More pure speculation- "The math is different"

One thing that might be different are nonlinear class progressions.

In 3e barbs get rage every X level, fighters get feats every X levels, etc etc.

Problem with that is that rage 1/day is awesome, rage 2/day is good, rage 5/day is often wasted. Since monsters won't have just have class levels like before they don't need the convenience of linear classes as much. Players will just look at their charts once in a blue moon when leveling characters, and dms will have their monsters just ready to go.

mearls said:

The typical encounter has one monster per PC in the party, assuming that the monsters are about the same level as the PCs.

An encounter’s total XP value determines its difficulty, allowing you a lot more freedom to mix tougher and weaker monsters.

Even better, the difference between a level X monster and a level X + 1 monster is much smaller. You can create an encounter using monsters that are three or four levels above the party without much fear.

Click to expand...

This is by far the best thing I've heard so far about 4e. I believe they are shrinking the change between levels from the +1.5 bonus per level to a flat +1. This is a good thing as many have pointed out above.

Here is my thinking and how this is a throw back to the past:

In 3.5
20 levels = 20 BAB. This is a 1/1 ratio for Fighters. Clerics are 3/4 and Wizards 1/2.
- The hidden increase is in additional bonuses. 20th level characters are expected to have about +10 on their rolls.
- So the new ratios come out as 3/2, 5/4, 1/1. Or 20 levels = +30, +25, +20.

In 4.0 (possibly)
30 levels = 20 BAB. Therefore there is a 2/3 ratio for Fighters, 1/2 for Clerics, and 1/3 for Wizards

This is actually quite cool. Chainmail through 2e all used the 2/3, 1/2, 1/3 ratios.

Include the +10 from bonuses (fewer from equipment now) and we get something more akin to earlier versions of play. 30/20(+10) is 1/1 for Fighters, 4/5 for Clerics, 2/3 for Wizards

The best news is, classes can stand up with each other even when they are several levels apart. Levels are only a vague +1 increase vs. +1.5 increase.

And spellcasters and non 20 BAB characters can stand with the Fighters now. The difference between good combat vs. poor combatant attacks ability involves a 20% change vs. 50% in 3.5.

howandwhy99 said:

This is actually quite cool. Chainmail through 2e all used the 2/3, 1/2, 1/3 ratios.

Click to expand...

aka 4/6, 3/6, 2/6.

It's a nice, clean progression...

And spellcasters and non 20 BAB characters can stand with the Fighters now.

Click to expand...

aka 8/12, 6/12, 4/12-- which means the Average progression is still at 3/4 the Good progression, and the Bad progression is still at 1/2.

It's a nice, clean progression...

Wulf Ratbane said:

It's a nice, clean progression...

Click to expand...

Well I can only hope this is what's in the works.

It may be like SWSE and leave the BAB progressions alone and instead increase the class features significantly. That and the +3 HD at 1st level. That would be like the 3.5 skill progression.

3.5
saves (1:2)+2 & 1:3
skills (1:1)+3
feats 1:3
ASB increase 1:4

SWSE
saves (1:1)+class modifier 0,1,or 2. These replace AC now, so varying AC modifiers apply to each.
skills (1:2)+ASB with +5/+10 for Trained/Skill Focused Trained
feats 1:3
ASB increase 2:4

And of course Class Features are 1:1 [Bonus Feats 1:2 and Talents 1:2 alternating]. Unique Class Features are actually rare in SWSE classes.

Again, I can only cross my fingers that they change to a slower progression and leave 1st level in the game.

IMHO, the only thing a slower progression does is pawn the problems off on higher levels. My hope would be that the designers would take a long view and use a linear progression so we could get some working epic-level goodness in the future.

I'd rather see the basic level of challenge remain constant as characters level up (whether you're fighting kobolds at one level or ogres a few levels later) than try to create the illusion of increased power relative to challenge as you level. I think that with 3.5 there were a lot of negative consequences to the increasingly disparate array of progressions we had.

RSKennan said:

We've heard that the math underlying 4e is different than it is now... how do you guys think that might be?

Click to expand...

It's based on tensor calculus. Really.

I once had a player who used a calculator to add single digit bonuses. I'm not sure any revision of factional BAB, svaes, Cr calculations, or XP charts would have helped him.

RSKennan said:

This would keep numbers low and manageable, rather than having them inflate as much as they do in 3.x.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

why the emphasis on keeping numbers low? when did low = manageable?

apologies if this question chafes. but it seems that instead of actually trying to play the game, many are equating depowering or defanging the classes with "good" gaming.

so what gives?

funkysnunkulator said:

why the emphasis on keeping numbers low? when did low = manageable?

apologies if this question chafes. but it seems that instead of actually trying to play the game, many are equating depowering or defanging the classes with "good" gaming.

so what gives?

Click to expand...

See, to me, high numbers doesn't mean high powered. It's all about what each individual increase means. I'm just saying that you can have the same range of power (and more), just with lower, more predictable numbers representing the same range of actual ability.


This would allow GMs and designers eyeball things more effectively. If you know that the wizard can make a given Will save 50% of the time, but that the fighter can only make it 25% of the time, you can design more effective encounters, and there will be fewer surprises. As it stands, the numbers are so far all over the place that it can sometimes be hard to take it all in, especially in the context of the larger adventure where you have to do it many times.

With different progressions, the saves alone get more and more unstable as you go up in level, unless you add stabilizing forces like magic items. These can have the unintended affect of making characters that already have good saves in these areas nigh invulnerable when used- a good GM wouldn't throw immensely powerful creatures at the party just to challenge one guy with astronomical saves.

Though I'm confident it would make for a more accessible game, I'm not even tied to low numbers, really, as long as the system stays stable across all levels.

Brown Jenkin said:

So that is my prediction, 4e will be binary.

Click to expand...

That's my 10th favourite idea about 4e. The rest are tied for first.

I am not sure that they will apply the SWSE approach to skills to attack bonus and saves too, but I think it might be worth trying. I would probably use 3 instead of 2 different bonuses +1 +3, and +5. The main issue is how to balance multiclassing (no dipping for the +5! But I also don't really like a difference between a wizard1/fighter1 and a fighter1/wizard1. It puts to much emphasis on your first level. On the other hand, that's what SWSE does in regards to skill. A Noble1/Scoundrel1 is pretty different from a Scoundrel1/Noble1. - and I think the first one is better off...)

Theovis said:

That's my 10th favourite idea about 4e. The rest are tied for first.

Click to expand...

To make an old joke:
There are only 10 kinds of people in the world. Those that understand binary, and those that don't.