|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 12:01AM
#261
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2012
|
Far from being refreshing, its the same boring simulation real world garbage we've had for years. I hate it with a fiery passion my words cannot express.
Word? You mean like 2e?
or do you mean AD&D?
I know you can't mean 3e or 4e... or their offshoots...
Who still plays old school editions that is mad about "simulation"? I mean... that niche of dudes... I don't care what they want. They just want o be mad...
A few guidelines for using the internet:
1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart.
2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons.
3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves.
4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health.
5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 12:11AM
#262
|
Date Joined:
Mar 30, 2007
|
Is there really anything so heinous that a level 20 character could do regularly that a normal person wouldn't have a small chance of completing? I mean, if it was a small chance for the level 20 I could understand. But if it is a normal level task for a level 20, then a level 1 character should have a slight hope of accomplishing the same thing.
Let me put it this way, as simple as I can to make it easy to understand:
How would you feel about a wizard at level 1 having even a 5% chance to cast a 9th level spell?
That's a completely spurious example. It's not even remotely faithful to what Jenks is talking about. Nobody is suggesting that a 1st level fighter should be able to use, say, a manoeuvre with an 11th level prerequisite. What Jenks is talking about (presumably) are skill checks. And he's right. It's not a big deal for a 1st level character to 'possibly' succeed at a skill check that will probably be a 'cake walk' for the 20th level character. The variable level of difficulty is the important distinction.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 12:22AM
#263
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2005
|
JacobSinger, there's no need to be obnoxious. I was civil to you. The least you could do is be equally civil to me. Quote: Sure poisons will have DC's and targets will have varying levels of resisting such things, but what does that have to do with the ATTACKER? Response: Again, we have seen no rules about attacking with poison. So you're assumption that it will use AC as the target is completely unfounded. You're just inventing scenarios and complaing that thescenarios you've entirely imagined out of whole cloth will be problematic. Why not wait for actual poison rules to be presented before complainign about how awful they are? Quote: But Rogues and whatnot shouldn't be hitting as often as Fighter-types with regular attacks. Response: Why not? Both are trained combatants. Rogues are simply trained at a different style of combat than fighters. Both should be hitting about evenly often.
When its core stats like to-hit, damage, and damage reduction ie toe to toe combat the Rogue isn't different the Rogue is inferior. I like bounded
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 12:26AM
#264
|
Date Joined:
Mar 30, 2007
|
You need to stop thinking "WotC told me so" means it's true.
First of all, search some of my posts before mouthing off. I have never believed anything WotC has told me simply because it came from them. In this case, however, with the Bounded Accuracy system, they have earned my praise.
Run the math: Level 20 Next fighter has about 180 HP and an AC of 19. Kobold does 2 damage, 30% hit chance, .6 DPR. Next fighter can survive 300 kobold attacks.
Level 20 4e Fighter has more like 145 HP, kobold does 9 damage but only hits on a 20: DPR .45. 4e fighter can survive 322 kobold attacks.
Yeah, really feeling that danger. Mind you, the Next fighter actually has a better chance of survival because he's got parry and at-will WWA. And forget about a monk with iron root defense.
Why the bloody hellions are you wasting time mathematically throwing 300 kobold attacks at a 20th level fighter? Your example is skewed in the extreme and disproves none of my assertions about the Bounded Accuracy system.
