Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!

[Scowling Dragon]

Uh I think he did exactly the opposite. He pointed out that mathematically +2 isn't that large of a bonus.

[hamlet]

Uh I think he did exactly the opposite. He pointed out that mathematically +2 isn't that large of a bonus.

And I pointed out that in prior editions, a 10% bonus is, in fact, more significant. Where numbers are, across the board, less, a +10% on the die roll translates into a larger and more considerable percentage of the final result. In the 3.x and 4.x systems, no, a +2 was negligible. But in AD&D and BECMI, it was quite considerable.

[Stubbazubba]

That meant that an extra +2 to hit very frequently could make the difference

If your definition of 'very frequently' is '10% of the time,' I suppose. If that's the case, then all my favorite sports teams could win extremely frequently, while they at the same time lose unprecedentedly frequently. I suppose it's all relative, as far as what you want to put in front of 'frequently' to describe the mathematical effect of +2 on a d20 roll, but if that's all that separates me from a non-Fighter, the term I choose is 'not frequently.'

so a +2 often made the difference.

Again, by definition, it makes a difference 10% of the time. This is OK if that's in addition to several other bonuses, which end up giving you a +8 or more, though whether having that many little bonuses to keep track of is a question that needs answering itself, but if that's the only difference between the Fighter's melee ability and the Wizard's, it doesn't really matter which one I choose when I want to be a melee guy, at least not from numbers alone.

[hamlet]

If your definition of 'very frequently' is '10% of the time,' I suppose. If that's the case, then all my favorite sports teams could win extremely frequently, while they at the same time lose unprecedentedly frequently. I suppose it's all relative, as far as what you want to put in front of 'frequently' to describe the mathematical effect of +2 on a d20 roll, but if that's all that separates me from a non-Fighter, the term I choose is 'not frequently.'



Again, by definition, it makes a difference 10% of the time. This is OK if that's in addition to several other bonuses, which end up giving you a +8 or more, though whether having that many little bonuses to keep track of is a question that needs answering itself, but if that's the only difference between the Fighter's melee ability and the Wizard's, it doesn't really matter which one I choose when I want to be a melee guy, at least not from numbers alone.

Yeah, except that in AD&D, 10% was more than 10% in D20. The hard cap AC was -10. Nothing beat it unless you were fudging things. That means that +2 meant more to a fighter trying to hit a -10 in AD&D than a +2 means to a fighter trying to hit an AC45 in 3.x.

And, speaking strictly from experience, that +2 meant the difference between life and death at least 7 times last night, so yeah, I'd consider that quite significant.

[pasko77]

So . . . what? Your solution is a thinly veiled personal insult?

Yes. I found your answer impolite and irritating, so I reacted consequently. Anyway you are the one who reacted to an objection in a very rude manner, as if it was a personal attack, so you reap what you sow.

Or just sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!" at the top of your lungs?

Not really, your math is wrong. No point arguing over it.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Uh I think he did exactly the opposite. He pointed out that mathematically +2 isn't that large of a bonus.

"Mathematically" my ass. "Large" and "small" are relative terms. +2 might be huge, or it might be tiny. It depends on the rest of the game system. You can't judge it unless you put an invisible framework around it to perform the judgement (say, "+2" meaning adding 2 to the result of 1d20 to roll greater than or equal to 10). An invisible framework that, maybe, just might not apply to the context.

I don't really know enough about OD&D to judge his accuracy myself. I'm just saying it's not as clear cut as "it's just 10%."

[Scowling Dragon]

"Mathematically" my ass. "Large" and "small" are relative terms. +2 might be huge, or it might be tiny. It depends on the rest of the game system. You can't judge it unless you put an invisible framework around it to perform the judgement (say, "+2" meaning adding 2 to the result of 1d20 to roll greater than or equal to 10). An invisible framework that, maybe, just might not apply to the context.

I don't really know enough about OD&D to judge his accuracy myself. I'm just saying it's not as clear cut as "it's just 10%."

