Quote from: StormBringer;518843Didn't you embarrass yourself enough the last time and slink away from the conversation?


Point out where anything I said contradicts this.  Bonus points if you use #2 to do so, because that is exactly what I have been saying.
Addendum:  You don't get to claim the only valid definition.


I wonder where I heard that before...

Oh, yeah, I remember now.  It was the first fucking comment in the thread:


I see two options here:
1) Instead of rushing to get your rocks off by 'winning the interwebz', you might want to work on the reading comprehension just a touch.  If you want to present a smarter argument, it helps to actually have a smarter argument.

2) Read a book.  Try looking outside of your little bubble once in a while and actually explore other ideas.  I promise your world will not collapse.  Instead of linking to nothing but your own blog in a conversation, try finding something that isn't your blog that supports your contention or the point you are making.  Solipsism seems like a bulwark so you can fluff your ego thinking you are always right, but I swear, it's actually a very weak position to argue from.


Or, the encounters that are comprised of "opponents" who are "scaled" to the character's "level" as "appropriate" is like "always fighting orcs", as implied by the CR system and rather more explicit in 4e.


I wish I could have a level of insight like that.

You are right if you scale everything at the same rate you are basically always fighting orcs.
That was why I want a synchronous progression that depends on player choice. So you have some choices that create different sorts of characters afer a degree of experience.

Quote from: jibbajibba;518844You are right if you scale everything at the same rate you are basically always fighting orcs.
That was why I want a synchronous progression that depends on player choice. So you have some choices that create different sorts of characters afer a degree of experience.

Definitely.  I would far prefer a skill or something similar that provides for AC bonuses the individual players can decide to increase or ignore.

I like how LotFP handles all this: AC tends not to grossly overinflate, having an AC of 20 or 21 is spectacularly good. And the answer it takes for the dilemma about what to do about attack bonuses going up and AC staying static is that, instead of inflating AC, it reduces attack bonuses!  The only class that does gain attack bonuses, the fighter, SHOULD be great at hitting; and he tops out at +9.

I would personally like it if the new edition of D&D did something like this, where instead of pumping up AC, it slows down the inflation of BAB.   Then you're not just "always fighting orcs", HP can keep going up at a reasonable pace, and you can still show a variety of levels of AC without going batshit.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;518822Er? No, really. I swear to God. It was not trolling. I was dead serious.

Statistically, whether you scale the numbers on the two sides of the attack bonus (one modifier, +"A") v. AC (another modifier, +"B") equation or combine these modifiers to affect only one side of the equation (the attack bonus, +["A" minus "B"], versus the AC, which remains static) works exactly the same. If you have a choice between these two possibilities, with them being statistically equal, it makes no sense to obfuscate and complicate the math of the game by scaling both attacks and AC. I'll go for static ACs and scaled attack bonus instead.

Players want to get better.  They want greater numerical bonuses because having higher numbers means you're stronger.  To eliminate the scaling altogether is simpler but less satisfying for that reason--you might get more hit points, but you won't be any more likely to hit the guy in platemail than you were ten levels ago.  Players want to play fighters who are so good at swordfighting they can punch through the armor of knights, dragons, and demons.

Quote from: StormBringer;518833Then you need to take up your argument over a)  with reality, because increasing all the numbers simultaneously means nothing really changes.  You can make a big show about demons having a tail and horns, so it's totally different than a dragon, who is a slightly darker shade of red, but if the odds have remained the same since first level, you aren't playing an improved character.  You are playing the exact same character with a shinier sword.  Hell, you proved my point for me:

Yes, they are the same.  You proved it with the numbers.  Like I explained exhaustively before, you can't have hit points, AC, attacks and damage all scale equally or you are on a pretty treadmill always fighting orcs.  If the player's AC bonus scales with the monster's level, you will never get off that treadmill.

