Damage Reduction [3.5] vs. Resistance [Next]

[Tanuki Tales]

So, I remember back way back when I had been reading into Next that there was a mechanic they introduced to replace Energy Resistance and Damage Reduction from 3.X called just "Resistance", where the damage was flat cut in half instead of being reduced by X amount. I have no clue if this is still part of the game, but assuming it is, how do they stack up to one another?

My opinion is as such:

DR is somewhat useful at lower levels or when dealing with large amounts of weaker foes, but is quickly outstripped by what a dedicated HP damage dealer can bring to the table. Resistance on the other hand is less useful at lower levels, but pays off way more for higher levels.

[Seerow]

I like Resistance, but I wish that flat DRs were in there as well for the extra granularity. Resistance is one of those mechanics that simplifies a lot of things and is nice and streamlined, but comes at the cost of making things feel the same, because it's a binary on/off thing rather than a value that can be scaled upwards or downwards.

[Tanuki Tales]

I like Resistance, but I wish that flat DRs were in there as well for the extra granularity. Resistance is one of those mechanics that simplifies a lot of things and is nice and streamlined, but comes at the cost of making things feel the same, because it's a binary on/off thing rather than a value that can be scaled upwards or downwards.

Now, do you mean DR and Resistance are both in and are separate things or that Resistance has DR as a built in value that is subtracted before halving?

Because I actually acid tested the latter and it wasn't pretty.

[Seerow]

Now, do you mean DR and Resistance are both in and are separate things or that Resistance has DR as a built in value that is subtracted before halving?

Because I actually acid tested the latter and it wasn't pretty.

I meant the former. You can have 50% resistance or DRX, they are separate things.

Some particularly tough monsters might get both, but most would not. (I would also go with DR values applying after the 50% resistance, in the case of a monster that has both, to emphasize that yes, that is a pretty powerful ability. A monster with Resistance and DR15 is laughing off any attack less than 60 points of damage from the damage type that is relevant to).

[Tanuki Tales]

I meant the former. You can have 50% resistance or DRX, they are separate things.

Some particularly tough monsters might get both, but most would not. (I would also go with DR values applying after the 50% resistance, in the case of a monster that has both, to emphasize that yes, that is a pretty powerful ability. A monster with Resistance and DR15 is laughing off any attack less than 60 points of damage from the damage type that is relevant to).

Well, what sources would give DR and what would give Resistance then?

[Lokiare]

I meant the former. You can have 50% resistance or DRX, they are separate things.

Some particularly tough monsters might get both, but most would not. (I would also go with DR values applying after the 50% resistance, in the case of a monster that has both, to emphasize that yes, that is a pretty powerful ability. A monster with Resistance and DR15 is laughing off any attack less than 60 points of damage from the damage type that is relevant to).

I would go the other way. I would do the DR first reducing the damage that would be halved. So that in order to damage that fire elemental with flames you would have to deal 15 damage and even then you only deal half if it has "DR 15 Resistance Fire" as opposed to a fire Mephit that might only have "Resistance Fire" or a Desert Lizard that has "DR 5 Fire".

You could have both though by just putting it in order "DR 15 Resistance Fire" would be remove 15 from the damage and halve the rest and "Resistance DR 15 Fire" would be halve the damage and then ignore 15 from it. That way there are more tactical options for the DM to play with.

[Seerow]

Well, what sources would give DR and what would give Resistance then?

What sources give energy resistance and which give immunity?


Which is to say, there's no real hard and fast rule for it, just what feels right for the monster/item/ability.

[Lokiare]

What sources give energy resistance and which give immunity?


Which is to say, there's no real hard and fast rule for it, just what feels right for the monster/item/ability.

That would work, but as a guideline I'd say something that is intrinsically based on the element should get immunity and those things that simply live in an environment filled with that energy type but are not intrinsically linked to that element should get DR/Resistance. So a lizard that lives in a volcano might have DR 15 fire or Resistance fire because lizards are not intrinsically linked to fire or composed of elemental fire. An Efreeti on the other hand is made up of the fire element and comes from the plane of elemental fire and thus should get immunity or a higher form of Resistance.

[DontEatRawHagis]

The way that the Monster HP and Player Damage ended up in the playtest in the heroic levels seemed to balance imo.

I prefer having items stick with players for a lot longer as well. But since I don't do organized play and prefer to not allow my players to buy magical items, maybe I am in the minority.

[Tanuki Tales]

That would work, but as a guideline I'd say something that is intrinsically based on the element should get immunity and those things that simply live in an environment filled with that energy type but are not intrinsically linked to that element should get DR/Resistance. So a lizard that lives in a volcano might have DR 15 fire or Resistance fire because lizards are not intrinsically linked to fire or composed of elemental fire. An Efreeti on the other hand is made up of the fire element and comes from the plane of elemental fire and thus should get immunity or a higher form of Resistance.

Ok, but how do you do that for physical damage?

[Lokiare]

Ok, but how do you do that for physical damage?

Things that are intrinsically difficult to damage such as stone, metals, etc...etc... would get immunity and things that are similar but biological but have those traits would get Resistance.

Stone and Iron Golems would get immunity and stone shelled crabs would get Resistance.

[Tanuki Tales]

Things that are intrinsically difficult to damage such as stone, metals, etc...etc... would get immunity and things that are similar but biological but have those traits would get Resistance.

Stone and Iron Golems would get immunity and stone shelled crabs would get Resistance.

We were actually discussing DR and Resistance on the physical side, not damage immunity. And then it brings up the question of when hardness would be appropriate.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The problem with DR X is that when X gets really high you have to many people freaking out that the DR is too high. The Barbarian gets something stupid like DR 5/- at level 19... What a waste of space just to type that on the class table.

That isn't worth remembering.

If you increase it to DR/10 it is slightly worth remembering... But then again by the time it comes online HP is the last defense you need to worry about.

Going to resistance makes more sense. This way stuff can hurt you... Just not as much as Joe smoe. If you had DR 20/- then commoners are never a threat but if you have resistance... Those commoners could be a threat if they are a few hundred strong.

[Tanuki Tales]

The problem with DR X is that when X gets really high you have to many people freaking out that the DR is too high. The Barbarian gets something stupid like DR 5/- at level 19... What a waste of space just to type that on the class table.

That isn't worth remembering.

If you increase it to DR/10 it is slightly worth remembering... But then again by the time it comes online HP is the last defense you need to worry about.

Going to resistance makes more sense. This way stuff can hurt you... Just not as much as Joe smoe. If you had DR 20/- then commoners are never a threat but if you have resistance... Those commoners could be a threat if they are a few hundred strong.

To be honest, even DR 10/- is crap. You need 20 or higher to really matter when it comes to things you'll be expected to fight that are level appropriate.

And I think I'm alright with a couple hundred commoners being a threat. Otherwise, how can you explain societies existing and not having been exterminated by powerful monsters or high level NPCs without divine intervention?

[Seerow]

Honestly the whole POINT of DRX/whatever is a "You must be this tall to ride" sign. It serves that purpose really well. Dragons with DR10/Magic don't rule the world because there are heroes who rise to take them down when they try, not because they fear an army of commoners with slingshots.

So yeah, I'm fine with any level appropriate character not caring about DR by itself, but that DR existing to tell low level enemies to **** off. In fact you were asking for how to differentiate the two before? Here's your answer.

Enemies that are supposed to be major threats to a local population gain DR. Enemies that are supposed to be tough for a PC to hurt get Resistance. Enemies that are supposed to be super resilient even against heroes (think Golems, the Tarrasque, that sort of thing) get both.

[Person_Man]

+1 on Seerow's comments. DR has the advantage of making it impossible for a large number of weak creatures to kill a strong creature, unless a large number of them have access to something that bypasses it. And it allows for a far greater level of design granularity.

50% Resistance is a good idea for players, because that way they're still threatened by mooks, while still keeping it relevant against all enemies, and the book keeping is a lot easier.

But for monsters, it's a good idea to have Resistance, Damage Reduction, and Immunities, so that they can exist in a world without fear of being killed by a few dozen commoners, and the DM is free to design a wider variety of different creatures.

If D&D Next limits itself solely to Resistance, then it needs to be very liberal about giving monsters hit dice based Fear or similar offensive, action advantage abilities (which don't require an Action, Reaction, or Concentration to activate, and effect a large number of enemies). For example, every dragon should get something like "Aura of Fear: Creatures with fewer hit dice then the dragon within it's line of sight must make a Charisma Contest with the dragon each round at the start of the dragon's turn. The dragon gains +X to this Contest check. Creatures that fail this Contest become Panicked for 1 minute. Creatures that are already Panicked are not effected by this ability."

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Enemies that are supposed to be major threats to a local population gain DR. Enemies that are supposed to be tough for a PC to hurt get Resistance. Enemies that are supposed to be super resilient even against heroes (think Golems, the Tarrasque, that sort of thing) get both.

I like this idea quite a bit.

However I think for core rules resistance would work just fine as a catch all. DR and the rules with all that could easily be implemented as an optional rule.

I actually don't like the idea that all creatures of a certain race have Damage Reduction. I would like to see DR become a bit more Rare and saved for the special monsters.

So maybe lizardmen A-G all have resistance to weapons due to their scales. But Lizardman H, he is a badass and has Resistance to weapons and DR 5/Magic due an abnormality in his genetics (or whatever... Bloodline...whatever). So when he gets hit by a normal weapon you wouls subtract 5 then half the damage. The others would just take half damage. Perhaps the lizardmen are terrorizing the town and the villagers only deal with them because Lizardman H is the boss and lets his underlings do the work. When the players help the town... That is when Lizardman H comes out. The townspeople have no chance against him but the players do.

