|
Post by Lorgalis on Jul 8, 2014 10:11:18 GMT -6
Stats for toons max at 20 (unless magic otherwise is involved) so it's capped at +5. Let's give a beginning warrior an 18 in strength for +4 Epic proficiency caps at +6, a novice is +2.
Thus our novice warrior is +6 to hit +4 damage.
The maximum AC thus far is plate at 18 with +2 for shield so 20. I do not think DEX AC adjustments work in plate.
So without any other adjustments our warrior hits a foe in plate and shield on a 14. Advantage could grant a net +4? Roughly so a 10 then?
His longsword does 1d8+4. maybe +2 more with dueling for 1d8 +6 on a non crit.
Ok D&D mathematicians/wise men - how does this compare to other editions of Level 1 Fighters.
I could be way off, If I am please correct me.
|
|
riftstone
Level 1 Medium
Professional Lurker
Posts: 18
|
Post by riftstone on Jul 8, 2014 11:15:45 GMT -6
Let's just do the editions I know.
Moldvay Basic -
Assume fighter has 18 (max) Strength, this provides +3 to hit and damage, thus:
To hit AC 2 (Plate + Sh): Base 17, goes down to 14 w/STR
Damage: 1d8+3
Holmes Basic -
High strength does not matter, but give the fighter 18 anyway (+10% XP)
To hit AC 2 (Plate + Sh): Base 17
Damage 1d6
AD&D -
Assume fighter has 18/50 Str, this provides +1 to hit and +3 damage
To hit AC 2 (Plate + Sh): Base 18, goes down to 17 w/STR
Damage 1d8+3
Assume fighter has 16 Str, this provides +0 to hit and +1 damage
To hit AC 2 (Plate + Sh): Base 18
Damage 1d8+1
Assume fighter has 18/00 (max) Str, this provides +3 to hit and +6 damage
To hit AC 2 (Plate + Sh): Base 18, goes down to 15 w/Str
Damage 1d8+6
None of this includes Unearthed Arcana weapon specialization which could provide +1 to hit and +2 damage, or +3 to hit and +3 damage with an extra attach every other round. Also does not include Weapon vs. AC adjustment, which for a Longsword vs. AC2 is -2.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 11:57:46 GMT -6
First level fighters from Men an Magic would have, depending on the defender's armor class anywhere from a 50% (AD of 9) chance to a 15% (AC of 2) chance to hit their foe and deal 1d6 damage, average being 3.5. It would seem that against most lightly armored foes (AC 7-5 the chance to hit would be equivalent modifier to an attack (in modern terms) would be +8/+7/+6 vs. each AC respectively.
With the Greyhawk supplement added in, these bonuses would increase by anywhere from +2-+4 to hit while damage would increase by anywhere from 3 to 6 points (effectively another Die/die and a half of damage due to exceptional strength). If the damage by weapon type variant is used then a fighter would deal on average 6-10 damage on a hit with the maximum range being 10-14 damage.
The Holmes Blue Book followed Men and magic by not providing ability modifiers for high stats and I am unsure of the Mentzer basic rules and how modifiers were handled. Though in the Moldvay basic a fighter with a strength of 18 would have a +3 to attack and damage rolls, while the attack tables remain unchanged for the lower levels (aside from using negative ACs). Weapons in Moldvay Basic also uses the damage by weapon type rules thus average damage being dealt would be near 6-8 damage with a maximum of 11 for a longsword.
I'll assume that 1st edition AD&D follows the same procedure for Greyhawk as even though I do not have a 1st edition PHB on me the 2nd edition PHB is fairly close to the exceptional strength rules in Greyhawk. The major difference being that the to hit numbers drop by one point throughout the range od exceptional strength. My guess is that this is due to the weapon specialization rules providing an additional +1 to hit and +2 damage. So a Fighter with an 18/00 strength specialized in the longsword would have +4 to hit(not calculating thac0) and +8 to damage (average damage being 11-13 with max damage being 16 before critical hits).
