Quote from: Lunamancer;971721That could be. I don't know 5E rules nearly as well as 1E. I think you forgot about the shield, though. I had the 17th level guy with a +3 shield. That was one of the things I observed.

In 5e, you shouldn't assume more than one really kickass piece of gear at high level. Published campaigns and the random loot tables are much, much stingier than any prior edition. So it's unlikely to have both a +3 shield and +3 armor. In fact, you might have neither at level 17! Maybe you've got a +2 shield, Flametongue, and that's it. Like that's really it.

QuoteIn any edition, defensive plusses stack more readily than offensive ones. As I recall, my numbers (which may be incorrect) had the 1E guy going from 35% hit prob, to 70% hit prob. Which I'm thinking that may have been a mistake as well. The hit prob in 1E probably should have gone to 95%, making combat go a bit quicker.

That seems about right. 17th level fighter has a 70% chance to hit AC -3. I don't know AD&D too well, but that sounds about right for some kind of magic plate & shield combo.

QuoteAnd since I don't know 5E so well, I assumed beginning with a similar probability (not necessarily the same specifics in terms of ability scores and magic items--Strength and its bonuses work so very different in the 2 editions it wasn't worth trying to imitate that way). When I scaled up to level 17, I knew the 1E guy would gain 14 points worth in THAC0 while the 5E guy would gain only 4 points in proficiency bonus (at best--I don't have the exact levels in which the prof bonus changes memorized).

The 5e guy will also gain points from ASI, so you should go from +4 or +5 to hit at at level 3 to +11 to hit at level 17. In addition, you should also go from a +2 or +3 bonus to damage at level 3 to +5 damage at level 17. You also have to account for archetype and fighting style. I chose a Champion with the Duelist style, which gives him +2 to damage, but the numbers would have been different if he'd been a Two-Weapon or Great Weapon fighter. That's why I had to write an Anydice program to figure this out.

QuoteDon't 5E fighters at a certain level start to regenerate 10 hit points per round whenever they are down by 50% or more of their hit points?

Champions get that at 18th level. 5 + CON modifier. I also forgot their crit range expands to 18. That raises the damage to 9.38. Note that if the fighter has Flametongue rather than a +3 sword, the damage goes to 10.05.

Addendum:

I highly recommend you use my Anydice program. It can account for AC, expanded crit range, rerolling damage dice, adv/dis, and critical hit bonus. I've commented it to make it easier. Here's a sample comparing a level 17 Champion fighter to a level 17 half-orc barbarian, recklessly attacking.

http://anydice.com/program/c1f1

It's definitely tricky trying to get apples-to-apples comparisons. One thing that is disconcerting, and this really isn't new with 5E, I definitely saw this in 3E, but it seems like the game wants to dictate the campaign. With my AD&D assumptions, I tried to pick something that a lot of people would hopefully feel is reasonable for sake of comparison. And I say hope because the game doesn't tell me what a 3rd level fighter should have for magic items. I've certainly run campaigns where he might have more/better stuff, and others where he'd be lucky to have a potion or two. These were all choices that were separate from the rules themselves.

So this leads me to ask a few questions:
1) Apart from mass hit points and strange feats, how is the levels 1-20 5E different from levels 3-7 AD&D? (In other words, is a 20th level 5E character just high level in name only?)
2) Can we ditch the 5E magic item assumptions without breaking the system?
3) If I re-examine AD&D 1st Ed, downgrading the magic items so they match what is reasonable for 5E, would this be a better basis for comparison?
4) Is accounting for attribute increases really helpful, or does it just open new cans of worms? (e.g. improving Str would tend to shorten fights, improving Dex and/or Con would cause them to last longer, or in 1E it's not impossible, or even uncommon over a long enough adventuring career, for attributes to be increased--should they increase in tandem with the 5E stats for the sake of comparison?)

Quote from: Lunamancer;9718541) Apart from mass hit points and strange feats, how is the levels 1-20 5E different from levels 3-7 AD&D? (In other words, is a 20th level 5E character just high level in name only?)

Hmm - level 18 5e does feel a lot like level 9 1e. But OTOH I always thought 9 in 1e was 'high level'.

