The (un)official D&D Next Playtest thread

[Elemental_Elf]

This seems like a strange way to go, to me.  Scaling hit points are probably the least plausible thing in D&D, and lots and lots of variant rules/hacks (E6, Wounds and Vigor, lowering the Massive Damage Threshold, etc) specifically address the "TOO MANY HP!" issue.  It seems to me that attack rolls (i.e. your accuracy with a weapon) would be the most obvious candidate to have scale, since it represents training and experience with a weapon.  Likewise one would assume that things like skill and saving throw DCs should scale a lot to represent the diverse array of challenges characters could face.

Hit points are just as much a measure of accuracy as actual modifiers to your attack roll. Your hits are causing more damage, which means you are striking more vital areas and/or keeping your enemy off guard.

I can get behind this sentiment.  It addresses one of 3.X's bigger problems, and suggests a return to the vulnerability and lethality that marked D&D in days of yore, although bloating HP could just make this weird.  Who knows whether the execution will work at all in practice.

Next's HP isn't being exaggerated or bloated. Its basically the same progression as 3.x.

This sets off warning lights in my head.  It smacks heavily of the scaling obsession that bugs me in 4E, in which large amounts of time and energy and spent fretting about whyat constitutes an appropriate challenge and what kind of standardized treasure such a challenge should reward and blah blah blah this is not how I have ever decided on which monsters to use.  If they start taking out abilities like this to make the scale prettier it's going to suck.  In previous editions, a ghoul is not equally deadly to a 3rd and 17th level fighter because the 17th level fighter not only has higher saving throws, they should have the resources (gold, hirelings, access to wizards) to get a few potions of Remove Paralysis (and someone to force it down their mouth).  Plus the 17th level fighter probably has sufficient AC/initiative to one-shot the ghoul before it touches them.  So if their changes to the way abilities scale results in the culling of such iconic abilities as a ghoul's paralysis... that sucks.

This set off warning bells because the designers taped themselves playing Next and a Ghoul wrecked face. So obviously abilities that take you out of combat need to be worked on, which is true of any edition. The difference was that the Ghouls were a low level threat for rather than a higher level one. The PCs could easily eliminate the Ghouls in one or two hits but one or two failed saving throws messed up combat. The Designers were not expecting the Ghouls to be that large of a threat, that's all Mearls is referring to.

This is exactly how spell DCs worked in 3.X... I approve, basically, but it's hardly an innovation.

It represents a big shift of policy for Next.

[sparkletwist]

I'd be more troubled, but I don't really care much about "official" D&D these days

Me too. Especially with the mess they've (and by "they" I mostly mean "Mike Mearls") made of D&D Next.

One of the stated goals with Next is to simplify the game to the point where you do not need complex class builds or a Christmas tree magic items to be effective. One of the ways the designers are doing this is by sticking to bounded accuracy.

Bounded accuracy doesn't actually do anything useful. If your attack bonuses don't really grow and enemy's defenses don't really grow either, it's essentially the exact same situation as 4e where everything improves in lock-step, only instead of them all getting a +5 to match my +5 nobody has gained much of anything. You don't feel any real sense of improvement.

What this does it allow the DM to keep using all of the monsters in the monster manual, just altering their numbers to give a challenge.

I understand the idea of wanting to make monsters relevant longer, but I think there's a certain point when a regular old orc just isn't a threat any more. It helps to solidify a sense of growth, like, you've made it to the "Paragon Tier" or whatever they're going to call it.

Anyway, if nothing really improves, the only way you can actually fight more guys is by increasing HP ridiculous amounts... or by using a ton of equipment to boost your attacks and defenses, since you won't be getting much of anything from your levels. And then we're back to Christmas tree land.

[Steerpike]

Hit points are just as much a measure of accuracy as actual modifiers to your attack roll.