Well I agree about the stuff above but:

YES It is as clear cut as 10%.

[Seerow]

Well I agree about the stuff above but:

YES It is as clear cut as 10%.

Except no, it's really not. For example, say by default you succeed on a task 80% of the time (succeed on a 5+), you get a +2 to that task, now you have just reduced your failure rate by 50%. While yes, it is still +10%, it is +50% on the relative scale.

Basically what a bonus is worth depends on the RNG. But here's the important thing: Making really high scaling bonuses on a d20 roll simply makes the RNG useless. A prime example of this is basically everything in 3.5. You have so many potential bonuses, and many of them are so large, that the RNG very easily gets to the point where there's no point in even rolling. You have auto success or auto failure. While some people like that, it is pretty bad game design, because in effect it makes most bonuses superfluous rather than making a few small bonuses count and seem more important.

[Crow]

Well, if you are rolling a d20 and would hit on a 15 or better under normal conditions, a +2 actually means your chance of rolling a result that hits is increased by 33%.

Your guys are right, your roll is only 10% better. You have to take your target numbers into account though, as those will change the final outcome. In my example above, the guy with a +2 on his roll will have 33% more actual hits than the guy with no bonus.

edit: Ninja'd by Seerow. Another guy who ''gets'' it.

[Scowling Dragon]

Whilst high range also means that small bonuses can be equally as worthless.

If as a fighter the only difference between me and a wizard is a +2 bonus then a large amount of the time the wizard will dominate in a arm-wrestling challenge.

Also, why must you mention 3e? 4e also had huge scaling bonuses.

I actually like large scaling bonuses as the randomness allows you to be challenged by equal leveled opponents whilst low level mooks couldn't do anything to you.

[Seerow]

Whilst high range also means that small bonuses can be equally as worthless.

If as a fighter the only difference between me and a wizard is a +2 bonus then a large amount of the time the wizard will dominate in a arm-wrestling challenge.

Also, why must you mention 3e? 4e also had huge scaling bonuses.

I actually like large scaling bonuses as the randomness allows you to be challenged by equal leveled opponents whilst low level mooks couldn't do anything to you.

Typically you'd consider an arm wrestling contest an opposed roll though, and the probability on those is a little trickier. Also, the difference between a Fighter and a Wizard is never just +2. The Fighter is sitting there with his 18 strength, the Wizard has his 8. So you're already at +4 vs -1. If the Fighter happens to have skill focus (arm wrestling) for a +2, that gives him a +6 vs -1.


Even if you decide to simplify it by making the Fighter a passive DC that the Wizard has to beat to win, you have the default (-1 vs 14) where the Wizard wins on a 15 or above (30% of the time), then the specialist (-1 vs 16) where the Wizard wins on a 17 or above (20% of the time), this results in the Fighter winning his contest 20% more often.


Sure you can take umbrage that a wizard can win even that often with that large a difference between their attributes. But arm wrestling is a pretty niche case. Instead think about things like saving throws, attack rolls, etc. Things that you want anyone who attempts to do these things to have a chance of succeeding, but not a 100% chance. For this to work, you have to have the RNG kept within 20 at the high and low ends. You can probably get away with ignoring corner cases (ie the lowest attack bonus attacking the highest defense), but the RNG should be within the expected range the majority of the time.

If you make it so a feat's value is to throw a +5 bonus onto that RNG, and make such bonuses easy to get, then it makes that RNG pretty much impossible to maintain.



Edit: You are right however that a high range can make small bonuses worthless, however high bonuses make a high range more likely. If you want bonuses that are large, you have to restrict yourself to only 2-3 of those bonuses at most to keep the RNG meaningful, and this loses a lot of granularity in the system.

