Quote from: Lunamancer;972066The reason AC makes such a big difference at the lower values I calculated is because moving from a 20% chance to hit to 15% chance is like losing a quarter of your DPA. Going from 15% to 10% is like losing one third of it. And going from 10% to 5% throws half of it out the window. In other words, it has everything to do with small divisors. To say 5E doesn't have this problem implies what my impression about 5E has been all along--it shies away from extreme ends of the probability scale.

Yep. As for what you said in your digression, I don't know about information theory and all that, but I do know that players get really frustrated when every attack roll they threw in the night's combat was a miss. I saw that happen a lot more when I ran BECMI than I do 5e.

QuoteA few pages back on this thread there was some discussion about the inherent boundaries of probability and that the "problem" with high level play is that yous tray into this area, and therefore the only good RPG for playing high level could possibly be one that trims off those ends--essentially (though proponents would never put it in these words), amputating huge portions of play and pretending to have solved a problem.

I think you're over-identifying "play" with "probability." Chance to hit is only one of many aspects of play.

QuoteAs attack rolls and saving throws become nearer and nearer to certain, the game starts to feel less like something on the spectrum between roulette and blackjack into something on the spectrum between poker and chess. Too often, whether discussing high levels or just different RPGs, people say "broken" when they should say "different."

I think what happened is a lot of people just found that boring. High-level 5e warriors are still beasts. Spells like Summon Planar Ally and Shapechange are whole different levels of power. But you do still actually need to roll the dice in combat.

QuoteThat's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of here. The title of the thread? Is it completely baseless to begin with? Is high level D&D just considered "suck" because it's different from low level play?

I think the problem is D&D's basic framework was really never designed for high-level play. That was extrapolated later, and it was always a bit of a mess. 5e cleaned it up quite a bit. If what you mainly want at high level is to only roll damage, not attack, then sure, that's no longer a thing.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;972871Yep. As for what you said in your digression, I don't know about information theory and all that, but I do know that players get really frustrated when every attack roll they threw in the night's combat was a miss. I saw that happen a lot more when I ran BECMI than I do 5e.

Strange. On the one hand, it almost seems like you're saying 5E is superior because you're more likely to hit. Then a couple lines later, high level D&D is boring because you don't miss enough? It seems like this only parses if you firmly believe there is a correct range of probabilities to play in. Individual taste be damned.

QuoteI think you're over-identifying "play" with "probability." Chance to hit is only one of many aspects of play.

That really seems like an unfair assessment considering I had mentioned one of the charms of high level play is seeing how the feel of the game transitions away from roulette/blackjack and towards poker/chess--to move away from making dice so central.

There's certainly nothing stopping you from lining up the men on the chess board, but instead every time two pieces come to occupy the same square, flip a coin to determine which piece is captures and which keeps the square. Of course that would radically change effectiveness of strategies as well as the feel of the game. It would be chess-in-name-only. Compare that to rolling a d20 where the piece moving into the square is only captured if the a '1' is rolled. The broad approach to playing the game and most of the strategies would remain in tact. There would just be an element of the wild added and the finer details of certain strategies may be altered. But the game is still resembles chess. Probabilities can make all the difference in how the game plays.

The use of magic did bring a certain level of certainty into play. The spells just worked, no roll needed. Many of them didn't call for a save to see if their effects could be avoided or some other roll for determining the potency of the casting. Even in low level play, you could tap into this. That's another thing that changed in later editions. More dice rolling for magic.

QuoteI think what happened is a lot of people just found that boring.

I doubt that on the grounds that I don't even think "a lot of people" really ever even experienced it. There's so much brow-beating involving the utterance of "Monty Hall" that unless the group is hell-bent on going balls-to-the-walls crazy on it, they're going to shy away from high level play. I don't think too many people step into high level D&D intent on making a serious attempt at playing what's actually there. The out-dated game show reference may also be a good indication of when the last time any significant number of gamers actually even thought through what that would entail.

QuoteHigh-level 5e warriors are still beasts. Spells like Summon Planar Ally and Shapechange are whole different levels of power. But you do still actually need to roll the dice in combat.

Magic-users can summon monsters beginning at 5th level. Polymorph becomes available by 7th level.