Nobody has been talking about a 20 level spread between Hit Dice and character level. Not even the creators. A 10 level spread is more appropriate. If you want to run the numbers again, use that as your benchmark.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 12:40AM
#265
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2005
|
Accuracy ... As I was saying I like Bounded Accuracy yet I still agree with the OP on just about all points. The problem is accuracy is bounded too tight and nothing else is bounded except static AC. The bottom line for me is that if everything is bounded and deflated to a proper range character development and roleplaying benifit. An elusive character can boost AC and it matters since the numbers are low. A skilled dagger fighter can train a proficiency and it matters more. A helmet or traning can reduce crits, damage reduction etc. Next needs character and armor value deflation so every skill can shine
This is also true with the 48 point cantrip damage. What the op is calling for is an emphasis on roleplaying in an RPG. Its amazing that we aren't laughing at him for reminding us what color the sky is.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 1:37AM
#266
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
Accuracy ... As I was saying I like Bounded Accuracy yet I still agree with the OP on just about all points. The problem is accuracy is bounded too tight and nothing else is bounded except static AC. The bottom line for me is that if everything is bounded and deflated to a proper range character development and roleplaying benifit. An elusive character can boost AC and it matters since the numbers are low. A skilled dagger fighter can train a proficiency and it matters more. A helmet or traning can reduce crits, damage reduction etc. Next needs character and armor value deflation so every skill can shine This is also true with the 48 point cantrip damage. What the op is calling for is an emphasis on roleplaying in an RPG. Its amazing that we aren't laughing at him for reminding us what color the sky is.
Agreed. The execution is poor and I think the thing that gets everyone a bit antsy is the accuracy thing continues to diminish in favour of MOAR DAMAGE. One thing I would stress about where we're at now though is where this is a playtest and where the balance hasn't been found it's altogether possible that he's throwing damage at us to see how much damage is too much. Mearls has made it clear in one of the L&L articles some time back two things that are worth keeping in mind:
- damage is meant to replace some of base attack
- the playtest is here so they can throw ideas at us that are more off the wall than he'd be willing to try in a smaller scale playtest.
The implementation sucks, but maybe it's supposed to suck. Maybe it's our job to hit the surveys and and tell him why. The rants in this thread and many others on this topic tell me that the implementation of this idea are far from finished. Keep posting the rants, keep ranting back and keep filling in surveys because that's how the process is supposed to work and we've had every assurance that it's working as intended - just about all anyone can offer us without living inside Mearls' head. In short, keep talking.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 1:41AM
#267
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2009
|
Point of fact, you are believing that BA means monsters are more viable at greater level gaps. This is not true unless you make unreasonable assumptions about the alternatives, and the only evidence I've seen that it is true is wotc said so. Hence my comment. If you want to point me to actual evidence upon which you base your assumption, I'm happy to examine it.
Also, "mathematically throwing 300 kobold attacks" consists of dividing 180 by .6. It's not a lot of time to waste. If you want the level 10 figures, it's 140 vs 93, with the greater danger to the 4e fighter (assuming AC 25 for him, there's some wiggle and it really matters at the cusp there). And that's with really fast AC scaling, as opposed to only moderate AC scaling. And with a 9 level spread, which is suppose to mean 180 kobolds for each Next character, which is hardly workable without bundling anyway. And if you're bundling, you may as well just admit you've built a swarm and change the accuracy, in which case it's utterly irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 6:05AM
#268
|
|
|
JacboSinger, I'd really like to know your opinion of what HP really means. What are Hit Points, in your opinion?
I don't really care if my players see HP as literal damage, or abstract "spending vitality to avoid getting nailed". So either way is fine with me. They both end up at zero regardless.
And it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the accuracy system is bounded or not, if that's what you are getting at. Two completely unrelated things.
Also, about the fighting the same monsters over and over again, I have to say I do. I don't want to fight the same NUMBER of monsters, mind you, but go from fighting a few orcs to a horde of orcs? It should be easy to take out a couple Orcs, but if I'm caught in the middle of an army of a thousand Orcs, I shouldn't be untoucheable. They should wear me down.
I've never played any game without bounded accuracy where a huge group like that wouldn't be dangerous.
You didn't answer my question, though. What does "High Armor Class, Low Hit Points" mean to the story of that creature you made?
It DEFINITELY has EVERYTHING to do with whether Accuracy is Bounded or not, because Bounded Accuracy assumes a VERY different purpose to Hit Points than Unbounded Accuracy.
Also, could you please explain to me how a huge group like that would be dangerous with unbounded accuracy? If I'm untoucheable because those CR5/level 5 orcs can't hit any of my defences, then how are they a threat?
A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 6:10AM
#269
|
|
|
But I do think this 1st level fighter with a 20 Str being able to hit Asmodeus by rolling an 11 business is ludicrous.
