To keep that wildly interesting branch of discussion going from the other thread, I decided to open this new one to discuss the creation of a 4e-clone.

Have at it!  

It's doable, but who is the audience?

Instead of a 4e clone, I'd love to see the 4e concepts altered for something else, maybe a Supers game or combat sci-fi (we'll see how GW turns out).

If you are serious about a clone project, how about making a 4e-Lite instead.  I am thinking The Fantasy Trip level, or even better HeroQuest-like gameplay.  Embrace the boardgame / card game / RPG hybridization.  And fuck it, steal more ideas from WoW.  

If its gonna be a grid-dungeon-crawl, then let's see one that cranks with some mofo speed while kicking ass.

What I'd really love to see, is a True20 approach to a 4e clone. You know how True20 reduced all d20 classes to Warrior, Expert and Adept? And how later books made every other class a variant or combination of the above?

What I'm thinking of is a system (let's call it "True4") in which, instead of class, you get to pick a Role (Defender, Striker, Controller, Leader) and coherent and consistent guidelines to make up your own Powers, a la Hero System or Wild Talents.

You may also pick up a Power Source which adds keywords to your powers, as well as opening up access to Power-modifying Feats.

Sounds like a helluva lot of work, though. But I'd be all over this.

(Repost of scaling analysis of Heinsoo 4E D&D with egregious extrapolations).

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=400476&postcount=942


Let's analyze the scaling behavior of the average number of hits to kill a monster in 4E D&D itself, with some very egregious extrapolations.

Recall that the average number of hits to kill a monster (N) is the ratio:

N = (monster hit points)/(average amount of damage per successful attack).


From the 4E PHB1, the damage done by at-will powers is typically:

[W] + stat mod + magic enhancement.


Stat increases happen at levels 4 and 8, where +1 is added to two stats of choice. We assume one of the stats goes into the primary stat.

At the paragon and epic tiers, the stat mod increases happen at levels 11, 14, 18 (paragon) and levels 21, 24, 28 (epic). At levels 14, 18, 24, 28, the stat mod increases are similar to the ones at levels 4 and 8. At levels 11 and 21, the stat mod increases are +1 to every stat. (This is on page 29 of the 4E PHB1).

The magic enhancement for different levels assumes the table from page 225 of 4E PHB1.

1 -5 -> +1
6 - 10 -> +2
11 - 15 -> +3
16 - 20 -> +4
21 - 25 -> +5
26 - 30 -> +6

(ie. Magic enhancement increases by +1 every five levels).


To make things simple, we will examine the levels 11-30 of paragon and epic tiers as one entity. Over levels 11-30, the total additional damage contributed by the stat increases and magic enhancement is +7, due to +3 from stat increases and +4 from magic enhancement, by the time one reaches level 30. (Heroic tier by level 10, typically already has a +6 to +8 contributed to the damage, where: +3 to +5 is from the stat mod, +1 from the two stat increases, and +2 from magic enhancement).

One egregious assumption we will make, is that this pattern of stat increases and magic enhancement remains the same every 20 levels as one goes to higher levels beyond level 30. For example, stat increases at levels 31, 34, 38, 41, 44, 48, etc ... and magic enhancement increases of +1 every five levels. In effect at level 50, the total additional damage contributed by stat increases and magic enhancement is +7.

So above level 10, the increase to damage from stat increases and magic enhancement scales approximately as: 7*(level-10)/20


Another egregious assumption we will make, is that the damage of at-will powers [W] increases each ten levels after level 10, in the pattern of:

level 21-30 --> 2[W]
level 31-40 --> 3[W]
level 41-50 --> 4[W]
level 51-60 --> 5[W]
etc ...

So above level 10, the average damage from a successful hit scales approximately as:

level*(average[W])/10 + 7*(level-10)/20

(We will ignore the heroic tier stuff, since it will just drop out as a constant when things scale with level. But for reference, the heroic tier will contribute a +6 to +8 to the damage by the time one reaches level 10).


On the monster side, the hit points of various monsters from page 184 of the 4E DMG1 are:

ROLE*(level +1) + CON

where ROLE is:
Artillery, Lurker --> ROLE = 6
Skirmisher, Soldier, Controller --> ROLE = 8
Brute --> ROLE = 10
(Elites double the hit points, while Solos quadruple the hit points).