Is damage scaling heavily too?  The article stressed HP was the thing that would increase - it didn't mention damage, although maybe damage scales as well?  I can see the argument made for increased damage representing greater accuracy (although it makes more sense inuitively for more damage to mean "a heavier hit" as opposed to "a more accurate hit"), but HP doesn't represent accuracy - it can represent the ability of a character to defend themself/parry/reduce the accuracy of their opponent, but those aren't the same thing.

Next's HP isn't being exaggerated or bloated. Its basically the same progression as 3.x.

Though as you know I'm a fan of 3.X>4E, I think the upper levels of HP in 3.X are pretty bloated as it is.  When nothing else is increasing but HP, that kind of makes the problem worse.  As I noted, a *lot* of hacks/house-rules for 3.X were about decreasing HP or making characters more vulnerable.

This set off warning bells because the designers taped themselves playing Next and a Ghoul wrecked face. So obviously abilities that take you out of combat need to be worked on, which is true of any edition

This doesn't surprise me given the changes they've made - if attack rolls, defence, and saves don't scale very much, a monster (even a low-level one) with an ability like paralysis is going to be much, much scarier than it would be in a system where either a) a high-level character would almost never be hit by the monster, and b) your character's saves are high and so the monster's ability doesn't function.  If your defence and saves increase only minimally... yeah that's a problem.  Ghouls and the like were always scary in previous editions, although I'm not sure that's really a bad thing.

Having actually run adventures with Next, I will freely admit it is a much deadlier system than 3.5 and especially 4E.

That does sound pretty promising.

[Elemental_Elf]

One of the stated goals with Next is to simplify the game to the point where you do not need complex class builds or a Christmas tree magic items to be effective. One of the ways the designers are doing this is by sticking to bounded accuracy.

Bounded accuracy doesn't actually do anything useful. If your attack bonuses don't really grow and enemy's defenses don't really grow either, it's essentially the exact same situation as 4e where everything improves in lock-step, only instead of them all getting a +5 to match my +5 nobody has gained much of anything. You don't feel any real sense of improvement.

It does quite a few things that are useful.

1) It makes monsters a threat to PCs over the course of a much larger percentage of the game without adjusting stat blocks.  
2) It removes a barrier to entry (i.e. a very large, fiddly bit of the Math).

The improvement you have is through new spells, new class abilities, the progression of a story and occasionally a new magic item.  You don't need to have the system give you all of that PLUS huge bonuses to hit, PLUS massive increases to your spell DCs PLUS allowing your abilities to increase to super human proportions PLUS more magic items.

What this does it allow the DM to keep using all of the monsters in the monster manual, just altering their numbers to give a challenge.

I understand the idea of wanting to make monsters relevant longer, but I think there's a certain point when a regular old orc just isn't a threat any more. It helps to solidify a sense of growth, like, you've made it to the "Paragon Tier" or whatever they're going to call it.

There is that point, it's called 5th level. A single Orc is no longer a threat because his damage output per turn isn't that big of a threat vs. your HP total and the amount of damage you throw around. The difference is that there will never be a situation where one character can stand against a hode of Orcs and only worry about lose a handful of HP when one or two of them crits.

Anyway, if nothing really improves, the only way you can actually fight more guys is by increasing HP ridiculous amounts... or by using a ton of equipment to boost your attacks and defenses, since you won't be getting much of anything from your levels. And then we're back to Christmas tree land.

The amount of damage you deal increases as you level.

[Elemental_Elf]

Hit points are just as much a measure of accuracy as actual modifiers to your attack roll.

Is damage scaling heavily too?  The article stressed HP was the thing that would increase - it didn't mention damage, although maybe damage scales as well?  I can see the argument made for increased damage representing greater accuracy (although it makes more sense inuitively for more damage to mean "a heavier hit" as opposed to "a more accurate hit"), but HP doesn't represent accuracy - it can represent the ability of a character to defend themself/parry/reduce the accuracy of their opponent, but those aren't the same thing.

Spells deal more damage and classes have ways of dealing more damage through class abilities.