Third edition would have the fighter at an 18 strength and taking the Weapon Focus (longsword) feat giving the fighter a +6 to their attack rolls. If the fighter took the Power Attack feat as well they could then have a +5 to hit and a +5 to damage (by reducing their attack modifier equal to their Base Attack Bonus of +1 and instead adding it on to the damage roll. Thus a longsword would be dealing d8+4/+5 in damage. Granted if the player opted to be a half orc their strength would be at 20 and they would have a +5 strength modifier.
Honestly I do not know about 4th edition as I had only flipped through the books once shortly after they were released.
So average to hit and damage by edition from a fighter assuming maximum strength against a for in chain or equivalent. OD&D: to hit; +6(approx.), damage; 3.5 (d6) [Max HP 8]HD 1+1(d6)+1 from con w/ Greyhawk; +10(approx.), damage; 10 (d8+6) [Max HP 11] HD d8+3 Moldvay Basic: to hit +9(approx.), damage; 7 (d8+3) [Max HP 11] HD d8+3 AD&D: see Greyhawk 2nd Edition: to hit; +10(approx.), damage; 12 (d8+8) [Max HP 14] HD d10+4 3rd: to hit; +5 damage: 9 (d8+5) [Max HP 14] HD d10+4 4th: N/A
Thus after looking at the information provided, Second Edition AD&D has the clear advantage in raw power damage wise for fighters. I would not say that the Men and Magic fighter is underpowered as it provides the baseline from which all other editions' fighters can be viewed as far as being powered up. However a fighters combat prowess is not the only deciding factor on their effectiveness. A fighter's hit points is a major factor as well. Thus maximum possible hit points are provided in brackets as well as hit dice provided optimal constitution.
I think this is only a rough comparison of the various editions of fighter and think someone will be able to provide more insight on the older editions. Hope this helps though.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 8, 2014 17:45:33 GMT -6
OD&D: to hit; +6(approx.), damage; 3.5 (d6) [Max HP 8]HD 1+1(d6)+1 from con w/ Greyhawk; +10(approx.), damage; 10 (d8+6) [Max HP 11] HD d8+3 Moldvay Basic: to hit +9(approx.), damage; 7 (d8+3) [Max HP 11] HD d8+3 AD&D: see Greyhawk 2nd Edition: to hit; +10(approx.), damage; 12 (d8+8) [Max HP 14] HD d10+4 3rd: to hit; +5 damage: 9 (d8+5) [Max HP 14] HD d10+4 4th: N/A I can't see how a 1st level OD&D fighter is +6 to hit. In any case, it's not genuinely meaningful to compare pluses across editions because a "+1" is more valuable when you need to roll a higher number than it is when you need to roll a lower number. In otherwords, +1 in one edition may not be exactly equal to +1 in another edition. Perhaps a more useful comparison might be "% chance to hit man in mail armor"? This is better comparison because "mail armor" is mail armor in every edition, regardless of the game mechanics around it. E.g., a 1st level OD&D fighter needs to roll 14+ to hit AC5, so he's 35% likely to hit and then do and average of 3.5 hp damage. However, he is +1 to hit normal men (due to his having 1+1 HD) so is 40% likely to hit these. We don't know the exact distribution of normal versus fantastic opponents, but if we presume 50/50 then the 1st level fighter is 37.5% likely to hit AC5 overall. Then you could also calculate and compare the fighter's DPA (average damage per attack--let's ignore blows per round and rounds per turn) in each edition; remembering, of course, that the scale of hit points is not equal across editions. E.g., a 1st level OD&D fighter's DPA (vs mail) would be 0.375 x 3.5 = 1.3125 hp. edit: FWIW, I compared modifiers across editions a while back and (from memory) concluded that the top two categories of percentile strength in GH/AD&D were approximately equivalent to 3e 19 and 20 strength, respectively. I might have to dig that up...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 18:15:38 GMT -6
In hindsight I agree that it would have been easier and more logical to use percentages instead of converting to hit numbers into equivocal plusses.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 8, 2014 18:59:38 GMT -6
FWIW, I compared modifiers across editions a while back and (from memory) concluded that the top two categories of percentile strength in GH/AD&D were approximately equivalent to 3e 19 and 20 strength, respectively. I might have to dig that up... Now, that's a really cool analysis. I'd like to see what you did with it. I think it's really hard to compare editions because you have different assumptions. For example, with OD&D (plus Greyhawk) you can have an 18(00) strength but the odds of it are only 1 n 21,600 if straight 3d6 are used. Is it legit to compare this to another edition where you can't get as lofty but the odds are better? As another point to ponder, in 5E you can't get an 18 for a starting character with the point-buy method. You can still roll 3d6 and thereby get one, but depending upon which method you select you may "top out" at different values. Anyway, great topic!
