|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 7:27AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2012
|
Youngy I stated that the issues with disadvantage is largely negated by the fact that you get bonuses in D&D. This means that a fighter can actually negate disadvantage on attack roles at first level, making TWF for him to not be a bad choice give the monsters low AC. For low bonus characters however an option with disadvantage is not a real option.
While it is true I used the highest level at level 10 I also assumed the monsters would hit at max. damage. If monsters hit at average damage and you take average Damage Reduction, you still end up with an attack that is mostly not going to do damage. It really doesn't matter at what level you choose to look at it as long as you assume the fighter Parrys the same precentage as the monsters deal damage.
Yes it is true that monsters barely hit. The problem is when they do they can potentionally kill a character right out. If this occurs in round one when the monsters have initiative, this is where the problem comes in.
"I have disadvantage this round right? Ok, well in addition to my long sword, I'm going to pull out my short sword and TWF, run, get drunk, and a lot of other things until I lose disadvantage."
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 7:34AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2012
|
My apologies, I missunderstood your statement about fighters and disadvantage. I do still however disagree with your TWF statement. Not because I think the current rules are good, but because I think the current rules are a good base - to add improvements on through specialties.
So the fighter is passably ok at TWF without the feats... Well, that seems reasonable enough, considering he is a speciallist of fighting. However, when they fix the monsters, he will become less so (I hope)
Yes it is true that monsters barely hit. The problem is when they do they can potentionally kill a character right out. If this occurs in round one when the monsters have initiative, this is where the problem comes in.
So what I guess you are suggesting overall is that, increase base HP for characters, increase Attack Roll for monsters, decrease the 'BAB' for each of the classes so that they hit monsters less reliably.
While it is true I used the highest level at level 10 I also assumed the monsters would hit at max. damage. If monsters hit at average damage and you take average Damage Reduction, you still end up with an attack that is mostly not going to do damage. It really doesn't matter at what level you choose to look at it as long as you assume the fighter Parrys the same precentage as the monsters deal damage.
I think that seems reasonable. If the fighter can fend off a single monster of his level... That seems reasonable, attack him with a group instead. And yet again with the ranged attacks and area attacks. That said, yes the XD progression needs some work.
Overall, your biggest concern is system math, not system feel, I gather then. I'm starting to understand what you are saying - its just I didn't consider it such a big thing at this point. I've pushed it aside as something which can be dealt with later - once they have the feel of things right. Don't get me wrong, the maths will need to work in the end - and they do have a way to go with it... But its something that will change as the playtest progresses.
(Being a Mathematician, yeah, it would have been one of the first things that I pinned down, but I don't expect everyone to be like that, and I am sure that they will deal with it later)
Yeah... WotC are not good with "soon". Its stopped being a valid excuse about half-way through 4E. Now it would be different if they had a bug list like software developers where we could add bugs and problems and they could categorize them and would put out little blurbs saying "Ok, we'll fix that in a few weeks."
They aren't doing anything of the sort, so we don't know what they are doing and we have lost all trust due to the way they treated us during the 4E era. That's why everyone is jumping at shadows and when people say "soon" they get ignored or worse attacked as a WotC fan person.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 7:40AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2012
|
Currently I am running and playing in 5E games. As a DM I like the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic as a tool for both things that come up that aren't covered in the rules and as a means to encourage roleplaying creative solutions. I'm not sure what people mean when they say it's bad math, especially when it's an optional rule. As far as expertise dice go I love them in the three classes that have them, though I'm only playing the rogue and the monk. Parry's has not been a big deal in the game I'm running. The player playing the fighter (well everyone also) has one reaction, if he parries well then he parries. He's usually not fighting only one monster at a time. Further until I started playing Next I thought monsters were weak. Noe that I"ve played my opinion is that some need some tweaking but not by much. My players end up losing substantial hps and in one or two encounters per session at least one will hit zero hps. Now I run most encounters as average or tough, about evenly divided, but I haven't actually found monsters to be weak. Maybe the encounter design rules are off kilter, I don't know, but in my opinion some things do need to be played. People who haven't played can comment if they want, and claim system mastery, etcetera, and that's fine. But some things need to be played in order to see how they work. Especially given the amount of bias exhibited by certain members in these forums.