As for why I specify 3e rather than 4e, 3e is much more egregious in terms of making a horrible RNG. +30 skill bonus items. BABs that set characters 10 apart in terms of attack rolls before even considering anything else. Secondary attacks that go down to -15 below the default. AC that at high level can still be as low as 0, or as high as infinite. Saving Throws that even before considering rmulticlassing and feats/niche cases can range between a +5 save and a +30 save. Monsters of the same level whose attack bonuses vary between +5 and +20 (or at higher levels a difference between +25 and +60). 3.5's RNG is legitimately so terrible that the most common advice is to try to minimize it by using defenses that bypass it entirely, and offenses that are so high that normal defenses won't stop it.

4e was actually a great step forward in terms of making the RNG coherent, and giving numbers at various levels meaningful limits. It wasn't perfect, and there are examples of bonuses in it that are bad, but it has nothing on 3rd edition in terms of outrageous bonuses making your RNG completely unusable.

[Scowling Dragon]

Typically you'd consider an arm wrestling contest an opposed roll though, and the probability on those is a little trickier. Also, the difference between a Fighter and a Wizard is never just +2. The Fighter is sitting there with his 18 strength, the Wizard has his 8. So you're already at +4 vs -1. If the Fighter happens to have skill focus (arm wrestling) for a +2, that gives him a +6 vs -1.

Then its no longer just a +2 bonus is it?

Did you even know how this began? This was talking about skills! If the only difference in training is a +2 bonus then I think that would be pretty bad!

Then that means that an ancient craft master would be of equal skill to a dude with basic stapler skills!

And I don't think people want major ability score inflation.

[Seerow]

Then its no longer just a +2 bonus is it?

You NEVER have just a single bonus when discussing anything in D&D.

Did you even know how this began? This was talking about skills! If the only difference in training is a +2 bonus then I think that would be pretty bad!

Even in 4e isn't being trained like a +4 bonus? Then you also get attributes and level added to that. Plus potentially feats like skill focus, which is where the +2 modifiers would come in. The difference there between a novice with no talent and a master isn't +2, it's more like +12.


It seems to me like you're confusing two different issues. The first is an issue of bonuses need to be small to make the RNG coherent, because you're going to be getting more than one. The problem is you are taking this and extrapolating it as that +2 bonus is the only bonus that is ever going to be applied to anything, so the difference between a layman and a specialist is only +2. Whereas in reality the specialist is someone who has several different things all feeding into his specialization, giving him a total that is 10-15 points higher than the layman.

[Scowling Dragon]

So all we have done is make specializing more difficult?

Im not seeing the point here.

[Seerow]

So all we have done is make specializing more difficult?

Im not seeing the point here.

No what it is is what has always been: Allowing a finer gradient of options.



Let's try this: Imagine if instead of all our dozens of bonuses to attack rolls, there was only one bonus. BAB. Now let's pretend that BAB granted its full value right at level 1, and we eliminated BAB. Now we have only two bonuses that apply, and everyone gets one of them. Straight from level 1, you have either a +10 to hit or a +20 to hit. You could even simplify it by saying everyone who is good gets +10, nobody else gets anything.

This accomplishes the goal of staying on the RNG (everyone's within 10 of each other), and gives a real noticeable bonus for having the better option. By your standards, it's the perfect system.


Except it's not. It's boring. Everyone has the same to-hit. There is only people who are bad and people who are great. There is no in-between. No other options. No other bonuses. No scaling with level. Just a single big choice.

Does this seem interesting to you? Fun? Do you think you would like a game where all options were defined like this? Binary on-off switches where you're either great at something or bad at it? I really doubt it, but this is exactly what you are asking for with the problems you have put forth and the way you have described things should work.

[Scowling Dragon]

Look I use strawman arguments and get all prissy and annoying but I don't even get where your argument is coming from!

Seriously this leap of logic is huge even for me.

My point was that with the comforts of skill points Its all in one place. Assign them wherever you want. We got a range of variables and with scaling so that at god levels what used to be difficult becomes mundane.

[Seerow]

Look I use strawman arguments and get all prissy and annoying but I don't even get where your argument is coming from!

