4e Fan Creations and House RulesWorking on variant powers? Statting up a PC race or your version of a monster? Creating or converting an adventure? Put it here!
I've seen this bandied about the place in various forums but only recently decided to take a serious look at it. And I have to say, I like the idea of eliminating it entirely.
One would still see an increase to DC's over the levels because of stat bumps, magical item boosts and feats but it would be marginal.
The only concern I would have is that then players don't get much of a sense of achievement through levelling and what was difficult at 1st-level is still going to be difficult at 30th.
One small way to combat that would be to give an inherent bonus at each tier of +1. This would make an 11th-level character more adept at his skills than a 1st-level character just not by much.
Any other comments, suggestions, mechanics to consider?
With no 1/2 level bonus but with an inherent +1 at paragon and +2 at epic, people's trained skills will be roughly +6 to +9 at 1st level, scaling to roughly +8 to +11 at paragon and up to +12 to +15 at epic. Add in feat bonuses and racial bonuses and those can scale up to around +20 maximum at 30th.
That's not too bad really. It actually rewards players because the world remains internally consistent: what was difficult at 1st level remains the same difficulty, but the character can accomplish the same task with greater ease, just not so much greater that they never have to roll.
If we assume the monster XP values are also based on how the defenses and attacks stack to each other with level difference. Essentially, a higher level monster is worth more to a lower level character because it is harder to hit. If you remove these differences, the XP value might be too high.
Generally I like the idea of removing the purely level derived modifier increases. It "flattens" the numbers, as you notice with your example DCs. It would keep monsters relevant a lot longer. (Of course, it could also mean that higher level monsters might be relatively easy to engage - until the point where you noticed that the monster has 10 times the hit points of other monsters of your level.)
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
A slightly different approach I've been looking at is to establish an "offset" which is equal to, say, level+4, or perhaps half-level+6. Subtract this from all attack bonuses, skill checks, defenses and DCs. Change nothing else; just strip that out of the math and instead (to keep players' senses of accomplishment & challenge up) just post it prominently so they can slowly watch it grow. If you manage to tick ahead compared to it (the half-level+6 is a good baseline for this), there's still a sense of accomplishment, but basically it serves as a visible "Here's our expectation of the gameworld's degree of difficulty" which you measure yourself against by differentials instead of by absolutes.
Partly designed to make the math run faster. If (say) your Footwork Lure at 15th ends up having a +3 bonus, and Brash Strike a +5, rather than a +18/+21, that's just plain faster for most folks to do.
The more I think about this the more I realise that a lot of the 'bonuses' just aren't needed and complicate things more than necessary.
All magical item bonuses can go bye-bye for one thing.
There would need to be some sort of marginal increase in ability to represent greater levels of skill, but for the most part these are represented through powers rather than static bonuses.
I also like the idea of characters becoming steadily better at everything in relation to the world around them. I've always hated the idea that the world around the PC's is relative to their power, ie. adjusting DC's or encounters to the PC's level. It makes levelling somewhat pointless.
So if you based everything around abilities being 10-11, and all difficulties being based around 1st-level, then the PC's become more powerful as relative to the world around them. I'm tired so I'm probably not articulating this very well but the point I'm trying to get at is that at 1st-level an average PC might start with, say, a 50% chance to hit the average monster. But by 30th-level, they should have somewhere around a 90% chance to hit the average monster.
And by that, I don't mean 90% chance to hit a 1st-level monster, I mean a 90% chance to hit a standard 30th-level monster.
This whole notion of balancing things around 50% hit rate throughout 30 levels seems insane to me. Shouldn't the characters be getting better at what they do?
I'm really starting to like this idea. It'd require a fair bit of thought but I think I just found my next project!
System is based around an average person (10-11 ability scores, 1st-level minion) in no armour with no weapon and unskilled having a 50% chance to accomplish anything of easy difficulty (DC 10), scaling up to the pinnacle of their race (18-19 ability scores, 30th-level minion) having a 100% chance* to accomplish anything of easy difficulty (DC 10).
Everyone gains a cumulative +1 bonus to skills, defences, attacks and damage as well as a +1d6 bonus to critical strike damage at 1st, 6th, 11th, 16th, 21st and 26th levels.
Critical fumbles (rolling a 1) occur on any d20 roll.
Masterwork weapons and implements grant +1 to +3 bonus to hit.
No magical plusses to hit, damage or defences.
Implements gain a proficiency bonus of between +2 to +3.
Unarmed fighting skill added and grants a +2 proficiency bonus.