I'll grant you +'s to hit are more intuitive but they also carry with them the burden of making monsters progressively weaker. If I am a 20th level character and I have a +15 bonus to hit base on top of a +5 weapon on top of my +7 ability score, then any monster not designed to challenge me will either be used in horde tactics or wind up completely obsolesced (most likely the latter since even in horde formations, they pose little threat). You shouldn't have to throw out 5/6ths of a monster manual just because you leveled up.

More damage does represent better accuracy because you are hitting more vital locations and sloughing off more HP and the targets own inability to defend himself. You just have to look at the opposite of your example.  

I'm not saying it's perfect but the problem that plagued previous editions was that there were too many moving parts when it came to combat, which made balance or even predictability at different levels very difficult to attain without being completely homogenous.

Next's HP isn't being exaggerated or bloated. Its basically the same progression as 3.x.

Though as you know I'm a fan of 3.X>4E, I think the upper levels of HP in 3.X are pretty bloated as it is.  When nothing else is increasing but HP, that kind of makes the problem worse.  As I noted, a *lot* of hacks/house-rules for 3.X were about decreasing HP or making characters more vulnerable.

[/quote]

A 20th level Barbarian with 18 CON in Next is only going to have a guaranteed average of 225 HP or a max of 320 HP. That sounds like a lot but a Dragon can Multi-Attack (1 Bite and 2 Claws). If the Dragon hits with all three attacks, then he is going to eliminate a guaranteed average of 73 HP, or a Max of 117.

At average damage and average HP, it would only take the Dragon 3 turns to knock the Barbarian to 6 HP.

Sounds like a tough fight but one where the Barbarian has a an advantage.

Until you realize that Dragon is only Level 13.

The Dragon alone is an average difficulty encounter for an 11th level party.

So let's look at a level 11 Barbarian. He will have an average of 126 HP. If the Dragon hits with all three attacks, then he has eliminated 57% of the Barbarians HP in one turn.

HP bloat isn't an issue because monsters are dealing solid damage with each hit.

This set off warning bells because the designers taped themselves playing Next and a Ghoul wrecked face. So obviously abilities that take you out of combat need to be worked on, which is true of any edition

This doesn't surprise me given the changes they've made - if attack rolls, defence, and saves don't scale very much, a monster (even a low-level one) with an ability like paralysis is going to be much, much scarier than it would be in a system where either a) a high-level character would almost never be hit by the monster, and b) your character's saves are high and so the monster's ability doesn't function.  If your defence and saves increase only minimally... yeah that's a problem.  Ghouls and the like were always scary in previous editions, although I'm not sure that's really a bad thing.

I very much agree. Ghouls should be scary. I'm just hoping the designers don't change the entire system to accommodate this fact that they were surprised by one encounter (which is what it feels like since now DC's and saves are going to scale).

Having actually run adventures with Next, I will freely admit it is a much deadlier system than 3.5 and especially 4E.

That does sound pretty promising.

The system is in rough shape right now but the core ideas are all very sound and fun. They jst need to figure out which rules will be core and which will be optional and how they want to balance higher levels).

[sparkletwist]

It makes monsters a threat to PCs over the course of a much larger percentage of the game without adjusting stat blocks.

Like I said, I'm not sure if this is even a good thing. If you spend the whole game "just fighting orcs," a chance to feel growth is eliminated.

It removes a barrier to entry

What does this even mean?

You don't need to have the system give you all of that PLUS huge bonuses to hit, PLUS massive increases to your spell DCs PLUS allowing your abilities to increase to super human proportions PLUS more magic items.

In that article I linked, Mike Mearls literally says that he doesn't want saving throws to increase a lot, and then somewhere else he mentions that it's a problem that a ghoul affects a level 17 fighter more than it ought to relative to a level 3 fighter because the level 17 guy misses his save-or-lose too often. Does he seriously not understand that these things are linked?