Seriously this leap of logic is huge even for me.

My point was that with the comforts of skill points Its all in one place. Assign them wherever you want. We got a range of variables and with scaling so that at god levels what used to be difficult becomes mundane.

I gave an example of two different people with pretty different skill ratings, you said it was too much and made it hard to specialize. Given the entirety of what was used was a skill training, a few levels, a better ability score, and a feat, I could only assume you wanted all of those bonuses gone and replaced with a single training option that gives a much bigger difference.

If that's not what you want then for ****s sake say what you mean and don't just write two lines responding to several paragraphs that doesn't say anything except "I don't like it". If you want an argument that makes sense with what you are trying to say, then actually say something that can be responded to, or don't be surprised when people draw the wrong conclusions!

[Scowling Dragon]

This is escalating into a fight. Lets leave this at where it is.

[Knaight]

I think he meant the d20 roll. On a d6 based system +2 is huge. But on a d20 thats only a 10th.

Technically it's variable. If you want to look at increased success rates, it makes more sense to look at the original success rates, in which case the increase is ((x+.1)/x)-1. So, if there is only a 5% chance to hit originally, that produces a 200% increase in success rate, as it goes from 5% to 15%. If your original success rate is 50% and it increases to 60%, that's a 20% increase. Sure, the difference between 50% and 60% is only 10%, but that's a fairly shallow way to look at it.

This is where it can vary by system. If success rates are usually in the 70% range, the increase is a mere 14%. If success rates are usually in the 30% range, the increase is a whopping 33%.

((x+.1)/x)-1 is your friend here. It's remarkably simple math, mostly due to the linear d20 system (when dealing with a bell curve things get all sorts of unfun). One can also choose to look at reduction in failure rates, but generally speaking success rates are more useful.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Basically what a bonus is worth depends on the RNG. But here's the important thing: Making really high scaling bonuses on a d20 roll simply makes the RNG useless. A prime example of this is basically everything in 3.5. You have so many potential bonuses, and many of them are so large, that the RNG very easily gets to the point where there's no point in even rolling. You have auto success or auto failure.

I have something to say about this, actually. Should a level 20 fighter have to roll to see whether or not they hit the level 1 Commoner? I mean there's nothing inherently wrong with a game where low-level characters can sometimes get lucky and manage to beat high-level challenges, but there's nothing inherently wrong with the other extreme (where being even 1 level lower makes a challenge impossible) either. It just depends on what experience you're trying to craft.

While some people like that, it is pretty bad game design, because in effect it makes most bonuses superfluous rather than making a few small bonuses count and seem more important.

I agree, but these are actually unrelated issues: They're only tied together because of how D&D's math works (d20 rolls, no fractional bonuses). You could easily design a system with hundreds of bonuses affecting a roll and this not making a significant difference. 30 separate +1 bonuses adds up to +30, but you could get the same thing with 3 +10 bonuses. The real problem is that 3.X/4E characters are WAY too complicated and have far too many moving parts.

[Seerow]

I have something to say about this, actually. Should a level 20 fighter have to roll to see whether or not they hit the level 1 Commoner? I mean there's nothing inherently wrong with a game where low-level characters can sometimes get lucky and manage to beat high-level challenges, but there's nothing inherently wrong with the other extreme (where being even 1 level lower makes a challenge impossible) either. It just depends on what experience you're trying to craft.

I'll give you level 20 fighter vs level 1 commoner. I actually like scaling level bonuses for that reason. However, as a general rule of thumb any two characters of the same level should be on the same RNG, even if one is significantly better than the other. So yes, the level 1 Fighter should have to roll. And yes, a level 20 Fighter should have to roll against a level 20 Wizard.

I agree, but these are actually unrelated issues: They're only tied together because of how D&D's math works (d20 rolls, no fractional bonuses). You could easily design a system with hundreds of bonuses affecting a roll and this not making a significant difference. 30 separate +1 bonuses adds up to +30, but you could get the same thing with 3 +10 bonuses. The real problem is that 3.X/4E characters are WAY too complicated and have far too many moving parts.