Masterwork armours remain but grant a +1 to +3 bonus to AC (eg. regular masterwork plate +1, warplate +2, godplate +3).
Alter the skill-training to be a +3 proficiency bonus instead of +5.
*With the exception of the critical fumble chance.
Actually, Im not sure it is. Perhaps a little more eloquence was called for, but essentially the point of this forum is to discuss house rules expansion and modification, including feedbacks on proposals. I will admit that "Why?" as a response is a little short, but let me expand on it.
4e is a robust balancing act. Getting 1/2 level level to hit is a factored requirement as every single monster created for the game is counterbalanced against this. To remove this would mean that every single monster in the game would have to be re-scaled and re-balanced. (A goliath of a job)
Also, one of the most entertaining aspecpst of playing an RPG is character growth. The removal of half level and the other flatening excercises you have placed herein erode that quality. You will get a game of a different vision...but will it be as much fun?
So to expand on the simply "Why?" response, the position for my game is "if it aint broke, dont fix it" which makes me think...why would one do this?
So, to simply say "Why?" is to give feedback that has a certain brevity, but it is feedback none-the-less, and that is why you posted your idea isnt it?
I agree with Bob. Character growth is a big part of the fun of DnD for me. It's a gross oversimplification, but I'll just say that I like seeing those numbers getting bigger as you progress
Also, as Bob said, keeping everything balanced would be massive task, since pretty much every single number that shows up, both for PCs and for monsters, takes level into account.
If your players have no objection to it, and you don't mind putting in all the work (and probably tweaking it frequently as you find that various encounters are either far too easy or far too hard), then hey, by all means, have at it. It's not going to interfere with the role-playing portion of your game at all. But it's going to be a hit to the mechanical portion of a character's growth. I know it's blasphemy in the minds of a lot of hard-core RPers, but I know that I'm not the only one who values both aspects of character development--the mechanical and the personal.
I suppose that my previous post could be considered rude, for that I apologize. However, I believe my point is kind of valid. If you wish to have a new system that you want advice on that replaces a current system, then I believe "why do you think yours is a better option?" is a reasonable (and necessary) question to ask. Simply to change things for the sake of changing them is basically just trusting your un-professional (I am assuming you are not paid for game design) arbitrary opinion, over a group of people's professional, collective opinion.
In other words: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. So why is it broken/suboptimal?
Becasue we can
Because it was there
Because it might provide an unexpected insight/innovation
I understand where the whole 'why' debate is coming from, but I'm just interested to see where this concept might lead. The idea that characters only get gradually more powerful is an interesting one, and would have some potentially interesting repercussions on the thematic and storyline feel of the game that you wouldn't get to experience until you actually tried it...
Conversion may take a little work, but if you can come up with a blanket solution that you can apply to all/most situations, it might not be too hard. Using the 'scaling monsters' section in the DMG would be a good place to start.
It might actually turn out to be easier than we think.
I'd much rather go from the other direction - drop magic item bonuses and increased ability scores, and just give people a point to almost everything every level... but clearly you're going down a different line.
I will say that I think going to a 90% chance to hit at 30th is basically a horrible idea, unless you also change how all status effects from powers are done. If the theory is 'I always hit with my stun attacks - including my AoE stun attacks' then I call shennanigans If it's 90% chance to hit and do damage, and 20% chance to do the extra special thing (stun) or 55% chance to do the pretty cool thing (slide), sure... but at that point I think the amount of work required is too much.
Now, there are some things in your draft that I think should be considered separately...
"Critical fumbles (rolling a 1) occur on any d20 roll."
Why even mention this? Nothing to do with the actual proposal as far as I can tell.
"Implements gain a proficiency bonus of between +2 to +3."
Bad idea on its own, unless you're also changing the defenses of all creatures (ie, those defenses that are lower because weapons are assumed to target AC, and it's a bonus to target something else) or giving a bonus to all non-implement attacks or removing all AC attacks in favor of just defense attacks.
So if you based everything around abilities being 10-11, and all difficulties being based around 1st-level, then the PC's become more powerful as relative to the world around them. I'm tired so I'm probably not articulating this very well but the point I'm trying to get at is that at 1st-level an average PC might start with, say, a 50% chance to hit the average monster. But by 30th-level, they should have somewhere around a 90% chance to hit the average monster.
And by that, I don't mean 90% chance to hit a 1st-level monster, I mean a 90% chance to hit a standard 30th-level monster.
This whole notion of balancing things around 50% hit rate throughout 30 levels seems insane to me. Shouldn't the characters be getting better at what they do?
I'm really starting to like this idea. It'd require a fair bit of thought but I think I just found my next project!