Now the average number of hits to kill a monster being attacked by a player (of the same level as the monster) is approximately the ratio (for a high level):

N = [ROLE*(level+1) + CON]/[level*(average[W])/10 + 7*(level-10)/20]


Taking the level to infinity, this ratio approaches the limit of

N -> ROLE/[(average[W])/10 + 7/20].


Let's plug in some numbers. For a skirmisher monster, ROLE = 8. For a weapon with d8 damage dice, average[W] = 4.5. For these numbers, the average number of successful hits to kill a skirmisher being attacked by a [W] = d8 weapon is N = 10.

For different [W] weapons attacking this skirmisher monster, we have average number of attacks N as the level goes to infinity:

average[d12] = 6.5 --> N = 8
average[d10] = 5.5 --> N = 8.89
average[d8] = 4.5 --> N = 10
average[d6] = 3.5 --> N = 11.43
average[d4] = 2.5 --> N = 13.33


Indeed with these egregious extrapolations, 4E D&D is "always fighting orcs" as the levels go to infinity.

As level goes to infinity, the limit of the number of hits to kill a monster being attacked by a player (of the same level as the player) approaches:

N -> ROLE/[(average[W])/10 + 7/20]

where monster ROLE is:
Artillery, Lurker --> ROLE = 6
Skirmisher, Soldier, Controller --> ROLE = 8
Brute --> ROLE = 10
(Elites double the hit points, while Solos quadruple the hit points).

For various weapons [W] dice, this limit is:

average[d12] = 6.5 --> N = ROLE
average[d10] = 5.5 --> N = ROLE/0.9 = 1.11*ROLE
average[d8] = 4.5 --> N = ROLE/0.8 = 1.25*ROLE
average[d6] = 3.5 --> N = ROLE/0.7 = 1.43*ROLE
average[d4] = 2.5 --> N = ROLE/0.6 = 1.67*ROLE
average[d2] = 1.5 --> N = ROLE/0.5 = 2*ROLE

(d2 is flipping a coin, where one side is 2 and the other side is 1).

Ok so that's assuming continuous at-wills...extending this to include encounter/daily base damage increases..

In the case of a level 30 character, checking PHB table we have 2 at-wills, 4 daily, 4 encounter, + utilities.
The last 4 "replace power" levels for encounter powers (therefore the best 4 powers) are at levels 13,17,23, 27
The last 4 "replace power" levels for dailies are at levels 15,19,23,29.

For a fighter (using PHB lists and a "defender" class since these could be assumed to be a baseline damage output and perhaps similar to controller/leader; strikers would be higher) just picking the best raw damaging powers by number of W's, the best base values are
Encounter: 3w,3w,3w,4w
Daily:3w,5w,6w,7w

Assuming a 50% hit rate and the HP figures above, (with a d8 and 1.25*Role - say a d8 and skirmisher:
# hits to kill = 12
# attack rolls required (at 50% chance to hit per attack)= 24
Therefore base # combat rounds = 24.
With 4 encounter powers to use, and perhaps use of a daily, it looks like just about three-quarters of a combat will consist of "spamming" at-will powers (i.e. the 4 encounter powers generate the equivalent of about 6 rounds of at-will damage). Consequently, I'll conclude the the extra base damage of the encounter powers doesn't have much of an effect on the combat overall. (special features of the powers may have major effects, but these are tactical and so difficult to factor into the basic damage model).

Edit: above math is dodgy but meh, may help marginally.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;400530Consequently, I'll conclude the the extra base damage of the encounter powers doesn't have much of an effect on the combat overall. (special features of the powers may have major effects, but these are tactical and so difficult to factor into the basic damage model).

This is the same conclusion I've also come to.

The scaling analysis only really makes sense with powers which can be repeatedly "spammed".  The few daily powers which can analyzed in such a manner, would be ones which are sustainable from round to round and can make an attack each round, such as the wizard's "flaming sphere" power.

The notion of the "average damage" of a power, assumes the power can be repeatedly used every round.

Rolling critical 20's in principle can be added in to the analysis.  I'll have to think more about it.

Well the first step is distilling what the generic 4E system actually IS, and in what areas it can be tightened and improved.

In this area, peoples goals might be at odds...I would like something that feels a bit more like RC D&D with tightened mechanics and narrative combat, while others may want to embrace the tactical mini combat aspect more.

Right off the bat is the issue of level scaling. I think that the current xp chart works well for a game stretching from levels 1-30.  From there, I can see that one flaw that really needs fixing is that monsters' stats scale faster than those of the PC's, because they get full level progression rather than level/2 progression.