This way the boss battle is tough, the villagers aren't able to defeat the boss, and DR is a bit more special.

Basically...
Resistance = General
DR = Special

[Tanuki Tales]

Honestly the whole POINT of DRX/whatever is a "You must be this tall to ride" sign. It serves that purpose really well. Dragons with DR10/Magic don't rule the world because there are heroes who rise to take them down when they try, not because they fear an army of commoners with slingshots.

So yeah, I'm fine with any level appropriate character not caring about DR by itself, but that DR existing to tell low level enemies to **** off. In fact you were asking for how to differentiate the two before? Here's your answer.

Enemies that are supposed to be major threats to a local population gain DR. Enemies that are supposed to be tough for a PC to hurt get Resistance. Enemies that are supposed to be super resilient even against heroes (think Golems, the Tarrasque, that sort of thing) get both.

See, then that makes DR, as a mechanic, superfluous, especially in the hands of PCs. If you simply wanted a height sign for fighting a monster and to signify that it's too durable for peon NPCs to take on, then the game should have kept the old mechanic where you needed a weapon of a certain magical potency to even damage it. Or some mechanic that says "You need to have X amount of hit dice to hurt this thing".

All Damage Reduction gives you is the illusion your character is durable, which you really aren't in the sense that it's trying to portray. And to be honest, most creatures that are a threat to populations are more so because of high ability scores, a large amount of hit points, maybe even Regeneration or Fast Healing (which are also bad mechanics except in certain cases), spellcasting or similar useful mechanics.

[Seerow]

See, then that makes DR, as a mechanic, superfluous, especially in the hands of PCs. If you simply wanted a height sign for fighting a monster and to signify that it's too durable for peon NPCs to take on, then the game should have kept the old mechanic where you needed a weapon of a certain magical potency to even damage it. Or some mechanic that says "You need to have X amount of hit dice to hurt this thing".

All Damage Reduction gives you is the illusion your character is durable, which you really aren't in the sense that it's trying to portray. And to be honest, most creatures that are a threat to populations are more so because of high ability scores, a large amount of hit points, maybe even Regeneration or Fast Healing (which are also bad mechanics except in certain cases), spellcasting or similar useful mechanics.

1) Damage Reduction as a mechanic is FAR more common among monsters than it is among player characters. Like an order of magnitude more common. A handful of classes and a few spells/items grant DR, but almost every monster in the book has it.

2) DR isn't intended to be the end-all be-all of defense, but it is a useful perk. DR5 at level 20 against an on level creature is roughly on par with gaining an increased hit die, with the added benefit of less healing required after the fight. Against lower level creatures it is worth exponentially more. While DR5 doesn't make you as incredibly durable as you might like, it does allow you to wade into a sea of mooks with impunity, which has its own impact on flavor and playstyle that is meaningful.

Of course, if your goal is to make a PC who is very tough in combat, and capable of taking hits other people cannot, then yes DR isn't the way to accomplish that (or at the very least isn't the only thing you want to accomplish that). Resistance works better for that specific purpose. That doesn't mean that DR shouldn't exist. Merely that it fills a different niche in design.

3) I prefer damage reduction to the +X weapon to deal damage mechanics from older editions. I want my heroes to be able to deal damage even if unarmed, or using a regular weapon picked up off the ground. DR lets that happen. Flat requirements do not.

4) Regeneration and Fast Healing are both very helpful when dealing with large populations, but not nearly as much so as DR. 10 can shut down the monster taking damage from anything but a crit from the vast majority of average people. And even shut down crit damage from weaker weapons. Giving a Dragon DR10 might take it from being able to survive 30 commoners with bows to being able to survive 1000 commoners with bows. It also takes you from surviving say 60 commoners with slings to infinite commoners with slings. That is the kind of order of magnitude benefit that you simply can't get out of Regeneration/Fast Healing.



To summarize, I see Damage Reduction having a place in the game. It provides a minor survival benefit in most situations, and has extraordinarily increased benefit in niche situations that give it a unique purpose, which by itself should justify itself more than the majority of other mechanics in the game do. It may not be an all-encompassing survival attribute, but it certainly deserves a place in the game.

[Tanuki Tales]

To summarize, I see Damage Reduction having a place in the game. It provides a minor survival benefit in most situations, and has extraordinarily increased benefit in niche situations that give it a unique purpose, which by itself should justify itself more than the majority of other mechanics in the game do. It may not be an all-encompassing survival attribute, but it certainly deserves a place in the game.

I don't want to parse all the points you made (like how DR 5/- at level 20 is a joke), since replying to this bit will more succintly get across what I'm trying to say and not bog things down in minutiae arguments:

I'm not saying that DR doesn't deserve to exist in the game. I'm saying that it fails as a survival attribute, which you agree with, and that there is a better way to convey this mechanically as the game has gone through power-creep over the generations. I feel like DR and Resistance existing hand in hand is the perfect happy medium that was missing from the game previously.

[Lokiare]

I don't want to parse all the points you made (like how DR 5/- at level 20 is a joke), since replying to this bit will more succintly get across what I'm trying to say and not bog things down in minutiae arguments:

I'm not saying that DR doesn't deserve to exist in the game. I'm saying that it fails as a survival attribute, which you agree with, and that there is a better way to convey this mechanically as the game has gone through power-creep over the generations. I feel like DR and Resistance existing hand in hand is the perfect happy medium that was missing from the game previously.

In other editions this would be true, but in 5E you can still be facing 1st level goblins when you are level 20 and having DR 10/- or DR 15/- and being able to walk through 100 goblins without fear of taking a single point of damage (well except for the Wizard's encounter ending fireball that is) will make a huge difference.

[Tanuki Tales]

In other editions this would be true, but in 5E you can still be facing 1st level goblins when you are level 20 and having DR 10/- or DR 15/- and being able to walk through 100 goblins without fear of taking a single point of damage (well except for the Wizard's encounter ending fireball that is) will make a huge difference.

If a DM is placing you against 100 bog standard goblins, when you're level 20, and they're not the least bit tuckerized, then I stand by DR 5/- being a joke, DR 10/- being slightly less useless and DR 15/- being where it starts being a somewhat decent mechanic. I'll also question your DM's opinions on what enjoyment was to be had or what the point was.

[Seerow]

If a DM is placing you against 100 bog standard goblins, when you're level 20, and they're not the least bit tuckerized, then I stand by DR 5/- being a joke, DR 10/- being slightly less useless and DR 15/- being where it starts being a somewhat decent mechanic. I'll also question your DM's opinions on what enjoyment was to be had or what the point was.

That would be the DM falling into the trap of believing bounded accuracy was an awesome idea. Seriously read the old threads and the WotC boards to see dozens of people who insist that being able to fight standard orcs and goblins all the way to level 20 is the best thing ever.


Anyway, a 3.5 character with DR5 against 100 goblins gets hit 5% of the time for 0 damage (they deal 1d4 damage, there's 100 they're using ranged weapons), and crit .25% of the time for .75 average damage, averaging .001875 damage each. Level 20 character will have around 200 hp, and 100 goblins deal an average of 1 point of damage every 5 rounds. So you're looking at 1000 rounds to death against 100 goblins. Without the DR 5, you get hit 5% of the time for 2.5 average damage (I'll even ignore crits), for .125 damage per goblin. So the goblin horde deals 12.5 damage per round, killing the character in 16 rounds. DR5 increases your survivability by a factor of 62.5.

In DDN, same damage, player has lower HP (harder to get stat boosters) so probably around 140hp. Enemy hits 30% of the time (thanks bounded accuracy!). Crit damage is now maximized rather than doubled, so even on a crit, DR5 character takes no damage, lasting an infinite amount of time against an infinite number of goblins. Without DR5, the character takes 2.5 damage 30% of the time, for .75 damage per round per goblin, or 75 damage per round. Character dies in two rounds.




I disagree with big groups of weak enemies as a challenge, but bounded accuracy is being put in explicitly to make it a thing. And DR completely trivializes those encounters in a much bigger way than you seem to think.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

That would be the DM falling into the trap of believing bounded accuracy was an awesome idea. Seriously read the old threads and the WotC boards to see dozens of people who insist that being able to fight standard orcs and goblins all the way to level 20 is the best thing ever.


Anyway, a 3.5 character with DR5 against 100 goblins gets hit 5% of the time for 0 damage (they deal 1d4 damage, there's 100 they're using ranged weapons), and crit .25% of the time for .75 average damage, averaging .001875 damage each. Level 20 character will have around 200 hp, and 100 goblins deal an average of 1 point of damage every 5 rounds. So you're looking at 1000 rounds to death against 100 goblins. Without the DR 5, you get hit 5% of the time for 2.5 average damage (I'll even ignore crits), for .125 damage per goblin. So the goblin horde deals 12.5 damage per round, killing the character in 16 rounds. DR5 increases your survivability by a factor of 62.5.

In DDN, same damage, player has lower HP (harder to get stat boosters) so probably around 140hp. Enemy hits 30% of the time (thanks bounded accuracy!). Crit damage is now maximized rather than doubled, so even on a crit, DR5 character takes no damage, lasting an infinite amount of time against an infinite number of goblins. Without DR5, the character takes 2.5 damage 30% of the time, for .75 damage per round per goblin, or 75 damage per round. Character dies in two rounds.




I disagree with big groups of weak enemies as a challenge, but bounded accuracy is being put in explicitly to make it a thing. And DR completely trivializes those encounters in a much bigger way than you seem to think.