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jul 8, 2014 19:22:11 GMT -6
In hindsight I agree that it would have been easier and more logical to use percentages instead of converting to hit numbers into equivocal plusses. Sounds like something Steve Perrin might have said.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 8, 2014 19:38:41 GMT -6
in 5E you can't get an 18 for a starting character with the point-buy method. You can still roll 3d6 and thereby get one, but depending upon which method you select you may "top out" at different values. I think it's reasonable to compare 18 strength across the editions, because in all editions you can throw 3d6 and get an 18. How frequently an 18 would actually occur across the various editions is a whole different discussion! Percentile strength is not common to all editions but strength "above 18" occurs in GH, AD&D, and later editions which is why I "translated" percentile strength scores into "equivalent" scores of later editions for comparison. I will locate and post my previous findings tonight...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 21:40:04 GMT -6
"Toon?" Are we playing Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck?
Please tell me that the game does not actually use that nomenclature. It's called a CHARACTER, d**n it!
|
|
|
Post by Lorgalis on Jul 8, 2014 22:56:25 GMT -6
Nay the games does not. Tis but a term I soetimes use, so rest thy ire good veteran of a thousand edition wars. Rest well in the knowledge that the suits at Hasbro have not crossed this line.... Yet. The stinging in thy ears will abate, for I shall refrain from it's dreaded utterage in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Lorgalis on Jul 8, 2014 23:06:04 GMT -6
Am I correct that the novice warrior in 5e, hopefully correctly mentioned above, will strike a foe in plate and shield 35% of the time, 55% with advantage?
Striking for 7 to 14 damage per hit.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 8, 2014 23:30:18 GMT -6
E.g., a 1st level OD&D fighter needs to roll 14+ to hit AC5, so he's 35% likely to hit and then do and average of 3.5 hp damage. However, he is +1 to hit normal men (due to his having 1+1 HD) so is 40% likely to hit these. We don't know the exact distribution of normal versus fantastic opponents, but if we presume 50/50 then the 1st level fighter is 37.5% likely to hit AC5 overall. Then you could also calculate and compare the fighter's DPA (average damage per attack--let's ignore blows per round and rounds per turn) in each edition; remembering, of course, that the scale of hit points is not equal across editions. E.g., a 1st level OD&D fighter's DPA (vs mail) would be 0.375 x 3.5 = 1.3125 hp. In 5e chainmail armor is AC 16, which is 7/9ths (78%) as good as the best armour (plate is AC 18). Comparatively, 0e chainmail is 5/7ths (71%) as good as the best armour (plate is AC 3). So chainmail armor is graded as better armour in 5e than it was in 0e. It's graded (78/71=) 10% better, or with shields it's graded about 9% better. However, a 1st level 5e fighter with 14-15 strength will hit a man in chainmail 45% of the time. With 16-17 strength he will hit a man in chainmail 50% of the time. With 18-19 strength he will hit a man in chainmail 55% of the time. (Advantage is equal to +3 on a d20, but is not considered here. Likewise, fighting styles are ignored but are likely to add a further +2). So despite chainmail armor being graded as better in 5e, the 5e fighter's odds of hitting a man in chainmail are significantly better than the 0e veteran's. 33% better in fact--if we presume that strengths of 14 to 19 occur equally frequently in 5e. (In practice I suspect that a 1st level 5e fighter with less than 16 strength will be a rare fish). What does this tell us? That 5e veterans hit more frequently than do 0e veterans. This is not necessarily a problem per se. Perhaps it mitigates the complaint that "misses" are too common in classic D&D? But hitting more frequently means you need, on average, more hit points if you want combat duration to remain approximately the same. Hitting more frequently and doing more damage as well means you'll need to have a lot more hit points if you want combat duration to remain approximately the same. This appears to be the situation in 5e. (Of course there's no evidence that combat duration is the same in 5e and 0e).