A single Orc is no longer a threat because his damage output per turn isn't that big of a threat vs. your HP total and the amount of damage you throw around. The difference is that there will never be a situation where one character can stand against a hode of Orcs and only worry about lose a handful of HP when one or two of them crits.

How big of a horde, though? Since your defense hardly increases, your ability to deal with a horde only increases as fast as your HP does. This can lead to pretty underwhelming results, especially if you have to kill each enemy individually. Doing that also would make combat take a lot longer.

If they really wanted to make monsters challenging in hordes at a higher level, they should've just let them get substantial attack bonuses for attacking in groups. Then AC and defense and whatever could actually grow but a horde of orcs would actually still be a challenge... but you'd cut them down a group at a time so the combat wouldn't take forever.

[beejazz]

Like I said, I'm not sure if this is even a good thing. If you spend the whole game "just fighting orcs," a chance to feel growth is eliminated.

D&D is traditionally pretty resource based, and this solution sort of fits in that dungeon crawling and resource attrition paradigm. Being able to handle a horde is qualitatively different from being able to handle a one on one fight. HP/damage scaling is a better fit than attack/AC scaling if you're worried about pushing orcs off the RNG. And it sounds like that's the kind of thing they're afraid of. A 6 point spread is insanely conservative on that front, but I can at least see the reasoning behind the concept.

How big of a horde, though? Since your defense hardly increases, your ability to deal with a horde only increases as fast as your HP does. This can lead to pretty underwhelming results, especially if you have to kill each enemy individually. Doing that also would make combat take a lot longer.

The flipside is that if you can take each individual orc down in one hit instead of two or three if your damage is scaling, and that can speed these big fights along. It may or may not be enough, depending on application, but it's at least there.

If they really wanted to make monsters challenging in hordes at a higher level, they should've just let them get substantial attack bonuses for attacking in groups. Then AC and defense and whatever could actually grow but a horde of orcs would actually still be a challenge... but you'd cut them down a group at a time so the combat wouldn't take forever.

I'm not convinced pushing enemies off (or nearly off) the RNG with levels and pushing them back on the RNG with an additional rule is strictly necessary in this particular case.

The real problem that remains with high level fights against low level hordes is in the number of actions and turns necessary. Representing what have traditionally been multiple attacks as area attacks could be hugely helpful. But that's kind of drifting off topic.

In that article I linked, Mike Mearls literally says that he doesn't want saving throws to increase a lot, and then somewhere else he mentions that it's a problem that a ghoul affects a level 17 fighter more than it ought to relative to a level 3 fighter because the level 17 guy misses his save-or-lose too often. Does he seriously not understand that these things are linked?

There's really just no excusing this one though.

[sparkletwist]

I'm not convinced pushing enemies off (or nearly off) the RNG with levels and pushing them back on the RNG with an additional rule is strictly necessary in this particular case.

The real problem that remains with high level fights against low level hordes is in the number of actions and turns necessary. Representing what have traditionally been multiple attacks as area attacks could be hugely helpful. But that's kind of drifting off topic.

Right, it would take a long time to take out a whole horde. Even with one-shots, it'd be like facing a huge number of minions in 4e, and that could still get tedious.

That's why I still like the idea of representing the horde as a single abstract unit that gets bonuses and such. You're right it's sort of a hack, but it seems preferable to (and more mathematically sound than) the weird thing they're actually doing, where they expect you to fight a horde anyway and nobody's sure if the math even works out right to let you do that.

[Steerpike]

D&D isn't and has never been built to handle mass combats.  I agree with sparkletwist that some sort of "horde hack" is pretty much necessary if you want to deal with very large numbers of enemies.

The difference is that there will never be a situation where one character can stand against a hode of Orcs and only worry about lose a handful of HP when one or two of them crits.

While this is true, I don't see why adopting the opposite scale - scaling HP very gradually/minimally while increasing attack, defence, and saving throws more dramatically over time - wouldn't have the same result.  It makes more sense intuitively, and still allows low-level units to be dangerous.  The hypothetical warrior facing down a horde of Orcs is going to be able to mow through them more or less untouched... unless one gets a very lucky hit and basically drops him.