You just made me wonder something about why bounded accuracy is actually in the game...

Are they trying to make the base setting low fantasy? Or at least lower fantasy than 3e and 4e? Perhaps to appeal to the 1e/2e people?

Hell even mages got trimmed of higher level spell slots.

If they are bringing D&D down closer to LotR style then will there be a high fantasy version too?

I think in a low fantasy world, DR and Resistance will mean a whole lot more than in a high fantasy world... But I'm not sure I want all monsters of a certain type to have the same defenses... It takes away from the monster's individuality a bit.

[Seerow]

Are they trying to make the base setting low fantasy? Or at least lower fantasy than 3e and 4e? Perhaps to appeal to the 1e/2e people?


This is basically it. 4e was about taking 3es levels 5-10 and making it a full 30 level game. DDN is about taking 3e's levels 1-6, and making it a full 20 level game. Except Wizards still get higher level spells, because screw you.

[Tanuki Tales]

-snip-

Seerow, sorry, my point was that DR 5/- at level 20 is only useful in that situation where you're facing a ton of weaker enemies, not that DR 5/- isn't useful at level 20 against a lot of weaker enemies.

I have no idea what bounded accuracy is though and are Next characters seriously that fragile?

[Seerow]

Seerow, sorry, my point was that DR 5/- at level 20 is only useful in that situation where you're facing a ton of weaker enemies, not that DR 5/- isn't useful at level 20 against a lot of weaker enemies.

Actually you said:


If a DM is placing you against 100 bog standard goblins, when you're level 20, and they're not the least bit tuckerized, then I stand by DR 5/- being a joke, DR 10/- being slightly less useless and DR 15/- being where it starts being a somewhat decent mechanic

I read this as DR5/- being a joke against 100 bog standard goblins. I'm not actually sure how to read the quoted sentence and get the meaning you clarified.


I have no idea what bounded accuracy is though and are Next characters seriously that fragile?

Bounded Accuracy is the new policy that RNG doesn't shift much by level, so that a level 1 enemy still has a meaningful chance to affect a level 20 character (and vice verca). So a level 1 character might have 16 primary stat and a +2 proficiency or whatever, for a +5 to hit. A level 20 character might have a 20 primary stat, and a +5 proficiency bonus, for a +10 to hit total. +X hit/AC items are supposed to be relatively rare, and cap out at +3 instead of the traditional +5. Armor similarly scales up by 1-2 points between level 1 and 20, so a level 1 character might have 16 or so AC, while a level 20 character might have 18-19 AC. No scaling is expected there at all.


Of course, attribute scaling would normally bump all of these values. So there is now a hardcap of 20 for all attributes. Also attribute boosting magic items are again rare and cannot be counted upon, and your level up attribute boosts come at the cost of your feats. So your typical character will have 12 or 14 con at level 1, and never improve from there. So a typical character at level 20 is looking at 133.5 hp. (d8 hp, 14 con). Someone with a really heavy focus on survival might get as high as 235 hp... which is a value you might recognize as being slightly higher than the average 3.5 character at the same level.


tl;dr: Yes, a high level DDN character is that weak. And it's intended by design. When they first told us about bounded accuracy, they claimed they'd make up for it with increased HP/Damage values, and then somewhere along the way they either forgot, or realized doing that would require final fantasy levels of HP bloat, and never did it. The result is characters whose progression in relative capability is far lower than it has been in any other edition of D&D to date, and this is before considering non-combat capability where things are EVEN WORSE (remember there's no HP/Damage in skill checks)

[Tanuki Tales]

Actually you said:



I read this as DR5/- being a joke against 100 bog standard goblins. I'm not actually sure how to read the quoted sentence and get the meaning you clarified.

I know what I said and I realize that I worded what I said incorrectly. I apologize.




Bounded Accuracy is the new policy that RNG doesn't shift much by level, so that a level 1 enemy still has a meaningful chance to affect a level 20 character (and vice verca). So a level 1 character might have 16 primary stat and a +2 proficiency or whatever, for a +5 to hit. A level 20 character might have a 20 primary stat, and a +5 proficiency bonus, for a +10 to hit total. +X hit/AC items are supposed to be relatively rare, and cap out at +3 instead of the traditional +5. Armor similarly scales up by 1-2 points between level 1 and 20, so a level 1 character might have 16 or so AC, while a level 20 character might have 18-19 AC. No scaling is expected there at all.


Of course, attribute scaling would normally bump all of these values. So there is now a hardcap of 20 for all attributes. Also attribute boosting magic items are again rare and cannot be counted upon, and your level up attribute boosts come at the cost of your feats. So your typical character will have 12 or 14 con at level 1, and never improve from there. So a typical character at level 20 is looking at 133.5 hp. (d8 hp, 14 con). Someone with a really heavy focus on survival might get as high as 235 hp... which is a value you might recognize as being slightly higher than the average 3.5 character at the same level.


tl;dr: Yes, a high level DDN character is that weak. And it's intended by design. When they first told us about bounded accuracy, they claimed they'd make up for it with increased HP/Damage values, and then somewhere along the way they either forgot, or realized doing that would require final fantasy levels of HP bloat, and never did it. The result is characters whose progression in relative capability is far lower than it has been in any other edition of D&D to date, and this is before considering non-combat capability where things are EVEN WORSE (remember there's no HP/Damage in skill checks)

Woof.

Well, there went any hope I had for Next.

[B1okHead]

IIRC crits in D&D Next maximize the damage and give an additional damage die. That would mean that a goblin would be able to damage a character with DR 5/- on a crit.

[Knaight]

Honestly the whole POINT of DRX/whatever is a "You must be this tall to ride" sign. It serves that purpose really well. Dragons with DR10/Magic don't rule the world because there are heroes who rise to take them down when they try, not because they fear an army of commoners with slingshots.

I was actually coming into the thread to post exactly this. It also is something that comes out of composition easily enough in a lot of cases - a golem having DR makes perfect sense, because they are outright hard, and a typical hit will do diddly squat. It's like how cutting through thick concrete with a knife is ridiculously unfeasible, but a sledgehammer doesn't really have much of an issue. Similarly, a literal tank can stand up to an assault rifle for a good long time, but there are still weapons that can handle them nicely. Resistance also makes sense, as something where lots of force also doesn't have the impact it normally would. Take swarms - sure, you hit them really hard with that sword, and sure, that cut through more members than it otherwise would have. It's still open air that took most of the hit.

Or, from a materials perspective - DR is a lot like hardness. Something like diamond can have things scratch at it constantly to no effect. The typical household plastic (lets go with PVC here, as "typical plastic" is a fuzzy term at best) can be scratched. Resistance is more like general durability. That same hard diamond thrown at speed at a hard surface could have problems, the PVC is probably just going to bounce.

[Tanuki Tales]

I was actually coming into the thread to post exactly this. It also is something that comes out of composition easily enough in a lot of cases - a golem having DR makes perfect sense, because they are outright hard, and a typical hit will do diddly squat. It's like how cutting through thick concrete with a knife is ridiculously unfeasible, but a sledgehammer doesn't really have much of an issue. Similarly, a literal tank can stand up to an assault rifle for a good long time, but there are still weapons that can handle them nicely. Resistance also makes sense, as something where lots of force also doesn't have the impact it normally would. Take swarms - sure, you hit them really hard with that sword, and sure, that cut through more members than it otherwise would have. It's still open air that took most of the hit.

Or, from a materials perspective - DR is a lot like hardness. Something like diamond can have things scratch at it constantly to no effect. The typical household plastic (lets go with PVC here, as "typical plastic" is a fuzzy term at best) can be scratched. Resistance is more like general durability. That same hard diamond thrown at speed at a hard surface could have problems, the PVC is probably just going to bounce.

Hardness is flat better than DR though, since it applies to all forms of damage (more or less).

[Knaight]

Hardness is flat better than DR though, since it applies to all forms of damage (more or less).

I'm assuming that it isn't an option here, as the comparison is between DR and Resistance, with it working better between those two.

[Tanuki Tales]

I'm assuming that it isn't an option here, as the comparison is between DR and Resistance, with it working better between those two.

Then why did you bring it up?

[RedWarlock]

Bah, Hardness vs DR is a quibbling distinction. They're basically the same thing, progressing to be more inclusive. DR/X >> DR/— >> Hardness.

I would like to see both used as well. I think DR isn't TOO complex for the simple game they're trying to make.


Personally, I make use of both in the homebrew system I use. (cue groans) I might even use more granular levels of resistance, 25%/50%/75%, depending on how fiddly I feel it gets. I ALSO use a piercing quality that can bypass them.

Now, I'm also seeing some benefit in bounded accuracy, though not as extreme. I have different reasons for it, though, too, in that my system is intended to be playable across different character levels, with mixed-level parties, since ALL characters start at 0 XP, with features to allow a low-level character in a high-level party to not drag them down (like high-level buffs that scale better for low-level characters), and improved XP gain for low characters. (I have an alt-ism problem with my players, too, so this is designed to curb that.)

[Lokiare]

I know what I said and I realize that I worded what I said incorrectly. I apologize.





Woof.

Well, there went any hope I had for Next.

Welcome to the crowd. I've got about 10 deal breakers I'm looking at before I even consider playing 5E as anything but a one off when someone else begs me to play with their group.

[Kurald Galain]

I would like to see both used as well. I think DR isn't TOO complex for the simple game they're trying to make.

It does appear that WOTC wants to avoid having the players perform subtraction, actually. Not that I agree with that but they do seem more-or-less consistent on that.