For what it's worth on the whole environmental damage problem where players can start to do stupid stuff with there HP totals an easy change I've been toying in the game I'm making that can work is to change the damage to be A multiple of there level.
So instead of them taking 1d6 at 12th level and going no biggie they are taking 1d6 x 12 and tend to respect it more.

Quote from: Lunamancer;971522The fighter automatically gets his first attack on round 2 before the wereboar goes

Good analysis.

Just a small nitpick given the number of people reading who may be unfamiliar with AD&D combat (and that also further increases the chance of a high level fighter taking down the enemy before taking any damage themselves) - the fighter with 3/2 attacks gets his first attack on round 1 before the wereboar goes.

QuoteA 12th level fighter is allowed attack routines twice in every odd numbered melee round, for example, and this moves up to three per round if a haste spell is cast upon the fighter.

Quote from: Lunamancer;971854So this leads me to ask a few questions:
1) Apart from mass hit points and strange feats, how is the levels 1-20 5E different from levels 3-7 AD&D? (In other words, is a 20th level 5E character just high level in name only?)

There will be some differences. By level 20 in 5e, even though the spells have been softened quite a bit, there can be plenty of cases where the adventure can continue in Direction X because the spellcasters have access to spell Y. Now AD&D level 7, you might have the same situation, but a magic item would be more likely to be the gatekeeper of that adventure. So level 20 isn't high level in name only, it's just much more muted than in, say, 3e.

Quote2) Can we ditch the 5E magic item assumptions without breaking the system?

I feel you can. I certainly think it does for the receiving of +X weapons and armor (+ rings, cloaks, etc.). If you get hit on a roll of 12 instead of 14 from an enemy and do 11 damage/hit instead of 13, you just fight fewer of them (at once or per day), and negotiate or run away (which is very doable) more often.

Strategic magic items, I feel, are harder to design around (design a system to allow level X with or without them, and both be balanced). Getting rid of the bag of holding at level 6 or the flying carpet at level 9 vastly changes what you end up doing in your campaign.

Quote3) If I re-examine AD&D 1st Ed, downgrading the magic items so they match what is reasonable for 5E, would this be a better basis for comparison?

Probably. But check whether you're comparison actually informs a question you want answered. If you have to modify both editions to versions of themselves you wouldn't be playing to adequately compare them, does it help any once you actually get down to playing one or the other?

Quote4) Is accounting for attribute increases really helpful, or does it just open new cans of worms? (e.g. improving Str would tend to shorten fights, improving Dex and/or Con would cause them to last longer, or in 1E it's not impossible, or even uncommon over a long enough adventuring career, for attributes to be increased--should they increase in tandem with the 5E stats for the sake of comparison?)

Well, in your campaigns playing 1e, how often do attribute changes (or picking up gauntlets of ogre power) happen?

Just one set of observations, hopefully others will chime in.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;971949There will be some differences. By level 20 in 5e, even though the spells have been softened quite a bit, there can be plenty of cases where the adventure can continue in Direction X because the spellcasters have access to spell Y. Now AD&D level 7, you might have the same situation, but a magic item would be more likely to be the gatekeeper of that adventure. So level 20 isn't high level in name only, it's just much more muted than in, say, 3e.

This sounds more like "in theory" than "in practice." What I typically see--in published modules, for example--is that there is some non-magical way to proceed in direction X, or the magical means are provided somewhere in the adventure, or spell Y won't function in the area so direction X can't be accessed at all. Also, I don't know if this has changed, but scrolls of high level spells are usable in 1st Ed by characters normally too low level to cast them--it just comes with a chance of spell failure. And, of course, access to a Wish (which can come from a lot of places, including the +1 Luck Blade which isn't exactly a 'high level' magic item) can imitate just about any spell. Even failing all of the above, hiring an NPC is always an option.

QuoteProbably. But check whether you're comparison actually informs a question you want answered. If you have to modify both editions to versions of themselves you wouldn't be playing to adequately compare them, does it help any once you actually get down to playing one or the other?

