2nd Edition Vs. 3rd Edition

[RandomCasualty]

1110673160[/unixtime]]
Your reasoning works for to hit bonuses. It does not work as well for things like HPs and more importantly it does not work for overall character power. If (and that's a big if) you manage to get rid of everything that scales (HPs for example) and of everything that basically multiplies your power (like extra attacks) then straightly linear leveling may work.

Well, the hit point system is on a different standard than the attack rolls. And HP and damage are really the onyl thing that truly scale. And you can solve them by using Frank's wound system which puts the wound system onto a d20, just like everything else.

And even if you do accept the D&D damage system, that doesn't mean anything except damage and hp should scale. Based on the current d20 system saves and attack roll, there's no reason they should ever scale, regardless of what wound system you use.

A side effect of such a system will be that your linear power chart begins at an arbitrary point - meaning that you can basically freely choose how big level 1 is in relation to all the other levels. That is a bonus I guess, if you want starting characters to be "little heroes" instead of "commoners turned adventurers".

Right, and that's how systems should work. If you want a rat to be level -1, you could do it. The only thing standing in the way is the hit point mechanic, which sets level = hit dice.

[PhoneLobster]

What in all heck, do you even add these numbers together and put a thought behind it??

So you'll have an attack roll that looks like this: level (BaB) + ability modifier (I figure somewhere between +0 and +3) + weapon quality mod (+0 to +4) + attack buff (+0 to +3).

Therefore, attack ranges from +0 to +10 (not counting BAB variation even). You very conveniently "left out" tactical modifiers, which you continue to screw with for the rest of your reply, but it deserves to be added. Lets assume the standard level one BAB variation or 0 to one too.

And thats... +0 to +14, with only a very modest +3 tactical variation. And no just pretending the +0 or the +14 never happens is not on. Because a character that is GOOD at this is defined by the top end (he need not even max out, he has up to four points to sacrifice) and a character that is BAD is defined by the bottom, and they are off the RNG compared to each other.

AC will be 10 + level + defensive ability mod (+0 to +3), armor type mod (none +0 through heavy +3) + armor quality bonus (+0 - +4) + armor buff (+0 to +3)

Which is now 11 to 24.

NOT counting tactical mods AGAIN.

So really more like 11 to 27.

And guess what! Thats not even on the same scale as your same level attack bonus YAY!

Even better guess what else, by adding level to AC your AC automatically has a scaling factor equal to the biggest possible scaling factor (and only scaling factor) added to attack bonuses.

So under this ass system not only does AC just plain beat attack but it automatically beats the attack of anyone without max BAB. Niiiiiice.

If we knock the same three or so points of the AC top end you seem to want to knock off the attack top end and declare "uncommon" its worse, because you are still off the damn RNG when you compare the two knocked down results.

There's really no way to push anyone off the RNG at low levels unless you create situations that won't happen, like a naked guy with no defensive ability mod

RC meet Mr Wizard, Mr Wizard meet RC.

Mr Wizard (in Mr Gumby voice) : "Helloooo Mr RC".

facing off against a maxed ability mod guy with a magic sword and divine favor

Now meet Mr Fighter dude.

In all seriousness what in the what now? There is NOT going to be some chump out there wearing no armour with no attribute, buff, or tactical advantage being wailed on by a tricked out barbarian?

There is NOT going to be some guy kitted out with sweet heavy armour in a good defensive position with strong defense attributes being wailed on by some wimpy chump with a everyday garden variety stick?

There isn't even ever going to be anything within the several points of range in which your system can still be off the RNG of those extremes? Especially when we remember that as AC automatically grows at the fastest rate as characters level up there is a larger and larger potential range for them to be off the RNG by?

while it is an automatic hit, favorable tactical conditions can easily keep that on the same RNG.

And here is where it becomes clear that your dicking around with leaving out tactical bonuses earlier on is in fact an attempt to cook the books to make your mad scheme look more attractive.

