Eliminating ability scores from the hit mechanics

[Rechan]

I think I've known this for awhile but I didn't want to admit it. I wonder what D&D would be like if it was based around d100?

Rolemaster?

 

[RangerWickett]

ENnie award-winning Old School Hack uses 2d10. Much nicer if you prefer bell curves. Annoying as ducks if you want to calculate your odds of accomplishing something.

(It also uses d12s for skill checks. It's a weird game. I love it.)

 

[the Jester]

You know, I think I just realised what one of the greatest weaknesses of D&D is: the d20.

Why do you say this? Is it an issue with sufficient granularity?

 

[Mentat55]

I have been thinking that most attack powers should just be Level + 3 vs. Defense (adding proficiency bonuses after the fact). Keep the damage expressions the way they are supposed to be, keep skills the way they are supposed to be...then the need to max out your primary ability score at the expense of everything else becomes a lot less important. It also perfectly tracks with monster progression, thus eliminating the need for Expertise feats (which instead could give the small benefits that the current line of Essentials Expertise feats provide).

It has the added effect that multiclassing and hybriding becomes very easy to pull off, because you do not need to have overlapping primary and secondary ability scores to be effective.

Now what to do about defenses...

 

[Kzach]

Why do you say this? Is it an issue with sufficient granularity?

Yah.

One of the biggest problems with 4e is that even a +1 to hit from a feat is far, far, far, far better than any other feat you could possibly get. That importance needs to be reduced and the only way to do that is to decrease the granularity of the attack mechanics.

Or you could just get rid of all bonuses to attack from items, feats and abilities.

 

[AeroDm]

Yah.

One of the biggest problems with 4e is that even a +1 to hit from a feat is far, far, far, far better than any other feat you could possibly get. That importance needs to be reduced and the only way to do that is to decrease the granularity of the attack mechanics.

Or you could just get rid of all bonuses to attack from items, feats and abilities.

This is only true once your expected damage crosses a certain threshold. Admittedly, that threshold is crossed pretty early in 4e, but they try and account for that by scaling some damage feats. I discussed this phenomenon while working on my homebrew (and also in a half dozen other posts on the site), but I think "far, far, far, far" is a bit much. The solution in my mind is not to reduce the granularity of attack but to find a method to ensure that bonuses to damage and attack scale in proportion--that is, they don't scale equally, but scale to be equally effective, such that the decision to focus on attack or damage is a simple decision at higher levels just like it is simple at lower levels.

 

[Kzach]

This is only true once your expected damage crosses a certain threshold.

Damage isn't the only measure of efficacy in 4e. Effects are also incredibly important.