You're doing a great job convincing me that 5E offers the full range of the classic D&D experience from levels 3 all the way up to level 7. I'm very well aware at how fun D&D is at that level range. And I could see how it would be tempting to take the Oreo cookie, remove all the cookie and just expand the stuffing.

However, what I really like about D&D is in addition to those mid levels where many a great fantasy adventure is had, there are also low levels (levels 1-2) which are gritty and brutal. And then there are also high levels that offers still a different kind of play. And it's not just the versatility of having a dial that I can turn, "I feel like doing high fantasy today." It's that I can play through from one mode of play to another to another using the same character in the game world with a sense of continuity.

I said way, way back in the thread that drastic rules changes between editions were off-putting because I felt if I had to learn the system all over again, I may as well choose a different system entirely that better suits how my tastes have changed. Similarly, if I really wanted to tap into that sweet, mid-level play, I'd just play Lejendary Adventure. It does it so much better than any version of D&D.

QuoteI think the problem is D&D's basic framework was really never designed for high-level play. That was extrapolated later, and it was always a bit of a mess.

So you assert. I'm not going to make assumptions about the intent behind the design. But as I was just saying, the whole charm of AD&D is specifically that it has functionality at those three distinct levels of play (or however you wish to stratify it). I think the evidence is contra your extrapolation theory. It's not like a modern game which presents a math equation (apparently nerds bust a nut over that shit calling it elegant, but I have a math degree and I find it trite), and for better or for worse, that's what it is. AD&D specifically has tables up to 17th level for fighter saves and attack tables, 19th for clerics, 21st for thieves and magic-users, 29th for spell memorization, and these tables aren't generated by any obvious formula from which to extrapolate. There was clearly some careful thought and consideration given to play at these levels.

Quote5e cleaned it up quite a bit. If what you mainly want at high level is to only roll damage, not attack, then sure, that's no longer a thing.

This was claimed with each and every edition of the game. Even if there were any good evidence to support you saying it now, the preponderance of evidence is still that people were having fun before the big change, and sooner or later a newer edition will come out that will clean up the mess that is 5E. Which a) means it's not really true that 5E cleaned up everything as will be seen upon the release of 6E, and b) what it did change was never really broken in the first place.

What I suspect is really going on is the game is changed for the sake of some new fashion. Seems like that's exactly what you're saying--this extreme probability stuff has got to go. That is the trendy thing as I observed in my digression. But gamers and game designers can't see it for what it is, just a current fashion that will some day be proven as stupid as the mullet and or any number of other now-obvious goofy trends of the past. They mistake it for genius that those unwashed fools who pioneered the game just didn't have at their disposal. In short, they just don't get it.

Excellent summary, Lunamancer. I enjoyed reading that. I don't even play D&D and haven't bought a new D&D book since whenever 2nd edition AD&D came out, but I find the discussion interesting.

Quote from: Lunamancer;972898Strange. On the one hand, it almost seems like you're saying 5E is superior because you're more likely to hit. Then a couple lines later, high level D&D is boring because you don't miss enough?

Always missing is frustrating. Always hitting is boring. I'm saying this as a DM who's observed plenty of players' reactions.

QuoteThe use of magic did bring a certain level of certainty into play. The spells just worked, no roll needed.

That's not really true. Most spells have a casting time longer than 1 segment, so they had a risk of completely failing. That's no longer the case in 5e.

QuoteThat really seems like an unfair assessment considering I had mentioned one of the charms of high level play is seeing how the feel of the game transitions away from roulette/blackjack and towards poker/chess--to move away from making dice so central.

I guess some players love that. The title of the thread (and the success of 5e) suggests that more than a few don't.

Basically what you're focused on is that for you "being powerful" means "I don't roll dice," and since you still roll dice at high level in 5e, you're not really any more powerful than you were at level 1. Okay. You think "high-level play" in an RPG should mean that you don't roll dice, and since you roll dice in 5e, that's bad. Got it.

QuoteMagic-users can summon monsters beginning at 5th level. Polymorph becomes available by 7th level.

You're doing a great job convincing me that 5E offers the full range of the classic D&D experience from levels 3 all the way up to level 7.

Are you trying to insinuate that there are no summoning spells or shape-shifting spells that don't become available until high level in AD&D?