On the other hand with the 3 +10 bonuses, you have only 4 possible degrees of granularity. With 30 +1 bonuses, you have 31 degrees of granularity.

I guess the point is finding the balance where it's granular enough to feel right, but not so many options that you are overwhelmed. It also depends on how you define the +1s. After all BAB can be anywhere from 10 to 20 at level 20, but you aren't stuck with only 10, 15, or 20. You can have a BAB that's anywhere in between. Would you consider BAB then a bunch of +1 bonuses, or a single large bonus? Similarly attributes fall under a fairly granular range, but represent a fairly large bonus as a whole. Attributes are actually the most painful thing to try to keep in line for an RNG because typically people have their best attribute for offense, but weaker attributes for defenses.

But both cases in actuality it works as both, granular (individual +1 bonuses that add up), and single large bonuses (when taken as a whole) in a way that feels organic but gives you a defined range.

Here's an example using attack bonus: You have a BAB that ranges by 10 (+10 min vs +20 max), and an attribute that ranges by say 2 (since you typically have your best stat as your attack stat, and highest stats aren't going to be too far apart for the most part), you know you already have a range of 12 covered for your RNG at this level. That means you can allow up to +8 worth of other effects before becoming totally incoherent. But that +8 has to represent various things like buffs, class features, feats, etc. So it makes sense to keep the numbers for these things small, so they can each be meaningful, rather than just getting one thing and instantly winning.

[Talakeal]

"A +2 was NEVER a significant bonus."

Well golly. Must mean I've been doing it wrong for the last 20 years. I'll have to be sure to let all the people I game with know that.

Actually, a +2 is, in AD&D, a significant bonus to just about anything. AC, HP, to-hit, etc, etc, etc, pretty much every number in the book was dramatically less. That meant that an extra +2 to hit very frequently could make the difference (as it does pretty much every week in my game) while an extra +2 damage very often does mean the difference between injuring and killing a monster. Saving Throws were, likewise, significantly less in terms of numbers, so a +2 often made the difference.

I would say that a one time +2 bonus is pretty small, having only a 10% chance to actually come up. But, over the course of an encounter, let alone an adventure or a character's career, a +2 bonus is HUGE
A +2 is also a huge difference when you need a very high or low roll to begin with, in which case a +2 can double or even triple chance of success or halve or third the chance of failure.
Of course, if natural 20s or 1s aren't auto succeed / fail a +2 can also be meaningless if the difficulty is too high / low, or essentially mean the difference between a possible and the automatic / impossible.

[navar100]

I have something to say about this, actually. Should a level 20 fighter have to roll to see whether or not they hit the level 1 Commoner? I mean there's nothing inherently wrong with a game where low-level characters can sometimes get lucky and manage to beat high-level challenges, but there's nothing inherently wrong with the other extreme (where being even 1 level lower makes a challenge impossible) either. It just depends on what experience you're trying to craft.

That would be a nice thing to give warriors. At some level a Natural 1 on a to hit roll is not an automiss. I suppose they could even have that at level 1 since say level 1 Fighter 18 STR +1 BAB rolls a 1 hits AC 6 but opponents he's normally fighting have at least AC 10 so he misses anyway. At level 5 a roll of 1 hits AC 10. That can be good enough against the mook wizard while the BBEG has its AC some number greater than 10 so it misses him. Eventually even the BBEG's Lieutenants will get hit on a 1. Natural 1 = automiss is a very hard game legacy to remove on a pure emotional nostalgic level, but if wizards are still teleporting and scrying the fighter just might not care because he's salivating on hitting with a 1. It also has the great consequence of removing critical fumbles warrior ineptitude spellcasters immune syndrome.

[Ironvyper]

Then go play a game that offers that. D&D uses resource management as it's payment system. It isn't perfectly designed, but it has a very distinct style.