Well, the question is is how do the various editions change the play experience. Imposing a "correct" number and potency of magic items the party should possess at a particular level in itself is an alteration of play experience, so analysis needs go no further than that, and the verdict to me looks... not so good for WotC D&D. But assuming DMs can and do ignore such dictates and the game is still fun, then there's no problem continuing examination. All it means is, in addition to looking at changes each edition brings, we can also look at how high vs low magic changes the play experience.

The reason I asked this question is because while there may be a "BtB" magic item distribution for 5E, there is no such thing, no expected level of magic for 1st Ed. A lot of the Arthurian Knights in 1st Ed Deities & Demigods, for example, are sporting a single +2 magic item. Many don't even have that. A few have some unique item. Arthur himself, the head bad-ass of that bunch, has a scabbard that protects him from cuts so he takes only half damage from slashing and piercing weapons, full damage from bludgeons. On top of that, he has a +5 sword of sharpness. The totality of all Arthurian legend is just one +5 item. On the other hand, a lot of campaigns I've played in have had Holy Avengers and other +5 items introduced by level 8 if not sooner.

QuoteWell, in your campaigns playing 1e, how often do attribute changes (or picking up gauntlets of ogre power) happen?

Just one set of observations, hopefully others will chime in.

Just aging from "Young Adult" to "Mature" calls for a +1 to two attributes. And of course for scores 14+ for Dex (or any score except 13 for anyone with thieving abilities), 15+ for Str, 12+ for Chr, 14+ for Wis (9+ if uses cleric spells), any score for Con, and any score for Int for any who use magic-user or illusionist spells, a one point adjustment in 1E has as much effect on the game as a 2 point adjustment in 5E. So we're looking for what, 3-5 additional points to occur at some point between levels 1 and 20? I don't think that's unreasonable at all. (Not counting gauntlets of ogre power, and definitely not counting the Cavalier or any UA or OA class).

Quote from: kosmos1214;971895For what it's worth on the whole environmental damage problem where players can start to do stupid stuff with there HP totals an easy change I've been toying in the game I'm making that can work is to change the damage to be A multiple of there level.
So instead of them taking 1d6 at 12th level and going no biggie they are taking 1d6 x 12 and tend to respect it more.

For falls over 40 feet, I straight up require a Save vs Death, but I don't have damage accumulate (so it's 4d6, not 10d6 for a 40 foot fall). This makes falls more survivable for low level characters, and huge falls always carry the risk of death no matter how high level or how many hit points.

Other than that? I really haven't seen an environmental damage problem. I've always taken swimming in lava as a joke. Without magical protection, I assume death to be automatic (unless you're just in and out with bare flesh only, in which case you are saved by the Leidenfrost effect and take no damage). What else is there? Drowning? If I did decide to handle that by assigning some amount of damage each round, I have no problem with higher level characters being able to survive longer/taking longer to drown. Starvation, dehydration, hypothermia, smoke inhalation? Same thing.

5e does not have expected items per level, and pcs will typically have far fewer items than in 1e at equivalent level.

3e and 4e have expected items or wealth in items by level.

Quote from: Lunamancer;9718541) Apart from mass hit points and strange feats, how is the levels 1-20 5E different from levels 3-7 AD&D? (In other words, is a 20th level 5E character just high level in name only?)

This is kind of an odd question. Things mostly progress like they did in AD&D. The spell lists are broadly the same. A thief becomes able to pick nearly every mundane lock in the world around level 10. The Fighter is still not as powerful as he was in 1e. I did the math, and IIRC a level 20 fighter has about 12x the base per-round damage that he does at level 1. 5e clips both ends (level 1 is more powerful, level 20 a bit less so), so it's about a 9x damage increase from 1 to 20. But from what I understand, 1e fighters went through even the toughest dragons like hot knives through butter, so maybe this isn't all bad.

Quote2) Can we ditch the 5E magic item assumptions without breaking the system?

Sure. If you give out more loot, you just need to throw out more and tougher monsters.

Quote(3) If I re-examine AD&D 1st Ed, downgrading the magic items so they match what is reasonable for 5E, would this be a better basis for comparison?

I think the games should be evaluated on their own terms, i.e. you should take into account what is common and typical for the game itself rather than trying to make one game behave like the other.