A baubau fight is not the same as a succubus fight.  It's just not.  Even if they have the exact same stats and saving throws--which they don't--they are drastically different encounters.  So the fighter has a 75% chance to hit the babau and a 70% chance to hit the succubus.  Big deal.  The rest of the stats make a big difference.  The babau teleports in, sneak attacks, and teleports out.  Attacking him in melee is going to result in melted weapons.  On the other hand, the succubus shapechanges into a hottie, plants one on the fighter, and, if forced to fight, suggests that he protect her.  And chances are if someone gets into melee range with her, she's going down in a single round of combat.

Your whole "same AC means same fight" is retarded.

Quote from: B.T.;518878Players want to get better.  They want greater numerical bonuses because having higher numbers means you're stronger.  To eliminate the scaling altogether is simpler but less satisfying for that reason--you might get more hit points, but you won't be any more likely to hit the guy in platemail than you were ten levels ago.  Players want to play fighters who are so good at swordfighting they can punch through the armor of knights, dragons, and demons.

And if you scale AC with BaB, you still won't be any more likely to hit the guy in platemail than you were ten levels ago.  It's just dire vorpal adamantite shadowblack grimdark platemail now; but you still hit it on a 15 or better, just like you did ten levels ago.

Read this part carefully:

Quote from: jadrax;518199It used to be, level made you better by a) making  you better to hit and d) making you able to absorb more damage. While b)  you ability to not be hit and c) you ability to actually deal damage  where fixed. So you had tow things staying still, and two things raising  with level, and they where asymmetrical, which was interesting, but  arguably hard to balance.

Then it moved to all four increasing with level, which is less  interesting and somewhat redundant. If a) ability to hit and b) ability  to to damage both increase, why not combine a and b into one new stat.  The same with c) AC and d) Hit points.

Indeed, if there is no non-scaling with level component involved in  Attack and Defence, you could just make the whole thing an opposed Level  Check and be done with it.

So, essentially, you want to scale everything with level because you like big numbers.  Everyone here is telling you there are problems, and possibly serious problems.  But you like your big numbers.  So go have fun with your big numbers and stop looking for validation from us.  I even provided you with a rudimentary system for scaling AC with level; fiddle with those numbers and see how it works out.

QuoteA baubau fight is not the same as a succubus fight.  It's just not.  Even if they have the exact same stats and saving throws--which they don't--they are drastically different encounters...

Your whole "same AC means same fight" is retarded.

So, when your simplistic argument fails utterly, you want to drag in all the details.  At least we know why you are moving the goalposts.  How about next time when everyone else is clearly limiting the discussion to a couple of distinct mechanics for simplicity's sake, you don't pretend the concept has completely eluded you and perhaps engage the conversation in good faith?

Quote from: StormBringer;518920And if you scale AC with BaB, you still won't be any more likely to hit the guy in platemail than you were ten levels ago.  It's just dire vorpal adamantite shadowblack grimdark platemail now; but you still hit it on a 15 or better, just like you did ten levels ago.

You do hit the guy in platemail better, as long as he's a lower level than you.  You also hit demons and dragons better.

QuoteSo, essentially, you want to scale everything with level because you like big numbers.  Everyone here is telling you there are problems, and possibly serious problems.  But you like your big numbers.  So go have fun with your big numbers and stop looking for validation from us.  I even provided you with a rudimentary system for scaling AC with level; fiddle with those numbers and see how it works out.

The only arguments against it were retarded.  UH INFINITY CHASING INFINITY and ALWAYS FIGHTING ORCS.  The former was patently stupid; the second makes the assumption that a first-level orc is the same as a gigantic demon prince.

QuoteSo, when your simplistic argument fails utterly, you want to drag in all the details.  At least we know why you are moving the goalposts.  How about next time when everyone else is clearly limiting the discussion to a couple of distinct mechanics for simplicity's sake, you don't pretend the concept has completely eluded you and perhaps engage the conversation in good faith?

