BtH vs THAC0 vs 1st Ed

[Fizz]

Hi all-

Has anyone noticed that non-warrior types have a much reduced chance of hitting their foes than in earlier editions of AD&D?

I'm most familiar with THAC0 from 2nd Ed. Clerics in 2nd Ed essentially improved at a rate of +2 every 3 levels, thieves at +1 every 2 levels, and wizards at +1 every 3 levels.

In C&C though, it's tougher. Clerics advance at +1 every 2 levels, thieves at essentially +1 every 3, and wizards at +1 every 4.

I'm curious if there was a design reason for this. Has anyone gone back to the old 2nd Ed progression? Or even 1st Ed?

This came up as i was designing a new class. A warrior's BtH seemed too potent, but the dropoff to a cleric's is very significant. That got me wondering about alternatives...

-Fizz

[gideon_thorne]

Fizz wrote:
I'm curious if there was a design reason for this. Has anyone gone back to the old 2nd Ed progression? Or even 1st Ed?

Yes, the most obvious one. Fighters fight, everyone else does what they do.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[bighara]

Without getting into a system by system comparison, I think the BtH progression in C&C is designed to encourage stronger archetypes. C&C clerics may not be as strong in combat as fighters, but they have other areas in which to shine. The fighter is about fighting, so let him be the best at it. He doesn't have spells, class skills, or lots of special abilities, but he can kick the snot out of stuff.

[Fizz]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Yes, the most obvious one. Fighters fight, everyone else does what they do.

True, i get that. And i agree with that. The warrior types should kick butt. However, clerics are described as `warrior priests'. The warrior part gets second-rate treatment.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing per se, just wondering why there is nothing in between.

And what would happen if one did include a 2/3 attack progression? How's that affect experience tables? What's it worth?

-Fizz

[gideon_thorne]

Fizz wrote:
And what would happen if one did include a 2/3 attack progression? How's that affect experience tables? What's it worth?

-Fizz

Well... since its a half attack. I suggest adding 500 xp to the total at the level the extra attack comes, then double the new xp cost for the progression. Then do the same for each next half an attack.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Fizz]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Well... since its a half attack. I suggest adding 500 xp to the total at the level the extra attack comes, then double the new xp cost for the progression. Then do the same for each next half an attack.

Oops, no you misunderstood (or i didn't phrase well). I'm not talking about making half-attacks. I am referring to the attack progression.

What would be the XP difference if the BtH was equal to 2/3 the cleric's level? IE:

L BtH

1 +0

2 +1

3 +2

4 +2

5 +3

6 +4

7 +4

...

12 +8

...

20 +13

-Fizz

[gideon_thorne]

Well, it appears that a +1 to hit is 1000 xp. So you'd have to recalculate based upon that at all levels.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[serleran]

I think he meant "adding a +2 / 3 levels attack bonus progression" not additional attacks.

For example:

Level / BtH

1 / +0

2 / +0

3 / +2

4 / +2

5 / +2

6 / +4

7 / +4

8 / +4

9 / +6

10 /+6

11 /+6

12 /+8

This is not as good as Level - 1, and much better than the current version of +1/2 levels, which is 275 XP "cost." Level - 1 = 300 XP "cost," so, split the difference, and you get something weird, but accurate. So, a +2/3 BtH progression would be "worth" 287 XP, doubling each level, like everything else. This is likely why it was not included. It throws off a decent round pattern.

Quote:
Well, it appears that a +1 to hit is 1000 xp.

Not by my calculations, its not. Its half that.

[gideon_thorne]

serleran wrote:
Not by my calculations, its not. Its half that.

*waggles stick* Shush you! I'm trying to ream em for all the XP the market will bear!
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Fizz]

serleran wrote:
This is not as good as Level - 1, and much better than the current version of +1/2 levels, which is 275 XP "cost." Level - 1 = 300 XP "cost," so, split the difference, and you get something weird, but accurate. So, a +2/3 BtH progression would be "worth" 287 XP, doubling each level, like everything else. This is likely why it was not included. It throws off a decent round pattern.