Quote4) Is accounting for attribute increases really helpful, or does it just open new cans of worms? (e.g. improving Str would tend to shorten fights, improving Dex and/or Con would cause them to last longer, or in 1E it's not impossible, or even uncommon over a long enough adventuring career, for attributes to be increased--should they increase in tandem with the 5E stats for the sake of comparison?)

You absolutely must account for attribute increases in 5e. They're not an optional part of the game; they're fundamental to class progression. Between levels 4 and 19, a fighter gets an additional 12 ability score points to spend. There's no reason for a level 20 fighter to not have 20 in his main stat and some boosts to CON as well (there's no DEX bonus to heavy armor in 5e). This isn't the case in 1e, is it?

Quote from: fearsomepirate;971986This is kind of an odd question. Things mostly progress like they did in AD&D. The spell lists are broadly the same. A thief becomes able to pick nearly every mundane lock in the world around level 10. The Fighter is still not as powerful as he was in 1e. I did the math, and IIRC a level 20 fighter has about 12x the base per-round damage that he does at level 1. 5e clips both ends (level 1 is more powerful, level 20 a bit less so), so it's about a 9x damage increase from 1 to 20. But from what I understand, 1e fighters went through even the toughest dragons like hot knives through butter, so maybe this isn't all bad.

In measuring strictly damage per round, though, I found the 12x rule if you assume a benchmark AC of 4 (for some reason) and 17 Strength. This also assumes no magic weapon at 1st level, +5 magic weapon at 20th level. Not terrible assumptions. I use 18/50 not because it's the average Strength an AD&D fighter would have (there's no way of knowing that) but because there are four categories of adjustments above it (18/75, 18/90, 18/99, and 18/00) and four below (18, 17, 16, and 9-15) placing 18/50 in the middle. The tricky part is what AC is a fair benchmark. AC 4 may be normal for what the level 1 guy is up against, not necessarily so for the 20th level guy. Anything in the negatives makes the level 20 guy about 60x damage per round. At AC 0, it's about 30x damage per round.

As for easily slaying dragons, that may be true for a dragon who stands toe to toe with the fighter. A dragon doesn't even need to be played that intelligently to fly just high enough to stay out of striking range of the fighter (so now the fighter is using +3 arrows with a base damage of d6) and use its breath weapon. A cat 8 large red dragon will have 88 hit points, and thereby do 88 damage on the first breath attack (save for half), 75 on the second (after taking a couple of those arrows), and 62 on the third. Even if the fighter makes all three saves, he's taking 112 damage. Average hit points (assuming Con 16) for a level 20 fighter is 101. So much for butter.

QuoteI think the games should be evaluated on their own terms, i.e. you should take into account what is common and typical for the game itself rather than trying to make one game behave like the other.

The problem is, who's to say what's "typical"? When 2nd Ed (not really all that different from 1st Ed mechanically) published stats up to 25 in the PHB, I suddenly started seeing higher-than-18 scores more common for PCs. Whether it was min-maxing your race bonus to get a 19, or I recall Ioun Stones being popular. And then there was Dark Sun. Just by putting it out there, you got more of it. It wasn't a change in rules. It was a change in how people played.

On the flip side, I'm willing to bet artifacts & relics were more likely to make an appearance in 1st Ed since they were published in the 1E DMG but not the 2E DMG. So how much of what is assumed typical is just a consequence of the choice not to publish magic items over +3?

QuoteYou absolutely must account for attribute increases in 5e. They're not an optional part of the game; they're fundamental to class progression. Between levels 4 and 19, a fighter gets an additional 12 ability score points to spend. There's no reason for a level 20 fighter to not have 20 in his main stat and some boosts to CON as well (there's no DEX bonus to heavy armor in 5e). This isn't the case in 1e, is it?

Fair enough, if they can only influence attack power and not defense due to the armor limitations on Dex. Otherwise it would be a wash and you'd have to make too many assumptions about what players choose.

Quote from: Lunamancer;972045n measuring strictly damage per round, though, I found...Anything in the negatives makes the level 20 guy about 60x damage per round. At AC 0, it's about 30x damage per round.