Because here you suddenly DO apply (an undefined) tactical bonus that ONLY applies to reduce variance. Well SORRY but thats not how it works, that tactical bonus can add to the wrong side of the equation too, it INCREASES variance.

You go on to say how why gosh darn you only go off the RNG by about 3 or 4 points and thats not much, but thats pretending your tactical bonus just you know, went away again, so really its more like 6 or 7 points.

And thats at least two whole flat on/off bonuses you don't even have to collect to be off the RNG from stick boy.

Two hole flat on/off bonuses worth of people, 6 or 7 points worth of people who you can be off the RNG from IN ADDITION to stick boy.

This ain't the maths big leagues here, this is a flawed system staring you in the face and calmly informing you that it sucks in all the regards you seem to think it totally rulez.

[Murtak]

The former option is no fun

That's a matter of opinion. I think it's a great deal more fun than characters that scale exponentially.

Well, I guess you are right there. I find it more fun to actually have a noticeable difference whenever my character levels up rather then having a huge difference at level 2, a large one at level 3, a moderate at level 4 ...

It also has the advantage of each level being as significant as the last.

This is flat out wrong. It has the disadvantage of making each level more significant than the last. It also means that more than a 1 level difference between characters results in the lower level character having virtually zero chance of doing anything meaningful, which is a pile of suck. You're right that it keeps the relative multiplicative power of different levels constant -- a character 3 levels higher will always be 8x as strong -- but that gives you a bell curve where anything more than a couple of levels away from you is either totally out of your league or completely insignificant.

Going from level 1 to level 2 is pretty significant, right? You double your HPs, you hit a little better, you probably get another class feature. A level 2 fighter will pretty much always win against a level 1 fighter, right? That is pretty significant. Going from level 19 to level 20 however you have a hard time noticing the difference. That is much less significant. And that is what linear systems do if they have any non-linear parts in them (like HPs).

Getting larger and larger bonuses may seem like you are getting more but these numbers are actually required to get the same increase in power you got back at level 2. If you did not like that jump at level 2 then I guess this is not for you. I rather like it. Ideally the CR system would work and you would really double your character power every 2 levels.

That means every level you have on your opponent is noticeable, 2 levels mean you have next to no chance and 3 or 4 mean you need a party to handle that opponent. At all levels.

Of course a completely linear system ends up with the exact same result, just with a different method. Quasi-linear systems (like DnD) however end up doing things like the power jump at level 2 and the near worthlessness of level 20. Now, I really don't know which of these systems you are in favor of. If it is either the completely linear or the completely exponential system we want the same result. If you want a hybrid system we don't.

[RandomCasualty]

1110673945[/unixtime]]

AC will be 10 + level + defensive ability mod (+0 to +3), armor type mod (none +0 through heavy +3) + armor quality bonus (+0 - +4) + armor buff (+0 to +3)

Which is now 11 to 24.

NOT counting tactical mods AGAIN.

So really more like 11 to 27.

And guess what! Thats not even on the same scale as your same level attack bonus YAY!

So who cares? Seriously. So if you're tactically in the worst spot possible, have no defensive ability and are running around in your birthday suit, you're outmatched against a guy who has maxed out his attack...

Yeah, you totally deserve to be off the RNG in that extreme edge case.

So under this ass system not only does AC just plain beat attack but it automatically beats the attack of anyone without max BAB. Niiiiiice.

Well, my system would get rid of BaB, BaB would alway equal level basically.

In all seriousness what in the what now? There is NOT going to be some chump out there wearing no armour with no attribute, buff, or tactical advantage being wailed on by a tricked out barbarian?

If so, then he deserves to lose. Seriously... I dont' even care about the guy walking around in his birthday suit who wants to somehow survive for a long time against a fighter wtih a magic sword, tactical bonuses and fully buffed. I don't even give a shit about that guy, because he deserves to lose. He has every possible disadvantage he can... and yes, that should be overwhelmingly bad.