Blow me.  If you'll note, I wrote earlier:

QuoteFurthermore, you can still have a fair bit of divergence between stats (thereby influencing AC), and different monster abilities can significantly alter how a combat plays out. For instance, a baubau is CR 7 with 19 AC and a succubus is CR 7 with 20 AC. Are they "the same"? What about a CR 6 ettin with 18 AC? Is that the same as the demons?

I've maintained the same position from the get-go.

Quote from: RPGPundit;518874I like how LotFP handles all this: AC tends not to grossly overinflate, having an AC of 20 or 21 is spectacularly good. And the answer it takes for the dilemma about what to do about attack bonuses going up and AC staying static is that, instead of inflating AC, it reduces attack bonuses!  The only class that does gain attack bonuses, the fighter, SHOULD be great at hitting; and he tops out at +9.

I would personally like it if the new edition of D&D did something like this, where instead of pumping up AC, it slows down the inflation of BAB.   Then you're not just "always fighting orcs", HP can keep going up at a reasonable pace, and you can still show a variety of levels of AC without going batshit.

RPGPundit

I trust this is part of what you're going to tell them when you do your famous rants?  J/K. I may not agree with your viewpoints all the time like some Trollman syphoncant, but you damn well know far more than myself about what makes a good rpg.

This goes part and parcel with giving monsters relevant hitpoints depending on their role (hate that term) to keep monsters relevant longer as is being discussed in another thread on this forum.  Man, would I hate to be in Cook's and Mearls shoes right now.

Quote from: Benoist;518829But that wasn't my point. My point is that adding modifiers on two sides of the equation is more complicated, convoluted, harder to control with all the other moving parts of the game and obfuscates the math compared to putting all the same modifiers on just one side of the equation. So static AC and scaled attack bonuses make the most sense to me, on a practical point of view.

Except it only works the way you're claiming it does IF YOU NEVER FIGHT ANYONE OF LOWER OR HIGHER LEVEL THAN YOURSELF.

Let's break that down:

Character A at Level  X gets attack +5. A challenge of Level X gets AC +3. "Ah ha!" says Benoist. "You can simplify that! Instead of giving bonuses on both sides of the equation, just give Character a +2 bonus to attack! Ta-da!"

When we revisit Character A at Level Y he's getting attack +8. A challenge of Level Y gets AC +5. The not-so-clever Benoist once again says, "Ah ah! We just give him attack +3 and it all balances out!"

But then Character A at Level Y goes walking down the street and he runs in to a challenge at Level X. In the original system he'd be at attack +8 and the challenge would be at AC +3. Character A should have a +5 advantage, but in Benoist's revision he's only at a +3 advantage

Benoist's system doesn't work the way he thinks it does. The only way to make it work would be if Character A got an additional bonus or penalty based on the relative level of his opponent.

But such a system would mean that rather than adding a static bonus to character A's attack bonus and a static bonus to the target's AC before play, you're now adding a static bonus to character A's attack bonus and then adding an additional bonus on-the-fly every time he attacks a different target.

But adding a variable bonus every time you attack a target that isn't the same level as you? No thank you. That's a ridiculous level of added complexity that you're proposing.

Quote from: StormBringer;518843Didn't you embarrass yourself enough the last time and slink away from the conversation?

It's interesting that you're now claiming that your original post in this thread was (a) a complete non sequitur and (b) a complete repudiation of the position you took in that previous thread.

Guess my work here is done. Sorry for assuming you were still being a dumbass about this. Glad to see you're finally willing to admit how painfully, painfully wrong you were.

Quote from: StormBringer;518920And if you scale AC with BaB, you still won't be any more likely to hit the guy in platemail than you were ten levels ago.  It's just dire vorpal adamantite shadowblack grimdark platemail now; but you still hit it on a 15 or better, just like you did ten levels ago.

Except that's clearly not the same guy: He's both higher level and, apparently (according to you), wearing much better armor.