|
|
|
Post by Lorgalis on Jul 9, 2014 7:18:06 GMT -6
So over the years what has been calculated as the optimum combat time allotted for fun - the suits, psychologists and mathematicians must have calculated something. We know how long a sitcom or commercial should last. <An aside - I played a 4e combat once with 7 players and had to wait nearly 25 min in between turns until I could act again. That was well over 2 hours of combat for a basic encounter with 3 foes. Last time I played 4e as well, it was like watching paint dry. - Aside over> I know combat length was an issue with 4e. - So what do the numbers tell us? Do we like missing a lot, but killing quickly? Hitting a lot and killing quickly? Hitting alot and killing slowly? Missing a lot and killing slowly?
I think in 4e they had leveling and combats and time alloted worked out, and it sounds like they have done it again n 5e with the you can reach level 20 in one year of playing. I wonder how they broke that down. What are they telling us?
Is D&D a forumla we can out in Palmedes <spelling?>. A sessions must have x combats each lasting y time granting z experience.
I know we are all different - some love Squad Leader, some would rather play Titanfall on the Xbox, but they try tom appeal to a mass, that middle chunk of the bell curve one standard deviation to each side.
Again - what are they telling us. What do we know?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 9, 2014 9:06:33 GMT -6
Here are some fun numbers to think about... Below are all the adjustments due to ability scores across the classic D&D editions, and 5e: Now here they are weighted by die-type* and averaged within each edition: * +1 on a d20 was weighted 1 (the standard to which other adjustments were compared). A +1 adjustment on a d6 is approximately 3 times as significant as +1 on a d20, so was weighted 3. A +1 adjustment applicable across all die types (dX or d20/d12/d10/d8/d6/d4) is an average of 2.4 times as significant as +1 on a d20 (assuming all types are used equally frequently), so was weighted 2.4. The constitution adjustment in GH/Holmes (d4/d4/d6/d8) was weighted 3.1. The constitution adjustment in AD&D (d10/d8/d6/d4) was weighted 2.8. What the above table implies is: * Adjustments due to ability scores are about 2.5 times as significant in GH/AD&D/B-X as they are in 0e/Holmes, and * Adjustments due to ability scores are about 5 times as significant in 5e as they are in 0e/Holmes. But we also know that all ability scores are not equally probable; you're much more likely to roll a 10 or 11 than you are to roll an 18 (with its fancy adjustment). So a more realistic picture can therefore be had if we factor in the frequency with which each ability score occurs: The 5e distribution of ability scores is a bit tricky. Here I've assumed that 1 in 20 5e PCs would be created by rolling with 3d6, and 19 in 20 5e PCs would be created by assignment. I've further assumed that when creating a PC by assignment a score below 8 or above 17 can't occur, and that all scores from 8 to 17 are equally likely. This is only an approximation, but it will do for this exercise. This refined table then informs us that: * Adjustments due to ability scores are nearer to 6 times as significant in 5e as they are in 0e/Holmes. * Adjustments due to ability scores are only 3/4ths as significant in GH/AD&D as they are in 0e/Holmes! This last point is perhaps counter-intuitive given the larger adjustments possible in GH/AD&D. However, the overall diminished significance of adjustments in these editions is due to the increased use of finer grained adjustments (i.e., adjustments to larger die-types) and the increased focus of adjustments on less likely ability scores. (Probably why alternate methods of generating "higher" ability scores were introduced with AD&D). FWIW, the adjustments for percentile strength scores are large but fantastically unlikely, and therefore have no discernible impact on the overall significance of adjustments. What none of the above addresses is the relative frequency with which these adjustments can be used in play. That would be difficult to model in detail, but it seems reasonable that the adjustments due to ability scores are used more frequently in 5e than they are in 0e. Bottom line is, 5e makes adjustments due to ability scores at least 6 times as significant as does 0e, and very probably even more so.