Hmmm... only 25xp difference. I'm surpised it's that small. Only 25xp suggests that the difference in attack progressions is largely irrelevant. That can't be right, can it?

So somewhere in between gives a 12xp difference, then it's not even worth adjusting the tables. Just give them 2/3 progression and forget it.

-Fizz

[Fiffergrund]

Quote:
True, i get that. And i agree with that. The warrior types should kick butt. However, clerics are described as `warrior priests'. The warrior part gets second-rate treatment.

Not really true. They get to wear any armor, use shields, and cast spells while wearing all of that baggage. They further get to heal, cast spells like Sanctuary and Protection from Elements, and can eventually Raise the Dead. And let's not forget they can eventually disintegrate certain undead and cause others to run away.

I think they can sacrifice a bit of BtH and still be effective warrior-priests.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back

[Skywalker]

Fizz wrote:
I'm curious if there was a design reason for this. Has anyone gone back to the old 2nd Ed progression? Or even 1st Ed?

The design reason seems obvious to me. The progression is logical and easier to determine without reference to the table.

I did an analysis based on a comparison with AD&D1e as to BtH per level:
Class - AD&D1e > C&C

Fighters - 100% > 100%

Cleric - 67% > 50%

Rogue - 50% > 33%

M-User - 33% > 25%

For a new class you could go with:

1 - +0

2 - +1

3 - +1

4 - +2

5 - +3

6 - +3

7 - +4

8 - +5

9 - +5

10 - +6

OR

1 - +0

2 - +1

3 - +2

4 - +2

5 - +3

6 - +4

7 - +5

8 - +5

9 - +6

10 - +7

[Fizz]

Fiffergrund wrote:
Not really true. They get to wear any armor, use shields, and cast spells while wearing all of that baggage. They further get to heal, cast spells like Sanctuary and Protection from Elements, and can eventually Raise the Dead. And let's not forget they can eventually disintegrate certain undead and cause others to run away.

I think they can sacrifice a bit of BtH and still be effective warrior-priests.

Well, i'm not debating whether they're a balanced class or not. I have no issue with that.

I guess i see the term `warrior' as think of being on the front lines whacking things to death. But obviously, that need not be the sole meaning.

-Fizz

[serleran]

Quote:
I'm surpised it's that small. Only 25xp suggests that the difference in attack progressions is largely irrelevant.

At low levels, its practically meaningless, but by 12th level, that 25 has doubled 11 times, so it becomes much more meaningful.

25 x 2 ^11 = 51,200 less XP needed, which is a pretty good amount, but not "jaw-dropping," perhaps. And, that is for BtH only.

And, of course, that's assuming what I calculated as the base figures is accurate. The difference in cost might be more, which would make the XP for it greatly different in advancement through levels.

[Treebore]

The only one I have changed is the Thief/Assassin. I wanted them to be more fighter like. So their BtH progression is level minus 2 in my games.

Rigon has added increased attacks per level. Like at 5th I have 3/2 rounds.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Fizz]

serleran wrote:
At low levels, its practically meaningless, but by 12th level, that 25 has doubled 11 times, so it becomes much more meaningful.

25 x 2 ^11 = 51,200 less XP needed, which is a pretty good amount, but not "jaw-dropping," perhaps. And, that is for BtH only.

Hmmm... this sounds like the arguments over taxes. Do you reference the raw value, or the percentage change?

But there is something quirky with the math here.

Since all increase in a like fashion, the relative importance of the bonuses ought to remain the same regardless of level. 25xp at 2nd level is just over 1% of the clerics required total. So how is it becoming elevated to nearly 7% at 11th level?

Is the BtH calculated as a single ability? Or as a series of "+1 bonuses". I'm assuming the former, based on how you've described the xp. But Gideon's reference to a +1 to hit costing 1000xp suggests that each +1 of the BtH should be it's own `ability'. That would mean more than just a simple geometric growth.

Or maybe it's the spells, does each new spell level measured as it's own `ability' with it's own XP cost?