And here is where it becomes clear that your dicking around with leaving out tactical bonuses earlier on is in fact an attempt to cook the books to make your mad scheme look more attractive.

Bullshit. Tactical bonuses can change and aren't constant. You dont' walk around with a +2 flanking bonus all the time, nor do you get it from feats, so I left it out. Sometimes you have higher ground, sometimes your opponent does. Tactical stuff shifts and is in no way indicative of character power.

Because here you suddenly DO apply (an undefined) tactical bonus that ONLY applies to reduce variance. Well SORRY but thats not how it works, that tactical bonus can add to the wrong side of the equation too, it INCREASES variance.

So who cares? Are you saying the guy with no equipment, talent or advantage whatsoever and in the poorest tactical position should have a chance of winning? Is that what you're saying?

So farmer bill apparently should have a reasonable chance when he's caught naked, by surprise and has no defensive training. What is it that you're smoking to ever want a system that doesn't put someone liek that a huge disadvantage?

This ain't the maths big leagues here, this is a flawed system staring you in the face and calmly informing you that it sucks in all the regards you seem to think it totally rulez.

So why don't you suggest a better system, oh supreme genius of the universe.

My system is better than the existing one by a great deal and it works at level 20 and up, the same as it does at level 1. Where as the existing system falls apart at those levels.


It is so easy to sit there and be a critic. But what solutions have you posed? How about none. Why don't you come up with a system of your own and prove mine is so inferior rather than sitting on your fat ass and throwing insults.

I'm calling you out. Come up with a better system, or stfu.

Murtak's paradigm may be flawed, but at least he is presenting ideas. You have presented shit.

[PhoneLobster]

So who cares? Seriously. So if you're tactically in the worst spot possible, have no defensive ability and are running around in your birthday suit, you're outmatched against a guy who has maxed out his attack...

Yeah, you totally deserve to be off the RNG in that extreme edge case.

And here is one key point of my reply you are rather handily ignoring, anyone within a solid half a dozen points of the extreme and two or so of those big ugly flat on/off modifiers is STILL off the RNG.

It isn't just the extreme most case, its almost anything at all beyond the average.

And seriously "calling me out" how dumb is that.

When some guy says "it works like this" and you say "no it doesn't, here is why" you do NOT then have to fix every imagined problem he demands you fix for his lazy, in your words, "fat ass".

I wasn't even obligated to tell you "your idea don't do what you kept saying it dooed."

I'm placed under no obligation to produce a "better idea" simply by showing the massive hole right where you claim your system kicks ass (the not being off the RNG thing).

And if I were your system is so bad in that regard I can point at the current flawed system and call it better.

[RandomCasualty]

1110676631[/unixtime]]
And here is one key point of my reply you are rather handily ignoring, anyone within a solid half a dozen points of the extreme and two or so of those big ugly flat on/off modifiers is STILL off the RNG.

Who cares? So in the one extreme of the naked guy versus the guy in fully magical gear, you'd be off the RNG. So what? The majority of cases that will happen in an actual game, you'll be within the RNG. And unlike the existing system, under my system, it always stays like this. There is no crap where level 1 is all nice and controlled and then things go to hell at level 20. The distance from the RNG is always constant, and honestly if you don't like it, it is very easy to change that distance.

If you think magic items are too much of a modifier, you simply lower magic item quality bonus from +0 to +2 instead of +0 to +4. You know you can pretty much do whatever you want, that's what's great about my system. Because when you do that, you don't fuck anything else up because the bonuses and the items themselves are independent. So if for whatever reason you wanted the naked man to have a chance against the fully buffed guy decked out in magical gear, then you can easily change things around so that he's still on the RNG. Personally I could care less.

It isn't just the extreme most case, its almost anything at all beyond the average.

Yeah, cause you know.... naked people fighting is way beyond the average.

Every fighter in my campaign doesn't bother buying armor or weapons. They just punch people and they don't take monk levels either, cause you know trying to get bonuses is bad. You want to be bottom of the barrel completely so that you can complain how badly the system sucks.