[Tanuki Tales]

It does appear that WOTC wants to avoid having the players perform subtraction, actually. Not that I agree with that but they do seem more-or-less consistent on that.

And thus the stereotype that only coke bottle glasses wearing, basement dwelling, virginal nerds and geeks play this game comes to an end.

[Lokiare]

And thus the stereotype that only coke bottle glasses wearing, basement dwelling, virginal nerds and geeks play this game comes to an end.

Lets just hope they don't try to put D&D under the Common Core math, by making all the numbers either +1 +5 or +10 and then have a lot of unnecessary steps to figure out single digit adding or subtracting.

[Knaight]

Then why did you bring it up?

I brought up Hardness in the sense of Moh's Hardness, or VPH. That is to say, a physical measure of a material that you'd expect to be listed alongside something like tensile strength, density, boiling point, etc. I totally forgot about Hardness actually being a mechanical term in D&D, which gets listed alongside things like HP and AC.

I suspect this is where the confusion came from.

As such, here's an analogy that doesn't involve any terms that are also game terms: DR is a lot like tensile strength. Forces under the tensile strength of a largely rigid fiber basically don't do anything other than orient the fiber and affect how it vibrates. They don't actually harm it. However, forces above the tensile strength of a largely rigid fiber snap them, even if applied over a short distance. Resistance is more like flexibility. The forces deform the material, but because it's a material that can deform and come right back, said forces do less damage than they would to a rigid material if applied over a short distance. That said, flexible things can still snap, and if the force is applied over a long distance they snap more easily than rigid fibers with a higher tensile strength.


Lets just hope they don't try to put D&D under the Common Core math, by making all the numbers either +1 +5 or +10 and then have a lot of unnecessary steps to figure out single digit adding or subtracting.

Avoiding the political side of this - it's not +1, +5, or +10. It's +a[(10)^n] where a is a positive integer, and n is a positive integer or zero*, with use of fives when possible. It's also worth noting that there are far fewer steps for some equations. For instance, lets say we have 25713 - 25639. By Common Core, you can immediately see that adding 1 gets you to 25640, adding 70 gets you to 25710, and then adding 3 gets you to 25713, which gets you 74 immediately. It also looks longer than it is, particularly as the entire point of the common core method is to facilitate doing this in your head. By the conventional method, you borrow to get 3-9 for the single digits, borrow again to get 0-3, then have everything cancel. Two borrows, two individual subtractions, four steps - one over common core, and I pretty much picked those numbers out of a hat, just keeping the first two digits the same.

Or, we can take an extreme case: 6,000,000 - 5,999,992. By Common Core, you add 8 in your head really quickly, and are done. By the conventional method, you perform an iterated borrowing across the entire number. Of course, even calling it the conventional method is misleading, because basically anyone who comes across this problem is going to see it, add 8, and call it a day. The common core method just reflects what is actually used.

*I find myself missing set notation here, but that's not happening.

[Lokiare]

I brought up Hardness in the sense of Moh's Hardness, or VPH. That is to say, a physical measure of a material that you'd expect to be listed alongside something like tensile strength, density, boiling point, etc. I totally forgot about Hardness actually being a mechanical term in D&D, which gets listed alongside things like HP and AC.

I suspect this is where the confusion came from.



Avoiding the political side of this - it's not +1, +5, or +10. It's +a[(10)^n] where a is a positive integer, and n is a positive integer or zero*, with use of fives when possible. It's also worth noting that there are far fewer steps for some equations. For instance, lets say we have 25713 - 25639. By Common Core, you can immediately see that adding 1 gets you to 25640, adding 70 gets you to 25710, and then adding 3 gets you to 25713, which gets you 74 immediately. It also looks longer than it is, particularly as the entire point of the common core method is to facilitate doing this in your head. By the conventional method, you borrow to get 3-9 for the single digits, borrow again to get 0-3, then have everything cancel. Two borrows, two individual subtractions, four steps - one over common core, and I pretty much picked those numbers out of a hat, just keeping the first two digits the same.

Or, we can take an extreme case: 6,000,000 - 5,999,992. By Common Core, you add 8 in your head really quickly, and are done. By the conventional method, you perform an iterated borrowing across the entire number. Of course, even calling it the conventional method is misleading, because basically anyone who comes across this problem is going to see it, add 8, and call it a day. The common core method just reflects what is actually used.

*I find myself missing set notation here, but that's not happening.

Yeah, I wasn't talking politics and using 'friendly numbers' is actually harder in the long run because most problems will be solved with less steps than using the 'friendly numbers'. Its better to learn the traditional method than learning a bunch of extra steps that should only be taught to people that are struggling to learn the traditional method. You actually proved my point when you threw up that equation to explain how they arrived at +1, +5, +10 which since no single bonus or penalty in 5E is going above a +5 means that really you use +1 or +5. I really don't want to see in the 5E books:

You have a total bonus of +12 and a penalty of -7 so to figure out what your total bonus/penalty is going to be do the following:

12 - 7
+3 10 What do you need to add to the 7 for it to become divisible by 5?
+2 12 What do you need to add to the 10 to become 12?
Add up the column on the left for 5.

I'd rather they just say 12 - 7 = 5. If you have a problem with that, get a calculator.

I definitely don't want the DM saying "Well you followed the right steps so I'm going to let you have your bonus even though its +7 more than it should be." or the DMG saying "If the players followed the basic steps of addition and subtraction in the interest of speed even if they get it wrong allow them to use the numbers they came up with."

They are already turning subtraction into addition, that's the first step of Common Core math.

[Knaight]

I'd rather they just say 12 - 7 = 5. If you have a problem with that, get a calculator.
Seeing as D&D is not a math textbook for elementary school students, this obviously follows. It's also worth noting that this is exactly what would be done even under Common Core outside of the early elementary education where that method comes up. It's the same way that the work that is supposed to be shown in Algebra I in middle school is exactly what vanishes between steps shown in Differential Equations in college.


I definitely don't want the DM saying "Well you followed the right steps so I'm going to let you have your bonus even though its +7 more than it should be." or the DMG saying "If the players followed the basic steps of addition and subtraction in the interest of speed even if they get it wrong allow them to use the numbers they came up with."
Again, D&D is not a math textbook, and the steps are completely irrelevant here. That said, regarding your thinly veiled educational philosophy tangent: If the bonus is +7 more than it should be, they didn't follow the right steps correctly. That might still warrant partial credit - the same way that, say, partial credit might be given for taking [arccos [(vector u) dot (vector v)]/[||(vector u) dot (vector v)||]] to see what angle a vector is in regards to the 3-D surface it passes through, even if vector v was found through improper differentiation in the first place. Learning procedures matters.

To use a pet example - matrices are often first taught in the context of finding the intersection of two lines. There are a lot of ways to find said intersection, as you're dealing with a whopping two equations of two variables. Matrices are not a particularly good one for that purpose, particularly if the numbers involved don't suck to high heaven. However, it still makes sense to require them to be used, to teach the use of matrices. Getting the right answer through another method consistently is fine within the context of that one class in isolation. It's completely useless for when said student later takes linear algebra, because what they actually needed to learn there was how to handle matrices.

Similarly, there are trig identities. They are usually introduced in the context of finding a particular number, using memorized ones from the unit circle. If you memorize a whole bunch more triangles, this can be entirely avoided. You can get the right answer reliably. That skill is, however, completely useless for a number of things trig identities actually get used for down the road, starting with integration on polar coordinates, where you need to use trig identities to get something that even has an antiderivitative. You can also conveniently avoid polynomial integration completely, via a rather large set of geometric formulas (though this involves banking on an absence of extremely high order polynomials). That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be docked points for using them - that method breaks horribly as soon as multiple integration comes in.

[Lokiare]

Seeing as D&D is not a math textbook for elementary school students, this obviously follows. It's also worth noting that this is exactly what would be done even under Common Core outside of the early elementary education where that method comes up. It's the same way that the work that is supposed to be shown in Algebra I in middle school is exactly what vanishes between steps shown in Differential Equations in college.


Again, D&D is not a math textbook, and the steps are completely irrelevant here. That said, regarding your thinly veiled educational philosophy tangent: If the bonus is +7 more than it should be, they didn't follow the right steps correctly. That might still warrant partial credit - the same way that, say, partial credit might be given for taking [arccos [(vector u) dot (vector v)]/[||(vector u) dot (vector v)||]] to see what angle a vector is in regards to the 3-D surface it passes through, even if vector v was found through improper differentiation in the first place. Learning procedures matters.

To use a pet example - matrices are often first taught in the context of finding the intersection of two lines. There are a lot of ways to find said intersection, as you're dealing with a whopping two equations of two variables. Matrices are not a particularly good one for that purpose, particularly if the numbers involved don't suck to high heaven. However, it still makes sense to require them to be used, to teach the use of matrices. Getting the right answer through another method consistently is fine within the context of that one class in isolation. It's completely useless for when said student later takes linear algebra, because what they actually needed to learn there was how to handle matrices.

Similarly, there are trig identities. They are usually introduced in the context of finding a particular number, using memorized ones from the unit circle. If you memorize a whole bunch more triangles, this can be entirely avoided. You can get the right answer reliably. That skill is, however, completely useless for a number of things trig identities actually get used for down the road, starting with integration on polar coordinates, where you need to use trig identities to get something that even has an antiderivitative. You can also conveniently avoid polynomial integration completely, via a rather large set of geometric formulas (though this involves banking on an absence of extremely high order polynomials). That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be docked points for using them - that method breaks horribly as soon as multiple integration comes in.