9th level 1e spells: Astral Spell, Bigby's Crushing Hand, Gate, Imprisonment, Meteor Swarm, Monster Summoning VII, Power Word: Kill, Prismatic Sphere, Shape Change, Temporal Stasis, Time Stop, and Wish.

9th level 5e spells: Astral Projection, Foresight, Gate, Imprisonment, Meteor Swarm, Power Word Kill, Prismatic Wall, Shapechange, Time Stop, True Polymorph, Weird, and Wish.

Not an identical list, and you wouldn't expect them to be after 40 years, but broadly similar enough that your repeated insistence that everything you can do in 5e at 20th level was available at 7th level in AD&D 1e is making it pretty clear you haven't made any effort to learn much about 5e except that you roll dice, and rolling dice isn't something you think should happen at high level.

Quote(apparently nerds bust a nut over that shit calling it elegant, but I have a math degree and I find it trite)

I have two, plus a PhD in a related field. I like 5e because it's fun, not because of any kind of mathematical symmetry.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;972933Always missing is frustrating. Always hitting is boring. I'm saying this as a DM who's observed plenty of players' reactions.

Sure. I've observed those things as DM. I've also observed players laughing and having a good time while missing seemingly every time. I've also seen players extremely excited when on a hot streak and seemingly hitting every time. It seems like you're ignoring observations that don't align with the conclusion you'd like to reach. Funny how in the last post you were accusing me of being obsessively preoccupied with probabilities, because the seemingly opposite reactions to similar stimulus suggest something else is at play and probabilities may not really have that much to do with it. I happen to find the level of player engagement to be a far more salient factor.

QuoteThat's not really true. Most spells have a casting time longer than 1 segment, so they had a risk of completely failing. That's no longer the case in 5e.

True. Unlike a die roll, though, it puts the determination in the participants hands. You can get frustrated at bad die rolls if yours is a personality prone to such things, but not when you live or die by your own free choice.

QuoteI guess some players love that. The title of the thread (and the success of 5e) suggests that more than a few don't.

Most of what I was reading was along the lines of it was never a problem pre-WotC. That high level play only becomes problematic with newer versions of the rules. Nothing is ever unanimous, but the way 1E is set up absolutely assures there will always be challenges, no matter how high level the PCs get.

QuoteBasically what you're focused on is that for you "being powerful" means "I don't roll dice," and since you still roll dice at high level in 5e, you're not really any more powerful than you were at level 1. Okay. You think "high-level play" in an RPG should mean that you don't roll dice, and since you roll dice in 5e, that's bad. Got it.

Mis-characterizing what I'm saying and solidifying with "got it" doesn't seem very constructive at all.

QuoteAre you trying to insinuate that there are no summoning spells or shape-shifting spells that don't become available until high level in AD&D?

Not at all. By pointing out similar spells exist at a lower level, it defeats any argument that they somehow change the game, which is what you were claiming. The two in particular you mention do little more than ramp up stats which, as we've been discussing, means far, far less in 5E than 1E.

5e is a bit different - low level PCs certainly hit more - but low level PCs are still squishy like in pre-4e D&D and at high level the Barb-19 IMC attacks at +14, he's hitting a lot of enemies on a '2'. At level 20 he'll have STR 24, attack at +16 and hit plate armour on a 2.

I don't think 5e stretches out the level 4-8 experience, the edition that did that was 4e.

I do think in 5e it's unusual to see monsters only hitting on a 20, that Barb-19 has AC 22 (with legendary armour) so orcs attacking at +5 hit on a 17. In my other game the Barb-12 only has AC 18.

Lamentations continued to be good at levels 9-14 or so.

Rules Cyclopedia D&D was quite good until around level 24 or so.

Quote from: RPGPundit;973724Rules Cyclopedia D&D was quite good until around level 24 or so.

I've only played RC to 19th - what are the issues for post-24 play? I'm guessing maybe casters have too many spells and fighters never miss?

Quote from: S'mon;973733I've only played RC to 19th - what are the issues for post-24 play? I'm guessing maybe casters have too many spells and fighters never miss?

I doubt it. The spells at 19 are (6 5 5 5 4 3 2 2) while at 24 they are (7 7 6 6 5 5 4 3 2), and the fighter's to-hit goes down by 2 over that period. Now 9th level spells make a bit of a difference, but not much (you're already at the point where spells and magic items dominate unless you play the whole fighter-as-king/general bit). Honestly, I just think that it is just like 1e AD&D after level 17. There's just not much left to gain or any particular reason why being level 24 is different from being level 11.