I'm placed under no obligation to produce a "better idea" simply by showing the massive hole right where you claim your system kicks ass (the not being off the RNG thing).

No, you're not under any obligation but if you want to be taken seriously, you should.

Some guy bitching and yelling from the cheap seats about how everything sucks and proposing nothing better is pretty much just a whiner. And its easy to be a whiner, because you're never called to task to actually do something. And while my system may have some flaws, it's still better than the existing one, so insulting it is pretty stupid. Unless you've got something better of course, which obviously you don't. Instead you prefer to whine about how I shouldn't be calling you out and how you owe society nothing. Fair enough, but you're still just some guy whining from the cheap seats.

You can do a lot more if you stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution. If you're so sure my system isn't the answer, great... come up with one that works better.

Otherwise, you're pretty much just saying "the system isn't perfect, but it's the best we've got, but I'm gonna complain about it anyway"

[Murtak]

I don't fully agree with the lobster but I think this is an important point.

anyone within a solid half a dozen points of the extreme and two or so of those big ugly flat on/off modifiers is STILL off the RNG.

If I understand him correctly his point is: the way d20 math works, if you start out at a 50% chance of success you have very little leeway before every further point of bonus or penalty starts to seriously mess with propabilities. So basically a 6 point differential (for a success on a 5+ or 17+ respectively) is all the system can handle without falling apart.

1) you don't always have the full range of the d20, depending on where you start you have only 10 points to work with

2) the edge cases don't even come close to behaving in a linear fashion, so if you want a linear system you have to avoid these cases too, roughly cutting your possible differential range in half.

Is that correct, PhoneLobster?

[RandomCasualty]

If you wanted to limit the differential of the system, you could, but that'd just means cutting down the bonus sizes. it's all about what people feel comfortable with. Obivously when I designed my system I did so with values I felt comfortable wtih.

If though for instance you never wanted your die range to be more than 6 you could do that.

The core of my system is

Attack Roll: d20 + level + modifiers
Defence DC (AC): 10 + level + modifiers

The modifiers all work on a level relative bonus range, so each bonus has a level and based on your level versus the bonus level, you get the bonus your individual character derives from it. Having a masterwork sword may grant a fairly big bonus at low levels and grant nothing or a minor one at high levels.

The each modifier has a range and a maximum and you can fine tune that however you want. Nobody said that a magic weapon absolutely has to be a +0 to +4 modifier. If you want to cut it to +0 to +2 in your game, then you can. People can pretty much change the size of those modifiers however they want, Obviously the bigger they are, the closer you approach the RNG breakpoint and the smaller they are the less influential each given bonus is.

But the main strength of this system is that it works from level 1 to infinity. It really can just keep going and going. Because once you load it with ranges you like for your own personal playing style, you won't have to touch it again. You find whatever range of the RNG you like to use, and you go with it. Whether that's a large span, a medium span or a short 6 point span, it really doesn't matter. It remains in the range you selected forever.

You just have to know what you want, and my system can do it.

Pick a range, any range. My system can put you in it.

[PhoneLobster]

Is that correct, PhoneLobster?

Nothing nearly so fancy and advanced as that, no.

Before I begin, this time I'm accounting for RCs adding level to everything thingy, despite the fact I don't have any idea if thats consistant for all characters, but thats his current pretense, so I'm just dropping level right off the equation and doing the rest of the potential difference instead...

I'm getting an attack bonus ranging from +0 to +14, and a a defense DC of 10 to 26 (lets call that a +0 to +16).

So my point is that off a base DC of 10 the second a potential for more than +10 difference exists between the opposed bonuses you are already off the RNG (which he kept going on about as a big benefit of his system not doing that, until now, when its suddenly not a big deal).

So I said, hey +14 and +16 vs +0 is off the RNG. He says, hey only in the single most extreme stick vs magic full plate/naked vs singing sword cases.

(note I say +0, my maths are also ignoring any potential for penalties to ever apply to anything, ever.)

