The Gaming Den

Whatever wrote:4e explicitly raised the DCs in lockstep with level increases, though, so characters never got better at anything. If you're still on the RNG, then your bonuses still matter. But I was talking about a fixed target number, such that higher level characters eventually succeed basically all the time.

That would look more like the old (A)D&D saving throw tables, where some characters start out with huge advantages in particular saves (although everyone is pretty likely to fail most saves they make), but eventually everyone is saving on all but their lowest rolls.

But that kind of system only converges once you move off the RNG, which is probably not a useful place for your game to go.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you just said? How does this refute (or even respond to) Frank's points?

@Lago: Good advice, thanks.

I'm not trying to refute his points, because what he said was correct. I was trying to talk about a different model than the 4e one he was criticizing, but I did a bad job of it. That's what I was trying to clarify.

Whatever wrote:I'm not trying to refute his points, because what he said was correct. I was trying to talk about a different model than the 4e one he was criticizing, but I did a bad job of it. That's what I was trying to clarify.

Can you explain this model, because I'm still not sure where you are coming from?

Sure. Here's an example of one of the old saving throw tables. It's not the one I was thinking of, but I don't have immediate access to a scanner:

Now, that particular table (like all the old saving throw tables) is full of crazy. Classes improve at different levels (but they also had different XP tables), all the values are pretty arbitrary, and so on. But it does make some effort to converge the results, so that high level characters all have more uniform, low saves, while the low level characters are pretty divergent.

Now, that particular table (like all the old saving throw tables) is full of crazy. Classes improve at different levels (but they also had different XP tables), all the values are pretty arbitrary, and so on. But it does make some effort to converge the results, so that high level characters all have more uniform, low saves, while the low level characters are pretty divergent.

Looking at that table I see:
Priest at level 1: low save 10, high save 16. Spread of 6.
Priest at 21: Low save 2, high save 8. Spread of 6.

Rogue 1: low 12, high 16. Spread of 4
Rogue 21: low 4, high 11. Spread of 7

Warrior 1: Low 16, high 20. Spread of 4
Warrior 21: Low 3, high 6. Spread of 3

Mage 1: Low 11, high 15. Spread of 4
Mage 21: Low 3, high 8. Spread of 5


Overall 1: Low 10, high 20. Spread of 10.
Overall 21: Low 2, high 11. Spread of 9.


I'm not really seeing the convergence you're talking about here. As you note, the table is all over the place craziness. The spread stays more or less the same across all classes, and within a class. If what you said was true, what we'd see is at low levels a spread of like 5-10 as the average, and at high levels a spread of 2-4. Which is obviously not what is happening here.

I don't mean within a class, I mean across classes. A level 1 priest saves on a 13, on average. A level 1 warrior saves on about a 16. By level 19, the priest is a bit above 5, and the warrior is a bit below 5.

Wizards also move from a 13 average to just above a 5 (albeit, at 21+), while Rogues go from about a 14 to about a 7.

I think Whatever's point was the difference between classes, not between saves.

So while at level 1 the sum of all saves is 79 for warriors and 65 for wizards (-14), at level 21 it is 22/27 (+5).
(But, as the table is full of crazy, for warriors<->rogues that goes from -9 to +13, so yeah ...)

Whatever wrote:Sure. Here's an example of one of the old saving throw tables. It's not the one I was thinking of, but I don't have immediate access to a scanner:

Now, that particular table (like all the old saving throw tables) is full of crazy. Classes improve at different levels (but they also had different XP tables), all the values are pretty arbitrary, and so on. But it does make some effort to converge the results, so that high level characters all have more uniform, low saves, while the low level characters are pretty divergent.

That table is quite literally one of the worst pieces of game design I have ever seen, and it doesn't really help your point (the numbers are all over the place). But I at least see where you are coming with regards to how a different table could in fact cause the numbers to converge. And I think I see how you could conclude that under such a system as (say) +6 bonus would mean less over time, sort of, comparatively speaking.

If you wanted to have save progressions that converged, you could just do that. If a "Good" save was +4 at first level and +1 every third level while a "Bad" save was +0 at first level and +1 every other level, then a "Good" save would be 4 points better than a "Bad" save at first level, but only 1 point better at 18th level.

Making non-insane progressions that converge is not mathematically difficult.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:If you wanted to have save progressions that converged, you could just do that. If a "Good" save was +4 at first level and +1 every third level while a "Bad" save was +0 at first level and +1 every other level, then a "Good" save would be 4 points better than a "Bad" save at first level, but only 1 point better at 18th level.

Making non-insane progressions that converge is not mathematically difficult.

-Username17

Yeah, that's what Whatever said. He just said it so horribly it took me a while to get it. It isn't a bad idea at any rate, if you expect characters to obtain a lot of incidental bonuses as they level.

Drolyt wrote:So after doing some research I'm starting to like dice pools more and more as a resolution mechanic, but if you want a game that covers a wide range of power levels (like D&D or HERO) you will pretty quickly be rolling a ton of dice. How would you resolve this issue? I know some games let you trade in dice for a flat bonus, but this changes the probability: compare http://anydice.com/program/2313 to http://anydice.com/program/2314. They have the same expected result (10) but are otherwise very different. If you only need 10 or less the second is the better tactical choice, but if you need 11 you want the former. Is there a more elegant solution?

I deal with it by rolling a fucking ton of dice.

This system works very well for me.