The method is equally important to getting the right answer. If you use the right method and get the wrong answer, the answer is still wrong. If they really want to check to make sure you have the right method they need to make it a separate math problem that asks "Which of these 5 choices uses the right method?" and grades for method alone, then have problems that grade for method and correct answers and if either is wrong, then count the whole problem wrong.

I don't want to hear a news story about a nuclear reactor that goes critical because someone was taught to get partial credit for doing the math with the correct method even though they get the answer wrong. I definitely don't want to hear about a nuclear reaction going critical and the guy that caused it getting to keep his job because he followed the right math method, but got the answer wrong.

What you say about trig and algebra is true, but they shouldn't be taught that kind of stuff until much later. There is no point in teaching a child who is just learning arithmetic and multiplication about the associative property, not only does it add more to learn, it can confuse the child. Wait until they master the basics then teach them the different properties that can be used to enhance the math.

In fact if they want to improve the education of children they need to evaluate which style of learning each child is best at and then teach that style to that child by giving them a work book based on that style. For some this is book learning where they learn by reading. For others its a sensory approach which is to show shapes and sounds and allow for physical objects to be used in the teaching. For yet more children learning by doing, where they have you repeat each step on paper one at a time until you understand the process is the best method. There are many more learning methods than the ones I outlined.

What Common Core does is randomly take these different methods and forces all children to learn them, which is counter productive if their goal is to raise test scores. Then of course there's the things where they take ideologies and put them as factual statements in English lessons. Common Core should have been struck from the books instantly as soon as they saw that.

Still even if we just stick to the actual math of Common Core, it should not show up in 5E or any type of game even if that game is aimed at young children.

[Knaight]

The method is equally important to getting the right answer. If you use the right method and get the wrong answer, the answer is still wrong. If they really want to check to make sure you have the right method they need to make it a separate math problem that asks "Which of these 5 choices uses the right method?" and grades for method alone, then have problems that grade for method and correct answers and if either is wrong, then count the whole problem wrong.
Which would be why you have partial credit. The person who gets the right answer, but doesn't demonstrate that they actually have the knowledge involved (because they used a different method) shouldn't get full credit. The person who gets a wrong answer due to something like one sign error in a several page problem also shouldn't get full credit. Both of these people should get more credit than the person who writes down some incoherent mess that doesn't resemble anything, and gets the wrong answer as well.


I don't want to hear a news story about a nuclear reactor that goes critical because someone was taught to get partial credit for doing the math with the correct method even though they get the answer wrong. I definitely don't want to hear about a nuclear reaction going critical and the guy that caused it getting to keep his job because he followed the right math method, but got the answer wrong.
The thing about partial credit is that points are still lost. If you consistently get wrong answers, you will fail. Nobody is going to learn to get answers wrong, it doesn't reward them. Moreover, if they learn the method well enough, they'll get them right anyways.

As for that nuclear reactor: I don't want anything to do with a nuclear reactor to go wrong because of one guy. These things are designed, built, etc. by teams for a set of very good reasons, one of which is so that they can catch errors that other people make. I don't care if the designer is a prodigy who has never been less than perfect in their academic math career, somebody else had better be looking at their numbers. In practice though, they won't be - they will have made errors. If the errors are of the sort that demonstrates that they could use more practice, them advancing is fine (that would be something akin to a minor sign error here and there). If the errors are of the sort that they have no idea of what they are doing (incoherent scribbles), not so much. The practice will reliably be ironed out with more classes, more training, more experience.



What you say about trig and algebra is true, but they shouldn't be taught that kind of stuff until much later. There is no point in teaching a child who is just learning arithmetic and multiplication about the associative property, not only does it add more to learn, it can confuse the child. Wait until they master the basics then teach them the different properties that can be used to enhance the math.
The associative property, the commutative property, and many like them are the basics. It's the core of how numbers work, and that really should be understood. It's not like they are specific techniques that require a strong grounding - I'm not advocating trying to teach the typical first grader calculus proofs (though I'm pretty sure the squeeze and mean value theorems could be taught to first graders).


What Common Core does is randomly take these different methods and forces all children to learn them, which is counter productive if their goal is to raise test scores.
All children are being taught a method regardless. The current one is not better simply because it is current, and it's not like it's being phased out entirely - it's just being removed from its position of dominance, largely because it's poorly suited to doing calculations in your head, and is used precisely on the exact calculations that will be done in one's head as soon as algebra rolls around.


Then of course there's the things where they take ideologies and put them as factual statements in English lessons. Common Core should have been struck from the books instantly as soon as they saw that. Citation needed as to this happening. It reads like blatant spin, and Common Core has been an area where blatant spin has been particularly common.


Still even if we just stick to the actual math of Common Core, it should not show up in 5E or any type of game even if that game is aimed at young children.
The math of Common Core is just math. It produces the same results as it always has, because it works. Outside of the likes of educational video games, it's not something in any danger of showing up, because games have better things to spend resources (page count, code, whatever) on than mandating what method people do their math with. D&D having text demanding the traditional subtraction method would be just as out of hand.

I have my issues with Common Core, but the presentation of the math as somehow inherently worse and the method as the only thing that gets counted are both wrong. That complex ideas are being presented too early is also not something I'd agree with at all - Singapore has demonstrated quite nicely that complex ideas can be presented earlier than they are, and that, if anything, math standards are too low. Fourth graders can handle algebra. Sixth graders can handle trig. Ninth graders can handle calculus.

Also, we should probably move this to PM at this point, as it's clear that D&D is gradually getting dropped entirely.

[Person_Man]

You just made me wonder something about why bounded accuracy is actually in the game...


In theory, Bounded Accuracy (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120604) accomplishes the following:



It makes all of the math in the game easier to manage and remember, especially for new players. It is also easier for players and DMs to understand the relative strength and difficulty of things.
Class abilities\magic items\feats\whatever are primarily about gaining new options, and not just bigger numbers. Thus by default all/most players will be able to contribute to a wider variety of different scenes/encounters as they gain levels, as opposed to being highly specialized in a smaller number of niches.
Players aren't "forced" to optimize any particular thing in order to remain useful as they gain levels.
High optimization and low optimization players can play in the same group without heavy handed DMing to help and/or protect the low optimization players.
Difficulty Chances can remain fixed, which makes the mechanic a lot easier to use and remember, and a lot easier for the DM to improvise as needed. (And scaling Difficulty Chances can be replaced by Contests).
When you do get a numerical bonus of some kind, getting better at something means actually getting better at something, not just keeping pace with some basic competence level that all players of that level can or "should" have.
Since monsters don't lose the ability to hit the players (and instead take out a smaller percentage chunk of the characters' hit points), the repertoire of monsters available for DMs to use in an adventure only increases over time, as new monsters become acceptable challenges and old monsters simply need to have their quantity increased. It also allows low level characters to possibly take on high level monsters if they have enough support, preparation, the right conditions, etc.
If you're a fan of low fantasy, real world but with magic, gritty, old school D&D-ish settings, (as I am) then it's good for verisimilitude. (And conversely, if you're a fan of high fantasy settings where players are essentially superheroes that are never seriously threatened by mooks, it's bad for your campaign setting).


I am a big supporter of the theory of bounded accuracy.

However, in order for bounded accuracy to actually work in practice, everyone on the design team needs to accept and use it. Hit points and damage needs to meaningfully and automatically scale for everything by default, you can't sneak in a Christmas tree of minor bonuses on the back end through spells, and the new options gained from class levels/feats/magic items/etc need to be verbose and meaningful (and not a jumble of minor situational benefits).

I hope that the final version of D&D Next actually embraces the design goals that they publicly declare.

[Lokiare]

In theory, Bounded Accuracy (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120604) accomplishes the following:

It makes all of the math in the game easier to manage and remember, especially for new players. It is also easier for players and DMs to understand the relative strength and difficulty of things.

Actually hp has to scale to compensate so it'll be more difficult to estimate the difficulty of something when you don't know its hp total, until the end of the fight when its lying dead at your feet and the information is worthless. The only thing you'll know is if you can hit the thing or not and you don't even know when its at half hp (bloodied) like in 4E. It actually creates more problems than it solves.


Class abilities\magic items\feats\whatever are primarily about gaining new options, and not just bigger numbers. Thus by default all/most players will be able to contribute to a wider variety of different scenes/encounters as they gain levels, as opposed to being highly specialized in a smaller number of niches.

Unfortunately they included +1 to +3 items that increase your ability to deal damage or be missed by attacks. +3 is equivalent to 5-7 levels depending on class for attack bonus. So you still get the whole bigger numbers problem because in 3.5E and 4E a +3 was a joke by level 10 or so. In 5E a +3 at level 20 is still a game changer. Thus they failed this test.


Players aren't "forced" to optimize any particular thing in order to remain useful as they gain levels.
High optimization and low optimization players can play in the same group without heavy handed DMing to help and/or protect the low optimization players.
Difficulty Chances can remain fixed, which makes the mechanic a lot easier to use and remember, and a lot easier for the DM to improvise as needed. (And scaling Difficulty Chances can be replaced by Contests).

These reasons are obviated because of the fact that everyone has a decent chance to do anything thanks to the numbers being so small. A +0 commoner has about a 20% chance of showing up the expert in the field with a +5 more so if they have something that gives them advantage (a bonus between +2.5 and +4.5). So not having to specialize means everyone can do it.


When you do get a numerical bonus of some kind, getting better at something means actually getting better at something, not just keeping pace with some basic competence level that all players of that level can or "should" have.