But they're not going to do that, and I'm almost certainly not going to buy D&D Next unless it's hailed as the best thing in gaming since the twenty sided die, so it's all a bit academic.

[Elemental_Elf]

Too lazy to thresh.

@Sparkle: No one said you would just sit around fighting Orcs. They are there if the DM wants to use them, without resorting to creating new statblocks with class levels (3.5) or new statblocks of new tribes with brand new powers (4).

Mearls has come out repeatedly and said that the game is too byzantine and arcane to draw in new gamers. That having to buy three huge core rule books or one massive 300 page tome is intimidating. That the math and mechanics in the core game should be relatively simple and easy to learn. That even high level D&D characters should not require system mastery to be effective. All of those aspects (number of books, size of books, size of core rules, and the math behind the system) have served as barriers of entry into the game. D&D can be wondrously complex but it cannot be that way at the front door. The game must be simple and engaging from the get go. That (among other reasons) is why D&D is going to a modular system. The core will be stripped down and simple, while DM's add in rules to make the game more complex.

The current saving throws are too weak because characters are not saving as often as they should against weaker spells. The obvious fix is to increase everyone's save value however, the designers don't want to end up with a system where you constantly save against the low level spells, so the bonus has to be just right.

I know, idiotic way to design a system. Believe me, I see that. They should have gotten the numbers down pat before building everything else.

Hordes would be some where around 12, I think.

I agree HP as the only means of increasing power is a weird concept and probably too simplified. It's hard to defend WotC in that regard. Scaling attack/defense/saves is the easier system to design.

@Steerpike: If you dramatically scale up attack/Defense/Saving Throws, then the Orc you fought at first level is no longer a challenge after 10 levels, let alone 19 because his attack/Defense/Saving Throws did not scale with yours.  Even a horde of Orcs isn't a challenge because they cannot surmount your improved defense.

[sparkletwist]

That (among other reasons) is why D&D is going to a modular system. The core will be stripped down and simple, while DM's add in rules to make the game more complex.

This just can't function with their current approach and pace of development. In order to have any chance of a working modular system, they would have to have gotten the core math down quite a long time ago, so they were actually sure what they were bolting all the different modules and other optional parts onto. (I have my doubts about the efficacy of the "modular system" even if they did manage to produce a solid core in a timely fashion... but it's a moot point, because they didn't!)

Even a horde of Orcs isn't a challenge because they cannot surmount your improved defense.

Hence a "horde hack" for handling group attacks. :grin:

[Steerpike]

@Steerpike: If you dramatically scale up attack/Defense/Saving Throws, then the Orc you fought at first level is no longer a challenge after 10 levels, let alone 19 because his attack/Defense/Saving Throws did not scale with yours.  Even a horde of Orcs isn't a challenge because they cannot surmount your improved defense.

I disagree, and here's why.  I'm going to basically assume 3.X/Pathfinder rules except where noted (i.e. minimally scaling HP).

Firstly, there's no reason you can't add class levels to the Orcs (unless the system arbitrarily prevents that), which would let them scale perfectly and allows the DM to keep using monsters throughout the campaign; monster advancement rules work the same way for creatures who wouldn't have class levels.  But let's ignore that solution, since it doesn't support my specific point, that a system where HP scaled minimally but attack and the like scaled rapidly would allow low-level creatures to remain a threat throughout the game.

Secondly, in a system with dramatic HP scaling but low scaling of everything else, a single Orc still isn't any threat to a 10th level fighter - it's goint to knock out a very small number of his impressive hit points before getting butchered.  For one thing, if HP are pushed as a hyper-abstract representation of a warrior's ability to defend himself, the result of this combat doesn't really make sense.  The fighter kills the Orc, but his ability to defend himself in subsequent combats later that day is reduced?  That's... kind of weird.  It's sort of the same beef I have with once-per-encounter or daily martial powers.  A hyper-abstract conception of HP doesn't fit well at all with the description of Cure or Inflict spells, either.  The evil cleric hits you with an inflict spell... debilitating your skills at parrying?  The saintly healer prays to the gods above and lays her hand upon your brow... and you feel as if you now you can turn more severe blows into glancing ones?