However, we can fix this by either removing enhancement bonuses from the game, or stat increases...I vote for removing enhancement bonuses because it would make the game less dependent on magic items and would encourage low magic settings.

Quote from: ggroy;400534This is the same conclusion I've also come to.

The scaling analysis only really makes sense with powers which can be repeatedly "spammed".  The few daily powers which can analyzed in such a manner, would be ones which are sustainable from round to round and can make an attack each round, such as the wizard's "flaming sphere" power.

The notion of the "average damage" of a power, assumes the power can be repeatedly used every round.

Rolling critical 20's in principle can be added in to the analysis.  I'll have to think more about it.

The problem with combat length in 4E doesn't just stem from the amount of HP that monsters have, but also from the length of turns themselves.  Also, there is an issue of keeping players engaged when the action is outside of their respective turns.

What I propose is simplifying the action economy to include two types of actions per turn:

Minor Action: Moving one's speed, Maintaining a persistent effect, taking a fighting stance, etc.

Standard Action: Attacking an opponent, casting a spell, using a Second Wind, etc.

Let's examine how "N" changes with extra damage from striker classes.

For the ranger's hunter's quarry and warlock's curse, the extra damage is:

levels 1-10 --> 1d6
levels 11-20 --> 2d6
levels 21-30 --> 3d6

while for a rogue, the extra damage for sneak attacking is:

levels 1-10 --> 2d6
levels 11-20 --> 3d6
levels 21-30 --> 5d6.

(This is not very realistic for a rogue to repeatedly sneak attack a monster every round to infinity levels, but in principle it could be done if the monster is marked and tied up by a defender).

Let's make an egregious assumption and extrapolate this extra striker damage as:

- ranger or warlock
levels 31-40 --> 4d6
levels 41-50 --> 5d6
levels 51-60 --> 6d6
etc ...

- rogue
levels 31-40 --> 7d6
levels 41-50 --> 9d6
levels 51-60 --> 11d6
etc ...

So for the ranger or warlock, the average extra damage approximately scales as:

1 + [average(d6)]*level/10

while the rogue's average extra damage scales approximately (at high levels) as:

1 + [average(d6)]*2*level/10


So for the average number of hits to kill a monster (N) by the above striker players of the same level, as the level approaches infinity becomes:

- rangers or warlocks

N -> ROLE/[(average[W])/10 + (average[d6])/10+ 7/20]

- rogues

N  -> ROLE/[(average[W])/10 + (average[d6])/5 +7/20]


To plug in some numbers, a rogue repeatedly sneak attacking a skirmisher (ROLE = .  The weapons the rogue is proficient in, typically have d4 or d6 [W] damage dice.

[W] = d4  --> N = 6.15
[W] = d6  --> N = 5.71

For ranger or warlock at-will powers (excluding twin strike) repeatedly attacking a skirmisher, the damage dice can be d6, d8, or d10.

[W] = d6 --> N = 7.62
[W] = d8 --> N = 6.96
[W] = d10 --> N = 6.4


In contrast, a non-striker attacking a skirmisher with weapons dice [W] of d8, d10, d12:

average[d12] = 6.5 --> N = 8
average[d10] = 5.5 --> N = 8.89
average[d8] = 4.5 --> N = 10

On average, the extra striker damage reduces the number of hits to kill a monster by around 1 or 2 hits as the level goes to infinity.

Quote from: Shazbot79;400547The problem with combat length in 4E doesn't just stem from the amount of HP that monsters have, but also from the length of turns themselves.  Also, there is an issue of keeping players engaged when the action is outside of their respective turns.

To get the average number of rounds to kill a monster (including the attacks which missed) by a player of the same level as the monster, it turns out it is related to "N".  Let's call this average number of rounds to kill a monster, as "R".

We won't include stuff like critical hits, attacks with half-damage on a miss, and other stuff which I haven't thought of yet.  With that being said, it turns out the average number of rounds "R" to kill a monster for a player with probability p of hitting the monster, is:

R = N/p


To get this result, this is from the geometric probability distribution.  A geometric probability distribution model includes the hits and misses when a player attacks a monster.

More generally, "R" is the ratio:

(hit points of monster)/(expectation value of damage per round).


Let's call

H = hit points of monster
ED = expected value of damage per round.

So R = H/ED.


Let's assume a player has a probability p of hitting a monster.