Actually this isn't true in any case where hp is involved. You might get a +1 to attack, but those monsters hp adjusted to keep pace so combat will still take about the same number of rounds. They just did the magic hat trick and shifted the treadmill to hp.


Since monsters don't lose the ability to hit the players (and instead take out a smaller percentage chunk of the characters' hit points), the repertoire of monsters available for DMs to use in an adventure only increases over time, as new monsters become acceptable challenges and old monsters simply need to have their quantity increased. It also allows low level characters to possibly take on high level monsters if they have enough support, preparation, the right conditions, etc.

This also isn't true. The number of attacks goes up geometrically when you add more monsters so 'just use more monsters' actually is impossible. To use those monsters you have to put the party at significant risk of extremely swingy combats where the entire party can die in a single round or they can win by using an area spell. To know how many monsters is right for a given level would require some algebra, which I'm pretty sure their 'simplicity' mandate makes impossible.


If you're a fan of low fantasy, real world but with magic, gritty, old school D&D-ish settings, (as I am) then it's good for verisimilitude. (And conversely, if you're a fan of high fantasy settings where players are essentially superheroes that are never seriously threatened by mooks, it's bad for your campaign setting).

Yep, so its counterproductive to uniting the player base, another of their goals.


I am a big supporter of the theory of bounded accuracy.

However, in order for bounded accuracy to actually work in practice, everyone on the design team needs to accept and use it. Hit points and damage needs to meaningfully and automatically scale for everything by default, you can't sneak in a Christmas tree of minor bonuses on the back end through spells, and the new options gained from class levels/feats/magic items/etc need to be verbose and meaningful (and not a jumble of minor situational benefits).

I hope that the final version of D&D Next actually embraces the design goals that they publicly declare.

That might be what they thought it would do, but as I've shown above that's not what it actually does. In fact the way they've implemented bounded accuracy completely goes against many of their design goals.

[Knaight]

I am a big supporter of the theory of bounded accuracy.

However, in order for bounded accuracy to actually work in practice, everyone on the design team needs to accept and use it. Hit points and damage needs to meaningfully and automatically scale for everything by default, you can't sneak in a Christmas tree of minor bonuses on the back end through spells, and the new options gained from class levels/feats/magic items/etc need to be verbose and meaningful (and not a jumble of minor situational benefits).

I hope that the final version of D&D Next actually embraces the design goals that they publicly declare.

I also like the theory to some extent*, wherein nobody is so much better at something that their worst is better than the best of someone untrained, particularly in the context of the less technical skills actually modeled by D&D (if it was something like the designs of more complex medieval machinery, this gets more viable). However, I'd posit that some sort of controlled die range with a very nonlinear distribution is the best way to handle this - maybe it's just a hard curve, maybe it's exploding dice - as opposed to piddly bonuses applied to a d20.

It also clashes with some of the other design assumptions, starting with the explosion in power. It works really well within a context wherein character skill actually should be limited, and characters only get marginally larger than life. The HP bloat design goal suggests that this isn't really a goal, which produces a bizarre effect wherein nobody can get really really good at anything modeled by the skills, but basically everybody can get really, really good at beating the living snot out of titanic monstrosities. That sort of thing just shouldn't be reliable if we're assuming that there's some small chance of even the greatest climber slipping and falling on a relatively easy climb, and other such things. The explosion in power with spells is a similar case. It seems somehow inappropriate that nobody can develop skills such that they can perform moderately difficult mundane tasks every time, but that incredibly complex spells can be cast without fail. You'd think the caster would have a decent chance of screwing up somewhere.

*Though D&D seems like the wrong place to apply it.

[Kurald Galain]

However, I'd posit that some sort of controlled die range with a very nonlinear distribution is the best way to handle this - maybe it's just a hard curve, maybe it's exploding dice - as opposed to piddly bonuses applied to a d20.

It also clashes with some of the other design assumptions, starting with the explosion in power. It works really well within a context wherein character skill actually should be limited, and characters only get marginally larger than life. The HP bloat design goal suggests that this isn't really a goal, which produces a bizarre effect wherein nobody can get really really good at anything modeled by the skills, but basically everybody can get really, really good at beating the living snot out of titanic monstrosities. That sort of thing just shouldn't be reliable if we're assuming that there's some small chance of even the greatest climber slipping and falling on a relatively easy climb, and other such things.

Quoted for truth.

[Person_Man]

I also like the theory to some extent*, wherein nobody is so much better at something that their worst is better than the best of someone untrained, particularly in the context of the less technical skills actually modeled by D&D (if it was something like the designs of more complex medieval machinery, this gets more viable). However, I'd posit that some sort of controlled die range with a very nonlinear distribution is the best way to handle this - maybe it's just a hard curve, maybe it's exploding dice - as opposed to piddly bonuses applied to a d20.


Hmm. So for the sake of argument, lets say that we as players:



Want to maximize the fun of playing D&D, and assume that the standard mode of play for most players is 1-6ish people exploring, roleplaying, and fighting skirmish combats. (As opposed to mass combat, or creating the best possible simulation of your fantasy world, or modeling what a high level character "should" be able to do vs. low level monsters, or what a dragon "should" be able to do against a bunch of commoners).
Want to keep all the math/statistics intuitive and relatively easy to use.
Want to put some sort of hard cap on all bonuses and bonus types, so that you can attempt to accomplish the goals of Bounded Accuracy as stated by WotC in the design article I linked to and summarized.
The primary resolution mechanic for all difficult tasks must involve at least 1d20.



What would our ideal system look like, both in terms of the main resolution mechanic and any hit points/damage reduction/etc?

[Lokiare]

Hmm. So for the sake of argument, lets say that we as players:



Want to maximize the fun of playing D&D, and assume that the standard mode of play for most players is 1-6ish people exploring, roleplaying, and fighting skirmish combats. (As opposed to mass combat, or creating the best possible simulation of your fantasy world, or modeling what a high level character "should" be able to do vs. low level monsters, or what a dragon "should" be able to do against a bunch of commoners).
Want to keep all the math/statistics intuitive and relatively easy to use.
Want to put some sort of hard cap on all bonuses and bonus types, so that you can attempt to accomplish the goals of Bounded Accuracy as stated by WotC in the design article I linked to and summarized.
The primary resolution mechanic for all difficult tasks must involve at least 1d20.



What would our ideal system look like, both in terms of the main resolution mechanic and any hit points/damage reduction/etc?

It would look much like 2E without thac0, where the bounds of the math aren't arbitrarily determined, but instead form naturally from the mechanics as an emergent property.

Have DCs that are insanely hard that rarely pop up in adventures and then allow some characters to specialize so much that they can hit those numbers.

For instance most locks in a goblin warren would probably fall within the moderate range, anyone with a lock pick and a little knowledge should have a small chance of opening them. However a truly skilled character should never fail at opening these locks as they are so simple as to be beneath them. Lets say this same group comes upon an arch wizards tower and finds a vault with some kind of arcane lock. The master at lock picking might have a small chance of opening it with the proper tools, but those other people should have no chance at all. They should have to find where the Wizard hid the key instead.

You should never have a situation where an extremely skilled lock picker has an opportunity to fail at a moderate difficulty lock while a barely skilled character can succeed 20%-30% of the time.

Edit: to put some numbers where my mouth is:

The maximum virtual bonus a barely skilled lock picker should get is around +5 (that includes having advantage for excellent magically endowed lock picks or whatever) Then the DC for 'hard' which is one step above 'moderate' locks should be 26 thus putting it out of that characters range. The moderate DC should be around 20 which would give our barely skill picker a 25% chance to open the lock. Now our master lock smith should be able to do that moderate lock with no problems meaning they need to have a minimum bonus of +20 or some mechanic that allows them to automatically open locks of DC 20 or less. If they have +20 to the roll, then they can succeed on hard locks (DC 26) 75% of the time. Extremely hard locks might have a DC around 35 which means our master lock smith should have a 25% chance to succeed. "Impossible" locks should have a DC around 41 which means that even rolling a 20 our master lock smith cannot open it unless they get lucky or have some outside environmental bonus that puts them over the edge like the plans for the lock or having handled the key extensively.

Another way to do this would be to allow anyone to succeed on locks that are 10 + their bonus. Which means the master lock smith only needs to have a +10 to open a moderate lock without rolling. they still have a 20% chance to open hard locks, but cannot open extremely hard locks. However we can then lower the extremely hard DC to 30 which means they have a 5% chance to open them. From there if we want them to have a higher chance we can increase their bonus to +15 which would give them a 30% chance to open the extremely hard lock, and the impossible DC can come down to 36. So our final rules would look like this:

"Anyone can automatically succeed at an unopposed skill check that is DC 10 + their total bonus. Certain situations might require that they roll for instance a rogue that could normally automatically succeed at picking a lock might need to roll if they are being shot at by archers while attempting to open the lock.



DC
Difficulty
Minimum bonus
to auto succeed


10
Easy
+0


15
Normal
+5


20
Moderate
+10


25
Hard
+15


30
Extremely Hard
+20


35
Impossible
+25

"

[Knaight]

Hmm. So for the sake of argument, lets say that we as players:

Want to maximize the fun of playing D&D, and assume that the standard mode of play for most players is 1-6ish people exploring, roleplaying, and fighting skirmish combats. (As opposed to mass combat, or creating the best possible simulation of your fantasy world, or modeling what a high level character "should" be able to do vs. low level monsters, or what a dragon "should" be able to do against a bunch of commoners).
Want to keep all the math/statistics intuitive and relatively easy to use.
Want to put some sort of hard cap on all bonuses and bonus types, so that you can attempt to accomplish the goals of Bounded Accuracy as stated by WotC in the design article I linked to and summarized.
The primary resolution mechanic for all difficult tasks must involve at least 1d20.