You don't want to toss that away and adopt some other style entirely.

D&D uses whatever its particular edition SAYS it uses. Including very dire consequences. Early D&D had some spells aging the caster or risking death by casting. Most summon spells before 3e included a chance of the monster being hostile and attacking the summoner rather then just being a free goon.

Resource management has not, by any stretch of the imagination been the only drawback to magic built into D&D.

Going back to more interesting and magical feeling systems is not at all a universal bad or something unreasonable.

[Ironvyper]

That's a good sign, but I'm still pessimistic. I can just see the email I'll be getting on the 24th saying "Thank you for signing up for the D&D Next Open Playtest (tm)! Please click here to submit your credit card information so we can send you your uniquely stenographically marked playtest materials."

It's obvious that they're going to be doing SOMETHING to restrict the flow of the playtest materials, or why would they require signing up, even for free, to get it in the first place?

I signed up too but lets be honest here. We wont get picked. Their "playtesters" are going to be friends and family of the designers and some people hand picked from the WoTC forums who have expressed great enthusiasm, publicly, for everything they have said so far.

No one whose said anything even remotely critical of their ideas will get a spot.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I signed up too but lets be honest here. We wont get picked. Their "playtesters" are going to be friends and family of the designers and some people hand picked from the WoTC forums who have expressed great enthusiasm, publicly, for everything they have said so far.

No one whose said anything even remotely critical of their ideas will get a spot.

Picking? Who said anything about picking?

[Kurald Galain]

I signed up too but lets be honest here. We wont get picked. Their "playtesters" are going to be friends and family of the designers and some people hand picked from the WoTC forums who have expressed great enthusiasm, publicly, for everything they have said so far.

Not exactly. The first round of playtesters (for the past months) has been friends and family; the second round (coming up in a week or two) is public over the internet.

Since you sign up by e-mail, WOTC doesn't even have a way of checking whether you've been enthousiastic or critical about it on some arbitrary forum.

[Yora]

I would say that a one time +2 bonus is pretty small, having only a 10% chance to actually come up. But, over the course of an encounter, let alone an adventure or a character's career, a +2 bonus is HUGE
A +2 is also a huge difference when you need a very high or low roll to begin with, in which case a +2 can double or even triple chance of success or halve or third the chance of failure.
Of course, if natural 20s or 1s aren't auto succeed / fail a +2 can also be meaningless if the difficulty is too high / low, or essentially mean the difference between a possible and the automatic / impossible.

+2 becomes small in the face of how easily you can get a lot of +1 and +2 at the same time in 3rd Edition. Having a particular +2 bonus or not doesn't matter much. Since in either case, you have a lot more from other sources. +12 or +14? That's not making much of a difference.

[Stubbazubba]

Technically it's variable. If you want to look at increased success rates, it makes more sense to look at the original success rates, in which case the increase is ((x+.1)/x)-1. So, if there is only a 5% chance to hit originally, that produces a 200% increase in success rate, as it goes from 5% to 15%. If your original success rate is 50% and it increases to 60%, that's a 20% increase. Sure, the difference between 50% and 60% is only 10%, but that's a fairly shallow way to look at it.

This is where it can vary by system. If success rates are usually in the 70% range, the increase is a mere 14%. If success rates are usually in the 30% range, the increase is a whopping 33%.

((x+.1)/x)-1 is your friend here. It's remarkably simple math, mostly due to the linear d20 system (when dealing with a bell curve things get all sorts of unfun). One can also choose to look at reduction in failure rates, but generally speaking success rates are more useful.

Thank you for posting this. I've never looked at it that way before, but its definitely changing the way I approach dice mechanics.

[Ironvyper]

Picking? Who said anything about picking?

you dont think they're going to just pick names out of a barrel do you?

Or release the entire set of playtest rules for a free download to anyone online to try out for themselves?

They'll have a way of controlling who gets them so they can control the message. Count on it.