Or maybe i don't understand the system when i thought i did... hmmm...

-Fizz

[serleran]

For clerics, the BtH becomes more meaningful because they lack other abilities that cause the XP charts to shift. For example, a ranger gets a new ability at level 4 (I think) and that shifts the pattern by a factor of X, and then continues the usual doubling. However, because it has been shifted by X, the BtH amount maintains a lower, overall, percentage of total.

Clerics do not have this.

[Fizz]

serleran wrote:
For clerics, the BtH becomes more meaningful because they lack other abilities that cause the XP charts to shift. For example, a ranger gets a new ability at level 4 (I think) and that shifts the pattern by a factor of X, and then continues the usual doubling. However, because it has been shifted by X, the BtH amount maintains a lower, overall, percentage of total.

Clerics do not have this.

Well that's exactly why the BtH for the cleric should stay as an equal percentage at every level.

The cleric's BtH cost 275xp at first level. OK. His spells cost, say, 1250xp, his weapons and armor, 300xp, turn undead 425xp. (I'm just guessing at numbers here- it doesn't matter for illustration purposes.)

So, to get to 12th level, he needs 2^11 more xp for each of the abilities. Since 2^11 is a constant, the ratio of xp cost for each ability ought to be remain same.

Mathematically:

(A x 2^11) / (B x 2^11) = A / B

So why then does this 25xp change to BtH account for 7 times more of his xp at 12th level than from 1st?

Incidentally, if all the cleric's abilities are gained at 1st, and it costs 2250 to advance to 2nd, then 2250 x 2^11 = 4,608,000 ought to be required to get to 12th. That's FAR more than what the PH gives, by a factor of more than 4.

Something is definitely awry here.

-Fizz

[serleran]

Not quite. After 9th level, typically, the doubling stops, and it goes to a flat progression, but the BtH doubling is built into that flat XP increase and is therefore still present. Also, for all spellcasters, they use a non-linear (non-geometric, too) progression for "value" at new spell levels; these, however, are factored on Level 1 costs. So, technically, I was wrong: clerics do have something that changes the XP chart... spell levels.

And, so you know: this is as about as good of an answer you're ever going to get, unless Davis comes out and says something about it. He has the complete per-level "costs" of everything. I'm just going with what I calculated which may not be 100% accurate, and as we know, a small inaccuracy can turn enormous.

[Fizz]

serleran wrote:
Not quite. After 9th level, typically, the doubling stops, and it goes to a flat progression,

Ah, right! So back to our 25xp for the BtH difference. We should not have been measuring 2^11 then. It's doubled for only 8 levels. 25xp x 2^8 = 6400xp. And ought to remain static after that.

So, that's 6400xp remains a miniscule difference compared to the (what is it, 225,000?) needed to advance each level after 9th. It's still grown proportionately from 1% at 1st level, which is odd. How does that happen? It should have reduced in proportionate value, because of the effects of new abilities (new spell levels). But at least it's not in the 7% range now- more like 2.5%.

Which brings us full circle- the xp difference between a BtH of level-1 and level/2 is pretty darned insignificant.

-Fizz

[serleran]

Yes, but it is dramatically different in terms of non-mechanics, such as "flavor" and "intent." It would not, likely, cause harm to upgrade the cleric attack BtH, or modify that of the rogue and wizard, either.

[Fizz]

serleran wrote:
Yes, but it is dramatically different in terms of non-mechanics, such as "flavor" and "intent." It would not, likely, cause harm to upgrade the cleric attack BtH, or modify that of the rogue and wizard, either.

In one sense i'm happy it's a small adjustment, because that means one can get away with it without re-writing the entire xp chart. However, on another side it seems like it should be worth far more.

I mean, an ability that granted a +5 (the difference between a warrior and cleric at 12th level) bonus to hit is very significant. If such an ability existed, what would that be worth in xp?

In theory they ought to be worth the same- 6400xp. In practice, i realize they're likely not going to turn out that way.