What would our ideal system look like, both in terms of the main resolution mechanic and any hit points/damage reduction/etc?

It depends on exactly which goals we prioritize - I'll keep everyone having a chance to fail and a chance to succeed at everything, as that's kind of the core of bounded accuracy, possibly fudging the low end a little. Statistics will also be easy to approximate, with the really high end bringing in an understanding of low chances and making it harder to calculate.

Exploding dice work nicely here - maybe even a more novel mechanic involving sequentially decreasing exploding dice, wherein a d20 explodes on a roll of 20 to 20+d12, a d12 to a d10, etc. The probabilities don't even get that wonky - +0 vs. DC 20 has a 5% chance, +0 vs DC 25 a 3.33% chance, +0 vs. DC 30 a 1.25% chance, which trails down nicely. Thus, more advanced characters don't get out of hand. It also restricts the range - if we assume that nothing below a d4 is used, the best roll is 20+12+10+8+6+4, which comes to 60. 60's a nice even number for nearly impossible tasks, and it stays on the range for anyone.

Now, we take skills: Bring on the dice again. If each point in a skill (say 0-5 points) got +1d6, with specialization feats bringing this up to 1d8, a major advantage can be gained. However, the only thing that becomes a guaranteed success is DC 5, and a high attribute can already get this under the current model.

Just having skill dice covers this fairly nicely, along with attack dice. Say the d20 roll is there for basic randomness, and attributes just flat increase the ends of the range by providing a bonus. Have skills, attack bonuses, defense bonuses, etc come in the form of dice. Say one point in a skill is +1d6, and there's up to 5 points. At 5 points, the average bonus is +17.5, which is hefty, but even a DC 10 can technically be failed. If the standard DCs are 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, that leaves the top one out of reach for the low end and the bottom one out of reach for the high end, with everything else scaling nicely. It also makes skill shave an effect of creating a bit of a curve and making things more predictable, which is a nice touch.

If the DC 5 and 25 edge cases are a problem, they're fairly easy to solve. Have a natural 20 allow the rolling of another die - that leaves 25 as a 1/60 chance for a +0 bonus and a 1/120 chance for a -1 penalty, but it's still there. Have a natural 1 impose a penalty - maybe half of the bonus dice get knocked off entirely, representing a fumble of sorts. If this is rounded up, a DC 5 even with no attribute bonus at skill 5 is really easy to make and a DC 10 fairly easy, with a DC 5 still easy with only 4, but it does create a chance for fumbling. Attributes pull this off the scale again, but that fits with the current model.

Moreover, if a 0-20 scale is used for attributes, a -5 to +5 scale appears for attribute bonuses (note that the attributes can just be scrapped entirely here), which has a nice symmetry with skill points, attack points, etc.

[Noldo]

It depends on exactly which goals we prioritize - I'll keep everyone having a chance to fail and a chance to succeed at everything, as that's kind of the core of bounded accuracy, possibly fudging the low end a little. Statistics will also be easy to approximate, with the really high end bringing in an understanding of low chances and making it harder to calculate.

I have to say that I really like the idea of increasing number of skill dice. Compared to increasing size of skill dice (1d6->1d8->1d0->…), increasing the number of dice does wonderful work in increasing also the minimum, solving the issue that a skilled character’s change of failure is not sufficiently lower than unskilled character’s.

At the same time auto-success is a bit less common than in case the character would gain flat bonus that would allow the character to succeed in similar tasks as the skill dice does (i.e. skill dice of 2d6 enables character to succeed in tasks of DC 30+attribute, which would require at least a flat bonus of 10, which in turn would make character auto succeed in higher number of tasks.

[Lokiare]

I have to say that I really like the idea of increasing number of skill dice. Compared to increasing size of skill dice (1d6->1d8->1d0->…), increasing the number of dice does wonderful work in increasing also the minimum, solving the issue that a skilled character’s change of failure is not sufficiently lower than unskilled character’s.

At the same time auto-success is a bit less common than in case the character would gain flat bonus that would allow the character to succeed in similar tasks as the skill dice does (i.e. skill dice of 2d6 enables character to succeed in tasks of DC 30+attribute, which would require at least a flat bonus of 10, which in turn would make character auto succeed in higher number of tasks.

Personally I don't think that experts in a field who are not only super talented but have studied it for years and are masters should be shown up by a lucky commoner with no affinity, skill, or talent, but that's just me.

[Kurald Galain]

It depends on exactly which goals we prioritize - I'll keep everyone having a chance to fail and a chance to succeed at everything, as that's kind of the core of bounded accuracy, possibly fudging the low end a little. Statistics will also be easy to approximate, with the really high end bringing in an understanding of low chances and making it harder to calculate.

One issue to consider is speed. If the players have to think about which kinds of dice to roll every time, that significantly slows down gameplay. 1d20 + a bunch of d6'es is fine in that regard, but 1d20 + some d6 and d8 + sometimes a d12 and maybe a d10 probably isn't.

[Noldo]

Personally I don't think that experts in a field who are not only super talented but have studied it for years and are masters should be shown up by a lucky commoner with no affinity, skill, or talent, but that's just me.

I think that more skilled character definitely has to have much higher ceiling than less skilled one, thus being able to solve much harder problems by applying the relevant skill. However, I think that auto-succeeding in number of tasks is unsatisfying from gameplay perspective. Once you reach that level, there is no longer any risk, no longer any challenge and adventuring, IMO, should be about challenges.

Now, of course same situations should not be challenges to experienced adventurer than a wet-behind-ears rookie. But if there is too much discrepancy between minimum results the characters that are members of a same adventuring party (i.e. relatively same level of experience) can achieve only some of these characters can participate in the adventure. Either they have no change of succeeding (and are left out) or they have no change of failing (and there is no challenge for them).

[Kurald Galain]

I think that more skilled character definitely has to have much higher ceiling than less skilled one, thus being able to solve much harder problems by applying the relevant skill. However, I think that auto-succeeding in number of tasks is unsatisfying from gameplay perspective.
I find the exact opposite: it is unsatisfying from gameplay perspective that your high-level superhumanly skilled ranger still has a chance of failure at climbing a tree or swimming across a river.

WOTC appears to be defining "challenge" as "having a random chance of failure"; I think that's not a workable definition.

[Noldo]

WOTC appears to be defining "challenge" as "having a random chance of failure"; I think that's not a workable definition.

But is there any other definition for a challenge (in context of game) than “There is a possibility for a failure (and a possibility for success)”?

If there is no possibility for success, the challenge is not the situation but to find a way to sidestep it. If there is no possibility for failure, the situation is no longer a challenge (although the way to achieve the situation where there is no possibility for failure could have been a challenge).

Getting the discussion back to the original topic, I think that the same approach applies equally to all elements, including Damage Reduction or Resistance. If a fight cannot result in success because the beast has DR, the fight is no longer a challenge, the challenge becomes (i) learning about the DR (in character) and (ii) finding (in character) a way to get around the DR.

[Kurald Galain]

But is there any other definition for a challenge (in context of game) than “There is a possibility for a failure (and a possibility for success)”?
Note the word "random" in my sentence. Rolling a die and hoping you'll get a 5 or higher is not a challenge.

[Noldo]

Note the word "random" in my sentence. Rolling a die and hoping you'll get a 5 or higher is not a challenge.

And deciding that the character will perform a task, in which the character is guaranteed to succeed is a challenge? As is quite stable for many (dare I say most?) gaming systems, the possibility for failure is practically always tied to some random element so that the result, succeed or failure, is not known before the character commits to the action.

I do agree that since D20 is quite swingy, the resolution mechanic should not boil down to single roll of D20 since that introduces a way too large dose of luck into the system. Funny how that is the same reason why save-or-die/suck spells are sometimes so frowned upon…

[Kurald Galain]

Well, the issue is this: WOTC and its adventure writers tend to put "challenges" in their games like "roll a swim check". That's not a good attitude; "roll a swim check" is not interesting to the story, nor is it mechanically interesting, nor does it allow the players to make any useful decisions.

Rather, a challenge should be something like "cross a raging river". Now the players get to decide whether their characters will swim across, toss a rope and walk across, build a boat, cast dimension door, or whatever else they want.

And if they're high enough level and badass enough, they can probably do it without a chance of failure. But I'm fine with that. The key to making high-level adventures isn't to "challenge" them with "roll a swim check with a higher DC!" (although WOTC adventures tend to do precisely that), but rather to admit that world-saving heroes are challenged by other things (like crossing the elemental plane of fire).

[Person_Man]

I find the exact opposite: it is unsatisfying from gameplay perspective that your high-level superhumanly skilled ranger still has a chance of failure at climbing a tree or swimming across a river.

WOTC appears to be defining "challenge" as "having a random chance of failure"; I think that's not a workable definition.

I think that this can be solved fairly easily.

Maybe something like:


1d20 + relevant Attribute Bonus + Expertise Dice

Attribute Bonus: Equal to the relevant Attribute minus 10. Player attributes have a maximum score of 18 (+8).

Expertise Dice: 1d4/1d6/1d8/1d10/1d12 (max). Automatically scales with class level. The size of the dice can be increased or decreased by class abilities/powers/Feats/spells/etc. "This ability grants you +1 step to your Expertise dice when you..."

