't, and vice-verse. How nice for us!
Wait, BW has a mass combat option? Do tell!
The big problem I see with a system like this is that it will narrow the range of to a E10 style game - unless they can come up with some kind of advancement ability that isn't tied to a bonus that affects a standard mechanical function of the...
Check out the "advantage/disadvantage" mechanic. I think that's their "solution" to this issue.
|
|
Check out the "advantage/disadvantage" mechanic. I think that's their "solution" to this issue.
The big problem I see with a system like this is that it will narrow the range of to a E10 style game - unless they can come up with some kind of advancement ability that isn't tied to a bonus that affects a standard mechanical function of the...
While that only applies to certain circumstances I think you are right.
They will use advantage/disadvantage as the blanket fix for discrepancies - hence the orc hoard vs. high level characters example. In other words a single goblin will not be able to hit a mid or high level character and you would need numbers to enable the advantage to the goblin side so they can remain a relevant threat.
I still think the range (based purely on the numbers offered so far) will be very limited. That may still be a good thing though.
I really dislike the "advantage/disadvantage" mechanic. I dislike it for probabilistic and game design reasons. For the vast majority of applications gaining advantage will mathematically equate to a +4 or +5 to the die roll, and a doubling of the chance of a crit. That's such a huge boost that most of the power gamers will simply build advantage-seeking builds, meaning the cookie-cutter builds will probably become more pronounced, not less pronounced.
Disadvantage equates to a -4 to a -5 and the near impossibility of gaining a crit. In most cases, when applied to a saving throw, it's going to result in a near auto-fail, meaning all the "save or suck" spells will become automatic "i win" spells.
I keep hoping the advantage/disadvantage mechanic will fail in the play test, but too many people love it because they don't have to do the horrendous mathematical contortions of adding up four or five bonuses/penalties per attack.
So right now I think it will survive.
|
"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.
Pathfinder did reduce this (through its very subtle balancing that I quite adore) through many ways
A) Reducing the number/effectiveness of spell-penetration style feats.
B) Making Spell Resistance more balanced, causing some spells to fail
C) Making cantrips have unlimited use
D) Giving Specialization/Bloodline etc. powers to help out further at lower levels
E) Giving Fighters Weapon Training to add some innate bonuses
F) (I don't know how well 3.5 did this) balancing DR and Resistance with each other fairly well, particularly after you pass CR 10
Actually, I just thought of something. My previous analysis assumed a fixed AC or DC. If AC was rolled as well, you could almost double the effective range. So someone with a +0 attack could hit someone with a +18 AC once in 400 attacks (attacker rolls 20, defender rolls 1), as opposed to a fixed 18 AC once in 20 attacks. (Twice as many rolls, but also twice as many people rolling.)