I don't think a 90% (base) hit chance would be much fun. If at level 30 the PCs have a 90% chance to hit (95% with flank, thanks to the fact that you'll always miss on a nat 1) then I can't imagine how you'd make the end of the campaign at all challenging (I'm assuming the 90% success rate applies to skill checks as well). Cutting a swath through your enemies without breaking a sweat can be amusing once in a while, but it sucks when it happens too often (IMO). Besides, you can achieve the same hit chance by sending level 22 creatures against the level 30 party, with much less effort.
PCs will have numerous attack bonuses by level 30 (from powers, feats, paragon paths, epic destinies, etc) which push their attack bonus (theoretically) beyond the base 50% chance. Establishing a base 90% chance to hit essentially guarantees a 95% chance to hit (because finding an extra +1 to hit from somewhere is not hard) and renders the rest of those bonuses meaningless. Where's the fun in that?
That said, I've been toying with the bonuses myself lately. I might run a sandbox style game sometime in the future (sort of a fantasy version of Fallout) and don't want the game to degenerate into a whiff-fest if low level characters happen upon high level monsters. Basically, I want to be able to seed the sandbox with monsters of varying levels without worrying too much about an automatic TPK or a grindfest occurring; I realize that some consider that part and parcel to a good sandbox, but it's something I'd rather avoid in my sandbox.
I did want to retain some differentiation between low and high level characters/creatures beyond just damage to discourage PCs from taking on creatures too far outside their level (my solution was a 10 point spread over 30 levels, such that a level 1 character has a 50% chance to hit a level 1 monster, 40% to hit a level 6, and only 5% (nat 20) to hit a level 30). The (roughly) 50% hit chance is preserved against equal level creatures. Additionally, I recognize that it's nice to see bigger numbers with higher level (yes, I am reducing some of the fun of this by deflating the numbers, but hopefully I've replaced that fun with the joy that comes from smooth combat).
One (admittedly theoretical) advantage I've noticed for this approach is that a normal monster roughly 10 levels higher (than the party) is largely equivalent to a solo of equal level (to the party). The norm is slightly tougher while the solo has greater versatility (and both give almost the same xp). I'm not certain how well it would work in actual play, but I did find it interesting to note.
Here's what I have so far:
-For PCs, remove base magic item bonuses (+1 to +6 for weapon, neck, armor), level-based ability score increases (4/8/11/14/18/21/24/28), and the 1/2 level bonus. Note that ability score increases that are not level-based (such as the bonus from Demigod) still apply.
-PCs receive a 1/3 level bonus (3/6/9/12/15/18/21/24/27/30) to their attack, damage, ability score modifiers (from which initiative and skills are derived), as well as AC and defenses.
-At levels 7/14/21/28, PCs receive a +1 to any non-damage ability score based effects. (For example, the number of squares pushed with a Wizard's Thunderwave). This is to compensate for the fact that the character's ability scores no longer increase by level.
-Ban Expertise and the defense boosting feats (since they ruin the new math), but lower or remove ability score prerequisites on feats in general (ability scores now rarely increase so you should compensate).
-Remove masterwork armors. (Without scaling ability scores, heavy armor doesn't need a boost to match light armors).
-Remove the "accuracy bonuses" inherent to a few powers (the Dragonborn's Dragon Breath for example). If it get's a +2 to start that increases to +4 at 11th and +6 at 21st, those bonuses have to be removed because they were only there originally to balance them magic weapon bonuses. Accurate attacks, like the Ranger's Careful Attack, retain their bonus to hit and are differentiated by the fact that that bonus does not scale.
-For monsters, reduce their attack bonus, AC and defenses by 2/3rds the monster's level (rounded down). (Damage remains the same along with hp, and are the big differences between a low and high level monster).
-Reduce ability score modifiers (as well as skills and initiative) by 1/3 the monster's level (rounded down).
(Technically, it's -5/12ths the creature's level, but I prefer to keep math simple at the game table; -1/3 is close enough. You could instead reduce the ability scores by 1/2 the creature's level and the ability score modifiers (after adjusting for the new ability score) by 1/6 the creature's level, but one step is easier than three).
-DCs increase by 1 for every 3 levels (assuming equal level challenge).
Last edited by Fanaelialae; 24th July 2009 at 11:07 PM..
1. Monster Reuse. Monsters are only a viable threat for a very narrow range of levels. For example, if your group is level 12 (like mine), you can disregard most monsters of level 8 or less, or level 16 or more, based purely on the hit rate. So something like 2/3 of the Monster Manual is worthless.