I assume, though, you weren't talking about a single Orc, but about a "horde."

So let's say we have a system where attack bonuses, saving throws, and even defence scale fairly dramatically (I'd be inclined to have defence scale semi-gradually, but whatever), but HP scales minimally.  Like, let's say you start with what your class's hit die would be plus your Con, but only get +1 HP per level, perhaps +2 if you're a real bruiser.  So a 10th level Fighter is going to have something like 20-30 HP, maybe a little more if he has a great Constitution.  There are lots of other ways to make characters vulnerable, like lowering the massive damage threshold, but nevermind them, let's just assume a low-scaling HP.  Even a 20th level fighter is only going to have around 50 HP under this system if we're generous and give him +2/level, only around 30 if we go for +1/level.

So let's throw our fighter against a "horde" of Orcs.  We'll be conservative and make it 12.

At least in 3.X/Pathfinder, a natural 20 always hits, regardless of AC.  With 12 Orcs, there's a pretty decent chance one of them will eventually roll a natural 20 even if our Fighter is slowly picking them off.  "Standard" Orcs usually have javelins, dealing around 4-10 damage.  If just one of the Orcs manages to get a natural 20 before the fighter closes to melee, they've just taken out roughly 15-30% of the Fighter's HP.

In melee, things are even better for our greenskinned friends.  If just one Orc manages to score a natural 20, they're going to deal 6-12 damage, or 20-40% of the Fighter's HP (assuming he has 30 maximum).

Now a skilled Fighter might be able to take out a couple of Orcs per round, but he has to first close to melee.  In Pathfinder, even your basic CR 1/3 Orcs also have Ferocity, which lets them fight on under 0 HP, so our Fighter has to fully kill an Orc before it can stop attacking him (this ability might be overpowered in a system with such low HP, however, so it might be good to remove it).

If even a couple of the Orcs manage a natural 20 - which, over a few rounds of combat, the odds favour - the Fighter is in big trouble, probably losing somewere between 40-80% of his meagre HP.  If one of the Orcs got really, really lucky and managed a critical hit things are looking dire indeed.

This is all before we factor in any tactics.  In melee, the Orcs are going to have flanking, and there's nothing stopping them from using aid another to further boost their attack rolls.  Your average Orc with flanking and two Orcs successfully aiding him has +11 to hit (+5 normally, +2 flanking, +4 from the Aid Anothers).  Even a 10th level Fighter might get hit with that attack roll.

The Orcs almost certainly know the environment better than our fighter.  They can try to lead him into traps - maybe 12 Orc javelin-hurlers are standing behind a spiked pit trap.  They can try to use the terrain against him.  12 Orcs in a small room or a narrow corridor where the fighter can close quickly might have trouble with the armoured hulk.  12 Orcs with a healthy javelin supply standing up on an archer's gallery looking down on the fighter below are going to feel much safer.  If there are 12 Orcs on a balcony with a healthy javelin supply, a few flasks of oil, and a torch or two, things are going to get toasty.  12 Orcs with javelins on a clifftop  with a cave entracce nearby in case a hasty retreat is needed, who can roll boulders down on the heavily armoured fighter as he tries to climb up to them, are just laughing.

So I don't see why scaling HP slowly but scaling everything else drastically makes our 10th level Fighter "immune to Orcs."  He's skillful with a sword, has heavy armour, and knows how to use it to his advantage, so he's going to hit a lot and be hit rarely, just like a skilled warrior would in reality.  But if a javelin or sword-thrust manages to catch him off-guard he's still in trouble.  He might be able to take them all out without taking a scratch... or a couple of unlucky rounds could leave him near-dead.