If you actually WERE facing the same guy in the same armor, he'd be much easier to hit (because your attack bonus improved) and he'd also have a much tougher time hitting you (assuming that your AC improved).

It's like you are literally incapable of comprehending the concept of fighting an NPC that isn't the exact same level you are. Are you trolling or just stupid?

Wow OK whatever makes you happy Justin.

Not at all what I meant, but whatever.

Jesus Christ Justin I just didn't consider it that way.

Can you tone down the anger a little bit?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;518934It's interesting that you're now claiming that your original post in this thread was (a) a complete non sequitur and (b) a complete repudiation of the position you took in that previous thread.

Guess my work here is done. Sorry for assuming you were still being a dumbass about this. Glad to see you're finally willing to admit how painfully, painfully wrong you were.

You might want to let everyone else know the content of the posts you are making up and responding to while appending my name to them.  I mean, sure, it's easier for you to respond to this made up StormBringer so you don't look like an asshole that doesn't know the first thing about how games work.  It's just very confusing for the rest of us.

Check it:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;518827(2) You improve and all your opponents  improve at the same rate, so you're always fighting the same opponents.

The only way to avoid "always fighting orcs" is if you improve (e.g.,  stuff scales with level) but at least some of your opponents  don't.

Quote from: StormBringer;518198Scaling everything with level = always fighting orcs.

I know it's foolishly optimistic of me to think you will actually engage in the conversation that is occurring in this thread, but I will ask one more time:  how does your statement contradict my statement?

In other words, what mental insufficiency convinces you that a simple re-wording of what I said not only contradicts what I said, but trumps it as well?

QuoteExcept that's clearly not the same guy: He's both higher level and, apparently (according to you), wearing much better armor.

Which the Fighter still hits on a 15 or better, because some moron decided that it was a great idea to scale AC and BaB with level.

Seriously, are you and BT so abysmally bad at math that you don't even understand basic number concepts?  Do you spend days arguing with people that 4+5 and 3+6 can't possibly be the same thing because 4 and 6 are so different?

QuoteIf you actually WERE facing the same guy in the same armor, he'd be much easier to hit (because your attack bonus improved) and he'd also have a much tougher time hitting you (assuming that your AC improved).

Except, that wouldn't be scaling with level, would it?  "Scales with level" and "level appropriate challenge" are synonyms.  If encounters are meant to be a "level appropriate challenge", then they are going to "scale with level", by definition.  So, meeting a grubby 2nd level Fighter in shabby platemail at 20th level is an anomaly.  The expected standard is to meet Novice McNewbie in shabby platemail at 2nd level, but to meet MegaOverLord Deathius DoomStryke in dire vorpal adamantite shadowblack grimdark platemail at 20th level.

Here is where the math is giving you a bloody nose every time:

2nd level Novice McNewbie has an AC of 17 (half-plate or banded mail and lt shield) 12hp, BaB of +2 and a Str of 16 (+3 to hit) 4-9 points of damage (long sword).  The hypothetical party's intrepid Fighter has about the same stats.  In fact, we will say Novice McNewbie is all but a mirror image of the party's fighter.  "Level Appropriate Challenge", which the party's Fighter eventually defeats mano a mano.

The party continues to adventure, has many successes and a few defeats, until they eventually run afoul of MegaOverLord Deathius DoomStryke and his plans, leading to a confrontation between his team and the party.  Intrepid Fighter is 20th level and engages Deathius in single combat.  Now we are looking at an opponent with 120hp, a Str of 21 (+5 to hit), +20 BaB (plus iterative attacks), damage of 11-18 (+5 bastard sword), and AC 35 (adamantite shadowblack grimdark platemail +5, matching shadowblack grimdark shield, +5, misc +5 additional). Again, all but the mirror image of the party's Intrepid Fighter.