So he's all like +0 never exists.

But wait, +1 vs +14/+16 is still off the scale!

Oh oh oh, +1 is ALSO too extreme to ever REALLY happen.

But wait, +2 vs +14/+16 is still off the scale!

Well damnit +2 is also way too extreme to expect the system to ever model.

Well +3 vs +14/+16 is also still off the scale!

Well even though that under this system represents a character with one full bonus type maxed out as his only defense/offense thats never gonna actually happen either...

But wait, sure +4 vs +14 has finally slipped onto the maximum range for the RNG but wait, +4 vs +16 IS STILL OFF THE RNG.

Well damn I guess +4 is still too extreme to actually happen also.

Ho hum, look at that, +5 vs +16, guess what, off the scale.

I guess a +5 is also like way too extreme.

Well looky FINALLY at +6, two entire maxed out bonuses under this system, we are at last just barely on the RNG...

NOW to be fair RC DID go on about how BOTH ends of the extreme are unlikly, but I got two whole maxed bonuses of leway here, I can take one off the front and put it on the back if I must...

Except I mustn't. Because as far as I see it explained by RC while I DO accept that at the very least the system might (stress might) be designed to make at least part of the low end of potential bonuses (6 whole points though? really? No naked defenses? Really? etc... Really?) likely not to occur the high end of potential bonuses only ever becomes MORE likely to occur, and unless at the same time the system ensures that you NEVER get knocked into a situation of relying on only 1 or 2 (maxed out no less) bonus types (I say wizard I say!) the likelyhood of being in the extremes and off the RNG only goes up.

And all thats not accounting for any further bonuses to the system, the most worrying being the flat addition of level to both sides (god forbid you should EVER face anything of higher or lower level than you, it slips further off the RNG very fast).

And thats just with the assumption that fighters and wizards alike always add their full level and nothing more or less, and considering RC's expressed opinions in the past on that front I severly doubt that that is the case at all.

So in summing up, by eliminating his hated nemisis of "level appropriate" bonuses, 100% eliminating the potential for difference between characters on level based bonuses to attack and damage, severly reducing the potential types of bonus, eliminating all penalties from existance, etc... Even though that COULD have resulted with a system that didn't go off the RNG, which was his stated goal, he failed to achieve even that.

[RandomCasualty]

1111019384[/unixtime]]
And all thats not accounting for any further bonuses to the system, the most worrying being the flat addition of level to both sides (god forbid you should EVER face anything of higher or lower level than you, it slips further off the RNG very fast).

Very fast? At a rate of 1 point per level difference? So the guy with a higher level has +1 AC and +1 attack.

This is actually a strength of my system that it doesn't happen very fast, as opposed to the normla system of level appopriate bonuses.

In the normal system, not only does he have more bonuses from level, but the higher level character also has equipment that provides bigger bonuses. So he has more BaB, plus a better magic sword, plus whatever other equipment you want to toss in there. Under my system a high level character will at most have +1/level over his lower level counterpart. Given how fast bonuses accumulate in the current system, +1/level is actually very slow.

And as I said earlier, if you don't like the idea of +0 versus +16 battles happening at the same level ,you can always just tone down the modifiers.

The ranges for what magic armor can give you are absolutely not set in stone for my system. If you want to have less modifiers on the RNG you can simply change those ranges to whatever you want. My system is totally customizeable.

I'm not selling my personal belief with how far bonuses should range, because that seriously doesn't matter. That's a minor point. If you think a range of +0 to +4 is too much for magic weapons then you can eaisly cut it to +0 to +2, or whatever you want it to be. So if you happen to really care about sticks versus full magic armor, then you can just tone down those ranges, and the system doesn't fall apart when you do that.

Those ranges that I chose for things are largely irrelevant because they're not what the system is all about. The system itself is simply creating a series of ranges for bonuses and then sticking to those ranges. So dont' even get yourself worked up over individual numbers, because anyone can change them.