Advantage/Disadvantage: Certain abilities/powers/spells/conditions in combat/etc grant Advantage/Disadvantage. When you have Advantage, you roll twice as many dice (2d20 plus two Expertise dice) and take the highest result from the 2d20 plus + the highest result of the two Expertise Dice that you roll. When you have Disadvantage, you roll twice as many dice and take lowest result. Advantage and Disadvantage cancel each other out. You can never roll more then 2d20 + 2 Expertise Dice.

Taking 10: When you are not threatened by an enemy and do not have Disadvantage, you may Take 10 on any check that is not an Attack or Contest. The minimum result of your 1d20 check (or 2d20 check, if you have Advantage) is 10.

Non-Challenging Tasks: Outside of combat, you do not need to make a check for any task that is not a Contest if the Difficulty Chance is lower then your character level + your attribute bonus for that task. (Thus a 20th level character with 18 Strength would automatically succeed on all Strength related tasks of DC 28 or lower when outside of combat).

Critical Success or Failure: If you roll a natural 20 on any attack, you automatically succeed. If you roll a natural 1 on any attack, you automatically miss. This only applies to attack rolls, and not any other task or Contest. If you have Advantage, it counts as a critical success if either of the two dice that you roll is a natural 20, and only a critical failure if you roll a natural 1 on both dice. If you have Disadvantage, it is a critical failure if you roll a natural 1 on either die, and only a critical success if you roll a natural 20 on both dice.


Thoughts?

[Knaight]

I find the exact opposite: it is unsatisfying from gameplay perspective that your high-level superhumanly skilled ranger still has a chance of failure at climbing a tree or swimming across a river.

Provided that it's a low enough chance, I have no issue with it. After all, it's not like extremely good mountain climbers haven't died climbing mountains lesser climbers climbed just fine (usually this involved doing something dumb, like not bothering with rope and basically bouldering up the mountain).

[Kurald Galain]

Provided that it's a low enough chance, I have no issue with it. After all, it's not like extremely good mountain climbers haven't died climbing mountains lesser climbers climbed just fine (usually this involved doing something dumb, like not bothering with rope and basically bouldering up the mountain).

I could get behind a rule like "natural 1 = failure", although judged by these boards here fumble rules aren't all that popular. But at least in the latest playtest package of 5E, the actual chance was somewhere around 30%, which I find utterly ridiculous.

[Tanuki Tales]

This thread has definitely taken a very interesting turn. Now if only I could figure out how to make it apply to my Pathfinder houserules. :smalltongue:

[Knaight]

I could get behind a rule like "natural 1 = failure", although judged by these boards here fumble rules aren't all that popular. But at least in the latest playtest package of 5E, the actual chance was somewhere around 30%, which I find utterly ridiculous.

Hence the stack of dice that I was proposing, wherein to fail at a DC 10 as an expert you need to somehow manage to roll less than 10 on 1d20+5d6+[attribute], which is a whopping 0.05% chance with an attribute of zero.

[Seerow]

I like the Stack of Dice mechanic. It's nice because advantage/disadvantage can be as easy as adding/removing dice. You don't actually lose the ability to fail at a DC10 check until you have 9 bonus dice (which I assume would be a relatively high level deal), but gives a very meaningful increase in both your average and max values. You could even take it a step further and let characters trade out like 2 points of attribute mod for 1 die, so it is better on average, but drops the minimum (So instead of 1d20+5d6+4 having a minimum of 10, you get 1d20+7d6 for a minimum of 8, but getting a higher average/max).


I've also been fond of 3d20 take middle as a core mechanic. Advantage lets you take the highest, disadvantage lets you take lowest. I really want an in-between step there, but the best one statistically (2d20 take highest/2d20 take lowest), is counter intuitive (Go from rolling 3d20 to 2d20 back up to 3d20?).

[Stubbazubba]

Knaight's ideas

Have you ever played The One Ring? This is quite close to their basic mechanic. In that game, you roll a (custom) d12 + Xd6, where X = your skill level, 0-6. If you roll a nat 12 on the d12, it's an automatic success, and for each nat 6 you roll on the d6 "skill dice," you get a boon like a damage multiplier or something. I find it absolutely brilliant.

And after tinkering around with the Cortex+ system in Marvel Heroic for a while I essentially came to a very similar system to the one you have proposed: Rolls = 1d20 + NdX, where N = skill level, and X = die size based on attribute (d4, d6, or d8). Instead of using straight escalating DCs, though, this system started to require a nat 6+ on a skill die for harder tasks. If you have a negative attribute modifier, you only roll a d4 and therefore can't get those higher difficulties. D6 has a decent chance once you have enough dice (which caps at 3 or 4? Maybe 5? It's been months since I've looked at this), and d8 obviously makes getting one 6+ fairly easy with enough dice.

Although, your attributes didn't increase all of your skill dice in my system; every step up two was one more upgrade. e.g., if you had 14 STR and Climb 3 you would roll 1d20 + 2d8 + 1d6. Later I decided it was too easy to get upgrades with the attribute modifiers as-is, but you see the system nevertheless.

I ran into the same problem Kurald pointed out, though; this would significantly increase the resolution time of every roll, and I'm not sure if it so elegantly accomplishes other things to be worth that.

[Knaight]

Have you ever played The One Ring? This is quite close to their basic mechanic. In that game, you roll a (custom) d12 + Xd6, where X = your skill level, 0-6. If you roll a nat 12 on the d12, it's an automatic success, and for each nat 6 you roll on the d6 "skill dice," you get a boon like a damage multiplier or something. I find it absolutely brilliant.
I haven't, but I remember this coming up a few threads ago, when I first posited the use of a stack of dice for D&D 5e (with actual tables full of probability math, which isn't happening again, particularly not under the new table structure on the forum).

[Lokiare]

I haven't, but I remember this coming up a few threads ago, when I first posited the use of a stack of dice for D&D 5e (with actual tables full of probability math, which isn't happening again, particularly not under the new table structure on the forum).

I just copy and paste www.andydice.com, works close enough for hand grenades.

[Knaight]

I just copy and paste www.andydice.com, works close enough for hand grenades.

That was where I did all the calculations in the first place.

[Person_Man]

RE: Stack of Dice

When I first started playing 1st edition when I was 12ish years old, I didn't have anything but a pile of six sided dice that my friends and I had stolen from board games. So we had to approximate everything with it's closest equivalent in d6. For example, we rolled 3d6 instead of 1d20. But it all seemed to work fine for us.


However, I could see an argument saying that too many dice = barrier to entry and/or = too complex


Of course, having a bag of funny dice is pretty ingrained into gamer culture at this point. And there are plenty of dice rolling websites and apps out there. So I'm not sure that argument holds any merit. But I understand and agree with the basic concept of keeping the core resolution mechanic relatively simple and understandable.

[Kurald Galain]

However, I could see an argument saying that too many dice = barrier to entry and/or = too complex

That wasn't the point though. The point is that having to remember that this particular roll requires a d10 whereas that other roll requires a d6 is slowing down gameplay.

Compare: in 2E, attacks are d20-roll-high, saves are d20-roll-low, thief skills use d% (but other skills are not), and initiative is d10. Whereas in 3E, all of these are d20-roll-high. It's pretty obvious which of these is easier to remember for the players.

[Stubbazubba]

And in a Stack of Dice situation where you both get more dice + varying kinds of dice based on different things, you have to check what you roll every time you roll and then pick out those dice from your dice bag. Now a character sheet that makes it clear can mitigate this to some degree, and maybe I'm exaggerating how this would really work (wouldn't people just memorize their most-used rolls anyway?), but it felt like a problem when I thought it up.

[Knaight]

That wasn't the point though. The point is that having to remember that this particular roll requires a d10 whereas that other roll requires a d6 is slowing down gameplay.

It really depends. Take Savage Worlds - skills are ranked in dice, and the sheet tells you what dice to roll for each skill. It's no more complex than bonuses.

[Kurald Galain]

It really depends. Take Savage Worlds - skills are ranked in dice, and the sheet tells you what dice to roll for each skill. It's no more complex than bonuses.

I didn't say it was complex, I said it was slower.

[Knaight]

I didn't say it was complex, I said it was slower.

You said it was slower because of the remembering what to roll involved. Provided that remembering what to roll is easy (i.e. it's not at all complex), it follows that it wouldn't be slower.

[obryn]

FWIW, the idea of 1d20+Xd6 to track skill mastery seems pretty good to me. I like the probability curve that results.

I was expecting a discussion about damage reduction, though. :smallsmile:

[Stubbazubba]

You said it was slower because of the remembering what to roll involved. Provided that remembering what to roll is easy (i.e. it's not at all complex), it follows that it wouldn't be slower.

Well, the remembering might not be any slower, but it does mean you have to get that many dice in hand (which I concede is probably negligible), and then after the roll you have to add up that many values. That will take an extra 1-3 seconds every single roll, assuming you're reasonably quick with math. 15+4+2+6+1 is several steps more complicated than 15+13.

[Lokiare]

Well, the remembering might not be any slower, but it does mean you have to get that many dice in hand (which I concede is probably negligible), and then after the roll you have to add up that many values. That will take an extra 1-3 seconds every single roll, assuming you're reasonably quick with math. 15+4+2+6+1 is several steps more complicated than 15+13.

Not if you use common core methods:

15+13
13+2=15 (convert 13 to a friendly number)
15+15=30 (add the two friendly numbers together)
30-2=28 (subtract what you added to make it a friendly number)

No wait its one step shorter, sorry.

Edit: This kind of thing is important to keep in mind, since the next generation of gamers will do the math like this, instead of the traditional 2 step method of our day. In fact we really need to make 5E conform to using friendly numbers that are easy to add or subtract.