And that's before we throw in a couple of first level Orc rogues, sorcerers, and barbarians.  Or equip them with greataxes instead of falchions.  Or decide to give them an Ogre or two as allies.  Or mount a couple of the Orcs on Dire Wolves or Dire Boars.  Or Dire Bats.  Or throw in some Goblin fodder or archers for support.  Or give the Orcs fungal combat drugs that boost their Strength.  Or poison all of their weapons.  Or give them caltrops (which ignore armour and shields).  Or barbed caltrops.  Or poisoned, barbed caltrops.  Or have them attack the characters while they're resting and the fighter doesn't have his armour on.

[beejazz]

So I don't see why scaling HP slowly but scaling everything else drastically makes our 10th level Fighter "immune to Orcs."  He's skillful with a sword, has heavy armour, and knows how to use it to his advantage, so he's going to hit a lot and be hit rarely, just like a skilled warrior would in reality.  But if a javelin or sword-thrust manages to catch him off-guard he's still in trouble.  He might be able to take them all out without taking a scratch... or a couple of unlucky rounds could leave him near-dead.

The horde discussion may be side-tracking us somewhat.

Let's get back to a standard-ish classic dungeon for a moment. By default, a good dungeon is linear and has both tough and easy fights. Tough and easy are, in a lot of ways, more about resource management than they are about actual risk. Fighting a crapload of orcs (in one fight or in many) presents an obstacle by wearing you down so that when you get to the bigger, riskier stuff, you no longer have the hp or spell slots you once did.

The problem with whiff orcs as opposed to ping orcs is that whiffing for 0hp usually has no attrition while pinging for 2-5% of hp has some attrition. The question isn't necessarily whether the orcs can beat you adequately, it's whether they consistently do enough that the encounter feels like a significant event and not a waste of time. The same question scales down a bit to the round-by-round as well. Rolling twenty orc attack rolls and having one kill the crap out of you while the other do nothing can feel kind of weird (in this extreme hypothetical with attack/ac scaling only).

Modified monsters should have a pretty minimal bearing on this discussion since that's an addition to DM prep load. We're talking baseline game here, sans time-consuming fixes.

[Steerpike]

Let's get back to a standard-ish classic dungeon for a moment. By default, a good dungeon is linear and has both tough and easy fights. Tough and easy are, in a lot of ways, more about resource management than they are about actual risk. Fighting a crapload of orcs (in one fight or in many) presents an obstacle by wearing you down so that when you get to the bigger, riskier stuff, you no longer have the hp or spell slots you once did.

The problem with whiff orcs as opposed to ping orcs is that whiffing for 0hp usually has no attrition while pinging for 2-5% of hp has some attrition. The question isn't necessarily whether the orcs can beat you adequately, it's whether they consistently do enough that the encounter feels like a significant event and not a waste of time. The same question scales down a bit to the round-by-round as well. Rolling twenty orc attack rolls and having one kill the crap out of you while the other do nothing can feel kind of weird (in this extreme hypothetical with attack/ac scaling only).

This is an interesting point.  I'm not sure I'd agree that dungeon-delving should be about resource management, or rather not just about resource management.   Resource management is a big part of it, but it seems to me that problem solving and tactics should be as big a part of the experience - making judgment calls about when to fight and when to run, when to use stealth and when to rush in with spells blazing, setting up traps and ambushes for opponents, exploring the terrain and learning layouts, puzzling out the patrol patterns and routines and habits of the dungeon-dwellers, learning the dungeon's factions (are the hobgoblins and the kuo-toa at war?  can they be pitted against one another?  does the iron golem attack only humanoids, or will it attack magical beasts as well?), figuring out creative ways to tackle difficult opponents, roleplaying with potential allies, etc.  If it's just about attrition and wearing down your hp till you reach a point to rest, rinse, and repeatr isn't that kind of tedious?