Removing level-bonuses to hit and AC means that damage vs. hit points is now the main difficulty factor in monsters -- essentially, a high-level monster counts like a "solo" and a low level monster counts as a "minion". (If you adjust saving throws and save DCs to account for level, you could remove the special elite/solo rules altogether -- a solo is mostly just a higher-level monster who therefore has more hit points.)
A secondary difficulty factor is special abilities; high-level monsters tend to have stuff like flying and invisibility that require high-level powers to counter. Thus, while it may seem like PCs aren't growing over time, they really are -- by getting qualitatively better rather than quantitatively.
Many video games -- which use player skill to determine whether an attack hits or misses -- use this model. For example, the Zelda series, in which you get more damaging swords and fight guys with more hit points -- but your accuracy does not improve. Plus, you get cool new abilities as the game progresses, not just bigger stat numbers.
2. World-Based rather than Party-Focussed challenges (i.e. "simulationism"). I run a "sandbox" campaign where there are dungeons all over the place, and the party can go wherever they want, whenever they want. But, if the 12th-level group goes to the 1st-level dungeon, it will be a big waste of time -- why did I even bother creating the 1st-level dungeon? If they wander into the 18th-level dungeon, they will get stomped.
Removing the level-based adjustments to monsters and hazards means that the 1st-level dungeon is still relevant enough to be fun (although it will definitely be on the easy side for 12th-level damage-dealers), and the 18th-level dungeon is very difficult but not an insta-wipe (clever tactics could get them through it).
A previous thread on this topic got badly derailed by people arguing against the idea. Please, don't do that; I want to see where this thread ends up.
I like Kzatch's original idea of +1 per tier. It's subtle, but still something.
I'd leave the ability score bumps alone. (This amounts to +4 over the 30 levels.)
I wouldn't forbid Expertise -- but I'd limit such a feat to a +1 bonus at any level (analogous to Armor Specialization). I would forbid the Defense feats in PHB2, but not the lesser versions in PHB1. Class abilities like the barbarian's AC thing would be judged on a case-by-case basis. (The barbarian keeps his increasing bonus because it matches the ability score bumps.)
I'd keep the magic item bonus to damage. Armors and neck slot items would provide their bonus as Resistance -- for example, +2 magic armor would be, "Resist 2 attacks targeting AC". (Alternately, armor could resist untyped damage, and neck slot items could resist typed damage.) This is special resistance that stacks with everything.
This means that monsters need to gain roughly +7 over 30 levels to maintain the hit rate. That's roughly 1/4 level, so to convert a monster subtract 3/4 his level from all his attacks and defenses, and 2/5 his level from skills (that incorporates the +1 per tier almost exactly). My hope is that the new monster tools they are working on would make this easy.
I'd keep damage and hit point values the same. This means higher-level monsters are similar to elites or solos: you have to whittle away their HP. Also, the game no longer needs artificial minions (like, the highest level orc in the MM is a minion...huh?) just to keep monsters relevant at higher levels.
I'd calculate XP by looking at 1/2 the level. For example, to reach level 14, only requires the XP to reach level 7; but a level 14 monster would give out the XP of a level 7 monster. (For odd levels, you will need to set a midpoint -- like a level 13 monster gives out XP half-way between a level 6 and level 7 value). This way PCs can't cherry-pick higher level monsters for easy XP.
These are some big changes -- it's too much math for me to ever do by hand, but if the new monster tool makes the math easy, then this idea becomes more feasible.
1.
Removing level-bonuses to hit and AC means that damage vs. hit points is now the main difficulty factor in monsters
2. World-Based rather than Party-Focussed challenges (i.e. "simulationism"). I run a "sandbox" campaign where there are dungeons all over the place, and the party can go wherever they want, whenever they want. But, if the 12th-level group goes to the 1st-level dungeon, it will be a big waste of time -- why did I even bother creating the 1st-level dungeon? If they wander into the 18th-level dungeon, they will get stomped.
-- 77IM
1. I dont understand how this works. If both the 1/2 level bonuses are being removed (from the monsters to hit, and the pcs ac, then it changes very slightly the ability for the monster to hit. for instance a lvl 10 monster might have a 18 to hit ac, and a level 8 pc has a 25 ac. Now the monster has 13 to hit ac and the lvl 8 pc has a 21 ac. I understand that this difference doesn't really show itself until you get far in difference but the difference doesn't really get that large until the difference is above pc level +5 in which damage becomes a real issue imo. And monsters don't become solos (due to not getting any extra attacks or bonuses to saves) they just kill pcs in 2-3 hits instead of 6-8.