-Fizz

[serleran]

A flat +5 bonus is much more significant than a gradual progression of +1s. That is why the flat bonus would be worth significantly more, as it is all-at-once. I'd say any such ability, if it existed, would be "worth" around 20,000 XP, or more, making it even more costly than the fighter's extra attack.

[Fizz]

serleran wrote:
A flat +5 bonus is much more significant than a gradual progression of +1s. That is why the flat bonus would be worth significantly more, as it is all-at-once. I'd say any such ability, if it existed, would be "worth" around 20,000 XP, or more, making it even more costly than the fighter's extra attack.

Right, as i expected. But in gameplay, at 12th level they would amount to the same thing. +6+5 is the same as +11.

So why is a flat bonus more significant than a gradual progression? Consider:

Say we give our cleric two options. He can either have a warrior's BtH, or a +5 bonus at 12th level. (Silly i know, but illustrative.) At 3rd level the warrior BtH would give our cleric an effective +1 bonus, then another +1 at 5th, and so on. Whereas the static +5 bonus only comes into play at 12th.

In other words, if one has to choose, you'd have have to go with the gradual buildup, because it helps over more levels, with an equivalent result at 12th.

To me, that suggests the BtH is more significant. Same end result- but more payoff over earlier levels. Why then is a static +5 considered more potent?

-Fizz

[serleran]

It is significant because it is an exponential increase.

Consider:

Level / BtH

1 / +0

2 / +0

3 / +1

4 / +1

5 / +6

6 / +6

7 / +6

8 / +7

9 / +7

10 / +8

11 / +8

12 / +9

That sudden jump in BtH is enormous.

It does not matter when the +5 bonus comes into effect. It is the equivalent of being permanently imbued with the most powerful weapon enhancement, but with every weapon, in addition to whatever weapon one actually wields.

In C&C, ever +1 is important. A +5 is godly.

See, you're looking at the macro effect, the summation. It is the micro effect, the per level, that matters.

Everything is based on the fighter progression, so no one can have as good an attack rate, or receive larger bonuses. If they do, they have to cost more. That's just the way a baseline works.

[Fizz]

So, what then is the xp difference between a fighter's BtH progression, and any other warrior? It's only a 25xp difference between level/2 and level-1. So level-1 to level would be what? A 5xp difference?

-Fizz

[serleran]

Not quite, no. If I recall correctly, it's 300 for Level - 1, and its a whopping 500 XP for Level. That's a enormous gap. Of course, this doubles, so at level 3 (double, double), the fighter's BtH of +3 has cost 500 + (500 x 2) + (1000 x 2) = 3500 XP alone, or, as Peter would suggest, roughly 1000 for a +1.

[gideon_thorne]

Now....

Being the tinkerer that I am. I just dreamed up a defensive ability following the same logic as the combat progression.

1,000 xp per +1 to AC.

Or a character, of any class, can blend it into their xp total at whatever level they want to start it, following the doubling progression noted to get +1 per level or every few levels, depending on what one wants the characters xp cost to be.

This is for those dex based armor less swashbuckler types, or those who have learned to blend their class abilities into defense. A magic user's training might enable him to weft the flow of probability around him as a defense for example.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Fizz]

serleran wrote:
Not quite, no. If I recall correctly, it's 300 for Level - 1, and its a whopping 500 XP for Level. That's a enormous gap. Of course, this doubles, so at level 3 (double, double), the fighter's BtH of +3 has cost 500 + (500 x 2) + (1000 x 2) = 3500 XP alone, or, as Peter would suggest, roughly 1000 for a +1.

So how is that justified? A +1 difference at any given level is no where near as significant as the difference between level-1 and level/2.

-Fizz

[Fizz]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Being the tinkerer that I am. I just dreamed up a defensive ability following the same logic as the combat progression.

Actually, i use a level based defensive system in my games. It applies to everyone (and monsters), so i decided it wasn't worth the change. Though my acrobat class does get bonuses in that regard... hopefully the xp progression i've given is reasonable. Heh.

-Fizz