The fact of the matter is many of us HAVE played with these mechanics in the past and know exactly what they bring to the game. It turns out they aren't that great.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 8:01AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2010
|
Advantage/Disadvantage is not optional at this point as the rogue's sneak attack requires advantage and no alternative has been presented. Also there are several threads detailing the math. Basically if you get +0 to hit a DC 10 Advantage will give you a 10% increased chance to hit. Disadvantage gives you a 30% less chance to hit. A DC above 16 is impossible to ever hit. [I made 30 rolls with two sets of dice to get my numbers other people have done the actual stat formulas.] what essentially happens is that as your bonus goes up Advantage becomes unimportant increasing your success by less than 10%. Disadvantage will go down as well. So a fighter with +8 to attack would at level one negate disadvantage. He never has the need to take trained twf as disadvantage means nothing to him.
I am not certain, but I think you've got it slightly wrong again. At a half chance of hitting 10+ advantage is a +5 bonus (25%) and disadvantage is a -5 (-25%). It can never go above or below this. They have to be even in this regard there is no way that disadvantage could cause further swing than advantage on an even chance. As you move away from this 'average hit' the increase in probability decreases.
Vegetakiller, so you'd like to see the developers give us a list of the things that they need to 'fix' to show us that they are thinking about it? They have said, more than a few times, that they are working on the maths for the system...
Also, I dont think that you can get drunk in one round or draw a sword and attack or run. You make the attack, the DM says you have disadvantage, and you roll it. I think for the most part, the examples you have chosen are wrong, even if I agree with the sentiment that it is not scalable enough.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 8:20AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2012
|
Advantage/Disadvantage is not optional at this point as the rogue's sneak attack requires advantage and no alternative has been presented. Also there are several threads detailing the math. Basically if you get +0 to hit a DC 10 Advantage will give you a 10% increased chance to hit. Disadvantage gives you a 30% less chance to hit. A DC above 16 is impossible to ever hit. [I made 30 rolls with two sets of dice to get my numbers other people have done the actual stat formulas.] what essentially happens is that as your bonus goes up Advantage becomes unimportant increasing your success by less than 10%. Disadvantage will go down as well. So a fighter with +8 to attack would at level one negate disadvantage. He never has the need to take trained twf as disadvantage means nothing to him.
Um you are off a little bit.
Depending on the target roll needed on the dice your chance goes up or down based on whether you are using advantage or disadvantage.
Here are the actual numbers:
Advantage
Dice Percent
Roll Chance
Target
1 100
2 99.75
3 99
4 97.75
5 96
6 93.75
7 91
8 87.75
9 84
10 79.75
11 75
12 69.75
13 64
14 57.75
15 51
16 43.75
17 36
18 27.75
19 19
20 9.75
Disadvantage
Dice Percent
Roll Chance
Target
1 100
2 90.25
3 81
4 72.25
5 64
6 56.25
7 49
8 42.25
9 36
10 30.25
11 25
12 20.25
13 16
14 12.25
15 9
16 6.25
17 4
18 2.25
19 1
20 0.25
Normal
Dice Percent
Roll Chance
Target
1 100
2 95
3 90
4 85
5 80
6 75
7 70
8 65
9 60
10 55
11 50
12 45
13 40
14 35
15 30
16 25
17 20
18 15
19 10
20 5
As you can see here advantage is overwhelmingly good, and disadvantage is overwhelmingly bad. The higher the dice roll the less advantage matters, and the lower the dice roll the less disadvantage affects it.
Not to mention that without stacking players can take advantage of having disadvantage and do 10 things that give disadvantage and literally get an in game advantage pun intended.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 8:20AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
Someone made a thread around here that showed how an 8th level fighter could take on a 9th level green dragon by themselves and win without too much trouble with a lot of math. Then later on a bunch of people posted that they had experienced that when they played. I'm pretty sure that math can prove anything. I think that's the basis of science.