2. My campaign is the same way. I begin the campaign with the pcs in an area together and say: "go ahead" But I always thought that creating multiple adventures in each setting was a much better idea than making a kobold camp a danger for level 12 pcs.
The way I do this is I have a lot of storyline and intrigue simply happening in every interesting place and when they decide to go somewhere I sort of work off the cuff until the session ends, then I create more of a solid storyline'd adventure for the pcs level.
1. I dont understand how this works. If both the 1/2 level bonuses are being removed (from the monsters to hit, and the pcs ac, then it changes very slightly the ability for the monster to hit. for instance a lvl 10 monster might have a 18 to hit ac, and a level 8 pc has a 25 ac. Now the monster has 13 to hit ac and the lvl 8 pc has a 21 ac. I understand that this difference doesn't really show itself until you get far in difference but the difference doesn't really get that large until the difference is above pc level +5 in which damage becomes a real issue imo. And monsters don't become solos (due to not getting any extra attacks or bonuses to saves) they just kill pcs in 2-3 hits instead of 6-8.
The adjustment will have to be more complicated than just "-1/2 level all around." That's why we're having this thread.
I agree that there's more to being an elite/solo than hit points and damage. I already addressed the saving throw thing, but the thing about extra attacks, I admit is a difficult problem. (A sort of universal "split damage" rule might work. So any creature or PC with, say, a 4d6 attack could split it into two 2d6 attacks, or make it an area attack or increase its area. This could get clumsy in practice though. Do you allow the 1st-level guy with the 2d4 glaive to split his attack? Maybe that's a hidden advantage of 2d weapons.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flipguarder
2. My campaign is the same way. I begin the campaign with the pcs in an area together and say: "go ahead" But I always thought that creating multiple adventures in each setting was a much better idea than making a kobold camp a danger for level 12 pcs.
I don't have the free time to make multiple adventures especially if I know many of them won't ever get played. I do sometimes co-opt adventures from Dragon or, (bless its monster-filled heart) Dungeon Delve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flipguarder
The way I do this is I have a lot of storyline and intrigue simply happening in every interesting place and when they decide to go somewhere I sort of work off the cuff until the session ends, then I create more of a solid storyline'd adventure for the pcs level.
That's a pretty good system. I am trying to get better at doing it, but it's still hard. It would be easier if I had 3x as many monsters to choose from (i.e. the rest of the monster manual).
Critical fumbles (rolling a 1) occur on any d20 roll.
In my experience, this will just discourage people from trying things, for fear of critical failure. Making a natural 1 a simple failure sounds reasonable, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kzach
Masterwork weapons and implements grant +1 to +3 bonus to hit.
Not sure why we want to add this back in when we are ripping out magic item bonuses...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kzach
Implements gain a proficiency bonus of between +2 to +3.
This would be nice, but will require additional changes to monster defenses, and is a hidden nerf to some powers (any Weapon attack that targets a non-AC defense). It doesn't really seem relevant to the topic at hand, which is removing the ubiquitous level bonus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kzach
Unarmed fighting skill added and grants a +2 proficiency bonus.
This is a fantastic idea. I'd increase the damage too. With the automatic enhancement and critical bonuses, unarmed combat becomes feasible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kzach
Masterwork armours remain but grant a +1 to +3 bonus to AC (eg. regular masterwork plate +1, warplate +2, godplate +3).
Unless you are also nerfing stat bumps, the result is that light armor wearers will have higher AC than heavy armor wearers, which seems backwards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kzach
Alter the skill-training to be a +3 proficiency bonus instead of +5.
Not bad, but it means ability score (-1 to +5) matters more than training (+0 to +3). Maybe you could allow the class skills (and multiclass free skills) to be used for Skill Focus as well as Skill Training.
That's a pretty good system. I am trying to get better at doing it, but it's still hard. It would be easier if I had 3x as many monsters to choose from (i.e. the rest of the monster manual).
-- 77IM
Basically I began working on my campaign about 7-8 months before 4e came out. So I basically made a very very complex world full of storylines and many many (a full 70 page notebook full) of different organizations, religions, factions, and political groups.
I understand not everyone has this kind of time, but I still think that attempting to create multiple adventures in a single setting is better than completely re-working a system so kobolds are relevant in paragon level.
I'm getting a better understanding of the benefit of this system although I still think its unnecessary I'm interested in what side-effect knowledge might be gleaned form the conversation.
If it's 90% chance to hit and do damage, and 20% chance to do the extra special thing (stun) or 55% chance to do the pretty cool thing (slide), sure... but at that point I think the amount of work required is too much.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
