In 3rd edition, every time you gained a level, the change was very dramatic. Your attack bonus, damage, hit points and AC all increased significantly (at least +1.5/level).
In 4th edition, you still had a significant increase to your attacks and defenses (+1/level), but the damage progression and hit point progression were a lot flatter; you had high level 1 hit points and a slow increase in HP/level; damage increased even slower than that. In 4th edition, a 4th level character is not significantly more powerful than a 1st level character.
In D&D Next, they want to have an even flatter system than in 4th edition. The iconic “plus” weapons and armor probably won’t make it and stat increases will probably be removed too.
That’s what I mean by flat math.
Iconic D&D progression is not flat. Gaining a new level in D&D really meant something. You could actually feel the change. This varied from multiple attacks or better gear to a whole new spell level with even more powerful stuff. The means to achieve these big leaps from one level to another is also iconic. +3 longsword, girdle of giant strength anyone?
The lifespan of monsters depends on how flat the math is. In a flat math system, a level 8 ogre could be a suitable “solo” monster for 3rd level characters, a suitable “elite” monster for 5th level characters and a suitable “normal” monster for characters of level 8. In numbers (say 5-6), these ogres are still a challenge to level 11-12 characters. Basically, you can use ogres from level 2 to 13. 3rd edition is the edition of D&D with the most dramatic changes in level. If you didn’t use ogres between level 3 to 5, you basically never will encounter an ogre; the Monster Manual says that a Mind Flayer has ogre minions, but those are really a joke again 8th level character.
So basically you have to choose between the ecstatic feelings of power you have when you gain a new level and replaying your very own version of all those fantasy novels and movies that got you in the game in the first place. Drizzt still fights hordes of trolls after 100 years of adventuring, my characters don’t.
Sorry, this is a long post for one simple question. Which version do you like the most? One that supports the story (flat), or one that emphasizes the joy of character progression (not flat)? How would you like your math in D&D Next?
Flat is probably easier to work with, albeit for another reason: it reduces the impact when PCs vary from the 'standard' values. OTOH, this only works if the variability is also minimal at character creation.
Attack bonus is something that I don't mind ceding to the 4e balance crowd. A + number doesn't do as much for me as new feats, new skills, etc... I'm actually happy they are slowing down the to hit advancement.
The lifespan of monsters depends on how flat the math is. In a flat math system, a level 8 ogre could be a suitable “solo” monster for 3rd level characters, a suitable “elite” monster for 5th level characters and a suitable “normal” monster for characters of level 8. In numbers (say 5-6), these ogres are still a challenge to level 11-12 characters. Basically, you can use ogres from level 2 to 13.
This flat math right here is exactly what I would like.
Flat math has a lot of advantages, IMO, and it has only two downsides: the one disadvantage you point out, and the possibility of unintresting levels.
The first one is entirely DM dependant, as long as monsters are designed properly: you can easily use stronger monsters as your characters advance and you can easily use lower level monsters as minions at higher levels with very few adjustments. That nets you the skyrocketing feel you wish to have.
The second one is not necessary either, take a look at the following character progression system, for example (levels 1-20):
At level 1 you have one class feature, one feat, one racial feature, one theme feature, one skill trick, five skills and one specialization.
At every even level you gain a new skill. At every odd level you gain a new skill trick.
At levels 2, 4, 7, 9, 12, 14, 17, 19 you gain a new class feature.
At levels 3, 6, 8, 11, 13, 16, 18 you gain a new feat.
At levels 5, 10, 15, 20 you gain a new theme feature.
At levels 5, 10, 15, 20 you increase three ability scores by 1.
At every level you gain new spells, manoeuvres, prayers, whatever cool combat trick your class has.
You gain +1 to all attack rolls and defenses every 4 levels.
You get a lot of nifty new things at every level, and still advance slowly.
So yeah, I'm in favor of flat math.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Flat math has a lot of advantages, IMO, and it has only two downsides: the one disadvantage you point out, and the possibility of unintresting levels.
There is another disadvantage to flat math. The steeper rate at which the numbers increase, the more easy it is to determine with exactitude at what levels a specific monster will be an appropriate challenge. Conversely, the flatter the math, the harder it becomes to determine exactly what levels a specific monster will be an appropriate challenge.
Hence those who place a premium upon being able to determine an encounter's appropriate challenge per level of the characters may want to cast a wary eye on flat math.
I much prefer smaller numbers overall. The fantasy I like doesn't involve superhero-level characters who level up to the point where nothing scares them anymore. In my preferred version of fantasy, Boromir is killed by an orc; Jabba the Hutt is strangled to death by a princess; (I won't spoil Game of Thrones for anyone who hasn't read or watched it yet, but you get the idea).
With D&D (more so with each edition), it's like with each level you gain, the list of creatures on the planet capable of killing you grows smaller and smaller. When you're 1st level, there are billions of ways to die; but at 30th level, there might be one single being on the entire planet who could kill you--and then only if he were able to somehow separate you from your adventuring pals who happen to be the same level as you.
When I'm 18th level, I want to be able to help my friends take down a dragon. However, when I'm ambushed by twelve orcs holding crossbows at my face, I want to be able to think, I could very well die here if I don't come up with a good plan for getting out of this situation.
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way. Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken. Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken. King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong. Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading. Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered. Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square. Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong. Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked. Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic. Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation. Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses. Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent. Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof. Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it. Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways. Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful. The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken. Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered. Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5. Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong. Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken. Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken. Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
Flat math has a lot of advantages, IMO, and it has only two downsides: the one disadvantage you point out, and the possibility of unintresting levels.
There is another disadvantage to flat math. The steeper rate at which the numbers increase, the more easy it is to determine with exactitude at what levels a specific monster will be an appropriate challenge. Conversely, the flatter the math, the harder it becomes to determine exactly what levels a specific monster will be an appropriate challenge.
Hence those who place a premium upon being able to determine an encounter's appropriate challenge per level of the characters may want to cast a wary eye on flat math.
That's one thing I never considered. However, I think it's worth it.
Take 4E framework, slap on flat math. You then have Heroic, Paragon and Epic monsters, instead of monsters of level X. Since the only thing that changes is not the numbers but the characters' options, you can safely bet 5 Heroic monsters are a challenge from 1 through 10. (More granularity might be needed, maybe a 5 levels range, but you get what I mean). You also know that the more you go up with your level, the more you can substitute Heroic monsters with Paragon ones. For instance, party level 1-3 is 5 Heroic monsters. Party level 4-7 is one Pragon four Heroic or up to two Paragon, three Heroic. Party level 8-10 can face 3-4 Paragon monsters and 1-2 Heroic, or 8-9 Heroic.
It's less precise, but not necessarily unviable.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
There is another disadvantage to flat math. The steeper rate at which the numbers increase, the more easy it is to determine with exactitude at what levels a specific monster will be an appropriate challenge. Conversely, the flatter the math, the harder it becomes to determine exactly what levels a specific monster will be an appropriate challenge.
Hence those who place a premium upon being able to determine an encounter's appropriate challenge per level of the characters may want to cast a wary eye on flat math.
On the other hand, because the lifespan over which a monster is an appropriate challenge is much wider using flat math, if you miscalculate there is less chance of TPK. In 3.5 a pair of gray renders that was supposed to be an appropriate challenge almost killed the party because of the decidedly non-flat way in which grapple modifiers scaled, so in some ways "iconic" math can also make it difficult to determine an appropriate challenge.