Actually the basis of science is to form a hypothesis (mathcraft a system), test that hypothesis (use in a session), evaluate the results against your hypothesis (survey), revise that hypothesis (new packet) and repeat. You can't be scientific without actual experimentation; you need to play the game to get a true picture of what's going on. The theory is good and people can and should crunch numbers and even give feedback based on those numbers, but whether you actually played with those numbers is an important distinction.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 8:46AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
You can't be scientific without actual experimentation
Theoretical physicists would disagree with you. Their role is absolutely critical - they indicate the most likely pathways for the experimentation to take.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 9:05AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2012
|
Advantage/Disadvantage is not optional at this point as the rogue's sneak attack requires advantage and no alternative has been presented. Also there are several threads detailing the math. Basically if you get +0 to hit a DC 10 Advantage will give you a 10% increased chance to hit. Disadvantage gives you a 30% less chance to hit. A DC above 16 is impossible to ever hit. [I made 30 rolls with two sets of dice to get my numbers other people have done the actual stat formulas.] what essentially happens is that as your bonus goes up Advantage becomes unimportant increasing your success by less than 10%. Disadvantage will go down as well. So a fighter with +8 to attack would at level one negate disadvantage. He never has the need to take trained twf as disadvantage means nothing to him.
I am not certain, but I think you've got it slightly wrong again. At a half chance of hitting 10+ advantage is a +5 bonus (25%) and disadvantage is a -5 (-25%). It can never go above or below this. They have to be even in this regard there is no way that disadvantage could cause further swing than advantage on an even chance. As you move away from this 'average hit' the increase in probability decreases.
Vegetakiller, so you'd like to see the developers give us a list of the things that they need to 'fix' to show us that they are thinking about it? They have said, more than a few times, that they are working on the maths for the system...
Also, I dont think that you can get drunk in one round or draw a sword and attack or run. You make the attack, the DM says you have disadvantage, and you roll it. I think for the most part, the examples you have chosen are wrong, even if I agree with the sentiment that it is not scalable enough.
I posted the math in another post above this one.
I want them to set up a bug tracking system and allow people to point out bugs. It works great for software and it would probably work wonders for streamlining this process. You can actually run and you can draw weapons as part of your attack. They moved most of the minor actions into 'as part of your action' actions. You are right about run and drunk though. However if you play a TWF then being drunk all the time is no detriment, and everything else that gives you disadvantage has no negative effects so you can be Blinded, Frightened, attacking invisible targets, Intoxicated, Prone (so ranged attackers get disadvantage against you), Restrained, Encumbered, and Unarmed Disarm.
So if you know you are going up against say displacer beasts, its actually in your best interest to get drunk. If you have disadvantage for whatever reason, then dropping prone to make it harder on ranged attackers is actually advantageous. If you are going up against a dragon soon, getting drunk is actually a good option.
Most fights with TWF being drunk and prone and encumbered would give you a significant advantage.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 9:26AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
You can't be scientific without actual experimentation
Theoretical physicists would disagree with you. Their role is absolutely critical - they indicate the most likely pathways for the experimentation to take.
Actually they would agree that their theories are merely a first step. An important one, to be sure, but until they actually can run the experiment their theories are just that. The actual products of physics are the results of empirical evidence based on experimentation. The theory does indeed provide a marker, but it cannot draw any firm conclusions on its own.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 9:34AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
You can't be scientific without actual experimentation
Theoretical physicists would disagree with you. Their role is absolutely critical - they indicate the most likely pathways for the experimentation to take.
Actually they would agree that their theories are merely a first step. An important one, to be sure, but until they actually can run the experiment their theories are just that.
The actual products of physics are the results of empirical evidence based on experimentation. The theory does indeed provide a marker, but it cannot draw any firm conclusions on its own.
Just to pick nits, theories are part of the scientific process, so theories are scientific which is where Mand disagreed with you. You CAN be scientific without experimentation 
|
|
|
