Old D20 VS new D20, logic, balance and constistancy: what are your opinions?

[Nadaka]

I am trying to figure out for myself the better of the two methods for building a d20 game. I am planning heavily modifying d20 modern as a base for my own games.

Old D20: The qualities of a class such as BAB, Saves are divergent.
New D20: The qualities of a class such as BAB, saves are linear.

For simplicity sake, I will assume a poor/average/good setup for progressions and assume that "AC/Defense" scales with level.

Old system:
poor = 0 to +10 over 20 levels
average = 0 to 15 over 20 levels
good = 1 to 20 over 20 levels.

new type system:
poor = +0 at level 1
average = +1 at level 1
good = +2 at level 1
all bonus go up at a fixed rate (one that doesn't really matter when comparing similar level characters).

issues: with the old divergent system the point is rapidly reached where to challenge a good attack character the defence has to be so high that a poor attack character will never be able to hit. Likewise to allow the poor BAB character to hit means the good BAB character will be unable to miss. This does not even count the fact that the High BAB character is more likely to seek means of increasing its attack even more.

Examples:
at level 20 (10/15/20)
good BAB vs good defence = 50% hit
good BAB vs average defence = 75% hit
good BAB vs poor defence = 100% hit
average BAB vs good defence = 25% hit
average BAB vs average defence = 50% hit
average BAB vs poor defence = 75% hit
poor BAB vs good defence = 0% hit
poor BAB vs average defence = 25% hit
poor BAB vs poor defence = 50% hit
at level 10 (5/7/10)
good BAB vs good defence = 50% hit
good BAB vs average defence = 65% hit
good BAB vs poor defence = 75% hit
average BAB vs good defence = 35% hit
average BAB vs average defence = 50% hit
average BAB vs poor defence = 60% hit
poor BAB vs good defence = 25% hit
poor BAB vs average defence = 40% hit
poor BAB vs poor defence = 50% hit

However, this setup makes sense. someone multiclassing to a good BAB class often gets an immediate benifit and staying with a good higher BAB class longer results in overall improved performance. While switching to a lower BAB class produces no immediate gain and over time will continue to degrade your performance.

Now with the new type systems seen in SW:SAGA and presumably 4e:

switching from a +2 class to a +1 class improves your bonus rather than hindering it. This promotes multi-classing out of the class with a good bonus to further improve your overall bonus. Not only that but a multi-class 9 good/1bad character has exactly the same attack as the 9bad/1good character despite having spent far more time and xp focused on that ability.

On the other hand. This does allow both good and poor characters to contribute against the foes of the same quality and the tendancy for to max out effectiveness for intentionally good characters will continue. Though I have noted that in SAGA its possible to max out ones defence so that not even a GOOD BAB character with all possible bonuses can hit you except for a natural 20.

thoughts opinions?

 

[Quartz]

Not only that but a multi-class 9 good/1bad character has exactly the same attack as the 9bad/1good character despite having spent far more time and xp focused on that ability.

This is not good, significantly unbalancing, and definitely unfun. One of the balances of D20 is that AB is one of the abilities, spells being another. Who'd be a Ftr 9 / Wiz 1 when you could get the same AB by being a Wiz 9 / Ftr 1?

 

[Nadaka]

It would be unbalanced if the class abilities of the 4e wizard are stronger than the class abilities of the 4e fighter. For the only implementation we can see in full (SW:SAGA) the jedi are both primary combatants and "spellcasters". And yes, they are overpowered.

 

[SpydersWebbing]

With 4th, classes are equal, while different. The effects of a fighter are different from a wizard, sure, but both have equally damaging abilities. So instead of depowering everyone to the wizard's level they brought everyone else up.

So far I like the change.

 

[Nadaka]

With 4th, classes are equal, while different. The effects of a fighter are different from a wizard, sure, but both have equally damaging abilities. So instead of depowering everyone to the wizard's level they brought everyone else up.

So far I like the change.

So, you like the fact that switching from a high defense class to a medium defense class is always a better choice than sticking with a high defense class? This is true in SAGA and will likely be true in 4e as well. I am still leaning towards divergence, though a lesser divergence than modern/3.5.

 

[Dalamar]

So, you like the fact that switching from a high defense class to a medium defense class is always a better choice than sticking with a high defense class? This is true in SAGA and will likely be true in 4e as well. I am still leaning towards divergence, though a lesser divergence than modern/3.5.

How so? Starting bonuses to Defenses don't stack at least in Saga, so going from a high Defense to low Defense doesn't affect the score at all. Now, choosing a class with a different good starting Defense does get you better overall Defense scores.

 

[Nadaka]

How so? Starting bonuses to Defenses don't stack at least in Saga, so going from a high Defense to low Defense doesn't affect the score at all. Now, choosing a class with a different good starting Defense does get you better overall Defense scores.

edit: looking it up, you are right.

 

[Christian]

Balancing the new sort of system necessitates changing, at least a bit, how multiclassing works. How well this works in 4E depends a lot on the exact details of the new multiclassing rules--something WOTC has been very cagey about so far. There are hints that multiclassing has been changed radcally ...

 

[Nadaka]

At this point I think I will go with a divergent bonus, The fact that the linear progression does not reward one sticking with a class with a good bonus over several levels just doesn't sit right with me.


Though I plan on one a little less divergent than BAB in 3.5/modern. Something like:

good = +.70 / level (+2 if character level 1)
average = +.60 / level (+1 if character level 1)
poor = +.50 / level

 

[Nadaka]

While I am at it? What do people prefer in terms of level 1 bonus expansion?

In modern/3.5 the effect of a classes skill points and to a lesser degree HP are amplified if selecting a class with a high value at character level 1.

Saga actually amplifies this decision because you do not gain class skill proficiencies when multiclassing into a class, only at character level 1 and by offering 3* max HP at level one instead of just max HP.

The reason I am offering the conditional + bonuses to other statistics is to bring parity to the choice of first class assuming that these amplified values are in place. No longer will a multiclass build with smart hero demand smart hero be taken first, a decision must be made on what set of abilities is most important to get that unique level one set of bonuses.

The other direction is taken by the new Pathfinder RPG, where the specific bonuses for choosing a class at level one are reduced in importance, IE no x4 skill point modifier.

I see merit in both methods, but only if taken in totality. Either special level one bonuses for each quality of a class, or none at all.