Ever heard of Death by a Thousand Mosquito Bites?
A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 6:18AM
#270
|
|
|
As I understand and experienced the treadmill effect, it was that my To-Hit bonuses (as determined by level, ability, and level-appropriate gear (itself guided by wealth-by-level guidelines)) scaled at roughly the same rate as the defenses of the monsters deemed appropriate to my characters level. In short, the chance of me hitting and maybe defeating a kobold at low level was roughly the same as the chance of me hitting and maybe defeating an orc at slightly higher levels, and a demon at even higher levels, and so on and so forth.
Different monsters had widely different stats, and the only way to keep those numbers perfectly in-synch with your attack bonuses is if your DM specifically set out to do such a thing.
But we never heard of such a tactic in all our years of playing. Instead, we would face a wide range of different types of monsters, where the variables of HP, AC, attack, damage, etc. would all vary considerably from monster to monster, and thus the treadmill effect was literally impossible. That kind of diversity was what made encounters fun and unpredictable. Also, the players didn't necessarily know what those monsters' stats were, and as a DM I was always able to mix it up quite easily under any of our previous systems to keep players on their toes. On top of that, because we had such a large mathematical range to work with, I could create my own monsters that varied as much as you could possibly imagine. Again, having a large mathematical range is awesome for this purpose, as any DM in my position could have told you.
I played 1e and 2e, too, but that wasn't my experience. There were clearly monsters who, for whatever reason, completely outclasses us at given levels. Be they too hard to hit, or too damaging, or too much HP, we simply lacked the resources or ability to deal with those monsters. Whether or not they had levels, they certainly had higher XP rewards commensurate with their challenge. Wildly divergent stats or not, the challenge of a given monster steadily increased roughly on par with an increase to its XP reward. And since the challenge of certain monsters would drop away as we'd level, steadily more difficult monsters would present themselves. That was the treadmill. You get better and better, only to fight tougher and tougher monsters. Yeah, you're "improving", but you rarely got to feel that improvement, since what you had moved on from was no longer relevant to you.
I've found Bounded Accuracy (in concept if not always in execution) has allowed for those lower level creatures to remain relevant well past their "sell by" date (and also puts higher level within grasp, though still difficult).
Bounded accuracy, on the other hand, gives you a system where the only thing that really varies is the HP/damage continuum, and players will know this, making encounters A LOT more predictable. Players just assume they can hit most of the time, because monster AC's are ALL relatively low, and it becomes just a boring exercise of die-rolling for damage. Nothing is more of a treadmill than that. Nothing.
And yet it was never like that in the past. If I went up in level, our players NEVER knew if the next monster they faced would have a higher AC, higher HP, more damage, etc. The next monster could be significantly better at some things and worse at others, and players wouldn't necessarily know how the parameters of the monsters they were facing were improving. It was always a guessing game, and they may only have found that out by defeating said monster...
"Wow, his armor scales were really tough to get through ...but fortunately he was soft in the middle."
or
"That guy was big and slow, but he could sure take a lot of punishment!"
or
"He wasn't very precise, but if he hit you... MAN it hurt like the dickens!"
or
"He moved so fast, and his hide was actually pretty tough, but at least his claws weren't very sharp."
Again, only a wide range of ALL the variables (AC, HP, attack, damage) truly creates that kind of diversity.
Bounded accuracy gets rid of all that.
That's actually not true. Nothing about BA means AC necessarily has to be low. If the designers are executing poorly (and I can buy that argument), then criticism of what the designers are delivering within the context of BA is perfectly valid. But complaining about BA because AC remains too low across the board betrays a misunderstanding of what BA actually is. Bounded Accuracy just means that AC doesn't inflate arbitrarily because the level of the monster (or the commensurate XP reward) is higher. A high challenge monster can have low AC, and a low challenge monster can have a high AC within the context of BA. That WotC hasn't truly delivered that is a seperate (and valid) criticism.
Actually, unless there is a specific reason, according to bounded accuracy, AC shouldn't go up at all. Which is why we have dragons with the AC of scale armor instead of extremely high ACs...
|
|
|