So, 2nd level encounter. Intrepid Fighter has a 45% chance to hit each round.  That makes damage output 2.925 per round, but we can safely call that 3.  Newbie lasts four rounds. Closer to five rounds if Newbie has an above average 15hp.

20th level encounter.  Intrepid Fighter has a cumulative 44% chance to land first two attacks.  Damage output is 17.98 (for first two attacks only) or 18 per round.  Deathius survives seven rounds.  Eerily similar combat, but it takes just under twice as long.  It would be five rounds if Deathius had a somewhat below average 90hp.
(All iterative attacks will land a paltry .6% of  the time, yet this bumps the damage output to 19.98 per round, but we  can call that 20.  Now it only takes six rounds to drop Deathius, two  more than Newbie.  With slightly less than average hit points per level,  Deathius would have 100hp, and would take the same five rounds to finish  off.)

I figure you aren't going to address anything I bring up anyway, so why not show the math?  As you can see, if you carefully scale the opponent, it will take five rounds of (somewhat simplified) combat in each case.  In fact, I would probably guess that my examples are somewhat underpowered at each level, but I would guess the theory still holds with more complex examples*.  

Hence, it's a trivial exercise to show that scaling everything with level only increases the numbers, it doesn't actually change the nature of the combat.  I am sure the first thing you will do is try to add all kinds of complicated feats, magic items and oddball skills from obscure splatbooks to divert attention away from your inability to comprehend the basic math at work here.  While I am quite certain you have a substantial portion of your identity tied up in being some kind of expert or elder statesman or whatever for 3.x, I simply don't care any longer.  Keep spouting moronic bullshit that is easily refuted; it's your 'cred' to worry about, not mine.

Also, getting a book on game theory or game design would be more efficient than having me teach it to you with sporadic RPGsite posts.

QuoteIt's like you are literally incapable of comprehending the concept of fighting an NPC that isn't the exact same level you are. Are you trolling or just stupid?

It's like you are literally incapable of comprehending the concept that we are talking about opponents and stats that scale with level and fighting an NPC that isn't the exact same level you are is completely fucking irrelevant to that topic. Did you not get someone to read these posts to you like I suggested last time?  Here, try this:  write down the title of this thread, and read it as slowly as necessary to understand the main thrust of the discussion.  I will give you a hint: it has to do with the phrase 'scale with level', and how that makes things that don't 'scale with level' almost entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

As I really don't want to have to keep explaining a four year old topic again and again, get back to me after you have read the original discussion.

Spoiler

Bonus:  This is also the thread where I get perma-banned from the d20 ghetto.

* I pretty much eyeballed the equipment, if someone could check the numbers for me, I will correct the other math if there are any errors

So mad that work has been so busy and that I missd this convo.
 Every system I have ever written has had some level of scaling with ability; in that I always felt that using HP purely was a very blunt instrument.  I never use CR, so I guess it was never a problem.  
And, as was mentioned, I also used a small amount of DR as well as AC/Avoid.  
And so I kind of ended up with in a similar place with Justin.  My heavier, skill based game is a little more deadly, so the skills dealing with defence (Basic Def, Shield use, with dropdowns of Protect and avoid ) do increase the character's ability to avoid getting hit and to avoid damage, as that is a very low HP/High damage world.  So protection and avoiding getting hit is critical to survival.  A medium sized weapon has a (2d6+14)/d6 damage, and a fighting type with 12 sessions under his belt generally has 20-25 HP, and the system averagesd about a 10% critical chance.  So it can happen that that fighting man without armor can get slain with one shot by that weapon without a critical being rolled...but that same guy with chain maille and a shield might protect (45-d10)/(2d6/2) (max of 45, average of 11, min of 6).  TThe protection skill of the character (which is the part that would 'scale' with ability, or get better with ability) is probably 4-9 points of that protection.

Even in my simple d20 games, I generally reduce HP after Level 1, and give a slight raise to AC as levels go on.