|
|
joseph
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 142
|
Post by joseph on Jul 9, 2014 18:10:07 GMT -6
"Toon?" Are we playing Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck? Please tell me that the game does not actually use that nomenclature. It's called a CHARACTER, d**n it! Haha, nice. No, that was the OP's terminology.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 9, 2014 18:49:18 GMT -6
So over the years what has been calculated as the optimum combat time allotted for fun - the suits, psychologists and mathematicians must have calculated something. I'm not a suit, a psychologist, or a mathematician but I've done a little digging into OD&D combat duration. I posted some tangentially relevant information few years back here: Simplified OD&D Combat that ScalesA Veteran's OddsIt might be an interesting exercise to re-write the combat simulator I used in the above thread, but give it 5e mechanics so we can then compare 0e to 5e (veteran) combat durations.
|
|
|
Post by Lorgalis on Jul 9, 2014 19:38:14 GMT -6
That would be cool, and informative!
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 10, 2014 6:43:58 GMT -6
Here are some fun numbers to think about... Bottom line is, 5e makes adjustments due to ability scores at least 6 times as significant as does 0e, and very probably even more so. Ways, I enjoyed this post but really didn't understand it. Or, it seemed counter-intuitive to me somehow. Or soemthing. I know that LBB OD&D basically didn't have any stat adjustments, or if they existed mostly they happened at stats of 15+, and 5E has lots of stat adjustments. This works both ways, however, and low stats get larger negative adjustments. I guess this counts as a "larger effect" but it isn't always inflation. I also know that characters in OD&D had relatively few HP and 5E characters have significantly more, so it seems like a +1 CON adjustment in OD&D would weigh a lot more than an equivalent +1 CON adjustment in 5E. (Which is counter to your conclusion.) I'll have to ponder this again and try to follow your logic from start to finish. Nice post, though!
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 10, 2014 7:32:42 GMT -6
I know that LBB OD&D basically didn't have any stat adjustments, or if they existed mostly they happened at stats of 15+, and 5E has lots of stat adjustments. This works both ways, however, and low stats get larger negative adjustments. I guess this counts as a "larger effect" but it isn't always inflation. I compared the unsigned magnitudes of adjustments which means that a -3 adjustment is treated the same as a +3 modifier in my comparison. Both -3 and +3 are "bigger" (e.g., more significant) adjustments than either a +2 or a -2 adjustment. Hence, the magnitude/significance of adjustments doesn't imply anything about whether those adjustments are a benefit or a liability to the player. Only that they are of a comparatively larger or smaller scale. I didn't dwell on the fact that in 0e you are (almost) equally likely to get positive or negative adjustments, so in theory any benefit is equally likely to be cancelled out by a liability. In 5e this is not so much the case. If you use the assignment method in 5e you can very easily achieve only positive adjustments. Even if you roll ability scores, the 4d6 method means you're more likely to get positive adjustments, and stat inflation thereafter almost ensure this too. So not only is the SCALE of the 5e adjustments around 6 times larger, they are all positive adjustments too! I also know that characters in OD&D had relatively few HP and 5E characters have significantly more, so it seems like a +1 CON adjustment in OD&D would weigh a lot more than an equivalent +1 CON adjustment in 5E. (Which is counter to your conclusion.) A +1 adjustment on a d6 hit die is more significant that a +1 adjustment on a d8 or on a d10 hit die, and accordingly was ascribed more "weight" (e.g., more significance) in my analysis. However, after I made the OP I realised that the OD&D adjustment due to high/low constitution should probably have been given even more weight, because not only is a d6 smaller than a d8 or d10, in OD&D you also get fewer hit die than in 5e. If this is what you're pointing out, then yes I agree. For the 36 PC levels tabled in M&M, the PC classes get 26 HD between them. So the con adjustment to hp in OD&D should have been weighted about 4.1 instead of 3 (because 26/36=0.72, and 3/0.72=4.1667). I have punched that update into my spread sheet, and the net result is that 5e adjustments are 5.2 (rather than 5.8) times as significant as 0e adjustments.
|
|