And that's a big philosophical difference between 5e and every single other edition before it. Increasing accuracy is no longer a huge component of your statistical damage. As a consequence, adjusting the target AC does not have as big a disparity between the 1st level and 20th level fighter's viability as adjusting the target HP. Very, very few monsters have an AC over 20 in 5e. Instead of going up to THAC0 1 and two attacks, you go up to THAC0 9 and four attacks.

QuoteOn the flip side, I'm willing to bet artifacts & relics were more likely to make an appearance in 1st Ed since they were published in the 1E DMG but not the 2E DMG. So how much of what is assumed typical is just a consequence of the choice not to publish magic items over +3?

I'm judging "typical" by published campaigns. They just don't hand out tons of loot. Note also that for the first time ever, a +3 sword is just its own thing. Flame Tongue isn't +[anything]. It just does +2d6 fire damage (which still makes it more powerful than a +3 sword). I think the Defender Sword is +3. But a lot of magic swords have +1 or no bonus, just other effects.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;972061And that's a big philosophical difference between 5e and every single other edition before it. Increasing accuracy is no longer a huge component of your statistical damage. As a consequence, adjusting the target AC does not have as big a disparity between the 1st level and 20th level fighter's viability as adjusting the target HP. Very, very few monsters have an AC over 20 in 5e. Instead of going up to THAC0 1 and two attacks, you go up to THAC0 9 and four attacks.

The 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.

And that's exactly why I asked the question, is this thing REALLY even going from level 1 to 20 (as it has been traditionally understood), or isn't it just taking levels 3 to 7 and stretching that 5-level range out to 20 levels?

Let me digress for a moment.

3E came out just after Gary Gygax's Lejendary Adventure game. I recall some of the arm-chair game designers back then tried to insist extreme probabilities were undesirable. Some of the whack jobs on RPGnet allegedly had some scientific proof that success about 2 out of 3 times was objectively the most fun. And over the time that's passed since, I'd say this idea more and more that we want to avoid getting too close to 0% and 100%. Several months ago on this very site someone argued with me from the perspective of "information theory" that the closer something is from even odds, the more "information" is revealed with each roll and so it's somehow more efficient and therefore (somehow) more fun. A 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 what's obviously happened is just because an RPG says "You roll dice to resolve this type of action" gets (erroneously) extrapolated to "You *MUST* *ALWAYS* roll dice to resolve this kind of action." Whereas I feel part of what makes high level play high level play is that, even though the dice are still there, they take on a lesser and lesser roll. As 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."

End of digression.

That'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? Has the philosophy of homogeneity claimed a "solution" by cutting out the extreme ends and just relabeling the middle to make it seem more impressive, maybe even pass it off as something it isn't? Whatever your personal preference may be, I think this is a fair question. It doesn't help me if you say "Yeah, you can totally play high level in 5E. In fact, it fixed some of the problems of high level play!" only to find it lacks the key characteristics that makes high level play a new set of challenges. I strongly feel the game needs to transition to those new challenges to avoid tedium.

QuoteI'm judging "typical" by published campaigns. They just don't hand out tons of loot. Note also that for the first time ever, a +3 sword is just its own thing. Flame Tongue isn't +[anything]. It just does +2d6 fire damage (which still makes it more powerful than a +3 sword). I think the Defender Sword is +3. But a lot of magic swords have +1 or no bonus, just other effects.

What I've found by playing modules (and granted this may be a Gygax thing since he did write a lot of the classics) is that the magic items are often passed up in actual play--apparently their owners did a good job safeguarding their most valuable treasures. So even though you may see a lot sprinkled into published material, how much of it actually makes it into the game in actual play varies greatly by the skill of the player. My general impression of newer games (this can even be seen in comparing newer versions of Tomb of Horrors to the original) is that there has been a transition away from player skills to rolling more dice. If I were writing a module where more of the challenges were handled by dice, I'd probably include lesser number and power magic items as well.

DCC is super cool at level 8. Note: it only goes to level 10, level 8 in DCC is like being somewhere around level 16 in regular D&D, and I said level 8 because that's the highest level my players have gotten to so far.