If you want a system where the variance is only +0 to +6, then you can easily set that up using my system, you just shorten the range of what each value gives you. And that's actually remarkably easy to do.

You can play whatever game you want to play with it. You can have wide 40 point gaps if you want or you can stick to small 5 point gaps. The point of the system is that your gaps remain constant from level 1 to infinity. The size of those gaps are pretty much something that has to be hashed out through playtesting.

[rapanui]

RC is on the mark with this. Of course, given that I was one of the first people to propose a linear increase system, my support should not come as much of a surprise.

Also, RC, you might want Armor to give DR instead of a Defense DC bonus. It just works better that way, specially if damage escalates pseudo-linearly as well.

[PhoneLobster]

No he isn't on the mark, he is specifically almost deliberately off it.

In effect he started with the premise that going off the RNG destroys the game and must be fixed.

Proposed a set of numbers which went off the RNG then told everyone it wasn't a big deal and they could just use a different set of numbers.

Thats not "on the mark" its utter crazy talk.

Yes if you have flat bonuses within a specific limited range you CAN stay on the RNG, fixing this apparently game destroying problem. BUT NOT WITH THOSE DUMB ASS NUMBERS.

As usual RC pulls the "ah but I didn't tell you this thing I just thought of where its actually completely different" thing. But once the numbers, in total, do range from +0 to +10 (or eleven depending on the existence of auto success) THEN you can have a discussion about what that means OTHER than going off the RNG or not but before then you are still off the RNG, currently by a damn lot.

Once we are back in the +0 to +10 land you can start to realize that golly gosh, thats not much bonus space to work with and places all kinds of limitations on the game. But don't go smoking crack and telling me your fixing the RNG problem until you ARE fixing the RNG "problem".

(oh and just to be clear, having fixed limited bonuses, its hardly ground breaking original work. So RCs implication that "His" system essentially covers all variants of this including ones not using any actual numbers he has ever proposed is not just misleading tripe, its very arrogant)

[rapanui]

PL said:
"In effect he started with the premise that going off the RNG destroys the game and must be fixed."

Yes, and I don't see a valid alternative to that premise. Either we have a game where we roll dice, or we have a game where we don't. If you have another way of looking at it, I would be very happy to hear it.

You're right that even RCs proposed fix would take the numbers off the RNG, which I don't think is quite right*. Which is why I proposed the change in what Armor does.

As for arrogance and whatnot, I'm not going to get involved in board disputes. I have found, by and large, that it's not worth anyone's time. Discuss the idea. If you make valid points PL (as you have) people will see them, take note of them and the game fixing can continue. Ad hominems (on anyone's part) are distracting.

And when I said he was on the mark, I meant in a general sense: attempting a linear increase system to me is a very sound idea. It's not without problems, but at least it provides a stable backbone with which you can arrange other things that it immediately seems to lack. Like character diversification, for example.


* One reason I don't like it is because I might want to play a wilderness fighter that doesn't fight with armor. Since DEX limit is not an issue in RCs system (no ability scores) there doesn't seem to be a way.

[RandomCasualty]

1111024101[/unixtime]]RC is on the mark with this. Of course, given that I was one of the first people to propose a linear increase system, my support should not come as much of a surprise.

Yup, your earlier threads are definitely the inspiration for most of the system.

Also, RC, you might want Armor to give DR instead of a Defense DC bonus. It just works better that way, specially if damage escalates pseudo-linearly as well.

Yeah, I really have been thinking about that, and likely will, though that would probably include a big overhaul of the damage system. I didn't really want to bog the thread down with talking about new damage systems (which is really a topic unto itself), so for simplicity I just used the existing D&D attack versus AC system using principles from my system.

Right now, I'm not so much concerned with laying out what bonuses do what, as I am just concerned with getting a good basic range of numbers down. So for instance an attack bonus may span ten numbers and a defense bonus may span eight or whatever. I'm not really sure yet what a good numeric span is, but once I've got a good number down for a span, it's easy enough to make the system fit that range of numbers.