For an at-will power with weapon damage dice [W] at lower levels, the expectation value of the damage for one round is:

p*average[W + stat mod + magic enhancement] + (1-p)*0

which is simply:  ED = p*average[W + stat mod + magic enhancement]


For a hypothetical at-will which does half damage on a miss, the expectation value of the damage for one round is:

p*average[W + stat mod + magic enhancement] + 0.5*(1-p)*average[W + stat mod + magic enhancement]

which is simply:  ED = 0.5 (1+p)*average[W + stat mod + magic enhancement].


If one includes critical hits to an at-will power with weapon damage dice [W] at lower levels, the expectation value of the damage for one round is:

ED = (p-0.05)*average[W + stat mod + magic enhancement] + (0.05)*(maximum[W + stat mod + magic enhancement] + average[criticalextra]).

("criticalextra" is the extra damage dice from magic weapons on a critical).


As one can see, incorporating "half-damage on a miss" or "critical hits", can make the equations look a lot messier.  They don't fit into a nice form like R = N/p.

If every at-will power had "half damage on a miss", then "R" would be:

R = 2N/(1+p)

This is an analysis of the ranger's "twin strike" power.  (We'll ignore the additional complication of hunter's quarry).

We will calculate the average number of rounds "R" it takes to kill a monster (of the same level as the ranger) by being repeatedly twin striked.

We'll assume twin strike is two attacks in one round, where each attack is separately rolled for attack and damage.  To make the problem general, we will use the notation:

p1 = to-hit probability of first attack
p1 = to-hit probability of second attack
d1 = damage of first attack
d2 = damage of second attack

The expectation value ED of the twin strike damage in one round is:

ED = p1 p2 (average[d1] + average[d2]) + p1 (1-p2) average[d1] + (1-p1) p2 average [d2] + (1-p1)(1-p2)*0

(EDIT:  The first term is when both attacks hit.  The second and third terms are when one attack hits and the other misses.  The fourth term is when both attacks miss).

Doing the algebra, we get:

ED = p1 average[d1] + p2 average[d2]

(More generally this result can be generalized to any number of attacks.  For example, three attacks in one round:  ED = p1 average[d1] + p2 average[d2] + p3 average[d3]).

If we assume p1 = p2 = p, and d1 = d2 = d, we have ED = 2p*average[d].


For twin strike, the damage is d = [W] + magic enhancement for each attack.

The magic enhancement scales approximately as level/5, assuming the progression on page 225 of the 4E PHB1.

For the sake of argument, we will look at the case where the weapon damage dice per attack remains [W] for all levels to infinity.  (ie.  Weapon damage does not change to 2[W] per attack at level 21).


Hence the damage scales approximately as:

average[d] = average[W] + level/5

and ED = 2p*(average[W] + level/5)


Now the average number of rounds "R" to kill a monster by a player of the same level is:

R = [ROLE*(level+1) + CON]/(2p*[average[W]+ level/5])

As the level goes to infinity, R approaches

R -> 5*ROLE/2p = 2.5*ROLE/p.


Recall from

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=400481&postcount=946

a similar result for generic at-will powers having weapon dice damage [W] for all levels to infinity was:

R -> N/p -> 20*ROLE/7p = 2.86*ROLE/p.


So even without the stat mod added to the damage to twin strike, the scaling limit for R is slightly better than for generic at-will powers as the level goes to infinity.

I know this is all probably really cool, and leading somewhere, but when I read it all I see is this:

The expectation value ED of the twin strike damage in one round is:


Doing the algebra, we get:


(More generally this result can be generalized to any number of attacks. For example, three attacks in one round: ).

If we assume p1 = p2 = p, and d1 = d2 = d, we have.

For twin strike, the damage is d = [W] + magic enhancement for each attack.

The magic enhancement scales approximately as level/5, assuming the progression on page 225 of the 4E PHB1.

For the sake of argument, we will look at the case where the weapon damage dice per attack remains [W] for all levels to infinity. (ie. Weapon damage does doesn't change to 2[W] per attack at level 21).

...and so on. I'm really, really not that good at math. Which sucks, because I always loved hard sciences, and so I'm stuck doing what I do instead. I used to always joke that when I was reading a really cool Asimov essay or something, the formulae were just blank spots on the page...

So, yeah, go crazy, but at some point translate it into English for us mathophobes.

(its not that bad, really, I was just having Algebra I flashbacks)