I would also completely disagree that a good dungeon is linear (!).  Old school dungeons from the early editions of the game - the most paradigmatic, "classic" dungeons - are far, far from it.  Take the Caves of Chaos from the Keep on the Borderlands, the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief and its Dungeons, the sprawl of the Forbidden City, or the meandering halls of In Search of the Unknown.  I'd argue that the quintessential dungeon is a non-linear space with multiple paths through it, usually inhabited by multiple factions of creatures.  A well-designed dungeon encourages exploration, creativity, and a thoughtful approach on how to proceed.  A dungeon that's basically a series of basically sequential rooms, some with stronger monsters and some with weaker, is not well-designed at all IMO.

Modified monsters should have a pretty minimal bearing on this discussion since that's an addition to DM prep load. We're talking baseline game here, sans time-consuming fixes.

I suppose, but a system can make it easier or harder to modify monsters, and I'd argue that making it easier to modify them (like by providing stats for monsters with class levels, or providing easy mechanics for quick advancement) makes the game better, while cutting down on prep.  And I'd claim that the "baseline game" should include a consideration of things like tactics, monster pairings, terrain, and the like, rather than eschewing it.

[beejazz]

This is an interesting point.  I'm not sure I'd agree that dungeon-delving should be about resource management, or rather not just about resource management.   Resource management is a big part of it, but it seems to me that problem solving and tactics should be as big a part of the experience - making judgment calls about when to fight and when to run, setting up traps and ambushes for opponents, exploring the terrain and learning layouts, puzzling out patrol patterns and the routines of the dungeon-dwellers, figuring out creative ways to tackle difficult opponents, etc.  If it's just about attrition and wearing down your hp, isn't that kind of tedious?

My larger point is that attrition is how all those small tactical challenges fit into a larger strategic framework, not that all things work by way of attrition. Attrition is just a great way to maintain a wide array of outcomes for those tactical engagements between 1: You are fine and dandy and 2: You are dead. Moreover, the strategic framework modifies how and when people can approach various tactical challenges. You may want to tackle or avoid a given challenge based on how fresh or run-down your resources currently are. Conversely, without the attrition, it's pretty much pitting your level vs theirs regardless of when or how you have approached the rest of the dungeon.

Attrition isn't the only way to do a D&D-style game (with the leveling and what not) nor is it the only way to do a dungeon crawl, but it's the core of D&D's particular formula. Straying too far from it is risky from a branding perspective.

I would also completely disagree that a good dungeon is linear (!).  Old school dungeons - the paradigmatic, "classic" dungeons! - are far, far from it.  Take the Caves of Chaos from the Keep on the Borderlands, the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief and its Dungeons, the sprawl of the Forbidden City, or the meandering halls of In Search of the Unknown.  I'd argue that the quintessential dungeon is a non-linear space with multiple paths through it, usually inhabited by multiple factions of creatures.

I actually just mistyped that one. But yeah, the larger point I was after was that older D&D wasn't so much about the individual fights as it was about the aggregate. There would be loops and ambushes (or wandering monsters) from unexpected directions, in addition to the cases where the party is expected to self-select challenges. In a risk-based (as opposed to attrition-based) framework, these sorts of challenges can either kill PCs or feel like a waste of time, with less wiggle room in between. And this can be even worse than a strictly risk and encounter based formula in a framework where the party can select their encounters.

I suppose, but a system can make it easier or harder to modify monsters, and I'd argue that making it easier to modify them (like by providing stats for monsters with class levels, or providing easy mechanics for quick advancement) makes the game better, while cutting down on prep.  And I'd claim that the "baseline game" should include a consideration of things like tactics, monster pairings, terrain, and the like, rather than eschewing it.

Terrain and equipment sure, but piling class or monster levels on a thing still seems like something else in practice. Baseline orcs either stay relevant or don't. Giving them class levels makes them not baseline orcs, so saying that you can give them class levels seems about as relevant as saying the party can fight a giant squid instead.