As usual, I suspect "doesn't work after level x" really means "is different after level x."

I mean, in AD&D, fighters gain 3 hit points per level after 9th. But each level, the MU's fireball damage increases by d6, or 3.5 on average. That means if all characters are level 45, fireball practically becomes a save-or-die spell. Okay, we can refute that easily enough by pointing out that if you measure by XP rather than level, this never happens because a Fighter needs substantially less XP than a MU to level beyond 9th. However, in the case of mage vs mage, they have the same XP table, so we toss out that counter-argument. By level 22, fireball's average damage is double the average mage's hit points. It kind of becomes a die-or-die spell. Surely that's broken!

But is it? To me, it's just a thing, and it is what it is, and if you're aware of it, you're hip to how the game changes feel as levels progress. As a player it tells me, before the game gets to that point, it may be wise to take some time away from adventuring to craft some protective magical items. Build the character laterally, in other words, rather than just be all about advance, advance, advance. Better to be 19th level and survive the fireball than 22nd level and dead. This is one of the challenges of high level play. This is why it becomes increasingly common for higher level characters to do things other than adventure and why they tend to fade into the background. It's not because the game stops working. It's not because we get bored. It's not because the game fails to challenge high level characters.

Incidentally, consider an elven mage, having hit max level at level 11. All the years this character has just to devote to building magic items. As we've discussed here a bit, as levels get higher, rounds get fewer, and casting times get longer, devices are the key to a mage's potency. It makes it hard, then, for me to think the elf is at a disadvantage here.

Quote from: Lunamancer;973767I mean, in AD&D, fighters gain 3 hit points per level after 9th. But each level, the MU's fireball damage increases by d6, or 3.5 on average. That means if all characters are level 45, fireball practically becomes a save-or-die spell.

Not that I disagree with the central premise, but I'd like to make an aside on the specifics of this example. At level 45, the fighter, without constitution bonus, has an average 49.5 +36(3) = 157.5 hp of and a saving throw vs. spells of 6, modified by the magic items I hope he has by that point down to 1. The 45d6 fireball will do on average 45(3.5)=157.5 (huh, cool coincidence), but with a 95% chance of doing half, does in fact on average only 82.6875 points. Even without the 18 Con (admittedly only +36 hp) they might have, the fighter hopefully also has items of fire resistance. Either way, the fireball does not turn into a save-or-die spell. It is the complex web of contingencies, gates to other planes, being able to fight them as an astral projection which simply returns to their true body if killed, or heck wishing the fighter into a dragon's maw that will get the fighter killed by a high level MU.

Since the introduction to "Gods, Demigods and Heroes" refers to a 45th level character as "ridiculous," the answer really is that Gygax never intended the game to go that high.

GDGH was the proof he'd lost control of his game, but that's a tale for another day.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;973799GDGH was the proof he'd lost control of his game, but that's a tale for another day.

So, this time tomorrow?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;973799Since the introduction to "Gods, Demigods and Heroes" refers to a 45th level character as "ridiculous," the answer really is that Gygax never intended the game to go that high.

GDGH was the proof he'd lost control of his game, but that's a tale for another day.

I think Arduin Grimoire had already proven that he never had control over his audience. That said, it is worth mentioning again. When it is shown that D&D is bad at something, it is usually an arena or situation which were never part of its original design specifications or intent.

I GM'd an Earthdawn campaign through 3 editions (1st, 2nd, Classic), and we got up to 12th/13th Circle on all the characters (around 25+ in BECMI scale). It was increadibly fun, but it got a bit inhoherent after I had run through the FASA "Barsaive At War" metaplot. I think this was because I didn't fully understand how old-school play shifted back towards a "wargaming campaign". We had so many elements of it that it kinda worked (the Elf Warrior/Scout had his own mountain kingdom of warrior-cult elves, the Human Sky Raider/Elementalist has her own airship and crew, etc, etc.), but I think it would have been even better had I been thinking of the setting as a wargame campaign, not just a series of high-level pre-scripted adventures with some of my own mixed in between them.