Should AC scale with level in D&D?  I think so.  It's basically a matter of perception.  HPs are so disconnected from the tangible bits of "do I hit or not", that most players never realize the connection.  Plus, all the D&D editions up until D&D4 may have defined HPs as also meaning skill and/or luck, but the other mechanics all reinforced the idea that HP solely indicated physical punishment.  After all, touch attacks didn't take HPs into account to hit, only AC.  Demoralization didn't affect HP, despite affecting a character's battle spirit.  Then there are system oddities that if you are paralyzed in the midst of a battle (due to sleep or hold), you can be automatically hit but you take normal HP damage, despite not being able to use your "battle skill" to avoid damage at all.  It all just reinforces the most superficial interpretation of HPs, that greater HPs refelect greater physical punishment capacity and nothing else.

The reliance on the static values of attribute bonus from Dex and equipment makes players feel they have no real ball in the court of defensive ability.  It's why D&D combat is regularly regarded as two immobile guys in plate mail armor repetitively swinging at each other until the other one drops.  Players feel no involvement in their characters' defenses.

This is one of the reasons why Classic D&D, while still a favorite, is mostly just a legacy game for me.  I prefer active defenses and contested rolls ala Palladium, Interlock, Tri-Stat, d6, etc.  I'd also prefer armor to be damage reduction instead of prevention of a hit.  Although, I have liked some of the hybrids of reduction and prevention.

Quote from: Gabriel2;518989Should AC scale with level in D&D?  I think so.  It's basically a matter of perception.  HPs are so disconnected from the tangible bits of "do I hit or not", that most players never realize the connection.  Plus, all the D&D editions up until D&D4 may have defined HPs as also meaning skill and/or luck, but the other mechanics all reinforced the idea that HP solely indicated physical punishment.  After all, touch attacks didn't take HPs into account to hit, only AC.  Demoralization didn't affect HP, despite affecting a character's battle spirit.  Then there are system oddities that if you are paralyzed in the midst of a battle (due to sleep or hold), you can be automatically hit but you take normal HP damage, despite not being able to use your "battle skill" to avoid damage at all.  It all just reinforces the most superficial interpretation of HPs, that greater HPs refelect greater physical punishment capacity and nothing else.

The reliance on the static values of attribute bonus from Dex and equipment makes players feel they have no real ball in the court of defensive ability.  It's why D&D combat is regularly regarded as two immobile guys in plate mail armor repetitively swinging at each other until the other one drops.  Players feel no involvement in their characters' defenses.

This is one of the reasons why Classic D&D, while still a favorite, is mostly just a legacy game for me.  I prefer active defenses and contested rolls ala Palladium, Interlock, Tri-Stat, d6, etc.  I'd also prefer armor to be damage reduction instead of prevention of a hit.  Although, I have liked some of the hybrids of reduction and prevention.

Good examples

Foes have level =/= always fighting foes the same level. There are pit fiends in the world when you're first level, and if you're dumb enough to take them on at that point they will kick your ass. The world is full of low level NPCs no matter how high in level you get. And if they're dumb enough to take you on one-on-one, they won't fare very well either. Whether a group of low level foes can beat you isn't dependent on scaling/non-scaling AC as much.

Having AC scale with level is pretty much the same as having anything else scale. Having both or neither scale (or capping both or neither) just removes auto-hits or auto-fails from "fair" fights. Also what qualifies as a "fair" fight in such a system varies depending on specific things. The 5e designers talk about flattening the math to extend the range where a given challenge is... well... challenging. And in my own game the active defense mechanic means that a bunch of low level foes will still kick your ass if you let them outnumber you (the math in the game I'm writing is anything but flat, but the levelling is much slower).

Lastly, things can scale at variable rates or with variable flat bonuses, the way hp scales. So there can be the equivalent of low or high hd classes or monsters on this scale. Things of equivalent level won't always have the same AC under a system with level based bonuses.